Christian Claims: Beyond Extraordinary

Christian Claims: Beyond Extraordinary September 14, 2015

Historian Richard Carrier nicely illustrates the magnitude of Christian claims by showing its place in a series of exponentially increasing claims. I’ll summarize my interpretation here, but for his version see Why I Am Not a Christian (35–9).

It’s one thing to have each step in a series exceed its predecessor simply in degree. For example, “I have a yellow car” is a narrower (and more surprising) claim than “I have a car.” It is different in degree simply because there are fewer yellow cars than cars of any color. Let’s call this a linear progression.

More interesting are steps that are different in kind, an exponential progression. This is admittedly a sloppy use of “linear” and “exponential,” but I think it suggests the magnitude of difference between changes in degree and the more dramatic changes in kind.

Here are five steps in an exponential progression. Claims at each step become increasingly unlikely.

1. Claims that are common such as, “I own a car.” In parts of the world where car ownership is common, this is not a surprising claim.

2. Claims that are uncommon such as, “I own a third-century Christian manuscript.” This is very uncommon—there might be just dozens of individuals who can make this claim rather than the hundreds of millions who could claim car ownership—but it’s plausible.

3. Claims that are unprecedented such as, “I own a 400-foot-long nuclear-powered submarine.” Such submarines do exist and no new science would be needed for this to be a true statement. Nevertheless, the facts that there is no record of a person owning such a thing, they are very difficult to steal, and they are enormously expensive to build makes this claim very implausible.

4. Claims that are inconceivable today (but perhaps reasonable tomorrow) such as, “I own a time machine.” These machines do not exist today. New science and technology would be needed to build one, if it could be built at all. On the optimistic side, humanity continues to uncover new science and invent new technology, so a claim in this category might become possible in the future.

5. Claims without precedent such as, “A supernatural being created everything and interacts with humans on earth today.” This claim is popular, but it is built on nothing. There is no objective evidence of any supernatural being, let alone one that created the universe.

Big submarines do exist, so someone might own one someday. Technology does exist, so time machines might be built in the future, and then someone might own one. But science recognizes no supernatural claims, and there’s no reason to imagine that they will become more plausible in the future. Before modern science, religion “explained” much about our world simply because it was the only option, but the continued success of science in explaining reality gives no reason to imagine a change in favor of religion. No future developments in science or technology will help God make himself more available.

We can imagine someone building a time machine (Wells’ The Time Machine, 1895 or Back to the Future, 1985), and we can imagine God revealing himself to an ordinary man (The Shack, 2007 or Genesis, first millennium BCE). These imaginings may be desirable, but they are fiction.

Of course, billions of people today believe in some variation of this supernatural claim, but because these many claims are mutually contradictory they do more to argue that humans invent religions than that god(s) exist. The Christian who eagerly points to the billions who believe in a supernatural something will also be quick to undercut this popularity by rejecting an all-roads-lead-to-God attitude.

Christian apologists advance “God did it!” in response to a scientific impasse such as “How did life originate?” or “What came before the Big Bang?” but they ignore how far-fetched the supernatural claim is. They confuse familiarity with plausibility, and on this exponential scale, God isn’t remotely plausible.

When deciding between two competing theories, 
always go with the one that doesn’t involve a magic spell.
— Emo Philips

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 12/27/12.)

Photo credit: Kevin Dooley, flickr, CC


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • MNb

    This is the best analysis of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” I have met. I never liked it, but you countered my main objection: that “extraordinary” isn’t specified.

    • Thanks. The exponential step stones are largely from Richard Carrier.

      What makes it less useful in practice (or useful only in preaching to the choir, I suppose) is that believers can indeed believe in #5. A supernatural god that created everything despite the fact that we’ve got no good evidence? No problem!

      • MNb

        Frankly I think that most useful, because it corresponds to Kierkegaard’s philosophy of faith – in our Age of Science the only valid way to believe.
        Of course that would leave all professional apologists unemployed.

      • TheNuszAbides

        The exponential step stones are largely from Richard Carrier.

        another example of a philosopher (his first degree) doing something for you lately. 😉

  • epicurus

    When I watch debates where a Christian is defending classical theism, I think what a long road and progression it is from that view to Christianity, and then to the correct form of Christianity, where one has the “proper view of Jesus’ divinity, the atonement, etc. While the official title of the debate may just be does God exist, the feeling I often get from the affirmative side is – Classical Theism, therefore, BAM, Christianity. I think it should be Classical Theism, therefore, BAM, big problem of evil!

    • Yes, the apologetic arguments that are popular today (and that commenter In God’s Defense raised above) are all deist arguments. If you were convinced, you’d be a deist. You’d have a long road to go to show that this deity is the Christian god.

      • epicurus

        And just like the arguments for the Resurrection are geared to an audience that is already immersed in Christian culture and mostly believes the Bible, I think the deistic arguments are mostly for people who already want to believe in a creator. While the arguments exist in primitive forms from the Greeks, the medieval and enlightenment thinkers who packaged them up were really just convincing themselves, because who would they be arguing against? I don’t think there were many atheists in the modern sense back then, calling oneself an atheist was often just code for not being a Christian.

        • And the Christians, in their turn, were called “atheists” for not believing the Roman pantheon.

  • In God’s Defense

    “This claim is popular, but it is built on nothing. There is no objective evidence of any supernatural being, let alone one that created the universe.”

    I believe the above claim is extraordinary. The anti-supernatural bent of the author of this claim is evident. If not, he must be deliberately lying. Clearly, there is objective evidence for the existence of a supernatural being. This can be seen in the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments for God’s existence.

    • katiehippie

      Perhaps you should read more of the blog posts on this blog. Clearly, you don’t know what objective evidence is.

      • In God’s Defense

        Clearly, you don’t know the arguments for God.

        • MNb

          And now you look like a fool. Congratulations.

        • katiehippie

          Clearly? You don’t know me. I had 45 years of god learning. That was plenty, thanks.

        • Ah, but if you knew and believed IGD’s arguments, you’d be a Christian, too! Or something! Gotcha!

        • katiehippie

          D’oh. Of course! Why didn’t I think of that?

        • adam

          “Clearly, you don’t know the arguments for God.”

          Surely, almost everyone knows about IMAGINATION…

        • Rudy R

          I think most atheists know the arguments for God. Atheists just don’t find them as more explanatory as scientific evidence that explain how the universe works.

        • Kodie

          Heard ’em. Not credible.

    • Dez

      Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence. Even if objective evidence is characterized as completely unbiased, submittal of objective evidence allows a more thorough review.

      http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/objective-evidence/

      • In God’s Defense

        Yes, I agree and I am aware of what objective evidence is. I said that the objective evidence for God can be, “seen in the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments for God’s existence.” All of these arguments for God argue for God’s existence from OBJECTIVE FACTS. So, something like the fine-tuning of the universe (objective fact) can be objective evidence for God’s existence.

        • MNb

          “I am aware of what objective evidence is.”
          No, you aren’t. You’re consistently confusing it with arguments. as confirmed by your next sentence:

          “the objective evidence for God can be seen in the ….. arguments for God’s existence.”
          There is no evidence in arguments.
          Fine-tuning is not an objective fact. It’s an interpretation of the natural constants (see above) that presupposes a goal. Hence it’s begging the question.

        • Dys

          IGD has a very confused definition of the what constitutes objective facts.

        • MNb

          Unfortunately a quite common one, even among scholars. But I must give him credit – he excellently made me clear what the big problem with fine-tuning is. I hadn’t realized before.

        • ningen

          I actually think it makes sense to say that there is objective evidence for God’s existence, but that is because (putting it too simply) I take evidence to be information from which inferences can be drawn. On my view, the problem for theists isn’t that there is no evidence at all, it is rather that the inferences from the evidence to theism turn out on deeper analysis to be unsupportable, or otherwise quite weak.
          So let’s take up fine-tuning, for example. “God fine-tuned the universe.” Ok. Say more. The farthest theists can go here is just to assert that God supernaturally (magically) made the universe so that it was fine-tuned. How did he do it? By his power. In other words, the explanation turns out to be that God is just by nature the kind of being that can fine-tune the universe. This is like explaining a car engine by describing it as “the kind of thing that can make a car go.”
          Similar considerations apply to the claim that God can explain morality, or design, or existence, or how a man can survive a long airplane flight in a wheel-well (“God magically protected him” is an explanation, but an unsupportable and extremely weak one. Here’s a better one: “Purely natural mechanisms that no one understands yet allowed him to survive.” This is preferable because we know that naturalistic explanations for all sorts of things have turned up and been subsequently validated, while the same cannot be said of supernatural explanations.)

        • Right–the fine tuning argument simply changes “We don’t know why” to “God did it.” You’re no smarter afterwards, and nothing new has been explained.

        • Dez

          Fine tuning is not objective fact. The consensus of the scientific community disagrees. So you are not aware of what it is when you clearly stated a falsity.

        • tsig

          You mean:

          “For
          since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal
          power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from
          what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

    • Dys

      The existence of the arguments are not objective evidence for God’s existence. Not to mention that they’re hardly objective in nature. The teleological argument in particular begs the question, and if followed to its logical conclusion, becomes self-defeating.

      • In God’s Defense

        Let me clarify. The arguments for God (supernatural being) argue from certain OBJECTIVE FACTS to the existence of God. So, there is indeed objective evidance for a supernatural being. How does this form of the teleological argument beg the question?
        1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
        2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
        3. Therefore, it is due to design.

        It doesn’t beg the question. How is it self-defeating? It isn’t.

        • FaithIsGlorifiedDelusion

          Define “design”.

        • In God’s Defense

          If I said that the universe is designed, then that implies a designer. The teleological argument shows that the fine-tuning of the universe (not design) is best explain by a designer instead of chance or physical necessity. So, it isn’t circular.

        • FaithIsGlorifiedDelusion

          Define “design”.

        • In God’s Defense

          design-purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object: the appearance of design in the universe.

        • MNb

          Thanks for confirming that you’re begging the question with

          “design-purpose, planning, or intention”

        • Dys

          The teleological argument assumes design in order to arrive at design.

        • FaithIsGlorifiedDelusion

          I have two rocks. One rock is “designed” and the other is “not designed” how would you tell the difference?

        • MNb

          The teleological argument presupposes that there is an ultimate goal. Hence begging the question.

        • Dys

          The teleological argument does not show, in any way, that the fine-tuning is best explained by a designer.

          It’s asserted that such is the case, presumably based on the biases of the one making the argument.

        • In God’s Defense

          I think you should read a defense of the teleolgical argument and the other arguments for God. I’ll link it.
          http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1

        • Dys

          Ugh…the first part of the article is written as an appeal to wishful thinking as a defense.

          God isn’t an adequate excuse for the fine tuning issue either, since if God is all-powerful, it doesn’t matter one bit what the required constants are, as he could make life, planets, etc. possible regardless of them.

          And the attempt to incorporate the moral argument conveniently ignores evolutionary psychology.

          The defense you linked doesn’t work any better than the things you’ve already said.

        • Here’s his first argument: “1. If God does not exist, life is ultimately meaningless.”

          Translation: It would make me sad if God didn’t exist, so let’s pretend that he does.

          Do I really need to read more?

          http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120715.gif

        • Ron

          How did you conclude the universe is designed?

        • Greg G.

          His client is a designer.

        • In God’s Defense

          Because design is the best explanation for the existence of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

        • Multiverse.

        • Kodie

          You overestimate yourself.

        • Susan

          Because design is the best explanation for the existence of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

          You didn’t answer Ron’s question.

          What criteria do you use to distinguish something that is designed from something that is not designed?

        • MNb

          Design doesn’t explain anything – it concludes (a Designer with a purpose) what it presupposes (a purpose).

        • adam

          but the universe is hardly fined tuned for intelligent life.

          In fact in just the vast expanses of our own solar system, intelligent life apparently only exists here on Earth.

        • Ron

          And how did you derive that the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life? What would a universe that’s not fine-tuned for intelligent life look like?

        • Greg G.

          The universe is tuned for chemistry. Life is a form of chemistry. Intelligent life is a variation of life.

          The weak nuclear force could be varied without disrupting much, even eliminated. If other constants are changed, it is possible to change a different constant to compensate and still have complex chemistry. Computer models show that random values for all the physical constants would allow complex chemistry in about a quarter of the cases.

          The fine-tuning of the universe is not that remarkable.

        • Susan

          The teleological argument shows that the fine-tuning of the universe (not design) is best explain by a designer instead of chance or physical necessity.

          No. It claims it shows that.

          I don’t see where it shows that.

          I don’t see where it even thinks it has to bother to show it.

          I just see that it claims it.

        • In God’s Defense

          The argument defines fine-tuning not as designed, “rather they mean that small deviations from the actual values of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values.” http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god

        • WLC isn’t a scientist, so few of us much care what he thinks about science.

        • Dys

          And if an omnipotent God existed, the constants would be irrelevant to life existing. Unless you’re arbitrarily limiting God’s power to only being able to create life within those values.

        • MNb

          “”rather they mean that small deviations from the actual values of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature would render the universe life-prohibiting”
          You don’t know that. Again you presuppose a purpose – namely that the values of those constants are fine tuned to result in Homo Sapiens. It’s the other way round – Homo Sapiens is fine tuned to the circumstances in the tiny spot of the Universe called Earth.
          So the quote is formulated wrongly. It should have had “the universe life-as we know it-prohibiting. As for life in general, Victor Stenger has made computer simulations suggesting that life is possible on many values of those constants.

          http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-stenger-vs-barnes/

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/did-the-universe-come-fro_b_739909.html

          http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

          https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/09/09/the-problem-with-the-fine-tuning-argument-an-excerpt-from-victor-stengers-last-book-god-and-the-multiverse/

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

        • I’ve responded to fine tuning and, I suspect, the other arguments you raised. Seek and ye shall find.

        • MNb

          Point 2 is not evidence, but an argument. And it’s even questionable if the Universe is fine-tuned, so point 1 is not much evidence either. Point 3 is the result of deduction, hence again not evidence.
          The evidence you’re talking about is this.

          http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/funcon.html

          Calling that fine-tuned is begging the question indeed, because that expression presupposes that those values necessarily have to have the values they have.
          When you don’t understand the difference between deduction and induction this is the type of mistakes you make.

        • Dys

          Except those aren’t objective facts. The argument, as you’ve presented it, doesn’t work. Your second premise, for instance, isn’t necessarily (or even probably) true, and the conclusion falls apart from there. In other words, it’s not objective evidence of anything (other than someone mistakenly thought it was a good argument). You’ve mistaken an argument for evidence. They’re not even remotely close to being the same thing.

          As to why the teleological argument does actually beg the question, it’s very simple (and I suspect you know this), as you’ve provided a very specific version of a teleological argument to avoid the inherent problems. Design detection unfortunately doesn’t operate like many theists wish it did. Design is actually detected by contrasting things with nature. Yet those supporting the teleological argument must essentially assert that everything is designed. The argument from there goes in a circle.

          For instance, take the pseudo-scientific intelligent design movement. Their entire enterprise is essentially based on the teleological argument. It basically insists that certain levels of complexity indicate design, and attempt to throw back to a mysterious creator (which everyone knows they intend to be the Christian God). Yet, if you can’t get complexity from simplicity, then God must be complex, and the argument there falls into special pleading to escape an infinite regress.

        • Right. The watchmaker argument falls on its own sword.

          The watch must be different from the surrounding rocks and plants so we examine it to see that it was designed. But if it’s different, how can it be the same as all the rest of nature so that nature can get the same “gotta be a designer!” treatment?

        • In God’s Defense

          In the teleological argument from fine-tuning it shows that what most reasonably explains this fact is design. Of course, design implies a designer. So, it is reasonable to believe that there is a designer of the fine-tuning. So, there can be something IN NATURE that is best explained by a designer.

        • I’m not impressed by the fine tuning argument. Search for my posts on this if you want more.

        • Kodie

          I don’t find that explanation best. It’s still circular.

        • MNb

          “In the teleological argument”
          Ah, you finally seem to get it.
          Yup, it’s teleology. Hence it presupposes a purpose – that’s exactly what teleology means. At the other hand nothing here

          http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/funcon.html

          suggests even vaguely that there is any purpose.
          A salto mortale doesn’t even come close to an explanation.
          You presuppose a purpose to show that there is a purpose you can call “God”.

        • Rudy R

          This is circular reasoning. You’ve included the conclusion in your premise 1. You’re already assuming, falsely, that fine-tuning exists and you dismiss physical necessity and chance out-of-hand, to beg the question that design is the conclusion.

        • In God’s Defense

          You are assuming I’m doing that. I haven’t even defended the argument yet. I just gave the outline.

        • adam

          “You are assuming I’m doing that. I haven’t even defended the argument yet. I just gave the outline.”

          Your OUTLINE is circular reasoning, so you’ve already lost.

        • Rudy R

          OK, let’s hear the argument.

      • tsig

        I had a Mormon tell me that humans desire for a god was evidence for god because why would we have a desire for something that was not real. When I pointed out that not everyone had this desire he allowed that there were some twisted abnormal people in the world, I gave up.

        • In God’s Defense

          Here is a link to the argument from desire and a short defense of it.

          http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm

        • Dys

          Unfortunately (for you), it doesn’t come close to constituting an actual argument for God.

          There is an innate fear within humanity of the unknown. Constructing a God assists in overcoming that fear.

        • adam

          Which explains why psychopaths and sociopaths find religion so desirable….

        • tsig

          “All natural desires have real causes, god is a natural desire therefor god is real”

          I see a circle there.

          Human desires have no impact on reality.

        • Kodie

          Contrarily, human desires have a great impact on reality. The manifestation of our collective intelligence is innovation, i.e., the desire for something that doesn’t yet exist, and inventing it. This includes gods.

        • MNb

          “All natural desires have real causes, god is a natural desire therefor god is real”
          Let me correct this:

          All natural desires have real causes, god is a natural desire therefor the self-delusion that there is a god is real.

        • I desire to be Superman.

    • I don’t much care for these arguments, and I’ve responded to them in the blog. But what about evidence?

      Think about the evidence that the sun exists. Or when you meet someone, the evidence that the other person exists. Where is that for God? I grant you that believers in anything (Yahweh, Shiva, Xenu, flat earth) can imagine the shadow of an enigma and call that evidence. Anything better?

      • Rob

        I’m starting to wonder more about the value of philosophy. Or maybe less is what I should say. Till recently I’ve mostly thought, well Karl Popper made sense, so I guess philosophy should get a place at the table of intellectual discussion. Done.

        But then I see that Aristotle misled the world for over 1.5 millennia by writing (he didn’t think properly, but he could write well enough) that objects fall to earth at rates proportional to their respective masses. Galileo proved him wrong with a very belated experiment. The incredible point that everyone will miss is this: apparently for over 1,500 years, well over 75 human generations, no bored teenager ever picked up a couple of nondescript (but dissimilar) pebbles and dropped them from shoulder height to see what reallyhappens – and then went on to tell anyone important about what he’d seen. Or write it down.

        Well Aristotle wasn’t just wrong, by my standard he was an mountebank who deserved public humiliation for sheer laziness. But we don’t know exactly what things were really like back then so somehow we seem to forgive him – well, you seem to have!

        More recently I came across I see Xenu’s hare paradox, which as far as I can see is simply NOT a paradox to begin with and should be discarded as not being an example of anything useful, unless one needs another example of a gigantic mistake that was made by a human a long time ago, like I suddenly do.

        The “cosmological” and “ontological” arguments (scare quotes coz they’re scarily silly notions) held sway for centuries, as if the idea that a philosophical argument can “disprove” or “überprove” (sorry) measurable reality is somehow a cogent one. Gah!

        Richard Dawkins has observed, perhaps correctly, that if philosophy was worth much, IT would have beaten Darwin to publication with a logically calculated theory of evolution – after all, they had the same data as Darwin, they just looked (and thought) less hard.

        Philosophy should admit it suffers from the same basic constraint as modern science admits to: it is better at disproving things than at proving them. Properly executed Philosophy (don’t ask me what that means!) doesn’t prove anything unless it proves everything. We don’t need or want anything that proves everything, because that would go against science and common sense, and encyclopedias would have to become universe-sized, etc. etc.

        Philosophy is a fringe thing, more useful when science fails at things like resolving the mathematical inconsistencies between QM and GR, for one example off the top of my head. Also, it’s so darned obscure that obscurity has to be its greatest feature.

        So there. I can keep ignoring philosophy. Phew. By the way, I’ve never studied philosophy, just read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and The Fountainhead. Oughta be enough.

        • Rob

          oops, I meant Zeno, not Xenu.

        • Greg G.

          With Xenu, you get to rule a planet. With Zeno, you can never quite get there, only halfway, continuously.

        • Rob

          Don’t forget Mormans, they get planets too, and unlike Xenu, Mormons actually exist in the present, and fairly locally too. Lately science has taught us that there are actually billions of planets in just the Milky Way alone, so it’s increasingly clear that the Mormons were onto something after all. I’m pretty pissed about Atheism turning out to maybe not be the one true religion now.

        • That’s OK. Xenu is a paradox as well.

        • MNb

          “apparently for over 1,500 years, well over 75 human generations, no bored teenager ever picked up a couple of nondescript (but dissimilar) pebbles and dropped them from shoulder height to see whatreallyhappens – and then went on to tell anyone important about what he’d seen. Or write it down.”
          That’s correct – but I don’t see how Aristoteles is to be blamed that smart people for 1500 years didn’t question him.

          “I see Zeno’s hare paradox, which as far as I can see is simply NOT a paradox to begin with.”
          Yeah, but that’s because you understand at least a bit of Differential Geometry, while Zeno obviously had no access to it.

          Sorry, I stopped here reading your criticism. You are blaming Vercingetorix for not having invented the machine gun before he rebelled against the Romans.

        • Rob

          I thought I was clear that I blame Aristotle for not bothering to check his own facts and just used the unextant teenagers to illustrate how lazy he must have really been to not do so. [As an aside, I got that story from Clay Shirky who used it to illustrate the point that humans have a strong tendency to defer to Authority over Evidence. But it fit my purpose too.]

          I have to quibble: I certainly do not understand differential geometry (or who Vercingetorix was – was he a friend of Asterix?) and I am sure I didn’t provide a premise for that conclusion! Zeno’s hare paradox is self-evidently not a paradox to anyone with life experience, say I. Perhaps I assume too much when I assume that Zeno had life experience? Trying to make the finite (not to mention ‘small’!) “seem” infinite just doesn’t work in my brain, yet that’s the basis of the paradox, if I understand it at all.

          So I’m not too disappointed that you stopped 😉 I was being just slightly tongue-in-cheek in expressing mild exasperation with philosophy’s failure to justify its continuing reverence, and if you’d read to the end where I pointed out I’m not a philosopher but a reader of popular fiction, you might not have felt so compelled to respond.

          C.P. Snow had the right idea in his Two Cultures lecture, and I’m on the side of the scientists, not the basket weavers tree huggers wine-sipping commies oh you know what I mean. THEM.

        • MNb

          “I blame Aristotle for not bothering to check his own facts”
          Still blaming Vercingetorix for not inventing the machine gun, I see.

          “Perhaps I assume too much …?”
          No, you assume too much when you write it’s self-evident – especially now you have made clear that my Vercingetorix analogy is not self-evident either. Yup – you’re blaming Aristoteles for something you can’t pull off yourself …..

        • I’m starting to wonder more about the value of philosophy.

          I have been scolded for my abysmal attitude toward philosophy. If you want more of it: What Good Is Philosophy?

          for over 1,500 years, well over 75 human generations, no bored teenager ever picked up a couple of nondescript (but dissimilar) pebbles and dropped them from shoulder height to see what really happens – and then went on to tell anyone important about what he’d seen.

          For much of that time, things were judged, not with how well they matched experimental evidence but how well they matched the Gospel of Aristotle. Sometimes we can give our scientists too much reverence. (To a lesser extent, I hear this was true for Newton.)

          The “cosmological” and “ontological” arguments (scare quotes coz they’re scarily silly notions) held sway for centuries

          You may know that I’ve already written a bit on the ontological argument (and should write more on the cosmological).

          Richard Dawkins has observed, perhaps correctly, that if philosophy was worth much, IT would have beaten Darwin to publication with a logically calculated theory of evolution – after all, they had the same data as Darwin, they just looked (and thought) less hard.

          Wm. Lane Craig strutting around wearing nothing but his doctorate in philosophy looks pretty naked when the topic is cosmology.

          (My mom says I can’t talk to you anymore. You’ll ruin my already-bad attitude toward philosophy.)

        • Susan

          I have been scolded for my abysmal attitude toward philosophy

          I don’t think you have an abysmal attitude toward philosophy.

          I think you can’t help but associate the term with snake oil sales. That’s because apologists tell you you don’t understand “philosophy” when you point out why their arguments don’t add up.

          Sort of like someone trying to sell you a pyramid scheme and you explaining why you’re not investing and they accuse you of not understanding “economics”.

          It’s because you have some understanding of economics that you don’t buy in.

          Economics is not stupid (Edit) necessarily completely pointless just because some many people buy and sell snake oil.

        • Greg G.

          HTML Error! Does not compute.
          </a?>

        • Rob

          Don’t listen to your mom! She’s just a grown up and besides she can’t tell ME what to do.

          For the record, I want to get a foot stool and punch WLC’s nose for his cynical dishonesty in the way that he deals with his arguments being torn to shreds by his su-peer-iors: he just leaves town for a venue where he hasn’t been discredited yet. Poor behavior for a man with 2 Ph.D’s, both supposedly “earned” as opposed to being honorary. He simply has no shame and doesn’t seem to know he should. I think he’s reprehensible and odious. I think he believes that lying is Okay for him to do.

          Some people may put too much faith in scientists, and if scientists foster notions like that I suspect it has more to do with them chasing funding increases than chasing social status. I worry more about those who would put too much faith in philosophers who say they can prove god! I feel bound to rise to the defense of those who accuse scientists of collectively thinking too highly of their own supremacy. The people who are most aware of science’s limitations are the scientists themselves, not the philosophers or any tax-paying gripers. Do you know how a scientist gets more funding? He grabs a megaphone and shouts, “I haven’t the foggiest idea about anything!!” at a politician 🙂

          Einstein’s singular achievement in figuring out the basics of special relativity without so much as pencil and paper, instead thinking in terms of what just seemed obvious, is to me a landmark mental achievement that diminishes every philosopher in history to 2nd-tier status.

          I can’t put WLC in the same mental category as I do Ray Comfort and Ken Ham, two people who seem to be completely sincere in their beliefs and intentions. In fact Comfort is apparently a real swell guy. [For that matter, so was George H.W. Bush, according to a friend whose dad met him at a back yard BBQ after his presidency. Go figure, I can’t!]

          TBH, I appreciate that you (Bob) take a more nuanced view of this sort of thing than I do. In fact I find it hard to completely reject the possibility that philosophy may have important contributions to make because IFL science and it gets pretty freaky, what with ever-larger molecules being observed in two places at the same time, not just photons and electrons. The black hole information paradox is another thing that may require help from philosophy, also perhaps the multiverse aspects of inflation theory, and others. But…

          I think philosophers need to be wary of stepping too far away from evident usefulness. I don’t find the ideas of solipsism to be helpful to everyday living! Same goes for dozens of aspects of philosophy, and I do believe I speak for the likes of today’s top physicists in saying that.

          When philosophy can be used to prove god, that’s an indication, irresistible to me, that philosophers can fool themselves even more easily than scientists can, and scientists are known for the way they keep watch on each other as well as themselves in this regard. So I do wonder if philosophy isn’t being held to a high enough standard, or if such a thing even exists.

          While scientific principles have many, many times supplanted ideas from religion, the opposite has never occurred even once. The same applies to science versus philosophy, doesn’t it?

          I haven’t made up my mind about philosophy. And I know it’s a big and multi-faceted thing and can’t treated as a single unit. I also know I admire Daniel Dennett for being very insightful and he’s mostly a philosopher. But all those older guys, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, I find unreadable, opaque, tedious and above all irrelevant. I’m a philosophical philistine and I can’t help but wonder if I haven’t staked out the high ground with that mildly dismissive attitude. What a state of affairs. Maybe your mom is right.

        • I have no problem with scientists doing philosophy (depending on how we define “philosophy”). Maybe Einstein was doing it with his thought experiments that produced Relativity. What I complain about is philosophers pretending to do science.

        • tsig

          Philosophy is just theology without god.

        • Dys

          Not even remotely close to being accurate.

        • 100meters

          Hey, Aristotle did the best he could, for his day.
          And…he married Jackie Kennedy, which is pretty cool.

        • Greg G.

          It is interesting that the widow of an assassinated President would become more famous with her next husband’s last name – “Jackie O”.

      • In God’s Defense

        God not showing up like seeing me in person is puzzling. However, he might have in the person of Jesus Christ fyi. Anyway, the problem is the arguments for God that I have mentioned make God’s existence more probably than not. At least, I think so. Taking a naturalist worldview though I believe has BIGGER problems than believing a supernatural being exists. So, you might not like there being a God, but I think its more probable and coherent than believing in naturalism.

        • [God] might have in the person of Jesus Christ

          That’s evidence? It’s a story from 2000 years ago—pretty flimsy.

          the arguments for God that I have mentioned make God’s existence more probably than not.

          I think I’ve responded to the arguments you’ve raised (let me know if you can’t find anything with the Search function), so I don’t think so. And don’t forget that these are only deist arguments. They give no more support for Yahweh being the Creator than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

        • In God’s Defense

          Yes, I’m aware that the arguments for God could be compatible with other religions than Christianity. However, I don’t think that these arguments lead to a deist God. Why? Because if the arguments are correct then this God is the moral law and he is a maximally great being. If he is these things then I believe like u most likely that he would have to or at least will show up to his creation. Of course, then the million dollar question is when, where, and how has he done this? I do believe Jesus is a solid contender.

        • adam

          “Because if the arguments are correct then this God is the moral law and he is a maximally great being.”

          Obviously with JUST slavery, the bible ‘god’ cant be a maximally great being, except in the IMAGINATION of psycopaths and sociopaths.

        • Dys

          Can we take bets on which of the two excuses for slavery you’re going to get? Because I have a deep suspicion it’ll either be:

          1. The indentured servitude gambit, where slavery is inaccurately and dishonestly recast as mere indentured servitude or

          2. Mysterious Ways™

        • adam

          1 first, then when he gets pwned on it, he will dump a #2

        • Kodie

          3. People were just going to do it anyway and god was just beholden to the customs of the era.

        • adam

          “would have to or at least will show up to his creation”

          So where did this ‘god’ get its KNOWLEDGE to ‘create’?

        • Dys

          Actually, they could lead to a classical deistic god if they successfully argued for the existence of a god (they don’t). And besides which, if you’re offering up the God portrayed in the bible as the author of your preferred moral law, your standards are too low. The immorality committed by the biblical god eliminates him from consideration.

          Luckily, we don’t need any god for morality.

        • Why imagine that Yahweh is the Maximally Great Being?

          You have read the shit he does in the Old Testament, I imagine? He’s not a very nice guy. You’re a better candidate for Maximally Great Being–I’m sure you wouldn’t command genocide or drown everyone.

        • Greg G.

          A Maximally Great Being could create an ontological argument so robust even he couldn’t refute it, then invoke Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”, and he would then exist. It would be impossible for him to not do this, therefore he exists.

          🙈 🙉 🙊

        • I feel like I’m being sucked into a logical black hole, powerless against the irresistible logic. It’s like I’m reading Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

        • Greg G.

          In the black hole of apologetics, the answer is not 42. It’s an irrational number, of course.

        • Ron
        • Greg G.

          Wait a minute. Isn’t the “i” saying “Be rational” like the pot calling the kettle black?

        • Let’s make it imaginary as well. My proposal is √(–π).

        • Greg G.

          Instead of transliterating π, let’s pronounce it “cornbread” to make the area of a circle more semantically correct as in “Area = cornbread are squared”. Using the variable “s” for the radius comes out “Area equals cornbread s squared.” Algebra would be more fun for kids who don’t understand it.

        • Ron

          π and cornbread… it’s definitely food for thought.

        • Susan

          Why imagine that Yahweh is the Maximally Great Being?

          Or Jesus? What’s particularly impressive about Jesus?

        • Kodie

          Here’s the impression I get from most Christians – whatever neat things Jesus said is secondary, or even farther down the list of “what’s important here.” You have a god who ostensibly sends his son to share the secret of life, wisdom of how to get through and maybe be a better, calmer, more balanced and tolerant person. Scoff if you must, but the hippie Jesus is really the only Jesus I’m familiar with.

          What sticks to most Christians, however, is that Jesus is real, really a martyr, and really ascended to heaven, therefore the rest of it is “real,” so you better fucking pay attention. God is still an abusive character who can fuck you up forever if you’re not aware. Don’t relax, don’t be kind, judge everyone if they don’t agree with you, be intolerant of others, fear change, basically be a wrong asshole. What are these people so worried about me for? Why do they think harassing and lying will assure their place in heaven? Well, basically, god is still an asshole that his people take from permission to be assholes. I can’t even think of any law that forces any of these people to be brought into reality. They’re not forced to send their kids to public schools, they’re not forced to have abortions, or have sex, or be gay, or get gay married, or wear revealing clothes or stop believing in Jesus any way they want to or teach their kids to grow up and believe the same things, and those kids will like it. It may be abuse, but they will not feel as though they were abused unless they find a way out and realize how disturbing it all was. They don’t want to be forced to recognize climate change, how is this affecting their beliefs? They don’t want to be forced to serve gay people at their establishments of business, but how is that affecting what they believe? They don’t want a cross or prayer banner or a nativity scene taken off public property, but how does this affect their beliefs in any way? If their beliefs are real to them, nothing can take that away. What they really want to do is shove Jesus in everyone’s face and dominate like school bullies, and bullies are weak, not strong, they’re insecure. What is the point of believing in Jesus if you can’t feel secure about it?

          As far as I can tell, god told these assholes that earth wasn’t for them, and to just put up with it until they die, that’s why they need Jesus to begin with – to look forward to meeting their imaginary friend face to face after they die and have a long debriefing about how earth living was traumatic for them but they maintained their beliefs throughout and didn’t give in to the pressure. Jesus put up with a lot of shit too, honey, but it’s all going to be ok now, just like I promised.

        • Susan

          Jesus put up with a lot of shit too,

          Yahwehjesus invented natural selection out of metaphysical nothingness. Jesus didn’t do shit in the context of hundreds of millions of years of nervous systems on our single planet in the indescribably vast cosmos.

          Really. Jesus never went to war. Jesus never watched his children starve to death or die of some random virus.

          Jesus didn’t know shit, either. He thought that demons caused disease and that Moses existed and wrote what they say he wrote.

          So the story goes.

        • Kodie

          In the context of expecting to be debriefed in heaven by Jesus, a believer, in my opinion, is supposed to recall Jesus up on the cross, suffering, and contrast their current situation as “bearable,” including times when atheists and secularists arrange things down here on earth. Their displeasure with that to the point of forcing earth to be their own personal paradise is fucking greedy. They were promised heaven. Earth is for sinners, and they’re supposed to put up with that I thought, and just hold on tight to Jesus.

        • Kodie

          Of course you are suggestible toward Jesus. As an atheist, my impression of the Jesus story is that’s some weak idea coming from such a “maximally great” being. A being who can create a whole universe from zero materials thought up a man has to be born the regular way, grow up first, do his preaching thing for a couple years, and then get himself killed, and then disappear his body like no other explanation, he must have resurrected and floated away! And this is supposed to forgive you for whatever you’ve done so you can die and still be alive for the rest of eternity by the being who endorsed slavery and genocide.

          Wouldn’t it be “maximally great” if god could just forgive people without shedding any blood? You’re in love with a (imaginary) sadist.

        • MR

          Wouldn’t it be “maximally great” if god could just forgive people without shedding any blood?

          an extra ^1

        • MNb

          “Because if the arguments are correct then this God is the moral law and he is a maximally great being.”
          Ah. Maximally great can mean both maximally good and maximally evil. So either your god is self contradictory (both maximally good and maximally evil) or you postulate two gods (one maximally good and one maximally evil). That means they are not maximally powerful (because there are two of them) and hence not maximally great.
          You just defined your god out of existence.

        • MR

          You just defined your god out of existence.

          I love when they do that.

        • Kodie

          What are these problems of naturalism that you have. You might not like there not being a god, but I think it’s more probable and coherent than believing in the supernatural.

        • Dys

          And how, precisely, have you managed to determine, in any way, what the probability of a God existing actually is, let alone the probability of it being the specific God you believe in?

          Personally, I’d prefer someone show possibility before probability, but since neither is realistically possible when it comes to gods, I suppose putting the cart before the horse is excusable.

        • adam

          “Taking a naturalist worldview though I believe has BIGGER problems than believing a supernatural being exists. ”

          So where does your supernatural being come from?
          Where does it get its KNOWLEDGE to be able to ‘create’?
          Where does it get its ABILITY to be able to ‘create’?
          Where did it get the materials from to ‘create’ with…

          MUCH, MUCH, MUCH bigger problems invoking a magical deity…

        • MNb

          “However, he might have in the person of Jesus Christ fyi.”
          Ah yes. But your god being god – omnipotent etc. he could as easily have pulled off the trick twice, couldn’t he? Why didn’t he show up in the person of JC in the interior of Brazil or New Guinea, well before the christian missionaries arrived there?

    • MNb

      “I believe the above claim is extraordinary.”
      What you believe is irrelevant.
      The formulation of the claim is.
      You – or any other believer – only needs one piece of objective evidence of any supernatural being to show that BobS is incorrect.
      That’s not extraordinary at all.

      Of course your last sentence is wrong. Arguments aren’t evidence. They belong to deduction, while evidence belongs to induction.

  • eldermusician

    I tend to put all claims of supernatural beings in the same category as penile enhancements tools – just a whole lot of wishful thinking by people who will believe anything. 🙂 g

    • I saw some sort of panacea for sale in the back of a comic book decades ago with the assurance, “Guaranteed placebo!”

      With that kind of guarantee, who can complain?

    • In God’s Defense

      Have you heard or looked into the arguments for God?

      • adam

        Of course!

        Have YOU?

        Here is most obvious one:

      • Have you searched for your favorites at this blog? I suspect I’ve responded with a post.

        • In God’s Defense

          Ya I’m going to read some and probable comment on them.

      • adam

        “Have you heard or looked into the arguments for God?”

        Of course:

  • Marc Herlands

    At the risk of ridicule, I will posit a supposition that has been at the center of this debate: The material universe exists very nicely without an extraordinary creator called God since all of it can be explained by science. There are some problems with this statement. First, 96% of this Universe is Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Those things are metaphors and are not science. Science i clueless as to what they are. It has the most rudimentary understanding that they exist. Second, this statement assumes that this Universe is objective and has rules and therefore is scientific. But, there are many anomalies. Just two recent examples: there’s a lady who swam 20 minutes from ship to shore off the coast of Antarctica in 33 degree water in a bathing suit. Also, there was a man who stowed away in the wheelwell of a jet airplane that went from India I believe and landed 11 hours later in London. He spent 11 hours at 35,000 feet and at minus 35 degrees, without proper clothing or oxygen, and lived to tell the tale. Science does not explain these events. I could go on. Third, matter does not exist. It is energy. And at best it is a probability. The model of an atom with its nucleus and electrons is basically a myth. It doesn’t really exist. An atom is basically empty. And the bits that are there are so small as not to constitute anything anyway except flecks of quarks and energy. And we can’t measure them anyway even though it looks like we can. I am saying that fundamentally the model of matter is flawed because fundamentally matter doesn’t exist. Yet, that is the basis upon which the argument that a supernatural being doesn’t exist supposedly works: Materiality works so well without that notion. And yet, the very common model of matter is absolutely in error. Which should give doubt as to science being an absolute premise upon which to base one’s disbelief. Finally, we know that time is not absolute. It is relative. It depends upon observers. These very strange properties of our universe could possibly lead to questions such as, “maybe there is something that created these illusions and impossibilities and anomalies? Maybe what we assumed to be true and is really false is the creation of something beyond science?” Just sayin…..

    • Dys

      Not to be overly dismissive, but it took you far too many words to basically arrive at “we don’t know everything and our current models aren’t perfect”. Yet that doesn’t imply in any way that there’s some mysterious being creating your anomalies and impossibilities. What it really means is that the current model has flaws and needs refinement, not that ghosts are real.

    • Clover and Boxer

      You’ve basically said “we don’t know/can’t explain some things, so a deity exists”. That is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Fallacies do not reliably lead to the truth; in fact, they reliably lead to erroneous conclusions.

    • Greg G.

      If you mean the flight from Johannesburg to London, one man died. The survivor was in critical condition but I haven’t found any follow-ups. It was speculated that the survivor had manged to get into the baggage compartment.
      One article reported that approximately one in four survive but they often lose limbs from frostbite.

    • Just two recent examples: there’s a lady who swam 20 minutes from ship to shore off the coast of Antarctica in 33 degree water in a bathing suit.

      I listened to Lynne Cox, the author of Swimming to Antarctica, give a talk after the book came out in 2004. As I recall, the water was more like 28 degrees (it’s salt water).

      He spent 11 hours at 35,000 feet and at minus 35 degrees, without proper clothing or oxygen, and lived to tell the tale. Science does not explain these events.

      I doubt it. Show me serious scientists who say that either was impossible.

      The model of an atom with its nucleus and electrons is basically a myth

      And 98% of the mass of each proton and neutron is the strong force that holds its quarks together.

      Yes, science is cool. Are you just listing scientific marvels?

      the very common model of matter is absolutely in error. Which should give doubt as to science being an absolute premise upon which to base one’s disbelief

      You’re saying, “Don’t say that God absolutely doesn’t exist”? OK, I don’t. That God doesn’t exist is simply where the evidence points.

      “maybe there is something that created these illusions and impossibilities and anomalies? Maybe what we assumed to be true and is really false is the creation of something beyond science?”

      “Science has unanswered questions; therefore, God” is a weak argument.

      Yes, science has unanswered questions. If you want to show that God exists, give us evidence.

      • Marc Herlands

        By historical definition God was the cause of that which could not be explained by science. When we didn’t know what caused rain, we had a rain god to explain it. When we didn’t know what caused storms at sea, we had a sea god to explain it. When we didn’t know the cause of fire, we had a fire god to explain it. In this case, we don’t know what caused dark energy or dark matter, which comprise about 95% of our universe. (That’s a lot right?) So, we are left in the equivalent position as our ancient forebearers who didn’t know the cause of some of the basic phenomena in their world. I understand it seems primitive to speak as the ancient ones did that a dark energy god and a dark matter god created these things. But, it is apparent that science is not able to demonstrate or speak about how these large and fundamental things exist or how they were created based upon any scientific theory. When you say that science can’t explain these things in any meaningful way, aren’t you really saying that there is a very high probability that some unknown and unexplainable amazingly powerful force(s) created these things? Isn’t that just the modern way of saying a dark energy god and a dark matter god created them — until a scientific theory proves differently?

        • What are you talking about? Science has unanswered questions–that’s it. No, that doesn’t lead to a supernatural cause.

          Speculation about supernatural causes has pretty much always been slapped down when science explains it naturally.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Probability theory alone scientifically dis-proves evolution!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuMvRExazAw

        • Has this changed the minds of the people who actually understand this–the practicing biologists? If not, why should this mean anything to me?

          And what is your passion for Creationism over evolution?

        • Brian Jenkin

          Thousands of scientists are changing stance, Bob. Literally thousands- so go ahead and let yourself be contributed to. There is no actual threat posed by truth, is there? What if the truth is wrapped up where we are not looking?

          If we let the evidence speak for itself without imposing a model into which it must fit, then we are confronted with one simple problem, one which scientifically demonstrates that evolutionary theory is “impossible”. This leaves just one alternative, as unsavoury as we may find it inside of all of our reasoning and logic and self-appointed authority. But when submit to the notion of a creator, then all this conjecture goes away, conjecture which has taken on a life of it’s own to the tune of hundreds of posts, and we can move on to more productive discussions in which we grapple with who God is rather than IF God is.

          Please Bob, take 7:26 minutes and let yourself be challenged. And then start digging, you will be amazed at where the evidence actually points!

          Bonus opportunity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p5hoB02TKw
          This one is truly confronting, but liberation is at it’s heart.

        • Compuholic

          Thousands of scientists are changing stance […]

          Yeah? Then call us back when they have managed to convince the majority of people who actually understand what they are talking about (and by that I mean professional biologists).

          […] one which scientifically demonstrates that evolutionary theory is “impossible”.

          So you are telling us that evolution is scientifically impossible. Shit, how did that fact escape thousands of scientists over the last century? It took you to set the record straight. A job well done. We await your Nobel Prize for overturning on of the foundational principles of biology.

          The alternative explanation of course would be that you only think that it is impossible because you don’t know what you are talking about…

          So that is a hard problem: Trust the majority of experts or a graduate of YouTube University? Decisions, decisions…

        • Greg G.

          Thousands of scientists are changing stance,

          Back in 1994, a Christian man told me that evolution would be overturned in ten to fifteen years. I thought it was funny because I had heard the same thing from Christians more than fifteen years earlier. I have since come to learn that Christians were saying the same thing about gradualism in geology nearly 200 years ago. But then, Christians have been saying Jesus would come back during their own generation for almost 2,000 years.

          Is it really thousands of scientists changing their stances, or just dentists getting religion and claiming to be scientists? There was a list of people with advanced degrees who signed a paper a few years ago claiming to reject evolution but many of them were dentists and few were actual scientists in a field related to biology. A counter-list was formed that dwarfed the anti-evolution list and it was only scientists named “Steve” or a variation of the name.

          I dug and dug into evolution vs creationism for 15 years. Creationism is silly. Intelligent Design funnier. Like clowns in lab coats.

        • MNb

          “If we let the evidence speak for itself without imposing a model into which it must fit”
          Excellent idea! If you were serious though you would not have written

          “this leaves just one alternative”
          because now you’re exactly doing that – imposing a model.

          http://www.examiner.com/article/the-creationism-vs-evolution-debate-and-the-fallacy-of-false-dilemma

          http://biologos.org/blog/breaking-away-from-a-false-dilemma

          As for your video – scientific issues are not decided that way. It may be confronting, but it clearly hasn’t liberated you from your silly views.

        • Thousands of scientists are changing stance, Bob.

          No one cares about “scientists.” No one. What they care about is the consensus view of biologists. So let’s try that again: are you saying that biologists are rejecting evolution? If so, back up this incredible claim with evidence.

          There is no actual threat posed by truth, is there?

          I agree. I doubt if you do. Are you saying that yours is an honest search for truth with zero religious agenda? That you’d be delighted to accept evolution, assuming it was the truth?

          we are confronted with one simple problem, one which scientifically demonstrates that evolutionary theory is “impossible”

          Huh? What demonstrates that it’s impossible?

          Please Bob, take 7:26 minutes and let yourself be challenged.

          I’m very familiar with Creationism. It was a discussion of Creationism that turned me into an atheist. I’ve been to 3 or 4 Creationism conferences here in Seattle, been to lectures at the Discovery Institute maybe 6 or 8 times, and attended the local Creationist club for years.

        • MNb

          “attended the local Creationist club for years”
          Wowzers. Is that the Seattle version of SM? I mean once ….. but for years?!

        • It’s called the Creationist Association of Puget Sound. (I don’t know what SM is.)

          I’m also a regular at the local Reasons to Believe (Hugh Ross) group. Gives me a chance to hang out with Christians and ask the questions that they’d never ask.

        • adam

          “SM” =Sadomasochism

          Seems appropriate for years spent ‘studying’ creationism.

        • Aha! Of course.

        • MNb

          That folks 2000 years ago used the God of the Gaps argument doesn’t justify you doing it in the 21st Century.

          “it is apparent that science is not able to demonstrate or speak about how these large and fundamental things exist or how they were created based upon any scientific theory.”
          Just like the apologist 2000 years ago said it was apparent that science was not able to demonstrate or speake about how fundamental things like rain and fire exist or how they were created based upon any scientific theory.
          They were wrong. You might be as well.

          “aren’t you really saying that there is a very high probability that some unknown and unexplainable amazingly powerful force(s) created these things?”
          No – that’s exactly what your own examples of rain and fire show.
          To get that high probability you must provide a testable theory that describes how that “unknown and unexplainable amazingly powerful force created these things”. But you already defined that force as something unexplainable and hence effectively have undermined your own argument – ie lowered said probability.

          http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/understanding/section10.rhtml

        • Brian Jenkin

          Evolution is a forensic science, no more repeatable, testable and measurable than Creation theory. The evidence is there for interpretation, but it is the presumptions that we make that limits how we can see the evidence at hand. Without revisiting our presumptions from time to time, we may find ourselves wasting years of research, and wonder why we are not getting any closer to proofs beyond reasonable doubt as is happening with evolution. Instead, it is unravelling!

          The question is why, and what are the unquestioned, underlying beliefs?

        • I’m a well-educated amateur about biology, so very much not a biologist.

          You?

        • Brian Jenkin

          Physics and Maths majors, Chem sub-major, and first year biology at Deakin Uni, Melbourne, AUS.

        • I was asking only about biology, but okay–that answers my question. You’re a current student at Deakin?

          Since neither of us are biology professionals, it sounds like we’d better let the big boys handle the biology and we’ll sit at the sidelines and watch. How does that work?

        • Brian Jenkin

          I haven’t been a student in a while, Bob! Ha, ha, oh to be that age again!

          I have a decent understanding of a good cross section of science, so I feel up to discussing it, maybe not in front of a paying audience, but socially, sure. But I’m certainly no expert. Of course there are experts on both sides to consider though.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Plus, the science and evidence for creationism covers a lot more than Biology. Chemistry is probably the most damning science to evolution when you look at the simple cell and the parts that make up the whole, all of which are needed for life to start. Staggering complexity, DNA is just a fraction of it. the 72 different proteins required in one cell all require different conditions to form, and some of those conditions are counter beneficial. One requires water, another will disappear if water is present, that kind of thing. Plus, then there’s the staggering co-ordination of the molecules to consider, the massive numbers of each molecule that were needed to spontaneously occur in exactly the same place (and in the right proportions) and at exactly the same time. Ever taken a look at the chemistry of a cell?

        • MNb

          Evolution Theory is repeatable.

          http://biology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/Garland/ExperimentalEvolution.html

          It’s testable. It’s tested every single time a fossil is dug up. Are you aware of the recently found Homo Naredi? Evolution Theory would have been in big trouble if it had been 200 million years old. Evolution Theory also makes testable predictions. A famous example is Neil Shubin and Tiktaalik.

          Evolution Theory is measurable.

          https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/Rates_of_evolution2.asp

          You’re invited to give some comparable examples for creationism.

          “the presumptions that we make that limits how we can see the evidence at hand.”
          Agreed. And the only presumptions scientists (ie not those goofs you link to) make is

          http://www.conservapedia.com/Methodological_naturalism

          Yup – for once that goofy site got it wright with

          “Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes.”

          Spot on! Because by definition as soon as you do consider supernatural causes you don’t do science anymore. Of course the rest of that page is the usual nonsense, but at least this sentence was correct.

          “The question is why, and what are the unquestioned, underlying beliefs?”

          I already told you just above what. Science only considers natural causes and mechanisms. As soon as you consider supernatural stuff you’re not doing science anymore.
          As for why – it may have escaped your attention given your totally outdated views, but the scientific method has enjoyed some success last 200 years or so.

        • Brian Jenkin

          This is a great point:
          Science only considers natural causes and mechanisms. As soon as you consider supernatural stuff you’re not doing science anymore.

          I couldn’t agree more, but my question is this: If science ‘can’t’ enlighten us on supernatural stuff, why would you be asking believers for scientific evidence regarding it? Maybe it’s evidence lies elsewhere, in places you have yet to explore? ***

          As for this statement:
          Because by definition as soon as you do consider supernatural causes you don’t do science anymore.
          …it’s just plain wrong. The fact the physics does what it does and is measurable, and chemistry does what it does and is knowable, and that there is biology to discover and name, has nothing to do with it’s cosmological/divine origin. What difference does it make which quarry I take a small granite stone from as to how far I can throw it?

          You guys make some pretty outlandish, illogical, and un-informed statements, it really surprises me. I haven’t encountered a single thought or piece of evidence yet that poses any threat whatever to the view I have been putting forward. In fact, check this out:
          http://biblehub.com/niv/genesis/2.htm

          Genesis, talks about gardens (botany), seed (genetics), rivers (geography), multiplying (maths), naming creatures (biology), stars (cosmology), onyx and gold (mineralogy and chemistry), bones (more biology) and the creatures of the ocean (oceanography). Science is everywhere in the Bible!!!

          In fact it was the first writings that eluded to the earth being a ball, “hung in space on nothing”, in a “stretched out” (expanded/ing) universe that is filled with many more stars than were visible at the time to the naked eye – “as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is on the sea shore.” It even talks about the conservation of energy/mass in the universe!
          https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/

          Big shout out of sorry to Galileo and Copernicus that the Catholics missed it at the time!

          So sorry to burst your bubble, but the Bible has been describing science in some degree for a lot longer than 200 years! God invented science!

          *** That being said, the evidence overwhelmingly points to a designer, creator. What’s so hard to conceive that there is a God anyway? Well over 90% of the planet believe in God- you guys are the slender minority, poking around in the dark using a model that doesn’t fit the evidence.

        • Kodie

          What a load of horseshit you got suckered into. Nothing you have said bears on reality at all. You are full of wishful thinking and poisoned with arrogance.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Thanks for the eloquent reply, Kodie. So glad I spent the time considering my response. Even the curator of this website blog, Bob (who wrote the article) has decided to speak a bit more civilly to me, shame you can’t find the same courtesy. I’m not sure what you find so threatening about me- do I remind you of someone? What are you so angry about?

          I hope you don’t mind if I put you on the do not reply list from now on, I’m sure you understand.

        • Kodie

          Your arrogance in propagating your stupidity is shameful of the species itself. Why should people be courteous to you, when you are an insult to intelligence.

        • Kodie

          You’re arguing in favor of developing a character of superstition when you don’t know something? When nobody knows, you have to make stuff up, and believe it sees you when you’re sleeping, and knows when you’re awake? When that has never been true before, you think that one of these times, it’s going to be true?

        • In God’s Defense

          It is NOT God of the gaps if you have good reason and evidance to think a God exists. For example, believing a God exists because of the cosmological argument. In the case of a not knowing what causes fire and then saying the fire God did it IS the God of the Gaps fallacy.

        • Dys

          Realistically, nobody believes in God because of the cosmological argument. The belief comes first, and the logical arguments are attempts to justify it.

        • Have you ever thought about your handle, “In God’s Defense”? What would prompt any Christian to use that name? It’s like an unarmed you thinking that you can do the work of the U.S. Army.

          “You better watch yourself!,” you say to the world. “The Army can kick your ass!” But why would you do this? You’d just point to the Army and let the Army defend itself.

          Why not the same for God? He’s a billion times more powerful than the U.S. Army, and you’re out in front? Why can’t God do it himself?

          More important: what does it tell you that he can’t do it for himself?

        • Dys

          Ain’t divine hiddenness grand?

        • Brian Jenkin

          And by the way, really great call mate. Spot on and quite ironic!

        • Kodie

          What if you only think you have a good reason to believe there’s a god, but you don’t.

        • In God’s Defense

          What if you only think you have a good reason to believe there is no God, but you don’t.

        • adam

          “What if you only think you have a good reason to believe there is no God, but you don’t. ”

          Then I could be convinced.
          Could YOU?

        • In God’s Defense

          Yes, I could. I have spent most of my life searching for the truth of God. At the moment, I believe that his existence is more probable than not.

        • adam

          ” I believe that his existence is more probable than not. ”

          So just where did your ‘God’ get its KNOWLEDGE to be able to ‘create’?

        • MNb

          If it’s just probable it’s not a truth. Truth requires 100% accurate, objective, eternal, never changing certainty.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Evolutionary science itself has offered us none of this, 100% certainty. True science needs to be testable, repeatable and measurable, none of which is possible with forensic science as evolutionary THEORY is. That’s right, it’s still a scientific theory, and one that is currently being comprehensively dis-proven- it’s only a matter of time, (or stubbornness).

          Once upon a time, the Sun orbited the Earth. Newton’s laws of Universal Gravitation have been undermined by Relativity. Science evolves as too does our understanding, and more and more, evolutionary theory is coming up short. Despite hundreds of years of archaeology, still we have yet to produce a single fossil that supports a theory that describes millions of intermediate species. Not one- that’s a bit odd, isn’t it?

          But instead, what is being dug up are fossils of dinosaur bones with live red blood cells and intact blood vessels! Boy, for a theory that suggests that the rocks that these bones came from are millions of years old, that sure poses a problem! But the problem is not in the evidence, it’s in the filter through which we look at the evidence. Change your filter, and everything will start to make sense.

          You see, the cry for evidence is a dis-ingenuous one because it’s all around. It is in fact the model that has been pushed into the education system as ‘fact’ that has been misleading us. And the purpose of the model? To do away with our need for God, because we would rather this be ‘our story’ than History. And yes, His Story makes me uncomfortable! But it’s still His.

          http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report
          http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue
          http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-protein-even-more-confirmation

          Rationalise away this science as best you can, or start to consider that maybe you don’t have the whole story. http://www.creation.com is an invaluable resource for beginning a journey of genuine investigation. There is truly some fascinating and compelling evidence out there!

        • This isn’t Kansas, Chester. The people who hang out here follow the evidence and have little patience for religion-driven caricatures of science. You really want to stick around and defend Creationism with them?

          I predict that in a few days your new nickname will be Chew Toy.

        • Brian Jenkin

          You are sweet Bob, I can’t wait for a world where the only people left are atheists. Oh what we take for granted! And so the mockery begins…but that’s survival of the fittest, right, where there is no moral imperative?!

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Survival of the fittest is a creationist concept. Evolutionary biologists (including Darwin himself) have rejected it a long time ago. Does this ring a bell?

          “iron law of Nature–which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind.”

          “The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.”

          Those are your views, aren’t they? They are from Mein Kampf. I’ve looked it up myself on internet.

          https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-religious-creationist-and-opposed-to-darwinism/

          And Hitler was also fond of survival of the fittest as that link clearly shows.

        • That’s a point that I hear repeatedly but have never heard an explanation for–Creationists must acknowledge small changes (“microevolution,” in their parlance) to address things like bacterial resistance, but they never explain what force keeps the changes to a minimum so that speciation never happens. It’s like they imagine each species in a well, with only slight changes possible. What creates this well??

        • MNb

          You can’t blame them for this. They are not even capable of defining the shores of those wells. Baraminology is a failure.

        • Brian Jenkin

          That’s a great question, Bob.

          Check out a series of articles here, it’s a fascinating study.
          https://answersingenesis.org/search/?csrfmiddlewaretoken=VWInpcBp0gMvgI4VPaSkdr9SphKv16l4&site=AiGall&q=genetics+evolution

          Let me know what you think and if one of them answers it for you.

          PS- Thanks for the civility, I appreciate it.

        • No, I see nothing intelligent there.

          If you have an answer, give us your summary.

        • TheNuszAbides

          What creates this well?

          why, magical hole-digging, of course!

        • Brian Jenkin

          I think you missed my irony MNb. My point is that this swarm of mocking atheists that I have chosen to dive into is acting entirely within it’s own tenants, to destroy the helpless little Christian that fell into the tank. And my further point is, what a wonderful world we will be left with when all the moral absolutes are gone- when we completely succeed in convincing ourselves there is no God. You take His structure for granted in our modern civilization. Our culture was birthed from His structure, and one day, you (or your grandkids) will miss it my friend, mark my words.

        • Brian Jenkin

          And yeah, Hitler was a big advocate for a supreme race. Sounds like Darwinian theory to me?! He might have said things to win political favour, but he will be judged by his actions.

        • You’ve lost me. Something Hitler did argues that evolution is flawed? Explain.

        • Kodie

          You know for some kind of fact that Hitler wasn’t exactly the kind of human god favors?

        • Greg G.

          Hitler was using unnatural selection, like Jacob tried to do with a misunderstanding of what causes mutations. Darwin wrote about natural selection. Hitler was using the opposite of Darwinian theory.

          Besides, Hitler was a Christian in his yourh but if you are not a “once saved, always saved” Christian yourself, we have a report from Lady Hope’s niece that Hitler accepted Christ just before his death, so his actions were forgiven and he won’t be judged for the deaths of millions of people or eating fruit from the wrong tree.

        • 90Lew90

          From what I can see, you purport to have investigated Darwinian theory fairly thoroughly in the course of posting familiar creationist trash, and yet you haven’t come across the very simple rebuttal to the claim that Hitler was a Darwinist? Does it ever strike you as odd that the two 19th Century thinkers who did most damage to Christianity — Darwin and Nietzsche, the latter explicitly and intentionally, the former incidentally — are constantly, and still to this day, blamed for what the Nazis did? I would tend to substitute Martin Luther and his legacy among Christians along with the daft realpolitik as played by an uncaring, inbred aristocracy for Darwin and Nietzsche.

          And you never did answer: What is it that you would do if you thought your god didn’t exist? Why would that be handy for you? What would you be getting up to if that were the case?

        • adam
        • MNb

          “He might have said things to win political favour,”
          BWAHAHAHAHA! Mein Kampf reflected his views – and contained creacrap like yours. And he put them into practice:

          https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2006/10/04/surprise-hitler-banned-darwin-instead-of-embracing-evolution/

          “but he will be judged by his actions.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Gal. 2:16 “A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.”
          Ephe 2:8 ” For by grace are ye saved through faith.”
          Granted, you might maintan that Hitler didn’t have faith, though he undoubtedly was a fan of Jesus.
          This guy though converted, confesses and repented and hence was saved according to you:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hoss

          And now he’s in Heaven singing “praise the Lord, screw the jews.”

          “Sounds like Darwinian theory to me?”

          Only if you’re a stupid liar. Evolution Theory doesn’t recognize something like “supreme race”. In science race is even a meaningless concept.

          http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123

          Only creacrappers like Hitler and you talk about races.

        • You’re being worried like a chew toy because of your ill-informed views about science.

          I’m pretty sure that atheists like morality just like Christians.

        • Kodie

          You’re only helpless because you wish for god to exist and show us, you’re threatening us, in fact, because you don’t know how shitty your arguments actually are, and you hope god will prove himself by dooming us. You have a high opinion of how smart they sound, but don’t blame US. You’re the one with the shitty arguments!

        • Greg G.

          when all the moral absolutes are gone

          There are no “moral absolutes” now. We all “do unto others” because it is easier than defending everything all the time. You don’t need God to figure that out do you? Even social animals get this “you scratch my back” understanding.

        • adam

          “My point is that this swarm of mocking atheists that I have chosen to dive into is acting entirely within it’s own tenants,”

          So your point is play victim

        • MNb

          “You take His structure for granted in our modern civilization.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          That structure is man made.

          “one day, you (or your grandkids) will miss it my friend, mark my words.”
          Boooo, now I’m scared!
          Actually no, I don’t miss the christian structure that was in place from say 500 CE – 1500 CE at all.

        • adam

          Actually no, I don’t miss the christian structure that was in place from say 500 CE – 1500 CE at all.

          Or the current one even

        • Brian Jenkin

          You have a raucous laugh my friend, is that what you really sound like?!! 🙂 Makes me smile.

        • Mad scientists all sound like that.

        • MNb

          Part 1.

          “Evolutionary science itself has offered us none of this, 100% certainty.”
          No single science offers 100% certainty. Strawman.

          “True science needs …..”
          Ah, the No True Science Fallacy.

          “… to be testable,”
          Evolution Theory is testable.
          Every time paleontologists find a fossil Evolution Theory is tested. Bring me a Cambrian Cat Fossil and it’s busted. That’s a test.

          “repeatable”
          Evolution Theory gives rise to repeatable experiments.

          http://biology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/Garland/ExperimentalEvolution.html

          “and measurable,”
          Evolution Theory can be measured.

          https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/Rates_of_evolution2.asp

          “none of which is possible with forensic science as evolutionary THEORY is.”
          and there is

          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e1

          Forensic science is also science – just like the name says. Yup, you have pulled off the No True Science Fallacy. I suppose according to you Astronomy is No True Science either – because unrepeatable. Supernova’s can be observed just one time.

          “That’s right, it’s still a scientific theory,
          Thanks for confirming that you pull off the No True Science fallacy.

          “and one that is currently being comprehensively dis-proven”

          Something I have had the pleasure of reading for about 30 years now. “Currently” apparently lasts a bit long. And just like all the previous claimants you can’t be bothered to provide any, you know, evidents.
          Plus you nicely contradict yourself. If Evolution Theory is “currently being comprehensively dis-proven” it is testable.

          “Newton’s laws of Universal Gravitation have been undermined by Relativity. Science evolves as too does our understanding, and more and more, evolutionary theory is coming up short.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA! Relativity is an expansion of Newtonian Mechanics. In exactly the same way 21st Century Evolution Theory has immensely expanded since Darwin wrote his book.

          “still we have yet to produce a single fossil that supports a theory that describes millions of intermediate species.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          You can see an intermediate species every single day with your own eyes. It’s called dog. Some breeds still can procreate with grey wolves, other can’t.

          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
          http://www.transitionalfossils.com

          “what is being dug up are fossils of dinosaur bones with live red blood cells and intact blood vessels!”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Hey, bearing false witness is a sin and ignorance is no excuse. I can forgive you, but what about your god?
          Those red blood cells were not alive.

          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html
          http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

        • Brian Jenkin

          MNb, your lack of understanding of scientific principal is becoming apparent to me. To say evolution can best tested shows supreme ignorance-sorry to sound offensive, I don’t mean it to be.

          To test evolution, you need to be able recreate the conditions in which it took place and observe it happening again. What you are actually testing is EVIDENCE inside of a frame of reference called a theory.

          And I’m sorry if I said ‘alive’ red blood cells. What might be more accurate is to call them structurally intact. And I still have to go take a look at the links you sent me, thanks for those.

          As for your understanding of DNA and the way it works, a dog is not an intermediate species. As you said yourself, some dogs are still able to interbreed with wolves! The others have had too much of their original DNA stripped to be compatible any more, but it’s not evolution, it’s a degradation in the available genes (that they once had as wolves) through natural selection. A poodle does not have extra DNA material compared to a wolf, it has less. This is NOT evolution!

          The Theory of Relativity offers distortion to space and time, something that undermines Newtonian Laws in their simplest model, but since it has practically no direct bearing on virtually all of our Earthly calculations, we essentially ignore Relativity and roll with Newtonian Laws as being Laws for all extents and purposes.

          As far as fossils go, their are thousands of modern living creatures on Earth today that have been fossilised along with the dinosaurs. You are so uninformed!! There are even fossils of dinosaur footprints with the footprints of men inside them, not to mention hundreds of ancient carvings of dinosaurs in temple walls and aboriginal drawings, from a time before we had discovered a modern day dinosaur fossil. And there are fossils of modern tools, boots, and even modern money in the ‘prehistoric’ rock layers!

          Even the Bible records (in Job) a creature called behemoth with a tail like a cedar (tree). What else could that be but a dinosaur? The evidence is every where and it is all undermining the very presumptions at the heart of this theory you have so far clinged onto thus far. Time to go seeking with an open mind my friend.

        • Pofarmer

          Dude, please, please stop. Your gullibility is truly mindnumbing.

        • Brian Jenkin

          ??

        • Pofarmer

          Let me help you out.

          Godisimaginary.com

        • Brian Jenkin

          Would you be gullible if I managed to convince you that the pyramids are a natural rock formation? “But it has a clear structure and design” you would say. Nope, I would say, it’s just a matter of chance, erode enough rocks on enough planets and you are bound to end up with such a structure by natural, random means eventually. You can’t prove to me that they were designed and made by a conscious being (human beings)!

          “What about the mummies”, you say. I’d say they were placed there by people coming along later. “What about the hieroglyphics” you’d say. Nope, they too are just a natural phenomena, or perhaps I’d argue that they were drawn later (whatever suits!). No, I’m afraid the Pryamids are natural…

          You see, no matter what you come up with for good arguments, I could dismiss them. You have NO proof- except for the obvious fact that they follow a design, show a uniform shape and have consistent patterns that they were a ‘made’ phenomena, not a ‘natural’ one. So have I convinced you or do I need a few experts?

          What’s interesting is that the engineering secrets of the pyramids contain a relative microscopic fraction of the information that is encoded into every strand of DNA, AND they only needed three of four major conditions to be met to have a chance of natural existence! Whereas life requires dozens of chemical conditions to be present to have a chance to start, many of which actually oppose one another. (ie. one process needs water but the very next process in sequence can’t happen in the presence of water!)

          The fact is, life is massively X enormously X exponentially less likely to not be of natural means than the Pyramids, and yet you would argue that case with me, but not the case for life requiring a designer too?! THAT is mind-numbing my friend! The evidence of design is your proof, but beyond that, there is LOADS more….

          Romans 1:20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

        • Ron
        • Greg G.

          The phrase “they can clearly see his invisible qualities” is the dumbest thing Paul wrote.

          A living cell looks amazing. But when you look more closely, you see that it was designed by Rube Goldberg or it was designed by adding, subtracting, or modifying random functions to the workings. A change either worked or it didn’t. If it didn’t, one organism died. If it worked well, the change was reproduced greatly.

        • Brian Jenkin

          All the necessary parts of a cell were either there at the beginning or they weren’t, and you’ve just made my point for me, if it didn’t have what it needed to survive, it died. Every part of the first cell was there at the start- that’s a massive obstacle of faith to overcome for you.

        • Greg G.

          It has been shown that hydrocarbons baked for several hours and put in water form round balls that can grow by merging or divide. This could happen between high tides on any rock on every beach every day.

          Then you need one molecule that can make copies of itself and the copies don’t need to be perfect. This could form on any facet of a grain of sand anywhere in the world.

          Eventually one of the molecules would end up inside one of the balls. Actually it would be lots. When one inner molecule has some positive effect on the outer ball, you have the beginning of life.

          That is one scenario that is more likely than your own.

        • I marvel that someone so poorly educated can be so smart. How do you do it? You’re not even a biologist, and you not only add your opinion, but you conclude that the entire scientific consensus is wrong!

          You’ve got balls, my friend.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “All the necessary parts of a cell were either there at the beginning or they weren’t”

          This is false. (Insofar as it assumes that what is being discussed is anything like the unicellular organisms we see today.)

          What you meant to say was this:

          “All the necessary parts of [the proto-cellular self-replicating entropy-processing-chemical-system] were either there at the beginning or they weren’t”

        • 90Lew90

          What a load of bollocks. Why don’t you read some actual biology instead of going to creationist guff to tickle your confirmation bias bone. Too threatening? You don’t even realise how unutterably stupid creationism is, do you. If we’re talking about things beggaring belief, it’s the stupidity of creationism and the people who buy it. Personally, I find it hard to accept that anyone from a developed Western country really does believe it, especially when they’re as articulate as you. I strongly suspect it’s faith in spite of itself. That little voice in your head isn’t Satan, it’s common sense.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Thanks mate, in some ways you’ve been the kindest person in here so far. 🙂 Articulate and common sense, I’m on the improve!

          I get your view, I really do. I thought the exact same things 10 years ago. Stuff happens, the evidence humbled me and here I am. what can I say- seemed like common sense to me too at the time.

          I’d just say, go exploring, see what challenges get thrown up, there are some good ones that I couldn’t deal with. But I had an open mind because of what happened, something that I couldn’t explain by science. I was opened to consideration- genuinely, and the evidence eventually won.

        • Kodie

          Your argument so far can be summed up as:

          I used to think I was so smart like you do now.

          You were never smart. You’re not smart now.

          You think if we just look at the foolish garbage that convinced you, that we should find it convincing. Not that you are gullible. Of course from your perspective, you think you have stumbled onto something “smarter” than evolution. It’s hard to talk to you because you are impervious to communication regarding your self-assessment. Ahead of your own argument, you have the arrogance to believe that if everyone just looked at it, we’d have to agree with you. That’s funny. That’s how you’re unintentionally funny. Just because you believe something doesn’t make it true or credible or convincing to anyone other than the foolish, wishful thinkers.

          You couldn’t explain by science, but that doesn’t mean science doesn’t explain it to someone who can read. You wish to bury yourself in ignorance, and come out swinging your arrogant fists of creationism, you have as much credibility as the acid-tripping proselytizer, the colosseum is full, who used zero arguments and only testimony of some acid trip in the 70s. Good, you think you are right. You cannot be wrong. Only everyone else is wrong, and we’re mean to you and treating your arguments like the garbage they are. It never once occurs to you that you might have buried your head up your own ass. “God” touched you like it touched the acid-tripper. The same ka-blooey experience that renders you ill-equipped to confront reality or read for comprehension, the one that feeds you fallacious arguments that stun you, because you’re too smart to be stunned by stupidity, right? You think you’re too smart, so this shit must be really smart!

          You were never smart.

        • MNb

          “I thought the exact same things 10 years ago”
          If you don’t know what Evolution Theory says today and doesn’t understand the Laws of Thermodynamics now it’s safe you didn’t either 10 years ago. That’s confirmed by you consistingly
          1. bringing up long debunked creacrap;
          2. relying on unscientific sources.

        • TheNuszAbides

          no, the common sense he was referring to is the skepticism that’s been buried beneath your wishful thinking and misdirection.

        • Ron

          Would you be gullible if I managed to convince you that the pyramids are a natural rock formation?

          In making a distinction between designed pyramids and natural rock formations you undermine your argument that the natural world looks designed.

        • Brian Jenkin

          I think you may have missed the rhetorical nature of my argument Ron. Maybe take another look… I am saying that the Pyramids look designed, and nature looks designed. You try to convince me it’s not, well let me try to convince you that the Pyramids are not. Just painting a picture for you.

          If you don’t think nature looks designed, then I guess an aeroplane also doesn’t look designed (modelled on birds). I guess the symmetry of a DNA strand doesn’t look designed yet it holds about the same amount of programming information as many mainstream computer programs. They sure look designed.

        • Kodie

          Are you smart enough to tell the difference? We’re going by Brian Jenkin’s, the would-be adulterer, opinion on what something looks like to his foolish eye to draw conclusions.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “I am saying that the Pyramids look designed, and nature looks designed”

          This is the crux of your intellectual problem – you are lazy and imprecise.

          How can I assess your analogy of [The Pyramids look designed] => [Designed] || [Nature look designed] => [Designed], when I don’t know what you mean by “Nature.”

          Which parts of “Nature” are you appealing to for your argument from apparent design? Plenty of “Nature” is of trivially terrible design for human existence. “Good design” implies a goal or purpose for which the design is executed….much of Nature is random and purposeless.

          Take your time. Define your terms.

          Stop using shitty throw-away-analogies which fall apart with minimal effort.

          Airplanes are modelled on birds? Really? How many birds have two sets of wings one above the other? How many birds have vertically-stabilized tails? How many birds have wings which do not move?

          Birds have doubtless inspired aspects of modern airplanes (as have other organisms which move via propulsion through fluids)…but the only devices I am aware of which were *actually* modelled on birds were some of DaVinci’s…and those didn’t work.

        • Right–airplanes work very differently from birds. And submarines from fish. And cars from horses. When we look at machines that replace human chores–dishwasher, washing machine, even bread machine, the machine usually does it its own way rather than duplicating the motions humans make.

        • Kodie

          Holy shit, you are persistently stupid.

        • Brian Jenkin

          No valuable thought at all? Weak!

        • Kodie

          My thought was as valuable as yours was.

        • Greg G.

          Would you be gullible if I managed to convince you that the pyramids are a natural rock formation?

          These pictures are taken of the coast of Japan:

          http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_yonaguni/yonaguni_ing_2.jpg

          http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_yonaguni/yonaguni_ing_3.jpg

          http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_yonaguni/yonaguni_ing_4.jpg

          People are saying that they are finding the remains of an ancient civilization. But it seems that they are natural formations. The divers are collecting donations, not for research as they claim, but to find the best angles to photograph them to make the rocks look man-made.

          Here is the proof that Mt. Rushmore is a natural formation:

          https://hdwallpapers.cat/wallpaper_mirror/the_other_side_of_mount_rushmore_president_hd-wallpaper-846731.jpg

        • Yet another “where do you start?” comments.

          I’ll make just one comment: GPS satellites must make corrections for both special and general relativity. If it didn’t, the errors would accumulate at a rate of many feet per day.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Another good point Bob, thanks. That said, I probably wouldn’t put that in the category of every day calculations- by that I mean the types made in fields like construction, travel…etc. Earthly endeavours. There aren’t a lot of folk out there working directly with the orbits of satellite systems.

        • Whoops–I can’t help but make one more.

          You do know that there were many, many species of dinosaurs, right? Is Behemoth supposed to stand in for them all?

          What about Leviathan? Is that a dinosaur, like Behemoth? If you know your Bible, you’ll know that Leviathan sounds more mythology than dinosaur.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Yeah, good question, Bob. Most think it refers to the Brontosaurus based in the description of the size of it’s tail. I actually hadn’t heard a reference to ‘Leviathan’ in my travels, so there you go, contributing to me from the Bible! At quick glance, that name may be referencing the creature in Revelation, a misunderstood book by most (I include myself in that) which appears to have a lot of metaphor and allegory in it. So ‘Legend’ might be a good word for it, I’m really not sure.

          The sea serpent in Revelation is often considered to be the serpent from the Garden of Eden at the start of the Bible that has become an enormous beast (having fed on the souls of men). It’s a bit hard for me to say much as I am more educated in Science than in the Bible, although I have a fair amount of knowledge there too, just not a deep understanding, best gained through historical and language knowledge of ancient Hebrew- not my strength.

        • Leviathan is a Brontosaurus? Read the description in Job 41—it breathes fire.

          And if the Bible is supposed to describe dinosaurs, what about all the rest of the dinosaurs?

          Your claim that dinosaurs are in the Bible are laughable. Just special pleading.

          BTW, are you a young-earth creationist?

        • Brian Jenkin

          Well, to be honest Bob, I didn’t used to be and even the thought of saying yes to that question still makes me cringe a little, but following the evidence, I am becoming more so as time goes on.

          Ten years ago, I would have told you there was no God. Then he did a few things to me that science can’t explain and got my attention. So who am I to say anything is impossible? There is plenty on Earth that if National Geographic or David Attenborough didn’t show me footage of, I would have said was impossible, so, if there is a God, what’s to say there is anything that isn’t possible?!

          DNA guiding trillions of cells in one body to the exact spots they need to go still seems impossible to me, and hasn’t been adequately explained by science. Why not a young Earth and fire breathing dinosaurs, there are stranger facts. Consider the Angel Fish!

        • following the evidence, I am becoming more [of a YEC] as time goes on.

          We’ve been over this. You’re not qualified to follow the evidence, and there are people who actually are. You have no warrant to pretend that you get to decide. It don’t work that way in any other area of your life (y’know—when science doesn’t step on your theological toes), and this is just special pleading.

          Then he did a few things to me that science can’t explain and got my attention.

          You became a Christian for emotional reasons and now you’re backfilling using intellect.

          People in lots of religions claim spooky stuff happened to them thanks to their god. Maybe all these people are just fooling themselves.

          So who am I to say anything is impossible?

          Not what we’re talking about.

          if there is a God, what’s to say there is anything that isn’t possible?!

          The Hypothetical God fallacy. We don’t presuppose God and then marvel that nothing would disprove this hypothesis; rather, we follow the evidence without bias or agenda.

          DNA guiding trillions of cells in one body to the exact spots they need to go still seems impossible to me, and hasn’t been adequately explained by science.

          And what do the people who actually understand fetal growth (that is, not you) say when you present this to them? Do they agree? Show me.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Bob, no offence, but you also are not qualified to make the assertions you do. All I can do is discern for myself with ethical honesty as to what I glean from what is being presented before me for my own life’s journey, same as you. I have just heard different accounts of science to you.

          And although I know you’d like to think you know what my life journey has been, and as respectfully as you have been communicating, you’ve got that wrong. My computer is freezing, so I might respond tomorrow and go to bed for now…

          sorry to leave you hanging.

        • You imagine a symmetry that isn’t there. The glaring difference between our positions is that I’m humble enough to accept the scientific consensus in areas where I’m not a scientist. You’re arrogant enough to think that you can complain about the science you don’t like despite your not actually understanding that science.

          Ouch.

          I have just heard different accounts of science to you.

          No, you have confused the crap they ladle out at Answers in Genesis or the Disco Institute or any of the other Creationist sites with actual science.

          Do us all a favor and point to qualified science vehicles for your science, not these nutjobs. When they’ve changed the consensus, I’m there. Until they do, they’re fringe and look exactly like people who wish reality were different because it would support their unsupported religious views.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Hi Bob,

          Can you direct me to a resource that shows clearly how every cell in the body knows where and how to position itself based on the instruction in the DNA code? I’m just asking because I haven’t seen one yet, it would be cool to know if in fact they do have a described mechanism for that. Just to be clear, I’m not asking about foetal growth, I’m talking on a bio-chemical level, how does DNA work?

          I mean, I get that I’m not ‘qualified’ to think about this nor even ask for such quality content on the matter to consider because I don’t agree with who the ‘real’ scientists are, but that’s why I have you, Bob. You’re my guy. My hypocritical, self-educated biology buff that gets to pretend HE has the ‘right to decide’ what is good science and what isn’t for me- because you actually have such a warrant in your back pocket, don’t you! I’m so lucky I found you, Bob. I would have been stuck otherwise…

          Thanks for allowing a moment of sarcasm, it just seems that normal, logical conversation was failing to make my point, I mean no offence by it. Hopefully now, though, my point is made. I’m not an idiot Bob, and this forum doesn’t make you not one- not saying you are one, just that being a big voice in here doesn’t make you an authority in the actual world.

          And how about standing up to some of the other ‘name callers’ in here, mate? You’ve undertaken a measure of dignity in our conversations and I honour you for that, but maybe you should get some of these other thugs to show a bit of class. I’m not intimidated by on-line bullying, but you’ve got one person in here actually making threats (Kodie).

          Back to the point: I really would love a resource that describes DNA mechanisms at work. I admit my ignorance there.

          Hypothetical God Fallacy is only a fallacy if indeed there is no God. If He does exist, then it’s not hypothetical any more, is it? And at that point it is entirely reasonable, as the actual (although not measurable by us) force behind the material universe that explains every scientific observation that humanity has ever made. That’s a logical progression on the back of the possibility of there being a God, isn’t it!

          It’s no different to black hole theory. No-one can see or measure one, but the current theory doesn’t hold up without them, so by faith and inference
          they must be there. As someone who submits himself entirely to the experts of the day, you by default are guilty of the exact same thing that you complain about in Creationism. Unproven, inferred existence in something that sustains a current model. So you need to fix the black hole issue with a new, better theory, or allow Creationism use it’s ‘God of the gaps’ defence.

          As far as your assertions to only follow the ‘scientific consensus’, if you were living in the 16th century, you would have been a Flat-Earther. The 17th century, a believer in dark matter in our solar system that alters the orbits of other planets, because the Earth was the agreed centre of the solar system. You would also have believed that matter was made of clay-like globs, and even have been a staunch anti-Darwinist. Oh, the delicious irony!

          There is nothing wrong with considering for yourself what the evidence suggests, lest we as a society kill off all the innovative thinkers. Surely you can see that?

          Consider this Bob, if you will. If there was absolutely nothing in the entire Universe, and even the space and time of the Universe didn’t exist, would the principle of 1+1=2 still exist. The answer is yes it would. It would be un-articulated, but mathematics is a language devoid of the need for any context. It will always be there, waiting to be relevant. It is the context in which things arise.

          This thought actually points to the fabric of the universe as being Probability. And by fabric, I’m going to layers beyond the physical. Everything we are and see exists inside of mathematical probability.

          Given the unlimited range of possibilities that are possible, which one is the only one in which anything could exist? I would submit that it’s the probability of 100% Integrity. 99.9% integrity won’t cut it for a realm, it will collapse on itself. Mathematics requires complete and 100% balance and proof or it doesn’t exist.

          I believe that this is where God lives, in a realm like this, beyond the physical, but entirely at the source of the physical through a spoken word given from a realm called 100% Integrity. I simply can’t cognitively grasp it any better than this, but the study of mathematics has predicted a multitude of dimensions beyond the 4 we are aware of in these physical forms of ours.

          I have personally experienced what I think is another dimension yet to be explained by science, but possibly predicted in maths. And it is the reason I chose to search out God again. Contrary to your assertions Bob, it wasn’t emotion that had me yield, although it certainly was there as wonder, shock, confusion and relief.

          What happened, was that one day whilst working in a restaurant in Hingham MA, I served a lady from Connecticut. She was in town for a funeral for a guy she had known 18 years previous, a guy that she had felt compelled to contact for 6 months, but she was never able to get through to him up to the day his secretary told her the news.

          Long story short, I knew every thing she was going to order that day, I had even started to write them on my pad before she spoke them. (This by the way was by no means an isolated incident, just the most impactful one on me). When I told her what was going on for me, she looked a bit dumbfounded and rightly so. Then I explained to her that on a dozen or so occasions, I had known peoples names before they had introduced themselves to me, including a random girl on a previously recorded infomercial, late one night on TV, shortly after I had arrived in the States.

          To this she said, “Well you’d never guess my name, my name really unusual”, to which I scrambled to retreat, not wanting to enter into a humiliating game of ‘guess my name’. Well, as I tried to talk my way out of guessing her name, I felt what was almost a physical presence gently bouncing on the back of my head and the name Yvonne resounding loudly in my mind. I stopped and spluttered out the name, “Yvonne” complete with the foreign intination, (like tomarto, tomAto). I have never said that name that way previously in my life. (Iyvonne vs EEyvonne).

          Well, after we had both got over the initial shock, I made her pull out her license because I didn’t believe her, despite my other experiences- because this time I had actually said it first and out loud!

          Coupled with several other scientifically unexplainable experiences, I started to consider again for the first time in about 14 years that maybe there was something beyond this physical realm.

          So was it emotional along the way- yes, very. But no emotion can and will ever change what I know to be true from actual first hand experience. What followed was simply a logical response to the events occurring before me, including a ridiculous, personal response from God at the very most honest moment of my life as I called out to him- and I mean to the second! But that’s a story for another day, my friend.

          I have a question for you Bob, why are you in these conversations with me?

        • Wow—shorter comments, please.

          Can you direct me to a resource that shows clearly how every cell in the body knows where and how to position itself based on the instruction in the DNA code?

          Sorry. Maybe someone else.

          I don’t agree with who the ‘real’ scientists are

          And have you stopped to think about how crazy that is?

          My hypocritical, self-educated biology buff that gets to pretend HE has the ‘right to decide’ what is good science and what isn’t for me- because you actually have such a warrant in your back pocket, don’t you! I’m so lucky I found you, Bob.

          Nice arrogance, but no, I’m quite happy to accept the scientific consensus. You’re the one who’s going to bitch-slap the scientists for not understanding things the way that you do.

          just that being a big voice in here doesn’t make you an authority in the actual world.

          WTF? I accept the scientific consensus and you don’t! You’re the arrogant one here, Chew Toy.

          And how about standing up to some of the other ‘name callers’ in here, mate?

          Meh—I’ve descended to being one myself.

          The comment section here is pretty much a Wild West environment. I do very little policing.

          I really would love a resource that describes DNA mechanisms at work. I admit my ignorance there.

          You’ve visited talkorigins.org? That’s an essential site for anyone who wants to be educated with the topic.

          Hypothetical God Fallacy is only a fallacy if indeed there is no God.

          Whoa—nice one! That’s the Meta-Hypothetical God Fallacy! I did not see that coming, so you got me there.

          I’ll type slower so maybe you’ll get it this time. We follow the evidence with no presuppositions. We don’t start with the presupposition that God exists and then pick and choose our evidence as a result.

          Easy, right?

          If He does exist, then it’s not hypothetical any more, is it?

          And how are we supposed to find out empirically if he does? My naïve suggestion: follow the evidence.

          It’s no different to black hole theory. No-one can see or measure one, but the current theory doesn’t hold up without t hem, so by faith and inference they must be there.

          Oh, please. Conventional science is faith based, so that’s OK for me as well?

          Don’t do that around here, please.

          As someone who submits himself entirely to the experts of the day, you by default are guilty of the exact same thing that you complain about in Creationism.

          I read this paragraph, and I don’t understand your point. What error am I making?

          As far as your assertions to only follow the ‘scientific consensus’, if you were living in the 16th century, you would have been a Flat-Earther.

          And now we’re in the era of Modern Science, the science that actually delivers. Not so much back in medieval or even Renaissance times.

          If your point is that, before modern science, there wasn’t much available besides religion and superstition, I agree.

          There is nothing wrong with considering for yourself what the evidence suggests, lest we as a society kill off all the innovative thinkers. Surely you can see that?

          You’re just determined to not get it, aren’t you? God will punish an open mind, I guess.

          I’m getting tired of repeating myself. You’re not an innovative thinker. Today, innovative thinkers are within science. Get your doctorate, and you can, too. Until then, don’t flatter yourself. It’s offensive to those of us who actually respect science.

          If there was absolutely nothing in the entire Universe, and even the space and time of the Universe didn’t exist, would the principle of 1+1=2 still exist. The answer is yes it would.

          OK.

          This thought actually points to the fabric of the universe as being Probability.

          This is some matrix in which our universe exists? I have no time for your philosophical musings, thanks.

          Cool story about Yvonne, but what can I do with that? I know of no such spooky story that’s been investigated and become widely accepted by a scientific community.

          Most significant, this reminds me of the NY City lottery that had 9, 1, 1 as its winning number on the one-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Cool story … but what the heck would the Supernatural be trying to say with this? Ditto your story about Yvonne.

          I’ve known very few people who were pushed to Christianity for totally intellectual reasons. They were poking around Christianity for some personal or emotional reason, and the intellectual part comes only as rationalization afterwards.

          I have a question for you Bob, why are you in these conversations with me?

          Christianity is the 800-pound gorilla in society. I want to explore the claims that underlie it.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Thanks for you time and thoughts Bob. Sorry my post was so long as is this one. But don’t worry, it is my last.

          I’m sorry too that you guys seem to just want to surround yourself with like minds and not be challenged. I’ve experienced nothing short of being bullied out of this forum, and that’s cool. I’ll seek out interactions with some open minded people instead. The debates I’ve encountered here, including many with you despite some good logical points, have been astounding in their blinkeredness, often uninformed and sometimes just plain aggressive.

          We are going to have to agree to disagree in that I AM entitled to think for myself in evaluating what I read. And agree to disagree that there IS a lot of good science being done inside the creation model theory. And that there ARE supernatural forces at play that are involved in these discussions. Some of your pose seem positively possessed! There is a real spirit of anger, defensiveness and hurt in here. But it’s not to late to restore a broken past and discover a God who forgives, loves and brings compassion and dignity to life.

          As I see it, I’m the one out there taking on the 800 pound gorilla in society of evolution and the degradation to our values that this Godlessness brings with it, and trying to do so while exhibiting the grace and generosity that God extends to us. The treatment I have encountered here is quite frankly indicting on atheists and scares me for our future, because you have no moral code on how you talk to another human being.

          Is bullying wrong? Well, according to you, if you say its wrong, then its wrong for you but wrong for others, right?And if you don’t say it’s wrong, well feel free to go ahead and bully who-ever you want to, because that’s how life is with no absolute moral authority, right? It’s a sick and disgusting world we are heading towards with this self-determining moral code of yours.

          It doesn’t surprise me that you missed the point about black holes. You don’t have much imagination to hear what someone else is saying, Bob. And I don’t mean that antagonistically, it’s just something I’ve noticed.

          It’s simple.

          -You can’t see or prove the existence of a black hole.
          -You can infer one based on the way you would expect things to look inside the model you are working with.
          -This inference requires faith that the model you are using is correct since it is not provable.
          -If your model is actually true, then black holes exist and successfully explain the cosmos.

          -You can’t scientifically prove the existence of God.
          -You can infer one based on the way you would expect things to look inside the model you are working with.
          -This inference requires faith that the model you are using is correct since it is not provable.
          -If your model is actually true, then God exists and successfully explains every scientific observation in history.

          If it’s a suitable practice for the science of cosmology to use to explain the evidence it sees, (and you are a demonstrated defender of science) then it is a fair model for Creation science to use to explain the universe of evidence IT sees. If you don’t want us to do it, then fair play- find an alternate theory for Cosmology that doesn’t require such an inference of faith (black holes).

          To the point of my sarcasm, (which I hate being forced to to make a point-which obviously has still escaped you). It was intended to point out how incredibly arrogant YOU have been in this discussion:

          – “My hypocritical, self-educated biology buff that gets to pretend HE has the ‘right to decide’ what is good science and what isn’t for ME (the height of arrogance)- because you actually have such a warrant in your back pocket, don’t you! I’m so lucky I found you, Bob (sarcasm).”

          – “Nice arrogance, but no, I’m quite happy to accept the (your) scientific consensus.”

          You are the arrogant one here presuming I should bow to your god’s of science. Apparently I’m not allowed to consider for myself what is good science and what is bad, I have to agree with you and your consensus?! (I’ll get back to this later) But history shows that this approach is dangerous. Consider the ground that Hitler trod- there was no room for free thought! I bet you would burn every Bible given the chance? Am I right?…get rid of the 800 pound gorilla in one hit!? Can you see your hypocrisy yet?

          You’ve entriely missed the point here:

          – “There is nothing wrong with considering for yourself what the evidence suggests, lest we as a society kill off all the innovative thinkers. Surely you can see that?”
          – “You’re just determined to not get it, aren’t you? God will punish an open mind, I guess.”

          If we don’t evaluate with intellectual honesty the science being presented to us, but rather ‘bludgeon’ those who are presenting counter science to our preferred view, we will kill off any contribution from sources like Galileo who in his day was a fringe view and was oppressed by the church. These days, we are repeating the same mistakes, only it’s the scientific dogma that’s demonizing the ‘fringes’. The 800 pound gorilla is shifting allegiances!

          Which leads me back to my point:

          – “I don’t agree with WHO the ‘real’ scientists are”
          – “And have you stopped to think about how crazy that is?”

          I simply don’t agree that the filter evolutionists are looking at evidence through is giving them a true read on what it is saying. What filter I hear you ask? I’m referring to their interpretation of evidence inside of an assertion/view that there is no God?

          Let me re-iterate the biggest biggest thing you have missed thus far is this, Bob:
          YOU HAVE A PRESUPPOSITION OF YOUR OWN CALLED ‘THERE IS NO GOD’ THAT IS BLINKERING EVERY INTERPRETATION YOU SEE IN THE EVIDENCE.

          Just the same as you accuse me of. Irony, hypocrisy and insanity at it’s finest! At least I know I have a filter, which gives me the option of putting it down and picking it up if I want to.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “I’ve experienced nothing short of being bullied out of this forum, and that’s cool.”

          That’s odd — I’ve never been ‘forced’ to leave a forum I wanted to contribute to by the discussions I’ve had there. If I think I have something worth saying, I’ll say it no matter my fellow-commenters’-push-back.

          I *have* been banned though, which can be frustrating. Is that what’s happened to you here? Is Bob threatening to ban you?

          Or are you bravely running away, like Sir Robert? Brave, brave Sir Robert.

        • Bravely bold Sir Robin
          Rode forth from Camelot
          He was not afraid to die
          Oh, brave Sir Robin
          He was not at all afraid
          To be killed in nasty ways
          Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin

          He was not in the least bit scared
          To be mashed into a pulp
          Or to have his eyes gouged out
          And his elbows broken
          To have his kneecaps split
          And his body burned away
          And his limbs all hacked and mangled
          Brave Sir Robin

          His head smashed in
          And his heart cut out
          And his liver removed
          And his bowels unplugged
          And his nostrils raped
          And his bottom burnt off
          And his penis split and his…

          “That’s… that’s enough music for now, lads.”

          Brave Sir Robin ran away
          (No!)
          Bravely ran away away
          (I didn’t!)
          When danger reared its ugly head
          He bravely turned his tail and fled
          (No!)
          Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
          (I didn’t!)
          And gallantly he chickened out

          Bravely taking to his feet
          (I never did!)
          He beat a very brave retreat
          (All lies!)
          Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
          (I never!)

          Read more: Monty Python – Brave Sir Robin Ran Away Lyrics | MetroLyrics

        • I’ve also been banned. In my case, it was for speaking uncomfortable truths at a Christian site. (Actually, I got banned twice.)

          And you’re right. Brave Sir Robin isn’t being banned.

        • Susan

          Brave, brave Sir Robert.

          Sir Robin.

          I love Sir Robin.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Sir Robin”

          Indeed.

          For someone who enjoys pointing out others’ reference/spelling errors as much as I do, this is a bitter pill.

          Hoisted by my own potatoe! 🙂

        • Susan

          this is a bitter pill.

          A rare miss for you.

          It gave me an excuse to post the video. 🙂

        • Greg G.

          Psst… Do you mean Brave Sir Robin?

          https://youtu.be/g4rQDyRCZtg

        • Paul B. Lot

          I should’ve known better than to drop a shoddy M. Python reference in this crowd!

        • I’m sorry too that you guys seem to just want to surround yourself with like minds and not be challenged.

          Your evaluation is flawed. You expect us to go back to square 1 with Creationism, a subject that many of us are very, very familiar with? That we are eager to move quickly through the argument is because we don’t need the training wheels.

          I’ve experienced nothing short of being bullied out of this forum, and that’s cool. I’ll seek out interactions with some open minded people instead.

          Adults try to avoid lumping “I got my ass handed to me because my argument is crap” in with “those guys are just closed-minded, and that’s why they rejected my argument.”

          The debates I’ve encountered here, including many with you despite some good logical points, have been astounding in their blinkeredness, often uninformed and sometimes just plain aggressive.

          Sure, they’re aggressive. You’re pushing not-science. That irks many of us.

          You say we’re uninformed? Then point out the correct information. (And a link to a Creationist site isn’t helpful.)

          We are going to have to agree to disagree in that I AM entitled to think for myself in evaluating what I read.

          And you’ve never responded directly to my challenge. I’m sure it’s because it makes you uncomfortable and you suspect that I’m right. As a layman, you don’t get to set yourself up as judge of science, picking and choosing the science you prefer.

          And agree to disagree that there IS a lot of good science being done inside the creation model theory.

          And what do we laymen do? We let the scientific community process those claims. If they’re valid, we’ll hear about it through the scientific community.

          And that there ARE supernatural forces at play that are involved in these discussions. Some of your pose seem positively possessed!

          You poke a bull with a cattle prod and then you’re shocked at the reaction? Think about your role.

          There is a real spirit of anger, defensiveness and hurt in here. But it’s not to late to restore a broken past and discover a God who forgives, loves and brings compassion and dignity to life.

          Oh, dear—the altar call.

          As I see it, I’m the one out there taking on the 800 pound gorilla in society of evolution and the degradation to our values that this Godlessness brings with it, and trying to do so while exhibiting the grace and generosity that God extends to us.

          Degradation? Godlessness? Sounds like your agenda is on the surface. The rest of us are simply trying to find the truth.

          because that’s how life is with no absolute moral authority, right? It’s a sick and disgusting world we are heading towards with this self-determining moral code of yours.

          It’s reality, pal. That’s how morals work. Show me that an appeal to God-given morals is anything more than wishful thinking. There’s more at my last blog post.

          -This inference [to black holes] requires faith that the model you are using is correct since it is not provable.

          Learn some science. Science is never proven. And the word I would use is “trust”—believe well-grounded in evidence.

          -You can’t scientifically prove the existence of God.

          -You can infer one based on the way you would expect things to look inside the model you are working with.

          You don’t wish that black holes existed and then go pick and choose your evidence to support that wish. You follow the evidence to whatever conclusion is well justified.

          You’d like to start with the God hypothesis and then show how what we see is consistent with that. Instead, follow the evidence.

          If you don’t want us to do it, then fair play- find an alternate theory for Cosmology that doesn’t require such an inference of faith (black holes).

          Ah, wouldn’t it be nice if Creationism actually did proper science?

          You are the arrogant one here presuming I should bow to your god’s of science.

          I expect you to use an open mind, see that science delivers, see that you are no scientist, and accept the consensus as the best provisional explanation we have.

          Apparently I’m not allowed to consider for myself what is good science and what is bad, I have to agree with you and your consensus?!

          No, you ignore me and accept the consensus. You got something better? I suppose you’ve already told me: you just blundering through science in your amateur way and deciding what feels right to you, a non-scientist. Doesn’t sound like the best route to truth, sorry.

          Consider the ground that Hitler trod- there was no room for free thought!

          Irrelevant. I’m talking about scientific consensus.

          I bet you would burn every Bible given the chance? Am I right?

          Nope, wrong again.

          If we don’t evaluate with intellectual honesty the science being presented to us, but rather ‘bludgeon’ those who are presenting counter science to our preferred view, we will kill off any contribution from sources like Galileo who in his day was a fringe view and was oppressed by the church.

          You’re saying that the scientific community must listen to fringe ideas. I agree. But what does this have to do with you? No one cares about your vote. You’re not part of the scientific community.

          BTW, I marvel that you haven’t changed your opinion one iota. You get corrected and challenged, and you bounce back like a Weeble, ignore the new information, and move on. I hope you know that it makes baby Jesus cry when you refuse to use the greatest gift he gave you—your brain.

          I simply don’t agree that the filter evolutionists are looking at evidence through is giving them a true read on what it is saying.

          You’re the judge of science, but I’m the arrogant one? OK, got it.

          I’m referring to their interpretation of evidence inside of an assertion/view that there is no God?

          Science isn’t built on the hypothesis that there is no God. It’s just that it keeps coming up with natural explanations for things people thought were God’s doing.

          YOU HAVE A PRESUPPOSITION OF YOUR OWN CALLED ‘THERE IS NO GOD’ THAT IS BLINKERING EVERY INTERPRETATION YOU SEE IN THE EVIDENCE.

          Instead of shaking your fist at me, you could read the blog posts and point out any errors. I have no God belief, but that’s the result of years of thinking on the matter.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Bob, you astound me. Every single thing you have said is just horrifying in it’s ignorance, in the exact same way I make you feel. Every person on Earth is in some capacity, a scientist. You have very convenient assertions that are just absurd in reality.

          Please tell me what your credentials are to make any comment on science, since you are so expert on the matter of who is right and who is wrong, legitimate and not? Tell me your university exposure to the world of science. For me, it’s 18 units of study over 4 years, trained to be a science teacher to year 12 level in high schools.

          Please tell me you have something relevant because I can tell you Bob, the very nature of scientific investigation is to journal your research to put it up for peer review, which gives you no right at all to say I don’t get to evaluate. To the level of my training and capacity to comprehend, I get to have an opinion about what I read, just as the countless scientists with differing opinions do too.

          Just as you said, science isn’t a proof, so what makes you so freakin’ sure you are right? You speak in absolutes- which makes you a hypocrite. Much of what evolutionary science puts forward carries legitimate merit and and is accepted inside the creationist model.

          The debate, if your not sure, is all about the origins and the increase in information. Then again, you probably think software updates are generated through allowing huge machines to randomly crunch out lines of 1’s and 0’s until something useful is generated, and then kept. As a computer guy, you of all people know that coherent information in all it’s forms is not a product of chance.

          I think we are well and truly sick of each other Bob. What I can tell you is I have been reading and reviewing a huge amount of the information presented to me these past days. How much intellectual effort have you given to new information since our chats have started? Honestly- have you challenged your own thinking at all? I’m not putting my views forward to the scientific community for review, I’m chatting to you!

          Tell me something Bob. How may times have you actually allowed information to correct you in the past few years?

        • Please tell me what your credentials are to make any comment on science

          Yes, that is the question to ask. I have no significant credentials, which is why I acquiesce to the scientific consensus! See how that works?

          Please tell me you have something relevant because I can tell you Bob, the very nature of scientific investigation is to journal your research to put it up for peer review, which gives you no right at all to say I don’t get to evaluate.

          You want to evaluate my comments about science? I appreciate your doing so, and please point out any errors that I make. You want to critique the scientific consensus? Then you get laughed at as an arrogant buffoon.

          To the level of my training and capacity to comprehend, I get to have an opinion about what I read, just as the countless scientists with differing opinions do too.

          Cuz you’re a scientist, just like them?

          Just as you said, science isn’t a proof, so what makes you so freakin’ sure you are right?

          Right about what? Right when I parrot the scientific consensus? I’m not, obviously. All I’m saying is that the scientific consensus is the best that I’ve got, so I’ll stick with that.

          You speak in absolutes- which makes you a hypocrite.

          Oh? Show me.

          The debate, if your not sure, is all about the origins and the increase in information.

          And we could get into that, two amateurs doing their best to follow the evidence, or we could just go with the consensus. You do realize that there is one, right?

          Our arguing about evolution is like our arguing about how many teeth horses have. Why don’t we ask a veterinarian? Or go down to the paddock and count ourselves?

          As a computer guy, you of all people know that coherent information in all it’s forms is not a product of chance.

          Software is designed; therefore, our world is designed? Sorry—I need more than that.

          How much intellectual effort have you given to new information since our chats have started? Honestly- have you challenged your own thinking at all?

          I’m desperately waiting for you to present information that I’m unfamiliar with. I have mentioned that I’m quite familiar with Creationism, right? The evolution/Creationism argument was what got me thinking and turned me into an atheist more than 20 years ago.

          How may times have you actually allowed information to correct you in the past few years?

          Happens all the time. I’ll say something in a blog post, and then a commenter will point out an error or will show how I could strengthen my argument. One of my odd quirks is that I don’t like to be wrong, so I thank the commenter and correct the post.

        • Brian Jenkin

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL8CP1-T_20

          Get started here mate. Skip to 35 seconds if you want to avoid the Jesus stuff.

        • Gee–a “scientific” argument wrapped in a God discussion?

          You don’t suppose … no–that’s too crazy. I was just thinking that this video might be agenda driven, with the conclusion (God) made first and then only a tiny subset of data selected such that the best possible argument for that conclusion was made. But that’s not possible, right? No Christian would ever do that.

          Tell you what: once the scientific consensus accepts Noah’s flood, Creationism, and a 6000yo earth, I’m there. Until then, this is just mental masturbation.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Just make sure you don’t give any honest intellectual effort of your own their, Bob! “ConSENsus!”

          It only takes one fact to destroy a theory, just ask Albert Einstein. “ConSENsus!” Relativity would have unravelled if light did not bend around massive objects in space. Just one fact could do it. This videos contains about 15!

          Evolution is the mantra of the dishonest and the defeated. It just happens that there is a glut of the crap in our scientific culture at the moment. “ConSENsus!” It takes time to change stubborn minds- there are still people who smoke! Can you believe that?! Insanity is everywhere, but even the progress we’ve made there took decades, people just don’t believe scientific breakthroughs!

          I look forward to hearing from you one day with your “ConSENsus!” tail between your legs when things shift.

        • And when there’s a fact that destroys the theory of evolution and another theory becomes the consensus view, guess where I’ll be?

          You say evolution is defeated? Cool–then you won’t have long to wait to see me switch over to your side when Creationism becomes the consensus. I’m waiting…

          You keep mocking the scientific consensus as if you have an alternative. And as if it’s a bad thing.

          I look forward to hearing from you one day with your “ConSENsus!” tail between your legs when things shift.

          Damn–how stupid are you? Is English not your first language? When the scientific consensus rejects evolution and embraces Creationism, I’ll be right there, delighted to accept the new consensus.

        • Kodie

          If you had something that defeated evolution, scientists would surely give it some credence. But you have a bullshit story invented by people who are threatened by science and had to invent something competitive to market their religion with scientific looking thoughts. That’s not science. It is a repackaged fairy tale.

        • I’m a bit surprised that we haven’t heard the “follow the money!” argument from Chew Toy. Every single biologist is motivated to overturn evolution. There’s a Nobel Prize and everlasting fame in it for the person that does.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Intelligence produces intelligence

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rdQ2Wyqdgk

        • And the only intelligence we know of is housed in physical brains. What conclusion do we draw from that?

        • Brian Jenkin

          That WE are responsible for the apparent intelligence hidden in our DNA and stunning designs that we see all around us? “ConSENsus!”

          How would you explain it if we found a space station on the dark side of the moon? It would be self evident of intelligent design, virtually proof of aliens cultures. Did you know that the Fibonacci sequence is what mankind is beaming out into space- because it contains intelligence!

          “ConSENsus!”

          The same sequence of numbers is found in patterns throughout nature from the atomic level to the Cosmos! But of course we shouldn’t follow our own scientific lead and infer intelligence from that!

          “ConSENsus!”

        • No idea what your point is.

        • Brian Jenkin

          That would require some intelligence, wouldn’t it? Read it again Bob, you’ll get there- read it slow…and maybe look into what the Fibonacci Series is and why we choose to beam it into space- it’s our communication signal of choice because it shows mathematical skill/pattern (the universal language), hence intelligence. God has done the same thing in nature to show us it has been intelligently designed. Look at the video Bob. Two hours will change your life- but don’t worry, you can still make money by starting a new website for debunk the new 800 pound gorilla, evolution. The video has one or two large points that I would take issue with, but it’s the most concise presentation of information that unwinds an atheist I’ve ever seen.

          “ConSENsus!” on dude!

        • Kodie

          For someone who claims to be confident, you sure seem to be coming unglued.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Yeah, mind numbing, nonsensical conversations with aggressive, repetitive opinions are starting to do my head in! Time to wish you well, tell you I’ll be praying for you and wish you farewell.

          There is a massive world of other evidence out there that we haven’t even talked about yet because your hearts aren’t ready. The personal testimony of thousands of Muslims (and others), who under threat of death, can’t deny what they know is and have experienced to be true. Mountains of awesomely powerful evidence for a God (that is not Allah- and that’s very good news indeed!) that would stand up in a court of law- testimony. Now that’s consensus right there people.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POU5Is2Qo80

        • Kodie

          It’s a load of horsecrap that you think what you believe is true and we only don’t believe you because our “hearts aren’t ready”. You are a gullible fool. A Christian poster, Aaron Siering, followed one of my responses to you to call it a “straw man” because he thinks your arguments are too absurd to be real, and I am just making it up.

          Of course, he is almost as arrogant as you are.

        • Evidence you can only see when your “heart is ready”? Yeah, that’s how scientists need to work. Forget the evidence and follow your heart.

          Worked for you, didn’t it? It should work for everyone!

          Muslims turning Christian? What do you say about Christians turning Muslim? Is that evidence that Allah is the one true God?

        • Brian Jenkin

          It’s not evidence of a scientific kind, Bob, of course. Nor it is evidence of a scientific phenomena. It’s evidence of a God, which if true, would change the frame through we look at science, and our appreciation of science.

          Hey I want to ask you something, Bob. Do you fall into line with all expert consensus’?
          -smoking harms your body
          -driving fast increases your risk of fatal accident
          -owning a gun increases your chance of dying of a gunshot wound 9 fold
          -drinking in excess of 3-4 drinks at a time is significantly harmful
          -the planet is warming due to man’s activities
          -refined sugar consumption massively increases the occurrence of all of the major killer diseases in humans.

          Can I presume you follow their directives 100% and don’t take on a view of your own in these cases (and dozens of others that if we dug we would find)? Hate to think you only follow consensus when its stuff that you want to agree with…

        • Kodie

          I presume you agree with scientific consensus 100% of the time that it is convenient to your alternate version of reality.

        • Do you fall into line with all expert consensus?

          My focus has consistently been on the scientific consensus.

          Test your hypothesis. Show me a scientific consensus that makes me sad and see if I accept it. I wouldn’t call all of those the “scientific consensus.”

        • Brian Jenkin

          Since evolution doesn’t deal with the origins of the Cosmos, life or the Earth, why would you have any stance against there being a God. What other theory do you have to deal with the questions of origins?

        • Kodie

          Creationism isn’t inconvenient – it’s wrong. Evidence doesn’t point in a direction toward there being a god, so why do you have a stance in favor of it, in utter ignorance of everything we do know?

        • MNb

          Physics provides several theories that deal with the origin of the Cosmos. Your ignorance seems limitless. Google “physics origin of the universe” and you’ll be off the streets for several more weeks.

          “why would you have any stance against there being a God”
          Shall we do some philosophy? Because those theories still don’t disprove god.

        • I have no objection to the supernatural existing. It’s simply that the evidence points away from that claim.

          What’s your concern about origins? Evolution explains life on earth. Abiogenesis (lots of gaps) is the stage prior. Big Bang is the stage before that.

          Are you saying that science has unanswered questions? Yes, it does.

        • Brian Jenkin

          You need to consider each case on it’s merit, just as you would in scientific investigation. People who want a tighter set of rules and customs to follow and be part of a group who are REALLY serious about meeting those requirements might pick a nice fitting, stringent religion for themselves. Enjoy your new fearsome environment!

          Those in a religious environment who are interested in a loving relationship with a God who knows them and guides them through His spirit, and provides evidence through miracles and testimony of miracles, then there is a different option available. They are night and day, darkness and light. So to make such a hypothesis would be to not take into account the very nature of the two methods for living your life that are available through the two options you give.

          And you picked Islam because you are very clear they are on the wrong track and want to lump us in with them. Makes sense, on the surface, but it shows a lack of understanding about what Christianity is actually about. I posted an explanation of it to Greg, he seemed interested. If you are too, I would suggest checking it out.

          And Bob, one last thing. I want to apologise to you for getting sarcastic with you. I have endeavoured to keep it honourable with you and give you the respect that is owed to you as a human being with dignity, and I have failed to deliver on that 100%. When I fail you in that regard, it only serves to disconnect you from the goodness that is in the human race and to harden you. I am sorry my friend. I have a wretched heart that forgets this from time to time, a heart full of judgements and opinions that doesn’t naturally follow the principal of humility and kindness that was modelled for us. I hope you can forgive me for that. I could have kept my challenges more fair than they became.

          Sincerely, Brian.

        • You get to pick your god based on how it makes you feel? I just care about evidence.

          Christianity is just one more view of the supernatural. If all the others are false, what’s the likelihood that yours is true?

          Thanks for the apology. I don’t need an apology, but a civil conversation would be nice.

        • Kodie

          Allow me to translate for this buttmunch, Brian Jenkin.

          He is accusing you of not being able to think for yourself, and following what others tell him to believe. The videos and other sources he’s provided warn against doing that, as though it were a conspiracy to convince you there’s no god. He thinks, once upon a time, some while ago, he was a lot like you and believed all the science he was taught, but one day, he happened on a well-marketed idea that evolution was all wrong and it’s a conspiracy. His video “WHAT ATHEISTS DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE!!!” is an example of where “thinking for yourself” and not being fooled by the “scientific consensus” will get you.

          My advice, learn some science so you can elaborate on the scientific consensus. Brian Jenkin clearly thinks anyone who will look at his sources will be stunned out of their mindless stupor and “follow the evidence” where it really leads – to a young universe created by a deity. No science can contradict it. He’s confident enough in this that he is willing to take as much abuse as you can pile on.

        • Thanks for wading through his drivel. You have more patience than I.

        • Kodie

          I’ve already warned Bob a few times before that his reliance on “the scientific consensus” would be misconstrued by ignorant assholes such as yourself. If your creationist ideas were bearing on reality, science would certainly incorporate them. You’re just an idiot who follows other idiots who use drastic threatening language to draw you in. You’re absolutely a gullible idiot, I don’t mind saying. If there were a space station on the dark side of the moon, that would be interesting. Why would science deny something if it were real? What do you think we’re threatened by?

        • Brian Jenkin

          Just not yours! That’s why you need “ConSENsus!”

        • Brian Jenkin

          Deal with this wad of problems…
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXDDZrYOuAE

          check out 18:30-21:20

        • A 2-hour video? So I watch this one and give my critique. You won’t be satisfied with it, so you give me more homework. Sounds like fun, but not for me.

          Hey, y’know what I think I’ll do? Since my evaluation of biology is irrelevant anyway to whether evolution is correct or not, I’ll just go with the consensus.

          What’s the consensus again?

        • Brian Jenkin

          So, Bob, the guy full of opinions when it suits, and with a ‘consensus’ when it doesn’t, with no education to speak of but sound enough judgement to discern for everyone that the consensus has it right- why don’t you surprise me with some actual thought on topics that have been brought up in the video by dozens of guys who have PHD’s? Scared? I can understand that- you’re quite invested in the crap, aren’t you? Do you make money out of this little website? Good for you, I commend you for your enterprise. But lets not pretend you have don’t have a motive to avoid considering threatening thoughts to your view.

          So far, this is what I have had from you, (and please feel free to use the most absurd Jim Carrey style, over-acted, comedic voice you can muster in your head when reading out your generic replies to my challenges):

          “Bob, please explain how intelligible information is increased in the gene pool though destructive mutations in the DNA caused by UV light?”

          – “You’re ARrogant! I don’t have to, I’ve got ConSENsus!”

          “Bob, can you please tell me how the millions of different of proteins (of 72 varieties) spontaneously synthesized and arranged themselves to form the first cell?”

          – “Dude, you’re not LIStening! I don’t have to, I’ve got ConSENsus!”

          “Bob, have you thought about how matter and energy magically spawned out of nothing? There simply isn’t any observation of it occurring anywhere in science.”

          – “I don’t HAve to think, OTHers do that for me and TELL me what to THink! It’s called ConSENsus!”

          “Bob, what grounds do you have for your assertions about science and what it can and can’t measure? What education are you drawing on?”

          – “HEY, CHew TOy! I don’t NEEd an education when I’ve got ConSENsus! You’re SO ARrogant!”

          “Bob, surely you can tell me why there aren’t thousands of complete transitional series’ of fossils in the archaeological records?”

          – “Why on EARth would I be worried about THat when I’ve got ConSENsus!”

          “Bob, why can’t there be another dimension beyond the four we know of- one that could contain a creative consciousness? Mathematics predicts it!”

          – “I don’t have TIMe to consider your stupid QUEStions. WHy would you BOTher to even SPEak such stupidity? DOn’t YOu GEt it yet, I HAve ConSENsus!”

          “Bob, there is lot’s of really good science being done by people with PHD’s that don’t subscribe to evolutionary view!”

          – “ARe YOu KIDDing Me? THey are NOt the ConSENsus! Man You’re ARrogant!”

          “Bob, why are there so many carvings of creatures all over the world in ancient cultures depicting dinosaurs if they went extinct so long before man got here?”

          – “I DOn’t have TIme to THink about a challenging question like THAt! Thank goodness I’ve got ConSENsus to LEt me off the hooK!”

          “Bob, why won’t you discuss these things with me?”

          – “DUde, WHat don’t you UNDERStand? I’ve ONly SAid it one THOUsand times already…. I HAVE ConSENsus!”

          “Bob, you are a moron.”

          – “YEah, MAYbe, but I”VE got ConSENsus! You’re so ARRogant!”

        • Brian Jenkin

          I’ve enjoyed having you as MY chew toy, Bob. Good luck to you…

        • I’ll let the other readers draw their own conclusions as to who made the better showing.

        • Kodie

          See there’s where you are just full up of the baloney they stuff you with. Creationism is no threat to evolution, and if it were, scientists would treat it seriously. What do you think? You think we are afraid that god exists and we’ll have to change our sinful ways? What ways are those? Cheating on all of our spouses? That’s you projecting nonsense.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Kodie, you are worse than Bob because you maliciously threaten people who disagree with you. I have NO interest in cheating on my wife as I actually said in that post because I have an intimacy the comes from the knowledge of a loving God who gifted me with her for my blessing. It is this immensely loving gift that humbles me, inside of this context of there being a personal God, that has me treasure her in a way I don’t think I could without Him.

          The point I was making in my honest reply to a legitimate question is that I know my sinful heart and the desires that ruled my life before before I knew both God and her, and I can see the potential for such wayward activity without Him humbling me with His generosity. Why would I think I am any better than the millions of people who do cheat, I’m made of the same broken stuff! It’s only though knowing His grace that I can be assured of freedom from that part of my nature that would otherwise have the potential to ruin my life. I’m no better than anyone else, I’m just extremely fortunate to have been given the knowledge and gift of His grace and forgiveness through Jesus’ sacrifice.

          So are you clear now? Or do only believe what YOU say?

        • Greg G.

          I have NO interest in cheating on my wife as I actually said in that post because I have an intimacy the comes from the knowledge of a loving God who gifted me with her for my blessing.

          But you projected the idea on atheists by saying that you would cheat on your spouse if it wasn’t for your religious reasons. Atheists don’t have religious reasons to not cheat on their spouses and lie about it. It doesn’t appear that atheists cheat any more than Christians. If we use divorce rates as a proxy for the viability of marriages, the areas of the US that are the most Christian have higher divorce rates than the areas that are the most atheist and that holds at several resolutions of geography.

          When atheists are accused of things in church, don’t believe what is said.

        • Brian Jenkin

          I’m only speaking for myself Greg knowing my own weaknesses. The points you make are fair and I offer no conjecture. I’m not perfect, and given a life with no Godly inspiration, I suspect I would be susceptible. Forgive my honesty; lying is not something I struggle with- as many have suggested- but they don’t know me.

        • Greg G.

          What you said is what believers say a lot. I am not blaming you personally as much as you as a piece of the hive mentality of Christianity. You are a better person than your religion gives you credit for. We all have a sense of fairness like the capuchin monkey that would retrieve a rock for a piece of cucumber until she saw another monkey get a grape. We are at least a kind as the gorilla at the Chicago zoo that picked up a boy that had fallen into the enclosure, carried him to the keeper access door, and chased the other gorillas away until the boy was retrieved.

          If you want to be a good person, you don’t need religion for it. Wanting to be a good person is enough, you just do it.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Beautifully written Greg, thank you for some great imagery. And you’re right there is goodness shown throughout the Earth, and by and large, religion either tears at us for being inadequate or fills us with pride for achieving it’s standards. Religion is no way to spend a life, it’s a wasteful and hurtful expense of human energy that could be spent so much more usefully. In fact, many atheists are living lives of far greater contribution to humanity that most religious folk.

          Christianity is not religion, while it does have some similarities, and offers that trap of religion if we are not careful with it. How so? I’d be honoured to be given this chance to explain it for you, Greg…

          In Christianity, instead of setting rules by which one either succeeds or fails (as the game of religion does), at it’s heart is Grace, a generous reinstating of a human being to the status of ‘Child of God’, without merit or being earned, “lest no one can boast”. It’s a restored relationship, one in which our past with God is complete, because He lovingly offered that completion by making a sacrifice for us that we could not make for ourselves, and as we accept His sacrifice for us, He forgives us.

          It’s the same dynamic as an Earthly father has with his children. If a child were to scratch up his daddy’s car, could he pay to fix it himself? Of course not. But as the father pays the cost to restore it, he extends the hand of love to his child and says “I forgive you”, and “I have done what it takes on your behalf to redeem the situation you created”- (what beautiful words to hear!). All the child has to do to be free of it is accept his fathers offer of forgiveness and the relationship goes on in love. The only thing that would prevent the child from doing so would be pride, and so the same is true for us.

          Inside of that restored relationship, God instructs and teaches us, not because He wants to burden us with performance standards, lest we be judged, but as guides for us to living fully. You see He wants righteousness FOR us much more than He wants it FROM us. It does bring Him joy to see us making righteous decisions and having victories, but just like a dad, He is more pleased for us that we are living righteously.

          And humans have the tendency to turn everything back into a game of self-righteousness, where we either prove ourselves worthy, or fail and suffer. This is religion and we did it to Christianity too. Jesus came to overturn the established religion of Judaism calling its leaders ‘a brood of vipers’ among other things. He fully stood for this relationship with God being possible for all of us, and hated religion. He stood against the consensus and was right to do so, it had no freedom!

          So yes, I know I have much in me that is wonderful, despite how related I am in reality to my flaws. Thanks for the reminder of that Greg. 🙂 It’s the age old question of the two wolves (invoking tribal teaching for a moment). Which one will win, the evil one or the good one? The answer of course- the one you feed. Jesus came to help us feed the good wolf of humility, not the evil wolf of pride and religious effort.

          I am sorry for the degree to which I have let pride take over my conversations in this forum. Truly- it does not reflect well on to Him that feeds my good wolf to let the other have it’s voice. I have tried to stand in gentle respect, and lost my way at times.

          But what’s beautiful about Christianity in its true form, is that all I need to do to restore is acknowledge that pride with God and its impacts, acknowledge it with those that I have become proud with and the impacts, declare a new way of being in a moment, humbly, from having gotten those impacts, and forgive myself fully just as He does. At that point, I am restored in my soul, although having never fallen out of forgiveness with the Father.

          And I get that this is not the common view of Christianity, and that in general we are pretty poor at living it, as pride rules in us too at times. It’s a matter of feeding the right wolf. What the world needs is probably more of this ‘true’ Christianity, wouldn’t you say? And hence why I know I suck, because I know the difference, and I don’t do it every single time. We are all in a process of being weaned off our addiction to pride, but don’t don’t judge the core of the teachings by the worst you see in us, but rather by our best.

          Thanks for your thoughts Greg, they have given me much today. And thanks for listening too, that’s the seed of humility and connection right there and I appreciate it. God Bless, mate.

        • MNb

          I don’t have any problem with this kind of belief.
          How could I? My female counterpart is a professing muslima.

        • Greg G.

          Christianity is not religion, while it does have some similarities, and offers that trap of religion if we are not careful with it.

          This is a word game Christians like to play. Every religion has unique beliefs. That doesn’t make them “not religion”. The Catholics believe the Protestants are going to hell and the Baptists believe the Catholics are going to hell because the other religion is following the wrong rules.

          Your analogy of the scratched car would be more like Christianity if, instead of fixing the car, he killed a brother before forgiving the child. If you religion’s god had made it so that original sin could not be inherited from parents and got over it, the analogy would work. Your religion is that the child must accept that the killing of the brother was necessary for the forgiveness of the scratch on the car or the father will torture the child forever.

          The basic premise of Christianity is horrible. Why believe that at all? Why believe it on terrible evidence?

          If you are a good person, you can be good. If you are a bad person, religion can mask it, but it won’t make you good.

        • Brian Jenkin

          It’s not word play, it’s what religion is, and attempt by mankind to be good enough for God. You are entertaining the same game believe it or not, Greg. What is the point of your ‘being good?’ It might not appear right away on the surface, it goes deep.

          And you’re right, baptists can be just as religious as any one else. We all have the basic desire to do it for ourselves- to be good enough. We all just set up different rules, just like you said, and hence problems. In fact, you’re right also in that organised religion causes the biggest problems because there is agreement! Atheists at least don’t fight over who has the truth with each other, they just all agree that they get to make up the truth for themselves.

          And you are also right about my analogy, its a horrible premise. But in a universe created by a God with 100% integrity, would it be right to leave murder unpunished? We don’t do it in our society, why would God? Survival of the fittest is even more brutal, there isn’t even justice in that model. It is what it is, we were designed with free will (an option to put our opinion above God’s) and we were designed to be with God. When we break that bond, just like in life, there is a consequence. It’s no different, but with God, it falls into a realm of 100% integrity and it must be dealt with, not like us, we just live in the consequence without ever really restoring.

          What does restoration take? Well you tell me, what would your wife accept from you in order to restore unfaithfulness? What sacrifice would she demand?! What would it cost you?

          But imagine the Grace required to forgive you with no sacrifice! She in fact would be making the sacrifice- ‘her right to demand compensation’. How humbling would that be? And inside of that humbling grace, are you more likely to exercise your free will to follow your own opinion again, or submit to one that is more righteous? Well it depends if you get the impact of what you have done and have a repentant heart or not. I suspect she would only offer such grace if there was evidence of such a heart.

          So yeah, there is a price to be paid, and inside of 100% integrity, sacrifice is required. Brutal I know, but generous and wondrous that He would offer such compensation and restoration on our behalf. And that is why we love Jesus, the older brother, who laid down His own life for all his younger siblings. He is THE son of God, obedient and humble and raised to glory by the Father for the sake of His own name. To show what 100% integrity looks like.

          So horrible premise and glorious premise all rolled into one. But we brought the horrible into the equation. The equation is just the equation. Thank God that He brought the ‘Glorious’ to the equation for us.

        • MNb

          Ah, dear BJ, please make my day and tell me that

          “Survival of the fittest is even more brutal”
          is an integral part of Evolution Theory, hence demonstrating your ignorance once again.

          “She in fact would be making the sacrifice- ‘her right to demand compensation’.”
          Fun. As a teacher I quite often give up “my right to demand compensation” when a pupil does something wrong. It looks like I’m more enlightened than that Amazing Grace of yourse. Perhaps it’s because She’s at least 2000 years old and hence quite outdated.

        • But in a universe created by a God with 100% integrity, would it be right to leave murder unpunished? We don’t do it in our society, why would God?

          Ah, but he does. Just before he killed himself, Hitler dropped to his knees and invited Jesus into his heart and begged him to forgive his sins. Hitler is up in heaven right now, playing pinochle with Jesus and giving him back rubs.

          And Ghandi is roasting on a spit in hell. Kinda makes a hash of your god’s perfect justice, no?

          Survival of the fittest is even more brutal, there isn’t even justice in that model.

          You don’t understand what “survival of the fittest” means if you think it means brutality. You really need to bone up on evolution before you attack it.

        • Ron

          Assuming the story has any validity at all, Jesus was executed for being a shit disturber. The whole “he died for our sins” narrative is pure fiction.

          Moreover, the doctrine of vicarious redemption—the proposition that Jesus suffered punishment on our behalf—is the most vile and morally repugnant concept of all the Christian doctrines. How does scapegoating constitute justice? Such an act defies the very tenets of western jurisprudence.

          Forgiveness requires nothing more than the extension of forgiveness. If someone accidentally steps on my toes, I simply pardon their clumsiness and move on without demanding a blood sacrifice in exchange. So why would an all-wise and all-powerful being deem it necessary to engage in such a pointless exercise?

        • Good points. When you get beyond the window dressing, the tenets of Christianity are pretty brutal. Isn’t God supposed to be more enlightened than us?

        • Brian Jenkin

          Without sacrifice for you, you can’t know what you’re worth…
          .
          .
          .
          Without someone to draw our heart and attention to God, we are stuck with our heart and attention on us…
          .
          .
          .
          Without Grace, we are stuck with Karma and religion and being ‘good’…
          .
          .
          .
          Without humility, we can understand none of it.
          .
          .
          .
          Download and listen to some inspired teaching on this and may God Bless you this morning:

          http://www.thevillagechurch.net/resources/sermons/detail/love-interrupts/

        • Kodie

          That’s some deep horseshit!

        • Brian Jenkin

          I don’t know why you are still engaged in this conversation Kodie, it’s clearly not meant for you at this point in time. I acknowledge your thoughts; they haven’t changed and I don’t expect them to. So thank you, and feel free to stop listening. Maybe this is for someone else in a different place in life? Can you let them have their own investigation and thoughts for themselves?

        • Kodie

          You won’t let them have thoughts for themselves. I will do my best to keep you from influencing anyone with your evangelizing, proselytizing, sermonizing ignorance. You’re not here to have a two-way conversation, you’re here to spread nonsense. I’m sorry you got sucked into a commercial enterprise disguised as enlightenment, but I think some people should be warned.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Good to see you know best Kodie. How much time have you spent listening to sermons, reading the Bible and going to church to engage the people who believe? Unless it’s the equivalent of a few years worth, I submit that you don’t have a clue. What’s your beef anyway? What’s hurt you so bad?

        • Kodie

          The perpetuation of ignorance hurts us all. I don’t have to go to church to know what Christians believe – they come here with their terrible arguments. You should be ashamed of how stupid you sound, but you’re proud of yourself! That hurts all of us.

        • MNb

          Oh oh – you’re stupid enough to ask questions that already have been answered.

          BJ: “What’s your beef anyway?”
          Kodie, just above: “influencing anyone with your evangelizing, proselytizing, sermonizing ignorance.”

          Ah well – your point is clear. You think yourself and your silly beliefs so important that you want everyone who doesn’t swallow your manure to remain silent.
          Pathetic – but to be expected from a creacrapper like you.

        • Susan

          Maybe this is for someone else in a different place in life?

          Someone more credulous?

          Can you let them have their own investigation and thoughts for themselves?

          She’s addressing you, not your imaginary shill. Her statement does not prevent people from thinking for themselves.

          There’s been a strange little trend of christian menzez telling the womenzes around here to keep silent.

          I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Kpdie can do what she likes Susan. I’m just suggesting no one is getting anything out of someone on the sidelines of very interesting, considered debate screaming “Horse-shit!”

        • Brian Jenkin

          Love your contributions Kodie, keep it up. Puts a smile on my face, and apparently Susan’s too.

        • MNb

          Ah – that’s why you try to silence her with

          “I don’t know why you are still engaged in this conversation.”
          Even when you try to behave nasty you don’t manage to remain consistent.
          Pathetic loser.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Here is the simplest example I can give you as to how flawed your entire logic system is guys:

          On what planet is it considered ‘trying to silence someone’ to be genuinely perplexed as to why someone is involved in a discussion where they seem to be upset by the conversation and where nothing more than insults are flowing from their mouth. No consideration, just shouts of “HORSESHIT!!”

          Surely its fair to ask (phrased another way)- “Why are you tuning in to this if it offends you so much?” Kodie has since replied and told me why in no uncertain terms and fair enough. Have I told her to go away at any point? No. Did I wish her to leave the commenting to those with a mind to discuss it rationally, yes. But at no point did I try to silence her, I just wanted to make her aware that her input was of no value to the discussion and asked why she bothers.

          To Kodie’s credit, she has started to say a little more beyond that since then, albeit still in an ignorant rant kind of way, but at least she has had the decency to tell me why she says what she says. So rant away Kodie, you do nothing build any credibility for yourself or anyone associated with you when you do and you ultimately make me look rational. So please, rant away freely- my only concern is my grievance over your soul.

          To say I am trying to silence her is plain wrong and quite obviously so when you stop to actually consider what I said to her, but I seem to get this accusation a lot in here because there is a condition across the board where what is said is fractured from reality. Many, many comments I make are stripped back to what you all wish it was and argued against in utter ignorance and with venom.

          When I suggest you all discover who Jesus is, what I get back from the kind folk at this blog-site is a ‘very clever’ little picture and words combo with “Ta-da” as the punchline (Adam). Guys, you are saying things about a person whom you have no personal experience of getting to know about for yourselves. You are expressing someone else’s opinions about Jesus. It is a fracture from reality. When you say I lie, it is wishful thinking. I may not be saying what is the absolute truth (it would be arrogant to suggest it is known to me), but that is different to lying. Do you see the fracture from reality here? Later in this post I will point out another fracture from reality in your suggestion that scientists are free to add a belief in God to their world view.

          As far as this break from reality around who Jesus is, hundreds of millions of people who have come to understand Him love Him for who He is and was. (There is your consensus Bob.) And unlike Muslims, Christians are free to walk away from Jesus (their faith) if they want to without fear of violence against them and their families, making the point a valid one that people love this guy when they get to know Him. The question is why? Aren’t you at all curious? History centres on this man- who must He have been? Aren’t you curious as to why the sceptics of the day writing in secular history referenced the miracles of His ministry that became public knowledge?

          You have opinions, not understanding and you have yet to discern the difference.

          The key to this whole discussion is emotional maturity. I am sorry you have a spur in your side against God, I don’t know what happened to you to cause that or if it was gifted to you from your parents hurt, but somewhere along the line, you got left with bitterness towards him and it comes out in the venom of your words and it is the cancer in your soul (I am saying this to you all as a group). But yes, the wonder of God is that even if you “ate someone’s baby and shit it down the mother’s throat”, if you come to a place of being broken in your soul around having done that and accept God’s atonement for your violation, you will be forgiven. No one is out of the reach of God’s Grace, even you! (Again I say this to you all). Do you think you will make a habit of such a violation if you are broken in your soul over it? Not likely. Grace is not a free pass to atrocities as one response has suggested- again showing an opinion, not understanding. But humans are not perfect and are in constant need of restoration. This is the Grace journey.

          The vast majority of the world get this and seek out their Creator as best they can. But there is only one truth out there in reality (there can only be one right?!), so which is it? The made up god’s of man’s imaginations, the dark force that continues to wreak havoc in the world of one particular religious/political persuasion, or the God who revealed Himself to humanity and told (is telling) a grand story of redemption across the millennia. Some have suggested God should be more autocratic to make Himself unmissable (Bob). He has done that. He is now in a different part of the story, but we need to humble ourselves to the recorded history of the world and the life experiences of millions of people who have gone before us and take notice of where we are in His story rather than arrogantly complain that He is not at the part of the story we think He should be in at this time.

          Humanity has opinions but not understanding. It’s always been that way and the Bible shows a very long history of it as a human tendency. Do we really want to be the next generation of fools who think we have made God redundant? If scientists are free to add a belief of God to their world view, then why not you guys? Really, why not?! It changes the equation, doesn’t it, to believe in God as God? So when you say scientists are free to add God to their world view, the fracture from reality here is that what you really mean is that scientists are free to add a certain type of inert god who is not responsible for what we see around us because that domain belongs to the atheists? If we choose God instead of some inert god, it undermines the atheist who says it’s all of natural, physical origins and hence the problem you have with my stance as a “creo-crapper”. And if you don’t think you have a problem with our stance of God being God, then you have another break from reality. “Liar, Liar, Liar, Liar” and “Stupid ignorant” are just two quotes from your last post. You have a problem with us and feel the need to piss us off or change our view.

          Is an inert god God? Surely not- so we are only granted permission to be self deceiving then?

          If we actually want to take on a belief that God is there and God is God, then we become “creo-crappers”, so it is a dis-ingenuous offer (by you) to scientists to be granted the freedom to add a belief in God to their world view, other than an inert/false god. When they do they get shouted down by you guys- hardly a real offer is it? Because that belief takes away yours, and guess what, your belief takes away ours too. There can only be one truth! And since it’s OK to add a belief in God to a scientific world view, why not do that genuinely and see what becomes apparent as we actually consider the evidence from that perspective to see if it makes sense of the world we see around us? To think that this is not viable is another break from reality, because if God does exist, then this approach makes perfect sense. It is only illogical inside of your premise that there is no God.

          Whether you choose to add God to your world-view or not does not change the evidence for the process by which we came about, only the way we relate to the evidence. And as I understand it, for you, the conversation of God existing does not affect the processes described in evolution, so why be an atheist? Really, what do you get out of being and atheist that is different to what you would being a theist? And if you choose atheism, how do you reconcile the miracles of Jesus authentically, and how do you explain the existence of the first cell that spawned all of life?

          You see ‘God of the gaps’ as some people put it, is actually a statement based in reality that I have no problem with. He is also the God of everything that is not a gap too. How do you explain the gaps?

        • MNb

          On what planet is

          “I don’t know why you are still engaged in this conversation.”

          an expression of being genuinely perplexed?

          “Have I told her to go away at any point?”
          Yes – with the quote just above.

          “hundreds of millions of people”
          Thinking that an Argumentum ad Populum is valid is a fracture from reality.

          “what you really mean ….”
          Thinking that you understand better what I really mean than I myself is also a fracture from reality – this time it’s called a strawman.
          What I said is simply this. Science (unfortunately, I may add) cannot disprove god. Hence those who accept the scientific method (something you don’t) still can believe in god. Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller are just two examples. The fact that you deny that despite me pointing this out to you repeatedly is what makes you a liar.

          “Is an inert god God?”
          Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller don’t believe in an inert god. So again you’re bearing false testimony. Note that the OT never pardons you with “I may not be saying what is the absolute truth”.

          “You have a problem with us”
          Actually I don’t, but that’s because I live in a country where creacrap has little influence. But yeah, you creacrappers trying to pollute science curricula with your religiously inspired manure is a problem in the USA.

          “and feel the need to piss us off”
          “Need” is a bit strong, but yeah, I think it funny to piss you creacrappers off. That’s because of my pessimism regarding

          “or change our view.”
          I don’t think it likely that will happen.

          “I am sorry you have a spur in your side against God,”
          Another false testimony. God doesn’t exist, hence I cannot have such a spur. I do have a spur in my side against creacrappers like you, that I will freely admit.

          “it is the cancer in your soul”
          I don’t have a soul, so shrug.

          “Do we really want to be the next generation of fools who think we have made God redundant?”
          If you complain that I call you a stupid ignorant and a liar you should not call me a fool. Ah well, dishonest creationists like you never care about Matth. 7:1, which happens to be my favourite Bible quote.

          “Aren’t you at all curious?”
          Yes. I read a book on the origin of christianity recently, written by an actual scientist (Jona Lendering), who actually studied History of Antiquity. I don’t rely on creacrap sites like you do.

          “There can only be one truth!”
          Truth in science is a meaningless concept, so shrug. I leave it to arrogant creacrappers like you to claim that they hold the truth.

          “the evidence for the process by which we came about”
          points at Evolution Theory amongst others. The evidence for your god creating the whole shenanigan is exactly zero.

          “why not do that genuinely”
          Oh, I have considered that, no worries. For now it suffices that the reasons I think there is no god are not scientific, but philosophical.

          “how do you reconcile the miracles of Jesus authentically”
          Jesus did not perform any miracle. Early christians believed he did. That’s not the same.

          “and how do you explain the existence of the first cell that spawned all of life?”
          How does “goddidddid” explain the existence of the first cell that spawned all of life?

          “You see ‘God of the gaps’ as some people put it, is actually a statement based in reality that I have no problem with.”
          No. That’s because you’re dishonest. This time you are for two reasons.

          1. You don’t use superconductivity at relatively high temperatures as an argument for your god, though it’s also a gap in scientific knowledge;
          2. As soon as science has filled such a gap you move on to another gap – you won’t accept it as evidence against your god.

          You play a game you can’t lose.
          Btw note that the God of the Gaps objection was developed by a christian.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Drummond_(evangelist)

          Unlike you he was a honest one.

        • MNb

          If you want me to publicly withdraw my accusation that you’re a liar you must do three things.

          1. Unambiguously admit that Evolution Theory is not about disproving god;
          2. Unambiguously admit that soft tissue found at dinosaur fossils don’t disprove Evolution Theory;
          3. Admit that you reject science as soon as its results don’t suit you.

          If you do that I’ll have found what I have been looking for for several years now: a honest creationist.

        • Christian platitudes are relevant to non-Christians? You know they’re not magic, right?

        • Brian Jenkin

          Bob, you don’t know what you’re worth. If you think you do, tell me. If God’s word has it right, then yes, it’s also relevant to non-Christians too. Just because you say what is and isn’t true doesn’t make it so, and that goes for me too, I get that. But if there is a God, does He get to say what’s true? And would that apply to you whether you agreed with what He says or not? And how might He go about communicating His truth- how would you do it?

        • adam

          “But if there is a God, does He get to say what’s true?”

        • adam

          “But if there is a God, does He get to say what’s true?”.

        • MNb

          “If God’s word has it right ….”
          Yeah – and if my father had been king of the USA I would now have ruled the country.

        • If God’s word has it right, then yes, it’s also relevant to non-Christians too.

          And if Zeus’s word has it right, it’s relevant to those outside of that religion. Ditto for all the other gods.

          I wonder why you don’t give them equal weight. Doesn’t sound like you’re evaluating them on evidence but rather starting with your current position and trying to defend that.

          if there is a God, does He get to say what’s true?

          Sure. I wonder why he can’t get his ass up off the couch to come down here and make his presence plain. Seems irresponsible to me. That you’re left holding the bag put you in an embarrassing position. “No, no—he really does exist,” Brian says. “Trust me—he was just here.” I feel for you.

          And would that apply to you whether you agreed with what He says or not?

          Step 1: show that this guy exists.

          And how might He go about communicating His truth- how would you do it?

          Let’s see—omniscient and omnipotent deity. He would know whatever would convince me whether I do or not. Since he knows, I wonder why he hasn’t bothered. Doesn’t care, I guess.

          From my standpoint, I need this crowdsourced. If I got a dream or premonition or feeling or saw a spooky coincidence, that wouldn’t be enough. My faculties aren’t that trustworthy. I’d need a similar thing across the world. With that, I’d definitely take notice.

        • adam

          “Without sacrifice for you, you can’t know what you’re worth…”

          So you cant know if you are worth a calf, a lamb or a human being until someone kills one on your behalf……..

          How primitive and tribal.

          “Without someone to draw our heart and attention to God, we are stuck with our heart and attention on us…”

          Or on others, our loved ones, etc.

          With your attention on an IMAGINARY being your heart is stuck with IMAGINATION instead of reality.

          How childish.

          “Without Grace, we are stuck with Karma and religion and being ‘good’…”

          And WITH Grace:

          It is really under biblical ‘morality’ ANYTHING goes except for blasphemy of the holy ghost.

          Yes, you can genocide and be forgiven.
          Yes, you can murder, rape and be forgiven.

          You can genocide every single individual in any group except lets say a baby and its mother, you can beat that baby to death, rape its lifeless body, then carve that baby up and eat it, cut off that mothers head and
          shit that baby down her throat…..

          And STILL be forgiven.So the biblical morality is the REAL case where anything goes…

          “Without humility, we can understand none of it.”

          Which is apparently why you see this kind of EVIL as ‘love’

          How delusional……….

        • Brian Jenkin

          Greg, I’m sorry if it occurred to you that I was ‘projecting onto atheists’. I was merely projecting onto what I think might be true for me if I had no knowledge of God- knowing my own struggles.

          God mends the broken places in us all when we give Him the trust to do so. A Christian that cheats habitually and lies isn’t really in this game of restoration, or perhaps the events that transpire are what start that game…?

        • Kodie

          I don’t believe you, I don’t believe any adult on this planet should need to pretend that the only reason to be faithful to their spouse is out of gratitude to a 3rd (imaginary) party. That’s your projection of atheism onto us. You have a strong desire to do something selfish that will harm another human being, and you think that’s how people are without god. You are a Christian of great moral weakness.

        • Kodie

          When did I threaten anyone?

        • Brian Jenkin

          And Kodie, cut the ignorance. There are THOUSANDS of scientists with PHD’s that take creation science very seriously. If you aren’t willing to think for yourself, just shut up!

        • We’ve been over this (though I realize that’s irrelevant to someone who’s determined not to learn): no one cares about scientists. The topic is evolution, so we only care about biologists.

          Give me the list of biologists who support Creationism.

        • Greg G.

          There are THOUSANDS of scientists with PHD’s that take creation science very seriously.

          This was debunked years ago. They tried to get a list of people with PhDs to sign a statement of questioning evolution, not even endorsing a specific flavor of creationsim, and got few with relevant PhDs. Many were dentists. As I recall, they got a list of hundreds, not thousands. There were complaints from people who tried to get their names off the list, too.

          In response, a list was started for scientists with relevant PhDs but was limited to variations of the name Steve. The creationists’ list was put to shame.

          You should probably stop making that claim.

        • Kodie

          You’re the ignorant one here. I don’t need god to be loyal to people I care about.

        • So, Bob, the guy full of opinions when it suits, and with a ‘consensus’ when it doesn’t

          We’ve been over this. When there is a scientific consensus, I accept it whether it suits me or not.

          sound enough judgement to discern for everyone that the consensus has it right

          I’ve asked you before for an approach that’s better than accepting the consensus. You don’t have one, so I’ll move from asking to mocking. You got nothin’, Chew Toy.

          why don’t you surprise me with some actual thought on topics that have been brought up in the video by dozens of guys who have PHD’s? Scared?

          PhDs in what?

          I’ll see your dozens of PhDs in irrelevant sciences with Project Steve and raise you the scientific fucking consensus.

          I win.

        • Kodie

          Blah blah that “they” “DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE!!!” is a propaganda marketing device. What don’t we want you to see? Nothing in this video blows evolution away or supports creationism credibly – what only counts is the emotional appeals to get you to believe that it does.

        • MNb

          Why? Theory1 having problems does nothing to validate theory2 that opposes it.
          You need to bring up positive evidence that cannot be explained by theory1, but totally by testable theory2.
          The first minute contains with “the problem is the secularization of the world”. That’s an interesting subject, but totally unscientific and has nothing to do with Evolution Theory.

        • MR

          Ooh, all caps! Loves me some conspiracy theory!

        • MNb

          “I’ll seek out interactions with some open minded people instead.”
          As long as you refuse to answer these two questions

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-two-questions/

          you yourself are the one who is not open minded.
          This is confirmed by your refusal to admit any error. When I pointed out that your claim on “fossils containing living red blood cells” was wrong you tried to replace it by another wrong formulations. That was a deliberate lie.
          I have told you several times that Evolution Theory is not about disproving your god. I gave you a relevant link and I told you about the prominent evolutionary biologists Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins. You completely ignored that, preferring to repeat that Evolution Theory is about disproving your god. Hence you’re a liar.

          People with open minds cannot have any meaningful interactions with liars like you.

          “If it’s a suitable practice for the science of cosmology to use to explain the evidence it sees, (and you are a demonstrated defender of science) then it is a fair model for Creation science to use to explain the universe of evidence IT sees.”
          As long as you refuse to answer these two questions it’s not Crea “science” but creacrap.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-two-questions/

          See that you just repeat your lies? You rejected evolution as a scientific concept because “not testable, not measurable, not repeatable”. While I showed you’re wrong (and you showing that you don’t have an open mind by refusing to accept that you’re wrong) you now call something “science” without showing how to test, to measure and to repeat it. As your creacrap doesn’t produce any testable, measurable and repeatable hypothesis it fails your very own standard. Now you’re clearly not stupid, so the only remaining option is that you’re deliberately lying.

          “while exhibiting the grace and generosity that God extends to us”
          As long as you stick to your lies that grace and generosity will amount to exactly nothing.

        • Brian Jenkin

          I’d like to request right at the outset that you please give my reply a slow, patient, considered listening, I have taken my time to communicate something with you very carefully. I know you want to jump right in and rebut every comment, but I would prefer you to respond to the overall thought, rather than picking apart every line without an overall consideration for the bigger context that each lines falls into.

          What I am about to say is playful banter and somewhat silly, but I’m using it as a tool to demonstrate a larger point in response to your message and article you kindly sent me. (And I did get something from the article, it was very logical on a macro level, so thank you. I just didn’t get what you might have expected I would get. Let me explain)….

          (OK, this is in playfulness, not seriousness)
          You must have supernatural powers of insight to be able to tell me that I am ‘deliberately lying’. How can you know my intentions, personal thoughts and mind? It has to be a supernatural power of some kind because I’ve never heard of a science that deals with such occurrences and abilities.

          (Just by the way, my comments are very deliberate, but to my knowledge, not ‘lies’- I would stand to gain nothing but humiliation by engaging that way. I may speak in error, but that is different to lying- that has a ‘knowledgeably misleading’ component to it. I have acknowledged with you that I had used an incorrect word…. and I thought you said I never allow myself to be corrected, was this a deliberate lie on your part, or am I thinking of someone else?)… So back to my playful banter.

          Please explain this supernatural ability of mind reading that you are demonstrating- but do so without referencing anything of a supernatural source, you may only use the observation of the physical universe to explain to me how this is possible. (I am the one declaring this power to be supernatural- you might object to that, but it is at least possible that it is- because science right now can’t explain it.)

          Gee, sorry to set you an impossible task. But that’s how the article and it’s questions went about it so it’s got to be fair play in this conversation. When someone poses a question and puts a bunch of restrictions in place around how to or not to answer it, it’s called a straw man argument.

          The article you posted for me to look at is extraordinary is this regard: Two simple questions, and two pages of rules about what I’m not allowed to do to answer those two questions. Maybe that’s why they haven’t been answered adequately yet, because the rules make it impossible to do so.

          Why would I say ‘impossible’ though?

          Well, here is an example: “Do not say ‘a transitional series’; give a hypothetical example of a series of fossils you would accept as transitional, clearly and in detail describing the qualities and features they would possess”.

          What an absurd task! Why would I take the time to write out a list of qualities and features I think might have been reasonably expected only to be invalidated by the non-existence of evidence and be asked to come up with another set of acceptable criteria until you can finally produce something that matches? How could I possibly know what those transitional creatures would have looked like on the way and which features would show up first?

          The onus is in the holder of the model to show fossil evidence that makes sense, whatever it may be. If we started at the number 10 and finished at 20, I would accept fossils that at least show stages 12, 14, 16, and 18, and I would think that its more likely than not that all the odd numbered stages in the fossil records would be there too if it were a true model- at least for some transitional species. There would be millions of transitional species to choose from if the model is true.

          But the fossil records actually seem more like a system of integers than one of fractions. ie, there are by and large only fossils of distinct creatures, not ‘shades’ of creatures. If this is the case, evolution fails completely, and Darwin was the one who said this first in Origin of Species. And 200 years later, that’s what’s so! Barely anything that looks like a transition, let alone the vast amounts that the model predicted!

          Back to the point…

          In order for your supernatural ability of mind reading to be explained, it would require reasoning outside the realm of science. I know you agree with that because that is what you say to creationists who are claiming a God- that it is not supportable by empirical science, only through arguments that rely on the existence of other realms.

          But if you actually did have that skill, it would not- by your own reckoning- repeat NOT, be ‘provable’ by science. It’s not ‘provable’ because I could just claim co-incidence every time you succeeded to guess my thoughts, you see. There is no actual proof there, just a long string of co-incidences.

          However, eventually, the improbability of consecutive successes would relegate my claims of ‘unproven’ to the ranks of scientifically unfeasible, and your superpowers would be all but proven.

          And if your super powers are (all but) proven, what can we say about the limits of science? Would it mean that there something reasonable and rational that exists beyond the reach of science that gives rise to your talent and hence renders your powers scientifically predictable and feasible? The answer would of course be yes, and that’s fine. Science can only test what science can test, and it can’t test what it can’t test.

          The fallacy of your thinking is the presupposition that science can test everything. If I am incorrect in this assertion about your presupposition- (for example, you might say that God is simply not provable by science because He could only exist outside of the parameters of the physical, observable universe)- then I would agree with you. If God exists, he is not testable within the bounds of physical science because he exists in a place beyond its reach, just like your hypothetical superpowers. However the cumulative effect of improbabilities would still stand as a reasonable method for the validation of the theory.

          So, to the article you sent me which poses two great questions, I would say this. Since evolution is not concerned with the origin of the Cosmos, the origin of the Earth or the origin of life, but only the subsequent diversification of life once it already existed, any answer I give relating to these three issues would be irrelevant. So I would simply point to the stack of improbabilities that are mounting inside creationism that reasonably infer a creator.

          “What?”, you might say. “Improbabilities in creation! You’ve just undermined your own case!” So before you go there, just hold your horses for a second and stay tuned. The improbabilities I am referring to are the examples of mathematical patterns that exist from the realms of the sub-atomic to the realms of the Cosmos and everything in between! Namely, the Fibonacci Series and the Golden Ratio.

          If you haven’t heard this evidence, maybe watch more than just the first minute of the video I sent you. I have tried to give a reasonable listening and reading to the abundance of content coming my way from 10 different sources with you guys. Sorry if I haven’t read and responded to every thing you have sent me, although I have taken a good look at most of it.

          Final thought:
          The mechanisms described in evolution are generally accepted, it’s the extrapolations that are contentious.
          – For example, UV light mutates genes, no problem here. Extrapolation; these mutations occasionally add useful information that is intelligible to the cell and helpful to the general population of the species of the organism in question. It’s this part that is without any proof or evidence. Again if you watch the video right through, you’ll see Dr. Richard Dawkins grapple with this question in the video. And I’d love to hear your answers.

          By and large I have few issues with the methods of evolution, especially as it has abandoned what I believe was it’s former stance to be a theory to explain the Origins of life, the Cosmos and the Earth, and admits to being in a different conversation to the one about God, with no influence over it.

          Please watch the video fully. See if you can pick the two major points that I myself would disagree with. It’s full of PHd’s and scientific testimony, and some compelling logical discussion about the origins of life- a much more important conversation than the one on the varieties in our planetary species.

          I’d be interested to hear a fully considered rebuttle to every point in it, it seems you have the confidence to tackle questions others can’t find answers to. Perhaps it’s time to bring them to the discussion table.

        • Kodie

          I think you must think reading for comprehension is a supernatural power. It’s not mind-reading, but reading what you actually wrote.

        • The
          mechanisms described in evolution are generally accepted

          Yeah, can you believe it? Creationists accept mutation and natural selection, just like actual scientists. It’s amazing that they weave the little they refuse to accept for religious reasons into a show stopper.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Mutations and natural selection and errors in code reproduction are all witnessed. What I take issue with is the unsubstantiated extrapolation that mutations can cause additional, complex and intelligible code. This is not verified science! It’s an assumption.

          “ConSENsus!” “ConSENsus!” “ConSENsus!”
          Yay, “ConSENsus!”

        • Yay, consensus!

          What I take issue with is the unsubstantiated extrapolation that mutations can cause additional, complex and intelligible code.

          No one cares. Seriously–no one gives a damn about your uninformed musings about science. You’re not a fucking scientist, remember? You are not able to evaluate the evidence.

          As for any particular question or puzzle that you’ve found at your Creationist sites, what does science say about that? Have you bothered looking? Do biologists say, “Whoa–that’s a good point; that really challenges evolution”? Or do they give you an explanation about why that’s not a problem?

          Having a conversation with me (another uneducated person) is ridiculous. That your doing it betrays your agenda. If you actually cared about an answer, you would have it with someone who understands the matter.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Bob, I have completed enough units at university to be qualified scientist, the fact of the matter is I was registered into a science teaching degree, and its the teaching part I didn’t finish. For all extents and purposes as far as your concerned, I am qualified to evaluate evidence, and I’m not sure if you realise this or not, but Chemistry and Physics are the sciences that Biologists are dependant on for their methods and understanding. You constantly elevate Biology, but it’s the most descriptive of the core sciences and the least evaluative. My strongest subjects are actually the ones most relevant to the whole matter at hand, and they are undermining evolution.

          But you are right and finally I agree 100% with you, you are not worthy of having this conversation with. It’s been fun Chew Toy, I’m out!

        • Get back to me when you’re a biologist. Until then, you’re not qualified to evaluate the evidence within biology. Seriously–not a hard concept.

          And when you are a biologist, let’s imagine that you’re still a Creationist. Tell me why I would want to reject the scientific consensus because Biologist Chew Toy tells me that it’s wrong. Doesn’t make sense to me.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Well, this is an interesting malapropism, if a bit embarrassing in-context.

          “For all extents and purposes as far as your concerned, I am qualified to evaluate evidence”

          For all extents?

          The phrase is: “For all intents and purposes.”

          Also, you’re trying to say “as far as you are concerned”; so the correct homophone is you’re, not your.

          “My strongest subjects are actually the ones most relevant to the whole matter at hand, and they are undermining evolution.”

          Nope.

          *Edit for moar pedantry, in b.*

        • MR

          Undermining evolution!?

          Holy crap! I better turn on the news; I haven’t heard anything about this!

        • Brian Jenkin

          Opps, never claimed English as my best subject, especially when it’s as late as it was last night. Cheers for the correction. 🙂

        • MNb

          “I have completed enough units at university to be qualified scientist.”
          What science? Not physics, chemistry or biology, given your blatant ignorance.
          What university? Possibly Bob Jones, given your incapability to learn something new.

        • Brian Jenkin

          I’m sorry MNb for the times in our discussions when I have gotten proud and spoken in a way that demeans you. This is not what I am committed to and I get that it drives further antagonism, leaving you with something to deal with in your soul. And I get that this drives society at large lower, not into a place of kindness and understanding with one another. I am deeply sorry to have failed you this way, and to have failed myself in staying true. I re-commit myself to offering you the generous, dignified listening that I would offer a stranger, rather than the judgement that I have been hearing you with. I can be entirely self-righteous much of the time. Forgive me if you will,

          Sincerely,
          Brian.

        • MNb

          “leaving you with something to deal with in your soul.”
          I don’t have a soul.

          “Forgive me if you will”
          I can’t – there is nothing to forgive. You have done me no wrong. Though you call me judgmental I haven’t called you proud and/or self-righteous (and I would have had you provided evidence).

        • Brian Jenkin

          Ever thought about the other kind of consensus, Bob? Personal testimony. Its valid in a court of law. Thousands of Muslims are standing up for what they are discovering to be true from first hand experience at the serious risk of death. Ask him to speak to you and see what happens- but you have to really want it. He won’t respond to a proud heart.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-L1KIU7lao

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDyOcPdC_0Y

        • I’m talking about scientific consensus. I have no idea what you’re talking about, but personal testimony isn’t it.

          Ask him to speak to you and see what happens- but you have to really want it. He won’t respond to a proud heart.

          Wrong again. Paul said: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19).

          Get it? It’s symmetrical. We didn’t opt in to get Adam’s sin, and we needn’t opt in to get Christ’s redemption.

        • Kodie

          God is the power of suggestion. He won’t respond to a proud heart because he doesn’t exist, only people who can persuade you he exists exist.

          It’s such a lame excuse, only religious people could come up with that. “He has his own reasons, but I got in the club! Yippee for me!! Sux 4 u!!”

          Recovering from Hate — NOVA Next | PBS

          You sound like the KKK.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Kodie, I’d like to formally apologise to you for the times in our discussions when I have gotten proud and spoken in a way that demeans you. This is not what I am committed to and I get that it drives further antagonism, leaving you with something to deal with in your soul. And I get that this drives society at large lower, not into a place of kindness and understanding with one another. Kodie, you deserve better than this from me as a fellow inhabitant of our beautiful planet- I’m sorry to have let you down this way.

          I also fail myself when I do, so I re-commit myself now to offering you the generous, dignified listening that I would offer a stranger, rather than the judgement that I have been hearing you with. You are a daughter of God in my eyes, full of wonder and reflecting the dignity of the one I believe made you. Please forgive me if you will, for being self-righteous.

          Sincerely,
          Brian.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Personal testimony. Its valid in a court of law. “

          Personal testimony is meaningless in adjudicating matters of science — even in a court of law it is one of the least accurate forms of evidence.

          You would submit personal testimony as consideration in the discussion of scientific questions? You should shred what degrees you have now, if any.

        • Brian Jenkin

          G’day Paul, you make a good point.

          I’m not talking about science, but rather about the inquiry of whether there is something behind (and causing) the existence of our physical universe. If there are things science can’t test in other realms, how can we know them? Through a different part of our being. Our mind and consciousness is far more than just physical, just ask someone who has had to turn off a machine for a loved one who is brain dead. Everything is still pumping, but the person aint there. Thanks for making the point, Paul.

          Phew! The Deakin University papers can stay un-shredded!

        • MNb

          “If there are things science can’t test in other realms, how can we know them?”
          Ah, now that’s a good question.
          We can’t. However we can speculate – and before starting to speculate we can agree what rules we’ll follow. My proposal:

          1. The speculations have to be consistent;
          2. The speculations have to be coherent;
          3. The speculations should not contradict scientific consensus (like Evolution Theory);
          4. The speculations have to be as simple as possible (ie Occam’s Razor).

          What do you think? Shall we leave science behind and jump into the muddy pool called philosophy, while clinging to these rescue ropes?

        • Kodie

          You have no better way of explaining it. All you have is a strong belief that if there were no god, you’d have no problem cheating on your wife, and extrapolate your own failure onto other atheists who have no problems being loyal to people they care about without any god. We have this other Christian who showed up lately, Aaron Siering, and he called my response to you a “straw man” argument, because he doesn’t believe Christians as absurd as you are true Christians.

        • It’s full of PHd’s and scientific testimony

          You do realize that no one cares about scientists, right? They care about biologists. Creationism is full of “scholars” who have law, medical, or scientific degrees but oddly bereft of biology degrees.

          Weird.

        • MNb

          “rather than picking apart every line without an overall consideration for the bigger context”
          I don’t pick apart every line without such an overall consideration. I quote lines to make clear what I’m responding to and assume my readers – including you – are smart enough to get or look up the bigger context. I’m not writing philosophical articles and hence need to be short and concise.

          “You must have supernatural powers of insight to be able to tell me that I am ‘deliberately lying’.”
          Nope. It’s a simple inductive conclusion. It might be wrong, of course, but that remains to be shown.
          You wrote that Evolution Theory means to disprove god.
          I told you you were wrong, gave you a source and brought up two highly relevant examples – but didn’t assume yet that you were deliberately lying.

          You repeated that Evolution Theory means to disprove god.
          You did such things a couple of times. Then there are two possibilities: you’re stupid or you’re lying. I take it from the quality of your comments that you’re not stupid, hence you’re lying. This is confirmed by the fact that I already told you how I came to that conclusion and that you not even try to undermine it. It’s also confirmed by you consistently avoiding to write about Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller.

          “I may speak in error, but that is different to lying”
          Agreed.

          “that has a ‘knowledgeably misleading’ component to it.”
          Exactly. You were knowledgable that “Evolution Theory means to disprove god” was wrong – because I told you so with source and the examples of Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins. You did something similar with the “living red blood cells” found on dinosaur fossils. That’s enough to call you a liar.

          “I have acknowledged with you that I had used an incorrect word…. and I thought you said I never allow myself to be corrected,”
          I said so indeed. Thus far you haven’t. But hey, there is an extremely simple way to show me wrong.

          In your answer write clearly and ambiguously that you understand that

          1. Evolution Theory is not meant to disprove god;
          2. Soft tissue found on dinosaur fossils does not disprove Evolution Theory;
          3. Dogs are an intermediate species.

          You would be the first creationist (Young Earth, Old Earth, ID, whatever) to do such a thing and I would be forced to publicly withdraw my accusation.

          “I would stand to gain nothing but humiliation by engaging that way.”
          Wrong. You gain something very important: avoiding the public humiliation of admitting that you were wrong, which looks bad on your belief system. That is very important to Young Earth Creationists. But even for other people – like me – it can be painful to openly admit making a grave mistake. I have experienced it myself and it’s well documented.
          That’s what you gain – the avoidance of emotional pain.

          “Please explain this supernatural ability ….”
          No supernatural abilities needed. See above.

          “that’s how the article and it’s questions went about”
          See? Already you continue piling up lies. Nothing in Adam Lee’s article demands something supernatural.

          “What an absurd task!”
          Why? I can give you two examples.

          http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm
          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

          Assuming that you won’t accept these two chains of intermediate species as evidence for evolution Adam Lee’s question “what kind of chain would you accept” is totally reasonable.

          “The onus is in the holder of the model to show fossil evidence that makes sense, whatever it may be.”
          And that’s exactly what Adam Lee’s question is about – specify what you mean with “makes sense”. Do these two chains above make sense? If no, what would?

          “I could just claim co-incidence every time”
          Yes, you could. Unfortunately we have probability calculation. Let’s say that you produce a lie. Let’s say that the probability of you deliberately lying is 50% (assuming you’re not stupid it means it’s actually higher). Then the probability of co-incidence is also 50%. Now it happens three times! On the same subject! The probability of co-incidence, ignorance and stupidity drops to a meager 12,5% – so there is a chance of 87,5% that you’re a deliberate liar.

          “The fallacy of your thinking is the presupposition that science can test everything”
          Where did I commit that fallacy? The correct phrase is “science can test everything in our natural reality, when we omit practical problems”. Where did I claim that science can test more?
          See? You produce a lie – again. I explicitely wrote you that science, including Evolution Theory, can’t say anything about anything supernatural and hence can’t disprove god. I brought up Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller repeatedly as examples to demonstrate this point. You consistently neglect that.

          “for example, you might say that God is simply not provable by science because He could only exist outside of the parameters of the physical, observable universe.”
          Neither his existence nor his non-existence. This time I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I have written this several times clearly and unambiguously. Here I go again:

          Science cannot prove or disprove anything supernatural, specifically any version of god defined as an immaterial/ supernatural/ transcendental entity.
          As Evolution Theory is a scientific theory it can’t either.

          Here is the relevant link again:

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

          “Please watch the video fully.”
          Nope. For four reasons.

          1. I have began watching two of your videos and within a minute it was clear that they were unscientic crap. I have more pleasant ways to waste my time. This is reinforced by you repeatedly linking to the equally unscientific crap of ICR.
          2. You didn’t answer, only evade Adam Lee’s two questions.
          3. I vastly prefer reading to listening.
          4. Scientific issues are not decided by propagandistic videos anyway.

          “I’d be interested to hear a fully considered rebuttle.”
          You may want to try Panda’s Thumb.

          http://www.pandasthumb.org

          I’m not qualified to discuss details of Evolution Theory.

        • Greg G.

          3. Dogs are an intermediate species.

          I made an argument with Brian that pure Great Danes could not reproduce with pure St. Bernards, which would indicate a speciation event. Is that similar to what you mean? Or do mean wolves are intermediate species leading to dogs?

          Some creationists believe Noah took some ur-species of kinds which underwent hyper-evolution when the were exposed to direct sunlight after the water vapor canopy fell as rain, all to account for the numbers of species we see today and a too small ark to account for them. They don’t accept gradual evolution could happen over millions of years but that lions and tigers and pumas and leopards could diverge in decades, then stop evolving.

        • During the Ham on Nye debate, Ken “the Hamster” Ham said that he thinks just 1000 “kinds” were on the ark, which makes a kind roughly equal to a phylogenic order. That’s some serious speciation.

        • MNb

          “pure Great Danes could not reproduce with pure St. Bernards”
          I’ve read it. It was new to me and something to remember!

          “Or do mean wolves are intermediate species leading to dogs?”
          In fact all species are intermediate (like all fossils are transitional), but here I use the creationist definition. Now they are of course vague about it, but BJ’s favourite website provides one. There is no need to click, as you won’t find anything new:

          http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils

          ” ‘in-between kinds’ ”
          Dogs demonstrably are an in-between kind. You see, sometimes creationists do formulate testable hypotheses (Dembski’s famous mouse trap analogy to demonstrate Irreducible Complexity is another one). They invariably are falsified.

          “ur-species of kinds which underwent hyper-evolution”
          Yes. That way they make creationism untestable again, this time by not defining “kind”. Another way is using the phrase “within a certain bandwith”. In that case I point out that baraminology (the “science” of defining “kind”) is a total failure.

        • Greg G.

          To me, the prefix of the word “intermediate” in “intermediate species” implies that there are species on either side of its lineage, thus there must be two speciation events: one that distinguishes it from its mother species and one that distinguishes it from its daughter species, or some ring species stituation. All species are potentially intermediate unless it goes extinct before there is a speciation event.

          EDIT: changed “suggests” to “implies”.

        • It’s not really a speciation event but more a speciation continuum or spectrum, right?

          (Splitting hairs)

        • Greg G.

          Yes, but for sexually reproducing species, the most basic definition involves a barrier to reproduction, such as the inability to produce fertile offspring. If it is true that the genes of St. Bernards and Great Danes are lethally incompatible and every other breed of dog went extinct, I think those two breeds would be considered to be separate species.

          I read that a scientist collected some brine shrimp to study. At one point for some reason, his collection was split and, later, one of those batches was split in two. After a while it was discovered that one batch could reproduce with either of the other two but the other two could not reproduce. It is the same as above.

          One mutation may not have been enough to prevent one group from reproducing with the mother group, but a second mutation would make a group incompatible. With the dogs, each had a separate mutation that did not make them incompatible with most dogs but it is incompatible with the other. With the shrimp, a mutation happened after the first division, and a second mutation happened after the second division. The first mutation may have occurred in either group, one like the dogs in the group that was not split a second time or the mutation happened in the group split twice between splits.

        • If you’re talking about a single mutation that would be the speciation event, I see your point that it could indeed be an event.

        • Greg G.

          It seems to me that it would most likely take more than one single mutation to make a speciation event as there would be nobody to mate with. I think it would require two mutations that were compatible with the mother species but not with each other.

        • MNb

          Of course.
          The thing is: when I demand from creationists to refute Evolution Theory I also demand scientific terms, to avoid strawmanning ao. So when I bring up a refutation of creationism it’s only fair to use theirs.

        • Ron

          Not even decades. According to the account given in Genesis 8, the bird “kind” had already speciated into ravens and doves when Noah’s ark came to rest 10 months later.

        • MR

          I was taught in Bible school that Adam named all the animals—the clear implication being that he named ALL the animals. How could he if they didn’t exist until the mass speciation event on Noah’s ark? I feel so deceived.

        • Ron

          For me, the passage in Genesis 2:18-20 also demonstrates God’s lack of omniscience. It states that God’s purpose in creating all those birds and animals was twofold:

          a) to find Adam a suitable helper; and
          b) to see what Adam would name them.

          It concludes with “but for Adam no suitable helper was found.” (Until it finally dawns on God to create Eve.)

        • I always go to Ken Ham as my authority for Creationist bullshit. He argues (indirectly) that “kinds” was roughly the same as the taxonomic classification of order.

          Ravens are of the order Passeriformes, and doves of the order Columbiformes. So using “the Hamster” as our authority, Gen. 8 appears to be innocent of your charge.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “I always go to Ken Ham as my authority for Creationist bullshit.”

          What are you on about, Bob?!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

        • OK, well that bit is irrefutable, I’ll admit. When Ken Ham goes bananas, look out.

        • Ron

          http://lollaffs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/LOL-Curses-foiled-again.jpg

          Nonetheless…

          Hamster said it. Hamster believes it. That settles it.

        • Being the final arbiter does make things easier, I’ll admit. I curse my need to substantiate claims with evidence!

        • Brian Jenkin

          Horses: These fossils look like several different versions of horses, hardly evidence of progressive evolution and a transitional series between families of animals. More like the variance of selective genes as predicted inside natural selection. The journals suggest that the horse series suggested by evolutionists is completely unravelled and is the lesser case when compared with that of whales and it seems that way on the surface to the eye as well. So I will look into it later and focus my attention on the strongest case- whales.

          Whales (part 1):
          Taken from a peer review article on one of three intermediate species in whale ‘evolution’, the Ambulocetus natans:
          http://creation.com/a-whale-of-a-tale

          ‘Here is the reference to the paper:

          Madar, S.I., Thewissen, J. G. M. and Hussain, S. T., Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whales. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22(2):405–422, 2002.

          Figure 1 shows an image of the complete material found, from Dr Thewissen’s website.

          As has already been said, the extra material does not add one shred of evidence to the story that this creature had anything to do with the origin ofwhales.

          Indeed the whole story is seriously unravelling as time goes by. The discovery of a jawbone of a fully aquatic whale (a Basilosaurid) was announced in October 2011.1 This was ‘dated’ to 49 million years ago and since Ambulocetus‘dates’ from 50-48 Ma, this does not leave much time for some stupendous evolutionary changes. The jawbone predates all other supposed whale ancestors except Pakicetus, which is as much a whale as someone’s pet dog.

          As of the date of writing, the jawbone discovery has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Even if it does not pass muster (unlikely considering the international team involved), evolution of whales was ‘dead in the water’ anyway. We just have to consider what changes are necessary to change a land creature into a whale. Dr Richard Sternberg has listed some of them:2

          Counter-current heat exchanger for intra-abdominal testes (to keep them cool)

          Ball vertebra (to enable the tail to move up and down instead of side to side)

          Tail flukes and musculature

          Blubber for temperature insulation

          Ability to drink sea water (reorganization of kidney tissues)

          Fetus in breech position (for underwater birth)

          Nurse young underwater (modified mammae)

          Forelimbs transformed into flippers

          Reduction of hindlimbs

          Reduction/loss of pelvis and sacral vertebrae

          Reorganization of the musculature for the reproductive organs

          Hydrodynamic properties of the skin

          Special lung surfactants

          Novel muscle systems for the blowhole

          Modification of the teeth

          Modification of the eye for underwater vision

          Emergence and expansion of the mandibular fat pad with complex lipid distribution

          Reorganization of skull bones and musculature

          Modification of the ear bones

          Decoupling of esophagus and trachea

          Synthesis and metabolism of isovaleric acid (toxic to terrestrial mammals)

          Emergence of blowhole musculature and neurological control

          This list is not exhaustive—think about behavioural changes, underwater communication system, echo-location, navigation capacities, ability to dive to great depths without the bends, etc. How many mutations would need to occur and permeate (be ‘fixed’ in) the evolving whale population to achieve such changes? How often would multiple mutations have to occur together, in a coordinated way, for any advantageous functionality to be achieved?

          Using calculations published by evolutionists themselves3 (applying the equations of population genetics), which of course make assumptions as favourable as possible to evolution, Sternberg has shown that about all that could be expected in a whale-like population would be two coordinated mutations in about 43 million years. This is about the total time frame claimed for the evolution of all the whales. So the science of population genetics rules out the whale evolution story—even with the millions of years there has not been enough time. There has not been enough time even if we ‘buy’ the claimed evolutionary processes that they claim are responsible for new genetic information—mutations and natural selection (the evolutionary train is actually going in the wrong direction). With the new jaw discovery, the problem is enormously bigger because the millions of years they thought they had have evaporated.

          Further, more and more of the fossil stories are unravelling. What is so often presented as a nice looking sequence based on the fossils is anything but.4

          Rodhocetus is undoubtedly the key claimed link between terrestrial creatures and whales—the first creature in their claimed sequence that looked anything like a whale. It has been universally represented in illustrations as having a tail, tail fluke and flippers—a nice transitional form, if ever I have seen one. However, Dr Philip Gingrich, its discoverer, now concedes that further fossil evidence has been found showing it did not have flippers. And there was never any evidence that it had a long whale-like tail and he now doubts that it would have had a fluked tail.5

          New discoveries over time have not been a friend of this story. I expect further discoveries will unravel the story-telling even more, just as it seems to with all evolutionary stories (see the story of Pakicetus, for example). When there is not much fossil evidence available and lots of unrestrained imagination can come to play, evolution reigns. But, inevitably the story runs up against the hard evidence of additional fossil discoveries and the biological realities of what ‘nature’ has to achieve just by chance mutations and natural selection.’

          Dr.Gingerich interviewed:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N–Xtcr8h7k&feature=youtu.be

          Transitional species 2 debunked, we’ll get to species 1 and 3 next.

          By the way, lying would only be a relevant deduction from your ‘evidence’ if I agreed with the statements in the articles you posted me. So far, I don’t, so what I have said is not intended to mislead from a truth that is evident to myself- since it is not- hence not a lie. Just a different perspective.

          Otherwise, I could say the same to you. I have shown you the facts as I see them in articles that debunk the things you have said, yet you continue to stand by your claims, leading me to conclude reasonably that you have yet to be convinced (for whatever reason), not that you are lying!

          It would be nice if you retracted those accusations, because I promise you, no intentional deceit has crossed my lips (fingers) so far in our discussions. It is a major accusation to make, and you are in error.

        • Whatever those egghead scientists offer as evidence, you can find a snappy answer at creation.com. Fun!

          Though I’d love to join you in Fantasyland, I’m afraid the fact remains that the people who actually understand the evidence say that evolution explains things very well, thank you. I’m stuck.

        • MNb

          “These fossils look like several different versions of horses, hardly evidence of progressive evolution and a transitional series between families of animals. ”
          Yeah, yeah, in your biased creacrap eyes nothing is evidence of evolution. If necessary you just change your terminology without making clear how.
          That’s exactly why I call your views creacrap.

          “progressive evolution”
          Plus a nice strawman. Progressive evolution is a meaningless term in Evolution Theory.

          “is completely unravelled”
          Plus you lack comprehensive reading skills.
          But I’m happy to repeat a favourite joke of mine. Your genealogy since Adam and Eve is not completely unravelled either. If such gaps contradict Evolution Theory and you can conclude “goddiddid” then the gaps in your genealogy contradict the hypothesis that your human and I can conclude that you’re a 100% descendant from aliens. That’s stupid, you say? I agree. So is your “logic”.

          “a peer review article”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          This is why I keep on reading your dishonest comments. Didn’t you write that you’re qualified (why and how you didn’t tell, so I maintain by following courses at a diploma mill institution and/or something like Bob Jones University) to evaluate evidence? Here you show exactly the opposite. You don’t know what “peer reviewed” means. From Wikipedia:

          “a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field.”

          Relevant field: Evolution Theory. Amount of peer reviewers at you favourite creacrap site: exactly zero.

          The author was a frigging agriculturalist and hence is about as qualified to write about Evolution Theory as a plumber to do brickwork.

          The rest of your comment is the usual litany of “this and that and such and so is wrong with Evolution Theory”, which provides exactly zero evidence for any form of goddiddid. You only confirm that all versions of creacrap are the same:

          1. “Evolution Theory is wrong hence God!”
          2. Some lame variation of Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy – which you haven’t pulled off yet, fortunately for you, because it has been debunked since long;
          3. The usual list of logical fallacies, like double standards (in your last comment for “evidence”), minequotes, strawmen (“progressive evolution”) and of course straightforward lies. Have you already publicly withdrawn “Evolution Theory means to disprove God” and “Hitler was a Darwinian”? Of course not. All creationists rather maintain their lies than withdrawing anything, because then their creationist house of cards would immediately fall apart.
          No, that reformulation about dinosaur soft tissue doesn’t count. You just replaced one lie by another, as Greg G pointed out.

          You can link to your favourite creacrap site as often as you like – it won’t make any difference. They are a bunch of liars as well. Here is one of your latest link:

          “I interpret this to mean that you can make up any story you like.”
          And I interpret that as your ignorant agriculturalist being a liar – and you with him.

          You can also give as many videos you like. I won’t watch any, because the first two you provided were already a colossal waste of time, which became clear within 4 and 1 minute respectively. Perhaps I will as soon as you have answered Adam Lee’s two questions:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-two-questions/

          “What evidence would falsify your chosen variety of creationism?”
          “What evidence would you accept as provisional proof of evolution?”

          But with Adam Lee I predict that you’re never will – because you’re a dishonest creacrapper.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Dude, there is nothing to say, because no matter what I say and evidence is shown to you by people with PHD’s in subjects pertaining to biology, chemistry, physics and a litany of others, you call them liars, and ‘crap’. I could, but don’t, make the same accusations of every single thing you say, and win the arguement by self appointed authority over what are lies and what is crap- the only problem is you don’t have that authority and leave yourself without ears or understanding, because you will not consider.

          The argument you make about geneology makes no sense, especially since Jesus geneology is listed in Matthew:

          Abraham was the father of Isaac,

          Isaac the father of Jacob,

          Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,

          3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,

          Perez the father of Hezron,

          Hezron the father of Ram,

          4Ram the father of Amminadab,

          Amminadab the father of Nahshon,

          Nahshon the father of Salmon,

          5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,

          Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,

          Obed the father of Jesse,

          6and Jesse the father of King David.

          David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,

          7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,

          Rehoboam the father of Abijah,

          Abijah the father of Asa,

          8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,

          Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,

          Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

          9Uzziah the father of Jotham,

          Jotham the father of Ahaz,

          Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,

          10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,

          Manasseh the father of Amon,

          Amon the father of Josiah,

          11and Josiah the father of Jeconiahc and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

          12After the exile to Babylon:

          Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

          Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

          13Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,

          Abihud the father of Eliakim,

          Eliakim the father of Azor,

          14Azor the father of Zadok,

          Zadok the father of Akim,

          Akim the father of Elihud,

          15Elihud the father of Eleazar,

          Eleazar the father of Matthan,

          Matthan the father of Jacob,

          16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

          If you want from Abraham back to Adam, you’ll need to look at Genesis. But it requires a bit more in depth reading because it’s not in list form. It’s only a few generations though.

          I don’t think there are any aliens here on this list. So I don’t get your point or your joke.

          I have read and responded to the article you sent me so to say I haven’t addressed it is a lie, you liar! Ouch! Sorry, I hate to say stuff like that, but you are a hypocrite and proud and maybe its time someone pointed it out to you so you can start to take your standing before God a bit more seriously.

          I won’t be wasting my time trying to meet these false criteria, set up with rules and conditions that are not fair, make no sense and are impossible to meet. You win based on that article- hollow victory, but whatever makes you feels better.

          Instead of addressing this crap, perhaps you would be willing to acknowledge with me what would be fair evidence of the existence of God? No conditions on you, and false pretences, just an honest open question. Feel free to include/consider such things as miracles of healing, grand predictions of the future that are authenticated, witness testimonials of the ‘impossible’ inside the laws of science, mathematical improbabilities inside science, patterns in things completely unrelated, the human experience of life and testimonials of a spiritual nature. Plus whatever else you would consider to be evidence.

          Question two, what would you consider to be evidence that the theory of evolution is false? What would be the nail in the coffin for you? You’re own scientists confirming that dinosaur bones aren’t old, and that therefore the rock itself that they were found in is not old? I mean there are 100 things that could do it, what works for you?

          Thanks for your time dude or dudette. I still don’t have your name- bit like those guys with guns and masks in the middle east, no accountability to what you are saying….

        • Rather embarrassing genealogy, since it conflicts with Luke’s.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Dude, or dudette, you are a dishonest debater. In insisting on having me answer two impossible questions (given the restrictions demanded in the article)and saying that my refusal to is because I’m “a dishonest creacrapper’ is massively dishonest. I have told you why I won’t bother; for you to assert otherwise is dishonest- do you get that?

          Why won’t you answer my return questions which I pose free of the constraints that your article does? You haven’t even referenced them yet? I predict you won’t because you will paint yourself into a corner.

          You’re also a dishonest debater because you want to have your thoughts honoured and yet can’t get past one freakin’ minute of a video because it didn’t make sense to you?! It won’t! Because it’s currently outside of your view. That’s the point!! If you listened beyond one minute, there might be more to the 2 hour video that eventually challenges you or makes some sense to you. All you are doing is demonstrating an inability to engage in intellectually challenging thought.

          How would you respond to me if I rejected an article you sent me within the first paragraph?! Seriously, are you even debating someone here or just exhibiting the behaviour of evolutionary theory thinkers. Which approach has more scientific merit? Dismiss immediately, or give due consideration and respond in a meaningful manner? I’m not scared of what you have to show me, YOU are!

          On top of that, you insist that peer review must come from the relevant field (of evolutionary theory), but that is not a discipline of science, it is a theory tested by scientists of a variety of disciplines. Again, that’s a dishonest set-up. There is no scientific field that boasts evolutionary theoryists! There are Biologists, Biochemists, Physicists….. of which I have sent you countless articles from regarding the study of evolution. Responses that are considered and meaningful, not ‘automatically dismissive’. Do you get how all you guys on that side of this conversation are ‘automatically dismissive’? Bob calls it ConSENSus!! (That’s a code-word meaning ‘I don’t have to think any more’) Is this where the whole field is at right now, so ‘right’ that its no longer accepting of challenge from the new fringes that are emerging?? That’s not science any more dude, in just the same way that you are no longer actually debating honestly any more (if you ever were).

          And thanks for your utterings about Bob Jones University again, I have told you that I studied at Deakin Uni Melbourne. Do some research. It’s also dishonest to make those assertions twice!

          Many other fields of science can make comment on evolution because it is a very wide field of study. Information science, palaeontology, archaeology and Physics to name a few. If Physics or Chemistry determine that Carbon dating is an unreliable guide, does this not undermine many assumed ages of things? Or if geologists discover evidence regarding the manner in which rock is laid down, does this not influence the perceived age of the fossils in them? As Physicists and engineers discover ways of looking further into cells, has this not changed the discussion in 150 years? As Biochemists discover what chemical reactions are occurring in living tissue for different creatures, does this not influence evolutionary theory. As various sciences report to ascertain the probabilities of life evolving spontaneously, does not the maths affect how we view the theory? If it requires intelligence to starts life, that notion trumps the whole ‘increasing complexity’ part of evolutionary theory. You need a way to explain the cell.

          If it could be PROVEN 100% undeniably (hypothetically) that Jesus rose from the dead, it would be a nail in the evolution coffin, would it not? Surely that would put His words above any interpretations of scientists? The theory is legitimately threatened from every angle, not just from Biology. To suggest it isn’t is dishonest. One science commenting on another is like a brickie explaining how the pipes are held in place! It’s relevant!!

          And while ‘progressive evolution’ might not be a term used by those in ‘the field’ (please forgive my ignorance) is it not the very founding principle of evolution!! that one family of creatures progressed to become another. It is either a progressive theory or it’s a digressive theory, I state it that way simply to point out that evolution adequately describes digressive biological diversity (where information is lost) but not the progressive kind which the whole theory (to my knowledge at least) relies on. To suggest that evolution is not progressive is either dishonest or the biggest news of the decade!

          If you are indeed saying that evolution no longer supports progression as part of it’s central tenets, then that would be huge news! It seems evolution is culling what it has claimed as it’s own for decades on an increasingly frequent basis. Unravelling anyone?! There won’t be anything left soon- I’m not even sure what we would be debating any more. Seems to me you are saying that God probably does exist since there is no other way to explain things when the progressive nature of the theory is abandoned! And it no longer claims to handle the question of the origins of life (the first cell) either! This has been a debacle for evolution- it’s not surprising that we are starting to get murmurs of ‘evolutionary theists’ as being valid guides in this debate, (Bob). It’s starting to sound like there must be a God for evolution to be valid- at which point, ironically, it kind of isn’t a valid theory any more. If there is a God, evolution is redundant, un-necessary. Natural selection fits with creationism. You can keep that bit, since that is really all you are talking about now, and you can freely join the side of the debate that adequately explains everything- Creationism.

          Man this is good news, especially since you are so adamant that evolution does not seek to eliminate God from human thinking! Perhaps you have some time then to let me tell you about our planets saviour, Jesus Christ who came to redeem you. Since you have no objection to there being a God. This is for you too, Bob. Let me know, I’ll send you some great resources.

          Dude, of course evolutionists seek to remove God as a necessary component! It’s dishonest to suggest otherwise. Some theists have chosen to join the camp because of a lack of decent information to support the traditional Biblical view, but it’s coming in thick and fast now. And logically, ‘evolutionary theist’ is isn’t a viable position. I can explain that if you need me too.

          And it turns out natural selection is right, and gene diversity is right, but it’s unwinding from perfection towards corruption, not winding up from simple to massively complex. It all fits the Creation view a lot better than the alternate view.

          And Hitler? Well you tell me, was he about kindness and mercy to all God’s creatures, or was he about the superiority of one dominant race over another? Without listening to his lying lips, it looks a lot more like survival of the fittest than good theological practice as described by Jesus. Don’t tell me you believe the words of the greatest mass murderer in history, that he was a ‘Christian’? Man that IS naive!

          The question is, why do you think acknowledging either of those two claims would bring down our ‘house of cards’?

          Whether evolutionists intend to create a system that removes God from our culture or not, does nothing to either way to whether there is a Creator God. Nothing at all!! I could say evolutionists are fine with there being a God, it just doesn’t stack up to be an ‘evolutionary theist’. They are conflicting view points, Biblically at least. You might be able to be a Muslim Evolutionist, not sure? They reference the Bible, and then ignore it and contradict it of course, so it’s hard to say. But no matter what, you are talking about an impotent God, one that can’t create of his own accord, and therefore has nothing to say to man, because he would not be ‘made’ in his own image. We would not be needing redemption any more than an animal would, because our conscious free will would be an anomaly, not something to which we are accountable. It’s a different God to the one who has revealed Himself through history to mankind in the Bible. So sure, have your ‘weird’ impotent god if you want one, it just isn’t God.

          And Hilter, do you want me to say he was a good God fearing Christian living out the commands of Christ?! He simply wasn’t. Saying he was would simply be insane, because the evidence shows his actions to be the exact opposite of what Jesus would instruct us to do. But lets say I did said he was a good Christian, how does this collapse the theory that the world has a Creator God? What, because Hitler was a hard-ass?! Well so is God, so maybe he was serving God. That doesn’t undermine a Creator God theory at all does it, since by definition he would have been “serving God”! It’s either that I’m an idiot for saying it, or Hitler is a liar, or Jesus is a poor communicator. Well, I WOULDN’T say that, the label liar fits quick nicely with Hitler’s personality and Jesus communicated exactly as he meant to, and for those who have a heart to hear him, very clearly.

          So to suggest that our ‘house of cards would fall’ based on those two comments- that we ‘can’t acknowledge’- is dishonest to the point of being absurd! Dude, it is you, over and over again that is being dishonest in this conversation.

          Don’t bother responding unless you want to find out about Jesus, or unless you want to comment having watched the videos fully, or you want to respond to the two questions you have been set in the previous entry. Apart from that, its “over and out” from me. I won’t be responding.

        • Kodie

          Blah blah blah – you think evolution is a conspiracy to discredit creationism, because you don’t know what evolution is, and you consistently ignore going to the effort to find out what it is. You listen to your brainwashing religious hype that are trying to create a scientishic myth that you have bought, eaten, swallowed whole, and are henceforth crapping it out, diarrhea-style. You seem to think we’re just not giving it a chance – creationism fails at describing reality and only exists to fool people like you and make money. You have no sense and no business repeating what you do not have a fucking clue about. Get it through your thick block of a skull, creationism is plain wrong. It’s discredited by the scientific community because it’s wrong. Why go to the trouble trying to argue against your brick wall of lies, when all you do is complain how people talk to you and ignore reality while doing so? You’re just an idiot. Religion has probably damaged your brain so you cannot comprehend how wrong you are. You are a casualty of religious bullshit, and now you want to open the door to shove this nonsense at anyone who will listen and silence anyone who is making sure you don’t get very far.

          It’s because you’re absolutely motherfucking wrong in the wrongest way possible – you believe sincerely that you’re right. But it ain’t true, sister.

        • adam

          “Don’t bother responding unless you want to find out about Jesus,”

          We know about your Jesus already.

        • adam

          “And Hilter, do you want me to say he was a good God fearing Christian
          living out the commands of Christ?! He simply wasn’t. Saying he was
          would simply be insane, because the evidence shows his actions to be the
          exact opposite of what Jesus would instruct us to do.”

          Hitler can’t help you:
          http://www.nonstampcollector.com/christian-apologetics-hitler-cant-help-you.html

        • MNb

          “In insisting on having me answer two impossible questions.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          I can perfectly answer those very same questions regarding creationism. I can tell you in detail what would make me reject Evolution Theory and what would make me a believer and even christian.

          “I have told you why I won’t bother; for you to assert otherwise is dishonest- do you get that?”
          Yes – because every single attempt to answer them would make look your creacrap even worse.

          “Why won’t you answer my return questions?”
          Ha, thanks! I have been waiting for this one.

          1. Because you refuse to answer Adam Lee’s two questions.
          2. Because I’m not an expert and am too lazy too look the answers up.
          3. Because you already have shown that you are willing to lie.
          4. Because you already have shown that you will reject any evidence I may bring up for Evolution Theory.
          5. Because no matter how many answers I provide, you never will admit that Evolution Theory is correct (which is why you can’t answer Adam Lee’s two questions, of course).
          6. Because the moment I answer ten questions of yours you will return with twenty others.
          7. Because if you were genuinely interested in the answers you would start to read actual scientific texts and stop linking to creacrap sites.

          In short: because you’re dishonest, produce dishonest questions and every single attempt to answer them is a colossal waste of time. What’s not a waste of time – because I enjoy it immensely – is pushing your buttons. With success again.

          “yet can’t get past one freakin’ minute of a video because it didn’t make sense to you?!”
          Liar, liar, liar, liar.
          It totally did make sense. It made so much sense to me that I understood within a minute that the video was about political propaganda and not about science, hence irrelevant for Evolution Theory. And I told you so.

          “And Hilter, do you want me to say he was a good God fearing Christian living out the commands of Christ?!”
          No. I want you to admit that he was a creationist, just like you.

          “Dude, of course evolutionists seek to remove God as a necessary component!”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          God is not a necessary component of any scientific theory. Scientists are still free to add the component to their worldview.
          Stupid ignorant.

          “Don’t bother responding … I won’t be responding.”
          Ah, quite the authoritarian ….. tries to command me. Command your dog and bark yourself. I will respond to you whenever I feel like. That might be quite often, because your lies are highly amusing. You show your stupid ignorance over and over again.

          “or you want to respond to the two questions you have been set in the previous entry.”
          See? Another lie coming from you. You raised many, many points, want me to answer every single one of them and want to declare yourself a winner if I fail to answer just one. That dishonest strategy – typical for creacrappers – is called

          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

        • Brian Jenkin

          If I misunderstood the intent of evolution as a means of doing away with the need for God, or mis-stated it as it’s goal, then I apologise for my mis-understanding. I was unaware of a nuance that may exist here.

          It seems that all atheists require evolution and other ‘theories’ to substantiate their claim of there not being a God, so I have assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the opposite is also true, that all evolutionists don’t believe in God.

          I suppose looking at it, this is not necessarily the case. But I get that you are an atheist and an evolutionist, so for YOU at least, evolutionary theory carries with it an element of serving to discredit the notion of there being a God.

          Or perhaps you are just not dealing with the question of God at all and are purely interested in evolution as a hobby, and have an arbitrary, non-considered stance on the issue of the existence of God.

          Either way, you’re going to have to tell me, because my assumptions have lead you to believe that I’m lying, so please fill me in. I get now my ignorance in this matter.

        • Kodie

          Your problem is you think evolution is a conspiracy with a sole agenda to discredit god/religion/Christianity/creationism. It’s not. It’s reality, it’s where the evidence actually leads, and some religions are a little better equipped to accept reality than yours is.

        • It seems that all atheists require evolution and other ‘theories’

          You do realize that scientific theories don’t graduate to become something better, right?

          Yeah, I know that’s elementary, but I’m afraid your knowledge of science has been elementary so far.

          … to substantiate their claim of there not being a God

          Not necessarily. The burden of proof is on Christianity. If it doesn’t carry that immense burden, the skeptic is obliged to reject the claim.

          I have assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the opposite is also true, that all evolutionists don’t believe in God.

          Francis Collins is famously an evangelical and a biologist who accepts evolution. Indeed, he pleads with his peeps to accept the obvious fact that evolution is our best explanation.

          evolutionary theory carries with it an element of serving to discredit the notion of there being a God.

          “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” – Richard Dawkins

        • Brian Jenkin

          I didn’t suggest theories graduate. But atheists need other theories to supplement evolution to explain the Universe, as evolution doesn’t attempt to deal with the origins of life, only why we have such a variety of life since that first moment of life sparking into existence. It leaves a gap in the thought-flow as to how the first cell and first matter came into being, and to what human consciousness is, along with all the other (obvious and yet un-acknowledged) gaps. It doesn’t even have a reasonable mechanism through which coherent information is added to the gene pool.

          My knowledge of science is beyond yours Bob, officially and obviously, in that you keep thinking that biology is the only science that matters in this discussion. It is important, but no more important than chemistry, physics, mathematics and all the sub-fields like the study of genes and rocks and fossils.

          Your keep dismissing my knowledge and that’s fine, but I don’t get why you would dismiss the studies of people with PHD’s and Honours Degrees and Bachelor Degrees in science, simply because they evaluate the evidence differently. If you consider that there is only a fraction of society who would classify themselves as born-again followers of Jesus Christ these days, you would have to agree that you would expect the same small proportion of scientists to fit that description.

          You guys all keep saying that our view of God taints our perception of the facts, well by definition, the reverse has to be true, that the views of those who don’t believe are also tainting THEIR perception of the facts. To say otherwise would (logically) be the absolute height of arrogance! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. People are people and our world view gives us our perception. I barrack for Richmond in the AFL, and Collingwood sucks! That’s my world view and everything I see fits that model. But for a Collingwood fan, the exact opposite is true. Which one holds the truth? It’s all perception and the truth is the truth.

          Occasionally there are the intellectually honest, curious scientists who actually wants the facts to speak for themselves and to know the truth, and they are the ones getting shot down when they become convinced that the consensus has got it wrong. Discredited and dis-avowed in many cases, their removal from consideration by the consensus falsely perpetuates the consensus. There is so much is at stake, evolution is a science falsely protected from genuine opposition voices. It’s just like you guys- I have had so many insults hurled my way simply for holding a view that challenges the status quo. It’s an automatic response, without genuine consideration. Genuine consideration! As in considering that it may have merit.

          I admit that there is some soft argument at Creation.com and other places online, (but no softer than coming from the other side). But the information that is cutting, is truly cutting, but you have no time for it Bob, and hence don’t challenge your thinking with genuine consideration.

          I love coming across articles that make a great counterpoint, that undermine my standing and faith. It’s awesome, it’s just not terribly common, although you guys have forwarded a few such articles to me. But every time, upon examination, they start to unravel, like the whale progression. The central link is false, it doesn’t exist as evolution needs it to, as acknowledged by the professor himself that uncovered the fossil, Dr. Gingerich. This is the best example of transitional fossil evidence between two families of animals that I have seen presented thus far (and challenged me for a while), but alas it is based on nothing more than nice artwork and a proven false assumption! Just like the ‘Piltdown Man’. This is bad science, and at least Dr. Gingerich is honest enough to admit it. But for him, it’s back to evolution drawing board. What will it take to have him consider that the evidence simply is not saying what he wants it to say?

          Back to the point. Creation.com has 9 PHD’s on staff in the fields of Plant Science, Engineering, Molecular Biology, Science/Engineering, Physics, Nuclear Physics and Zoology.

          There are also 17 other science degrees of which 4 are honours degrees and the fields include, Geology, Biology, Palaeontology, Chemistry, Medicine, Surgery, Computing, Mathematical Science, Organic Chemistry and Zoology. And every one of these fields has something relevant to say about the scientific processes of evolution.

          Between them, I bet these guys could teach you a couple of things Bob, or does their world view exclude their education from being relevant to your opinion as well? Again, this would be astoundingly arrogant! But why is it arrogant if the consensus agrees? Well, good question. It’s arrogant because you think you are the judge over what is good and bad science based solely on your world view. You haven’t actually considered for yourself who has the strongest arguments.

          We were all given a brain to use to navigate our way to truth, but the obstacle of pride. Is it possible that the consensus is wrong?! If you say not, again it’s a very arrogant position to take, because it undermines the entire scientific process. Cosmological theory has been redrafted several times, it’s the very nature of science to be self correcting, which carries with it the very nature of a possibility of being wrong. So if evolution can’t be wrong, it’s not science any more, it’s religion! It is still a Theory, by the way. That means that the consensus says it has not built a strong enough case yet to be called a Law. If it can’t be wrong in your estimation, then it has become your religion, Bob.

          If evolution could be wrong, you personally have given it no honest thought or consideration of your own, making you irrelevant to this conversation. It might be worth listening to some guys with PHD’s etc. to get a few challenging thoughts about what is otherwise a religion for you, Bob, instead of just dismissing it all as crap, as so many of you guys do. It’s either the HEIGHT of arrogance, or the submission to a new religion! And that’s why it’s the new 800 pound gorilla in the room.

          At the time of Darwin, the common belief was that life could just randomly spawn anywhere. Mice in a barn and flies on poop for example. They had no concept of bacteria and how complex they are in themselves!! To say that Darwin made it possible to be intellectually fulfilled means that Dawkins is deluded, since so much has gone by without a viable explanation. What Darwin did was create a construct for a belief system in which God is no longer needed to explain what we see- at all! And as self-righteous humans wanting to be under no moral authority, it occurred as being a very convenient view and we ran with it. But it is miles from being proven, not even close. But yet, the faithful persist.

          So Bob, straight up, is there, in your opinion, a God and is this based on your belief in evolution as the ‘consensus’ would currently have it? If it’s due to a ‘lack of evidence’, what kind of evidence would you consider creates a reasonable basis for belief?

        • I didn’t suggest theories graduate.

          No, you put “theories” in quotes. That’s like saying, “I just got a ‘Nobel Prize.’”

          But atheists need other theories to supplement evolution to explain the Universe

          Uh, yeah. Is this interesting or relevant?

          Evolution explains very well only what it explains. It doesn’t explain everything. I’m glad we’ve acknowledged the elephant in the room. Of course, the same is true for every other frikkin’ scientific theory.

          It doesn’t even have a reasonable mechanism through which coherent information is added to the gene pool.

          Wrong again.

          My knowledge of science is beyond yours Bob, officially and obviously, in that you keep thinking that biology is the only science that matters in this discussion.

          We’ve been talking about evolution. Yes, biology is the relevant science.

          I don’t get why you would dismiss the studies of people with PHD’s and Honours Degrees and Bachelor Degrees in science, simply because they evaluate the evidence differently.

          I publicly laugh and point and ridicule nonbiologists when they reject the scientific consensus in biology. If you have additional means of public humiliation, feel free to add them to the list.

          If you consider that there is only a fraction of society who would classify themselves as born-again followers of Jesus Christ these days, you would have to agree that you would expect the same small proportion of scientists to fit that description.

          List by name the biologists who reject evolution. I can think of two.

          I barrack for Richmond in the AFL, and Collingwood sucks! That’s my world view and everything I see fits that model. But for a Collingwood fan, the exact opposite is true. Which one holds the truth? It’s all perception and the truth is the truth.

          You’re seriously comparing football team preference (Richmond vs. Collingwood) to scientific theories (evolution vs. Creationism)? Stupid analogy.

          Occasionally there are the intellectually honest, curious scientists who actually wants the facts to speak for themselves and to know the truth, and they are the ones getting shot down when they become convinced that the consensus has got it wrong.

          Once again, I stand in awe at how calmly and efficiently you cut through the bullshit and discover the right answer. And, once again, the right answer is your position. You’ve got brass balls.

          Discredited and dis-avowed in many cases, their removal from consideration by the consensus falsely perpetuates the consensus.

          Evolution deniers get their noses bloodied? Tough. Science is hardball—get out if you can’t take it.

          The benefit for laymen like you and me is that claims get serious study before they’re accepted as consensus. I wouldn’t have it any other way. Wake me up when the consensus is overturned. Until that point, I have no time for fringe views.

          I have had so many insults hurled my way simply for holding a view that challenges the status quo.

          It’s a lot more than that.

          It’s an automatic response, without genuine consideration.

          Wrong again.

          But the information that is cutting, is truly cutting, but you have no time for it Bob, and hence don’t challenge your thinking with genuine consideration.

          I’ve listed the time I’ve spent (and still do spend) hanging out with Creationists. Clearly nothing I do—besides drinking the Kool Aid—will satisfy you, so I’ll always be closed-minded in your eyes. That hard road is the one fate has consigned me to.

          I love coming across articles that make a great counterpoint, that undermine my standing and faith.

          You seem to understand evolution so poorly that I doubt it.

          But every time, upon examination, they start to unravel, like the whale progression.

          How fun that you go into the debate knowing from God himself the correct answer. Golly, I’m envious.

          Back to the point. Creation.com has 9 PHD’s on staff in the fields of Plant Science, Engineering, M olecular Biology, Science/Engineering, Physics, Nuclear Physics and Zoology.

          I count two terminal degrees in biology. If the topic is evolution, then they have 2 relevant scientists. You do know that that’s the field in which evolution is the consensus, right?

          It’s arrogant because you think you are the judge over what is good and bad science based solely on your world view. You haven’t actually considered for yourself who has the strongest arguments.

          Let’s see: I haven’t considered this though I’ve studied the evolution/Creation thing for 20+ years and am still in the middle of it, and this was the debate that made me an atheist. And I’m setting myself up as the judge of science despite the fact that I accept the consensus regardless of whether it pleases me or not.

          Only a religious mindset could fuck up reality so bad.

          We were all given a brain to use to navigate our way to truth

          I’m using mine; how about you?

          When I stand before God in judgment and he asks me what I did with his great gift of the human mind, I’ll be able to say that I used it to its fullest. You?

          Is it possible that the consensus is wrong?!

          Obviously.

          it’s the very nature of science to be self correcting, which carries with it the very nature of a possibility of being wrong.

          So what? You’re one of the lucky ones who’s got the Truth.

          It is still a Theory, by the way. That means that the consensus says it has not built a strong enough case yet to be called a Law.

          Hilarious! After you said, “I didn’t suggest theories graduate” you’re still baffled about what a theory and a law are in science!

          Do us all a favor and study up for a while and then come back.

          If evolution could be wrong, you personally have given it no honest thought or consideration of your own, making you irrelevant to this conversation.

          I’ll tell you what’s irrelevant to the conversation: your musings on the subject. You’re not a biologist, right?

          instead of just dismissing it all as crap

          Already told you why this isn’t the case.

          Mice in a barn and flies on poop for example

          Fascinating. Abiogenesis replaced spontaneous generation long ago.

          as self-righteous humans wanting to be under no moral authority

          So we all actually know that evolution is crap, we just don’t want it to be true? Thank you, Dr. Freud.

          it is miles from being proven, not even close

          Yet more elementary science fuckups. Read a textbook, stop embarrassing yourself, and stop wasting our time.

          is there, in your opinion, a God

          No. Insufficient evidence.

        • Brian Jenkin

          There are lots of reasons why Francis Collins can’t logically be both, just as I was once. He has to be a ‘non-fully’ considered view, because the two don’t fit together when you actually look.

          Fortunately now, we have scientists doing work on behalf of Christians which shows that we don’t actually have to believe both, and that in fact the evidence is overwhelmingly supporting a young earth. The ‘facts’ of evolution were the main reason I departed the faith 20+ years ago, only to discover decades later that the evidence has been pointing elsewhere the whole time. I just bought what was being sold to me without genuine inquiry and scrupulous scepticism. And I did that from a place of belief, how could you be expected not to?

        • The guy has a brilliant CV, so let’s just keep on the table the possibility that he actually has fully considered it.

          You know that most Christians are happy with evolution, right? It’s just in America’s dusty corner of Christianity that evolution denial is accepted.

          Show me how it’s impossible to be an evangelical and accept evolution.

          Fortunately now, we have scientists doing work on behalf of Christians which shows that we don’t actually have to believe both

          And once again we have little ol’ you up declaring victory over the scientific community. Sort of ballsy; sort of stupid.

          Are you saying that you’d be quite happy to accept evolution if the evidence only pointed that way?

          in fact the evidence is overwhelmingly supporting a young earth.in fact the evidence is overwhelmingly supporting a young earth.

          Young earth, too? Interesting. Yet another consensus you have no interest in. I bet it’s even a consensus within the community of evolution deniers.

        • MNb

          “Hypothetical God Fallacy is only a fallacy if indeed there is no God. If He does exist, then it’s not hypothetical any more, is it?”
          Begging the question.

          “And at that point it is entirely reasonable, as the actual (although not measurable by us) force behind the material universe that explains every scientific observation that humanity has ever made.”

          See that you’re a liar? You objected to Evolution Theory with “evolution can’t be measured. Now you want to use your not measurable god hypothesis to explain every scientific observation.

          “That’s a logical progression on the back of the possibility of there being a God, isn’t it!”
          No, it isn’t. If your god explains everything he/she/it explains nothing. That’s why these questions are relevant:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-two-questions/

          Your refusal to answer them shows you dishonesty.
          You also show that if you accepted unbelief and Evolution Theory in the past that you were a terribly ill informed unbeliever. That makes the testimony of your conversion lose a lot of, if not all credibility.

        • Kodie

          You’re not following evidence, you’re following an agenda that makes up its own evidence. They not only tell you what they want you to think about god and creationism, they tell you how to find fault with science, without even looking at it. You’re irritating because you are willfully ignorant and smarmy about it. If there is a god, you say, what’s to say there is anything that isn’t possible? Because you’re presupposing there is a god and that impossible things that contradict what we’ve learned about the world are possible. Sorry, but your bible has been contradicted by actual humans doing actual research. I can’t believe you use David Attenborough going out into the world to show you things that do exist as an example, you’re not showing us anything that actually exists, you’re repeating horseshit from the horseshit factory, who are in denial of reality and anything that conflicts with their story.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Not sure why the Bible only speaks of two dinosaurs or whatever they were, but it didn’t speak of vast numbers of other individual creatures either…koalas, lamas, zebras…

        • Do your research. Wikipedia lists what looks to be over 100 animals. And none of these are dinosaurs … except leviathan and behemoth, which look just like mythological monsters.

        • Kodie

          That might tell you those creatures are imaginary. They didn’t have access to koalas or llamas or zebras. But a couple of lost dinosaurs showed up in the middle east.

        • Susan

          Hi Brian,

          What do you think ‘evolution’ is? How does natural selection work?

        • Brian Jenkin

          Hi Susan. Nice to have a friendly question/comment, thanks. It’s been a bit of a rough neighbourhood! LOL.

          To keep it simple, and short, (it’s past bed time for me), evolution is a theory, just like creationism. Both look at the evidence at hand to see if it supports what they would expect to see inside of it’s hypothesis. Essentially as I understand it, evolution hypothesises that life started by chance, as a single cell, and mutated, adding more and more complex data to the DNA until that cell had exploded in variety in every conceivable direction until we have what we see today. Each species and family of species came out of a similar one from further up the chain.

          Small changes, over vast spans of time, with countless false starts and unhelpful mutations. Inside of this hypothesis, we would expect to see a vast fossil evidence of such failed and intermediate families and species. This is one of the big problems facing the theory, an almost entire lack of such evidence, among other issues. There is instead a massive number of fossils of modern day creatures along side the extinct species laid down in many of the same rock beds. So perhaps there is better theory? Worth thinking about, surely?

          Natural selection is a fundamental part of both theories because it is what we see happening (observably). This part of the equation (strangely to some) actually supports creationism better than it supports evolution. It explains how we have ended up with such diversity from an original creature (for example wolves to dogs). As we would expect in creation theory, dogs carry less genetic information than wolves. It’s a natural process that happens as they adapt to new environments and they lose diversity in that population. For example, long haired dogs in a hot environment have a disadvantage to short haired, so in those parts of the world, dogs with short hair breed and effectively cull the long haired genes out of the population.

          We see the genetic system winding down, not expanding with new information as evolution would predict. Even the analysis of mitochondrial DNA (carried by women) and Y chromosome DNA, carried by men points to the Biblical narrative. Scientists expected to see more variety in male markers than in female because of their propensity to roam, but it turns out, there is close to four times the variety in the female markers!

          Why? Because Noah boarded the arc with his wife, his three sons and their wives. The men all carried the same Y chromosome, the ladies were from four different families. Turns out, when you actually look, almost all the evidence points towards Creation by a loving God, which is also recorded into human history as well with the stories of the Jews and the life and miracles of Jesus.

          What do you think? Am I crazy? Thanks again Susan.

        • Kodie

          Where are you following this evidence? You only believe what the DI tells you to believe?

        • Susan

          Hi Brian,

          I don’t know where to begin.

          evolution is a theory, just like creationism.

          Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. Creationism is not.

          Where are you taking first year biology?

        • Kodie

          You seem to accept evolution (a bit) and then call it something else due to your severe misapprehension of what evolution is. You’re also making unsupported claims about some story you were told that blew your mind, but expect us to be as gullible.

        • MNb

          These days all creacrappers accept micro evolution, with which they mean “evolution within a kind”. Even Ol’ Hambo has learned to avoid some stupid mistakes. Read anything more than the title at your own risk.

          https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid

        • Kodie

          I don’t really know about the DNA of dogs vs. wolves. Brian Jenkin calls it a “degradation” which to me sounds like he is understanding the genetic differences, but then shoving his head far up into his ass about how dogs are really just wolves that are tamed, genetically. As though “wolf” is the primary species, he is trained to think that evolution would make something bigger and better and fiercer, survival-wise, right, so dogs are like going backwards and not “evolution.” That’s not “evolution,” because dogs are less equipped to survive in the wild. To him, evidence of a wolf evolving, aside from the “transitional species” you provide him with “dog”, would have to be some sort of mega-wolf, even wolfier than wolves, but “microevolutionarily,” still the same kind, so not evidence either.

          I don’t really get what they expect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ

        • Greg G.

          And I’m sorry if I said ‘alive’ red blood cells. What might be more accurate is to call them structurally intact.

          There were no “structurally intact” cells either. That’s the creationism talking.

          As for your understanding of DNA and the way it works, a dog is not an intermediate species. As you said yourself, some dogs are still able to interbreed with wolves! The others have had too much of their original DNA stripped to be compatible any more, but it’s not evolution, it’s a degradation in the available genes (that they once had as wolves) through natural selection.

          I have read that Great Danes and St. Bernards cannot interbreed because the genes that make long bones in Danes is lethally incompatible with the genes that make bones thick in Bernards. Either can crossbreed with other types of dogs. If this is so (I have not found another source to verify this claim*), technically, Danes and Bernards are separate species.forming a ring species with dogs.

          * I Googled for cross-breeds of the two breeds a year or two ago and found a few cases but every one came from at least one impure line.

        • Chihuahuas and Great Danes can’t interbreed because of the size difference. In the wild, they’d be separate non-interbreeding species.

        • Greg G.

          Thought for the day: Chihuahuas in the wild.

          They would be tacos for coyotes.

        • Ron

          Yo quiero Chalupa Chihuahuas!

        • Kodie

          Drop the chalupa!

        • MNb

          “MNb, your lack of understanding of scientific principal is becoming apparent to me.”

          BWAHAHAHAHA!

          You say this to a qualified and experienced teacher math and physics, silly.

          “To say evolution can best tested shows supreme ignorance”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Says the guy who doesn’t even know that Evolution Theory is not about the origing of our Universe or the origin of life.

          “To test evolution, you need to be able recreate the conditions in which it took place and observe it happening again.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          To test creation, you need to be able recreate the conditions in which it took place and observe it happening again.
          You just discredited your own creacrap and don’t even recognize it.

          “What you are actually testing is EVIDENCE inside of a frame of reference called a theory.”
          Yeah. That’s what all tests are about. You know – a theory formulates testable hypotheses and then you try to find out if the tests confirm those hypotheses. That’s how science works. That’s why you build an electrical circuit when you want to test Ohm’s Law.
          You don’t even understand anymore what you write yourself.

          “a dog is not an intermediate species. As you said yourself, some dogs are still able to interbreed with wolves! The others have had too much of their original DNA stripped”

          Irrelevant. That some dogs are still able to interbreed shows that dogs and wolves have a common ancestor. That some aren’t anymore shows that dogs are evolving into a new species. Because that’s the very definition of species: two populations not capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

          “it’s a degradation in the available genes (that they once had as wolves) through natural selection. A poodle does not have extra DNA material compared to a wolf, it has less. This is NOT evolution!”
          It’s actually not degradation, but even if it were it still were evolution. An ignorant creacrapper like you doesn’t get to define scientific terms.

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

          What’s happening with dogs since what is it, 10 000 years or so, is nicely covered by this.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Hey stranger, this is getting silly! You’re overly aggressive and not making sense. Dogs ‘evolving into new species’ is a symptom of genetic diversity and natural selection (or man controlled selection in this case). The wolf is the common ancestor and while they might be different species, they are still DOGS!!!

          If evolution theory has nothing to do with the origin of life, what was Darwin banging on about in that little book of insignificance that he wrote…”Origin of species”? Ring any bells? Probably not by the sounds. But humour me, what is evolution about if not the transformation of one family of creatures into another over time, starting with a single cell amoeba? Or are you giving God credit for that first cell?

          If you don’t understand my arguments, ask! I did not discredit my own writings, it just looks that way to you at the moment.

        • MNb

          “this is getting silly!”
          Eh no. You were silly straight from the start.

          “You’re overly aggressive”
          Shrug. If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

          “and not making sense.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, as if

          “Dogs ‘evolving into new species’ is a symptom of genetic diversity and natural selection (or man controlled selection in this case). The wolf is the common ancestor and while they might be different species, they are still DOGS!!!”
          makes any sense.
          Btw you are the one who is shouting with your capitals and exclamation marks. I only laugh. Can’t help it – you’re too funny. What are you saying? This:

          Dogs evolving into new species are still dogs, which means that they always have been dogs, except that the wolf is the common ancestor so in the past they weren’t dogs yet.

          Nothing in this word salad –your word salad – contradicts the simple fact – and a simple fact it is: some dogs (canis lupus familiaris) are capable of interbreeding with the grey wolf (canis lupus) and getting fertile offspring while others aren’t. That’s a fine example of speciation in progress.
          It’s also funny that you want to contradict this, because elsewhere you claimed that speciation rather confirms creation iso evolution …. This is new, though creacrappers like you of course never have cared about consistency and coherence.
          Dogs are an intermediate species if that term has any meaning that makes sense. But you have to deny this every which way you can and so will rather violate your very own 9th Commandment than admit it. Notice that the 9th Commandment says nothing about ignorance and stupidity as justification.

        • Kodie

          We’re still apes too!

        • adam

          Even the Bible records (in Job) a creature called behemoth with a tail
          like a cedar (tree). What else could that be but a dinosaur?

          Yes, and the bible describes talking snakes and donkey’s, unicorns and of course supernatural MAGIC.

        • Greg G.

          Even the Bible records (in Job) a creature called behemoth with a tail like a cedar (tree). What else could that be but a dinosaur?

          Don’t be naive. They used euphemisms. When Ruth wanted Boaz to redeem her, she watched where he bedded down, then went and “uncovered his feet”. It worked. Do you really think that really means “feet”?

          When they talk about a “tail”, it may well mean something else. Have you ever seen a horny elephant?

        • Brian Jenkin

          Thanks Greg,

          There are many different styles of writing in the Bible, and Job is largely a record of a man’s life and his struggling with God. The context here is God speaking to Job:

          Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:
          7“Brace yourself like a man;
          I will question you,
          and you shall answer me.
          8“Would you discredit my justice?
          Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
          …..
          15“Look at Behemoth,
          which I made along with you
          and which feeds on grass like an ox.
          16What strength it has in its loins,
          what power in the muscles of its belly!
          17Its tail sways like a cedar;
          the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
          18Its bones are tubes of bronze,
          its limbs like rods of iron.
          19It ranks first among the works of God,
          yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.

          The lines about bones and limbs are metaphors to describe the strength and stature of the creature. What was God’s point? That the largest creature Job knows of is well within the range of God’s power. It’s not a euphemism, as you can see in the text, Greg. Why would he not say ‘horny elephant’ if he meant ‘horny elephant’?

        • Greg G.

          The author was probably writing about a creature he had only heard of through exaggerations. Dinosaurs didn’t have bones of bronze or limbs of iron.

        • Dys

          You are so uninformed!!

          Considering you’re a young earth creationist (which isn’t scientific in the slightest), you’re completely unqualified to make this assertion. You’re on par with being a flat-earther (which is the world actually described by the bible anyway, so if consistency is important to you…).

          but since it has practically no direct bearing on virtually all of our Earthly calculations, we essentially ignore Relativity

          Ever use a GPS?

          What else could that be but a dinosaur?

          The bible is not a history book, and pretending it is one is a mistake. Plenty of stories contain mythological creatures. It’s also possible that the story is exaggerating a creature like a rhino or elephant.

          I’d also point out that all the so-called evidences of humans and dinosaurs co-existing have been repeatedly debunked, but creationists have a nasty habit of ignoring them.

          Time to go seeking with an open mind my friend.

          People who accuse others of being close-minded are often the ones most guilty of it. Considering your position of biblical literalism, I find it highly unlikely that you’re an exception.

          Young earth creationism is a pseudo-scientific stance that relies on the inane notion that geology, biology, and cosmology (and probably a few other disciplines like physics as well) are all conspiracies to undermine the bible. It’s a nonsensical position.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Who told you the Bible says the Earth is flat? Can you show me that? I can show you four examples where it describes it in terms indicating it as round, none for flat-earth I’m sorry. Misinformed there Dys.

          Also misinformed about it not being a history book. That is exactly what it is and has stood the test of time and the harshest critiquing of any book in history for it’s authenticity as a historical record.

          Have you seen the tales of a rhino or an elephant? They are tiny!! That’s some serious exaggeration! Not buying it, sorry.

          Can you show me this categorical de-bunking? I’ve looked into the lengths that the scientists went to at the Paluxy River site to leave no room for doubt. Why would they risk such a find that proves their hypothesis? They were scrupulous.

          Closed minded, I was an atheist 10 years ago, but to my embarrassment, the facts from every scientific discipline started to get in the way.

          Hey, thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate you taking the time to write as you have. I highly encourage you just to remain ever questioning, you never know what might come up. That’s the heart of science right? Follow the evidence…

        • Dys

          Who told you the Bible says the Earth is flat?

          The bible. The Earth described in Genesis is a flat one, covered by a domed firmament. It’s remarkably similar to the Sumerian cosmological model. No, I’m not misinformed at all.

          Hopefully you don’t intend to use Isaiah 40:22 for your defense of the earth being spherical, as it says no such thing, instead referring to a disc-shaped earth.

          Also misinformed about it not being a history book.

          No, I’m not. And your assertion that it has withstood critique as such is simply false. Geology, archaeology, and cosmology stand against it, and have refuted many of its assertions. Hell, literalists have been trying to invent a census for years to get around the fact that there’s no legitimate reason for Mary and Joseph to go to Bethlehem for Jesus to be born, since there wasn’t a census, and the Romans didn’t require the stipulation. Instead, it’s merely an attempt to tie Jesus to Bethlehem in order to “fulfill” the prophecy in Micah.

          Can you show me this categorical de-bunking? I’ve looked into the
          lengths that the scientists went to at the Paluxy River site to leave no
          room for doubt.

          Paluxy? Really? You must not have looked very hard.

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
          http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/paluxy-man-creationist-piltdown

          Even ICR, while continuing to play up the mystery angle on the issue, admits using Paluxy as evidence for your position is a bad idea.

          Closed minded, I was an atheist 10 years ago, but to my embarrassment,
          the facts from every scientific discipline started to get in the way.

          It’s incredibly telling that you’re directly associating closed-mindedness with atheism. You’re reinforcing my point. And the scientific evidence in no way supports young earth creationism. Which is precisely why it’s been rejected as scientific position, and properly labeled as pseudo-science.

        • Kodie

          Did you see the post Greg G. made about how they might have been describing the penis and not the tail? Seems like you are pretty selective about which available information you respond to, i.e. whether you have a canned response to it or not. The rest, as all creationists go, can go fuck itself and doesn’t exist. I’m not afraid of any information you want to share, it will not upset evolution, it will only tell us how gullible you are.

        • Who told you the Bible says the Earth is flat? Can you show me that?

          Isaiah uses one word for flat disk–a circumference–and another word for sphere–a ball. They use the first one to describe the earth. If they’d meant “sphere,” they would’ve said so.

        • That’s the heart of science right? Follow the evidence…

          Sounds good to me, but why are you saying this? I see no evidence that this is what you’re doing. “Follow the evidence” means “follow the bread crumbs carefully laid out to lead you to Jeezus.”

        • Brian Jenkin

          Good example with the science of astro-physics. It’s a science for sure, forensic in nature, yes. We agree on that. It is also a field of study in which you can’t set up certain controlled, repeatable experiments to understand a black hole, for example. You can only look at the evidence it hand and make assertions about it, inside of certain presumptions about uncontrolled variables. And interestingly, the theories have undergone constant reassessment and retooling to navigate towards a model that fits the evidence.

          This is however cannot be said for evolutionary theory despite so much problematic evidence. That evidence is either ignored, bastardized or intentionally and falsely ‘dis-credited’ to keep the theory alive? The question is why- what’s at stake if the theory isn’t maintained? I’m glad you asked…

          Well this theory carries with it a personal, human motive, unlike in astro-physics research, in that the repercussions of a failed theory (evolution) mean acknowledging God as our authority- most impractical to a self-idolizing species. And that motive is what undermines the authenticity of the entire field of research called evolutionary theory.

        • Kodie

          Whatever upsetting evidence you think you have for denying evolution is discredited because it’s false. Whatever upsetting evidence you think you have for denying evolution is in support of a delusion created and maintained by humans for a human agenda – to make money and to appear scientifically credible to idiots like you to make more money, because between an obvious delusion and science, most people are going to pick science. If they dress up the delusion to look like science, it’s still a delusion. They got you so fooled that you think you’re smarter than scientists.

          I have no personal stake in evolution being true. Why would anyone?

        • MNb

          “the theories have undergone constant reassessment and retooling to navigate towards a model that fits the evidence.
          This is however cannot be said for evolutionary theory despite so much problematic evidence.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          That is exactly what can be said for Evolution Theory. Charles Darwin would recognize only few elements could he learn the 2015 version.

          “That evidence is either ignored, bastardized or intentionally and falsely ‘dis-credited’ to keep the theory alive? The question is why- what’s at stake if the theory isn’t maintained? I’m glad you asked…”
          I’m glad you asked (I didn’t), because it shows exactly the opposite of what you suggest.
          You haven’t provided any evidence that was either “ignored, bastardized or intentionally and falsely discredited” that refutes Evolution Theory. Nothing. Yup – you are a liar. Are you going to stick to it?
          We know what’s at stake for you and all other creacrappers refusing to accept Evolution Theory – your specific brand of belief.

          “the repercussions of a failed theory (evolution) mean acknowledging God as our authority”

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Hey thanks – you have definitely demonstrated that you’re a liar. I brought up Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller, two important evolutionary biologists who also are christians. They show this foolish statement of yours totally incorrect.
          But I’ll tell you more. Let’s assume you manage to disprove Evolution Theory. No way it would make me convert, let alone to christianity. It would only mean that we need a better scientific theory – scientific one, not the creacrap you support.
          What’s more – evolutionary biologists would love to refute Evolution Theory. Doing so would make them eternally famous and place them above Darwin. Unfortunately I can’t find a link right now, but there are a few.

        • Brian Jenkin

          The blackwell publishing link talks about hypothetical measurement of the rate of evolution since we can’t measure it over millions of years. Not much practical use.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Besides which, we aren’t talking about natural variations within a defined species, we are talking about fossils and evidence of creatures evolving new features, like plastic teeth, or extra limbs, or additional eyes in it’s arse to see predators better. Actual evloving, not just variations within the DNA code that already exists.

        • DNA changing isn’t evolution? How do you think the additional eyes get there?

        • MNb

          Thanks for dishonestly neglecting observed speciation.
          Also thanks for ignoring the evidence provided by Canis Lupus Familiaris (aka dog), which is a fine contemporary example of an intermediate species.
          I am not talking about natural variations within a defined species either. I am talking about one species transforming in another.

        • MNb

          Perhaps – but not much is still something and hence refutes your claim that evolution is not measurable.
          So shrug.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Transitional fossils ought to show a multitude of stages between ‘linked’ species, and tangents of unsuccessful stages as well. They don’t, the fossil records are massively missing compared to what science would expect inside of the theory. What we do see though is thousands of fossils from creatures roaming the earth today, that’s also odd inside of the theory- yes? To point out individual fossils as a single stage leap between two species only brings up the issue of where the Colugo fits into the evolutionary tree. It is like several different branches of the tree but does not adequately fit any of them entirely. Could it be evidence that it was created, distinct to all the other branches? http://creation.com/colugo

          The ‘transitional’ fossils in the wikipedia link are just other distinct, extinct creatures, wonderfully created as unique, like all the others.

        • Tiktaalik.

        • MNb

          “the fossil records are massively missing compared to what science would expect inside of the theory.”
          Yeah. Your genealogy since Adam and Eve is also massively missing compared to what science would expect inside of creationism. How do I know that your ancestors of 12 century ago were humans? I think they were aliens uniquely created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
          Now show me why your version of creationism is correct and mine is incorrect – by only using scientific means. Because what did you write again? Genesis does not contain scientific claims, so the Bible is out.

        • MNb

          Part 2.

          “But the problem is not in the evidence, it’s in the filter through which we look at the evidence.”
          Agreed. Now it happens to be the case that every single time you start your car, watch TV or turn on your computer to pollute internet with your creacrap you rely on exactly the same filter as evolutionary biologists and paleontologists use. That filter is called methodological naturalism.

          “And the purpose of the model? To do away with our need for God, because we would rather this be ‘our story’ than History.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Yeah, the christians Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins are very eager to “do away with our need for God”.

          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_01.html
          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/collins.html

          “Rationalise away this science ….”
          Why? You did it yourself when your wrote

          “True science needs to be testable, repeatable and measurable”

          Please show me how Genesis 1 and 2 are testable, repeatable and measurable. But don’t expect me holding my breath.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Genesis is not claiming to be science. It’s intended to be inspired historical record from a God that wants us to know. It’s not repeatable, testable and measurable, but what’s ironic is that neither is evolution. Evidence can be tested, repeatedly if necessary, but the theory cannot be replicated and observed- that’s why it’s still and always will be a THEORY. It is not scientific FACT, any more than creationism ever could be. But one or the other is a FACT, the question is what else is available to guide us? Enter Jesus Christ and the testimonies of a dozen first hand witnesses/martyrs that changed humanity forever with verified accounts of countless miracles. Verified by secular writers at the time, unwittingly adding to the testimony and validating the account of miracles.

          I’ll take a look at your links, but it makes zero sense to say that a Christian would want to do away with your need for God! What exactly do you mean by this?

          And methodological naturalism (thanks for defining the filter at play) has presuppositions behind it. It is looking to prove a theory that things started of natural means. It is not looking to the evidence to guide it’s quest, it’s looking to fulfil the quest it’s on, which is only true science for a while until the evidence points elsewhere, at which juncture, a new theory is required.

        • Pofarmer

          Too. Much. stupid.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Man, I waste words! It is extraordinary what marvellous contribution can be made to a civil discussion in just three words!! Good work, Porfarmer!

          Sorry to have a bit of fun at your expense, it’s all in good humour! 🙂

        • Pofarmer

          This isn’t a civil discussion. This is you prevailing on people and being an ignorant prick.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Fair enough Pofarmer. I don’t mean to be ‘prevailing’.

          http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/prevailing

          I thought you had me for a second there until I looked up what the word means and discovered that I am actually not the ignorant one! And English isn’t even my speciality- more Physics, Maths, Chemistry and Biology.

          And if you are the one not wanting a civil discussion, it seems that maybe you are also the one being the pr*ck too. Smile buddy! You won’t have to hear from me again, because I have no interest in talking to you.

          C’mon guys, isn’t anyone else going to stand up for representing atheists with dignity in this conversation? Put this guy in his place, he is doing you no favours.

        • Pofarmer

          There is no dignity in this conversation, fuckwit.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Don’t come complaining to me about that….you don’t see me calling people names as a ‘scientific’ defence.

          🙂 Ahhh, joy!

          And still nobody from the atheist community says a word.

          You ought to all try what I’m doing and go to a Creationists Blog and thoughtfully engage everybody there simultaneously and notice the difference. See if you get called names; or don’t you have the guts to consider another view and put yourself up at stake.

          Can’t wait to see the next enthralling ‘rebut-le’ of slurs! Wait for it….here it comes….

          Bob- you enjoying this? I know Kodie is!

        • Paul B. Lot

          “go to a Creationists Blog “

          Been there, done that, would do again.

          Toss out a link for yours.

        • Kodie

          Stop whining. You are ignorant, your arguments are terrible, and you are desperate for respect. You want to win this debate on how sensitive you are to criticism?

          Because you know you’re not right.

        • Brian Jenkin

          I know I am right which is why I am so comfortable with you’re attacks- they however are a sign of a weak mind and a shaky foundation. Name calling and disrespect are the LOWEST forms of ‘debate’, if you could call them that. Very poor showing Kodie, you embarrass yourself.

        • Kodie

          I’m not embarrassed at all, but you should be. A grown man, Brian Jenkin, eager to cheat on his wife if only there were no god! But alas, you have fallen and hit your head on terrible arguments. Believing in creationism is a sign of a weak mind. Pretending those are amazing world-shattering arguments is the sign of a weak mind. Being overly confident about it doesn’t make you that smart. Calling you a whiner because you want those terrible arguments to be treated with respect is an accurate label. Degrees from university don’t make someone smart, but believing in creationism, threatening people, whining about how disrespectfully you’re being treated, and being *this close* to adultery, and using your real name (I presume?) and real picture of your face (I presume?) while you admit to such horseshit is the opposite of smart. The lowest form of debate is coming here without an argument, acting like you have a winning argument, and then whining about how you are treated.

          Creationism is for the gullible. Brian Jenkin has no personal respect for his own wife, he is under threat of hell to respect her on someone else’s behalf.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “I know I am right which is why I am so comfortable with you’re attacks”

          I’ve met:
          Catholics
          Muslims
          Mormons
          J. Witnesses
          Scientologists
          Protestants

          who all claim the same thing. Their complacent certainty is, per se, a sort of evidence to them. It’s a shame that people like you never stop to realize that *plenty* of other people are just a smugly-self-satisfied with their views…..views which are diametrically opposed to yours.

          “you’re [your] attacks- they however are a sign of a weak mind and a shaky foundation.” (FTFY)

          Attacking you for your stupidity is not a sign of a shaky foundation — it is a sign of a lack of patience for perceived stupidity.

          Could Kodie be more patient? Absolutely.

          So could I.

          Our level of patience says nothing about the content of our arguments, or their “foundations”; merely that we are not yet zen masters.

          That you would try to make the logical leap from [impatience] to [shaky foundation] is another mark against you — I’ll add it to the huge tally of poor reasoning you’ve racked up here so far.

          Please stay with us: I want to see how deep the stupid goes in you.

          🙂

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Physics, Maths, Chemistry and Biology”

          If you do, in fact, have any degree of facility with any of these subjects, it just goes to show how powerful the human mind is at compartmentalization.

          Although the way you’ve discussed physics, math, chemistry, and biology so far leads me to believe that you don’t.

        • Sorry to have a bit of fun at your expense

          Guess again who’s receiving the bitch slap.

        • Kodie

          You’re so easily amused by yourself.

        • Greg G.

          It’s “Pofarmer”. He can’t afford the extra “o” or the “r”.

        • “In strata of age X, you will find fossils of species Y and not of species Z.”

          There–repeatable.

          And you’re confused about what a scientific theory is? How cute. Read a goddamn biology textbook first, then come out here and argue about it.

          Dude–you’re embarrassing yourself. Here’s a tip: when you go to Creationist web sites, the ammunition they give is crap. You come out from under their rock, out in the real world, and you just get laughed at. They are not preparing you.

        • Kodie

          You’re really proud of your ignorance, aren’t you?

        • Greg G.

          Methodologicall naturalism came about because explanations that don’t appeal to the supernatural work better. When people tried explaining everything in terms of God, we had the Dark Ages. When people began to use methodological naturalism consistently in the 18th century, look what happened.

        • Aaron Siering

          This is not exactly accurate. When people started explaining things in terms of efficient causation rather than final causation we made a great deal more progress in advancing technology. The problem comes in that science makes no comment on final causation and one can’t have any type of metaphysical belief system without incorporating beliefs in respect to final causation, in other words beliefs that are extra-scientific.

          For example when someone has become a convinced materialist and thy believe the world is dysteleological because say gene mutation is apparently random their conviction is commitment to their philosophical beliefs and not their scientific ones. Science deals strictly with efficient causality and can make no comment on final causality whatsoever–not even to weigh in on whether it is a meaningful type of causality or not. That is to say science can only speak to the mechanisms being quantified.

          Consequently there is and can not be any conflict between “God” and science in Judeo-Christianity, and we wouldn’t have developed a formal scientific method in the West had it not been for Judeo-Christianity.

          Religion answers questions of finally causality while science deals with efficient causality. The later is much, much better for developing technologies, but doesn’t make any comment whatsoever on giving one’s life meaning. Whenever we are speaking of meaning we are making at least an implicit appeal to final causation.

        • Susan

          When people started explaining things in terms of efficient causation rather than final causation we made a great deal more progress in advancing technology.

          Technological progress seemed to have been made based on a better understanding of how reality worked and making reliable predictions about it. Limiting scientific progress to ‘technology’ doesn’t seem appropriate. Maybe you could clarify.

          For example when someone has become a convinced materialist and thy believe the world is dysteleological because say gene mutation is apparently random their conviction is commitment to their philosophical beliefs and not their scientific ones.

          I see no telos. I see incoherent models based on claims of telos and no evidence to support them. Does that make me a “convinced” materialist? Please define “convinced”.

          Consequently there is and can not be any conflict between “God” and science in Judeo-Christianity

          I’m quite familiar with the RCC’s tendency to make ontological claims and to insulate them from any sort of falsifiabllity but the stories of Jesus seem to indicate that he held to a “demon theory” of disease and we’ve developed “germ theory” among other things.

          One can’t be falsified. (Who knows? It COULD be demons making all those germs.) It also proved useless until science figured out what was really going on.

          There’s also the problem with original sin in the Adam and Eve model. Somewhere along the line, caholicyahwehjesus imbued two humans with a rational soul. That leads to its own problems, bestiality being among them, unless you want to throw out the biological history of humans on this planet.

          and we wouldn’t have developed a formal scientific method in the West had it not been for Judeo-Christianity.

          So says Stanley Jaki but who thinks he makes his case except for catholics? That is, show me that historians of science and philosophers of science make a strong showing in favour of your point or drop it. It’s just a catholic claim and would take things way off-topic.

          Religion answers questions of finally causality

          Your religion assumes final causality and makes statements about it. Why should I assume it’s a well-formed question and accept that these are good answers?

          The later is much, much better for developing technologies,

          There you go again, sneaking in a strawman. I hope it’s not intentional. I must say it’s obvious.

          doesn’t make any comment whatsoever on giving one’s life meaning.

          It’s not meant to. It doesn’t do that. It is a wonderful method for testing claims, though.

          We don’t need religion to do it either. What do you mean by meaning? That’s a very serious question and I’d like you to answer it.

          Whenever we are speaking of meaning we are making at least an implicit appeal to final causation.

          Where do you get that?

          Whenever we are speaking of meaning, we are agents who mean something when we speak of “meaning”. That’s all you can say about that until you explain what you mean by meaning.

          Unless I’ve missed something, in which case, I hope you will clarify.

        • Aaron Siering

          What else do you think can be asserted about science other than it is at least true in the sense that it leads to the production of technology? Wherever you come down on the realist/Instrumentalist side of the debate within science it has to be conceded that we are all instrumentalists when it comes to what has been arguably the most successful scientific theory to date, Quantum Mechanics. Science might be true in other ways, and I for one now ascribe to a belief in scientific realism; but this has only been the a result of my conversion to Christianity, as I now have a belief system which allows me to say why scientific models may actually be describing reality in a way we can say is realistically corresponded.

          I don’t know if you are a convinced materialist or not. I don’t know anything about you, and unless you just mean to be argumentative and are intend on trying to find fault in anything I will say, no matter how reasonable, why would this even be a question you would demand to be answered? It seems pretty obvious I was strictly speaking about people who are convinced materialists. As to whether or not that describes you is for you to say not me. Anyway my meaning the use of the term, convinced, here in quite standard so if there is any confusion for you, then I would suggest consulting a dictionary.

        • Susan

          What else do you think can be asserted about science other than it is at least true in the sense that it leads to the production of technology?

          Oooh. Awkward burden shift. OK. I’m game.

          What technology has been developed by the presence of dark matter and dark energy in the field of cosmology?

          Technology is not science. There’s an academic classification for a reason.

          I now have a belief system which allows me to say why scientific models may actually be describing reality in a way we can say is realistically corresponded.

          OK… but if any criticism of that belief system is just going to result in you accusing us of being “convinced” or, in RCC terms, not “open”, then this isn’t going to go well. That is, no special pleading.

          I don’t know if you are a convinced materialist or not.

          I don’t either. I asked you to define “convinced”. I’m not sure what that has to do with my responses to your comment and the questions I asked. .

          Anyway my meaning the use of the term, convinced, here is quite standard

          Then you should have no problem showing me the standard definition and its standard place in discussions

          so if there is any confusion for you, then I would suggest consulting a dictionary.

          Hmmm…

          A dictionary.

        • Greg G.

          People began to focus on the real evidence and not the imaginary evidence that was supposed to be there, like the final cause that the church has pushed since Thomas Aquinas read Aristotle.

          What has been found are that the material cause and the formal cause is just efficient causes all the way down and it is useless to consider the final cause unless it is an Earth creature.

          So we can accept whatever from Aristotle that has been validated and dismiss what has been shown to be wrong. That undercuts Thomism and most of what the Church has taught since the beginning of the Dark Ages.

        • Paul B. Lot

          ” Science deals strictly with efficient causality and can make no comment on final causality whatsoever–not even to weigh in on whether it is a meaningful type of causality or not.”

          Yes yes, blah blah blah.

          Here’s the rub, Aaron ol’buddy.

          Uninformed, uneducated, ignorant humans wearing funny hats/feathers/dresses/oils/rags/robes/flowers/tatoos/bones have been, for literal millenia, telling other uniformed, uneducated, ignorant regularly-dressed humans that they know a) that final causes exist, b) what these causes are, and c) how these causes impact us in our daily lives.

          Often they “know” these things because of the special bones or tattoos or robes or oils….sometimes these are just “outward manifestations” of an inward-special-ness. Often the price of them letting-regular-folk-in-on-the-secret is for them to receive a special social status, sometimes special food, sometimes special sexual partners, sometimes special places to live.

          For hundreds of generations we’ve seen this pattern play out. Thousands of years. Civilization after civilization. Shamans, priests, rabbi, seers, prophets, gurus…..they all claim to be able to tell us about “final causes” — and more importantly how our world stands in relation to them.

          Up until very recently, the game was worth playing. People believed. The priests had power, the shamans were worth listening to – the generals consulted with the oracles before going to war.

          What have we learned since the dawn of rigorous investigation into the natural world?

          Almost all of their explanations were lies. Fire. Lightning. Thunder. Wind. Rain. Waves. Sand. Insects. Animals. Plants. Illness. Prosperity. Metallurgy. Farming. Droughts. Plagues. Genetic deformity. Epillepsy. The Stars. The Moon. The Sun. Meteors. Cancer. Hail. Tornados. The Milky Way.

          All of these, us regular folk were told by the headdress-wearers, all of these had explanations in terms of god’s will, Zeus’s anger, the evil eye, Posideon’s wrath.

          Every. Single. Claim. Was. Wrong.

          Why should we, after thousands and thousands and thousands of years of being-lied-to-by-people-who-felt-special trust them when they say:

          “Yes, it’s true “Science” can tell us how __(xyz)___ happens, but that’s not the important thing. “Science” can’t tell us why!”

          Riddle me this, then: Why the fuck should I believe you when you try to sell me this line again? What is your proof that there is a “why” to the universe?

          You’re right. Science can’t disprove your fundamental bullshit. It’s just that every time a believer has tried to make a statement about how their god interacts with our world — it turned out, under investigation, to be wrong.

          “Whenever we are speaking of meaning we are making at least an implicit appeal to final causation.”

          I don’t need your god to allow me to give my own life meaning. My brain is so-wired that I want to live the sort of life that people like me would find admirable, and that is enough.

        • Aaron Siering

          Really why did you even bother to reply? I mean thanks, because it really goes in support of my previous assertions, but really it what do you want to get of making such a reply?

        • Kodie

          What about participating in a discussion is causing trouble for you?

        • Dys

          I’m guessing it’s the part where he has to stop projecting and actually offer substantive replies.

        • Kodie

          From what I get from his more “substantive” comments is that he finds his position intellectually superior to “straw man” IGD and Brian Jenkin by using a lot more words.

        • TheNuszAbides

          he doesn’t use nearly as many words as BJ, as it turns out … but he does seem to have a better idea what the words he uses mean–not that he gets anywhere with them either, of course.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Really why did you even bother to reply? I mean thanks … but really it what do you want to get of making such a reply?”

          Were you under the impression that I made the post based on a commitment to providing you with an acceptable response? Allow me to disabuse you.

          “it really goes in support of my previous assertions”

          Asserting a dichotomy between the physical and a hypothetical “metaphysical” is tautological.

          In other words, your assertions were accurate – and trivial.

          It is worthwhile, whenever a believer brings up this distinction, to push back against the acceptance of this hypothetical premise.

          If ‘something’ exists beyond our ability to see, measure, or interact, then fair enough: Science has nothing to say about it.

          Now prove to me that that ‘something’ exists, or it’s not worth wasting time and effort talking about.

        • Susan

          it really goes in support of my previous assertions,

          How so?

        • Aaron Siering

          Because it wasn’t a serious reply. It was fallacious quip which is often tactic people resort to when can’t muster anything cogent. The fact that somebody would even bother replying when its apparent that their only real interest is in poo pooing anything I might argue, no matter its cogency is to me evidence of all those things I had previously asserted.

          Now, I am giving you the benefit of that doubt here because even the fact the would ask to comment on something which is arguably quite obvious feels a lot like trolling. I mean is it really so hard to understand that response that says only, “Yea, yea. Blah, blah blah” is not reflective of someone ready for an honest argument?

          P.S. I see now there is more that has been added that wasn’t there originally. Although he begins with the presupposition that the people which he is referring to are “uniformed, uneducated and ignorant” which obviously is a straw man. In case there is no need for me to respond because he has already denounced me as being uninformed, uneducated and ignorant regardless of any evidence in my argument to the contrary. This is an ad hominem, which reflects to me that he is only just interested in arguing his own biases and prejudices and is not concerned about blatant employing fallacious arguments in order to do so. This is simply not an argument that one can take seriously or regard as even remotely intelligent.

          Another tactic he has employed is moving the goal posts. He asserts it as a given that I am trying to convince of believing as I do when really I am only criticizing the cogency of his argument.

        • Susan

          I’m sorry. I read Paul’s comment in its entirety.

          Are you saying there was a point where all he posted was
          “Yeah, yeah. Blah, blah blah”?

          If that was the case (and my experience is that Paul B. would happily admit it if if were), then it wouldn’t merit a response.

          Not sure which ‘previous assertions’ of yours it would support, though.

        • Aaron Siering

          I am saying that when I made my response from the side panel that is all I saw of his argument originally. Whether the rest was already there or added latter I can not be certain. Susan if you genuinely don’t understand how this actually exemplifies what I’ve been accusing people here of doing then I can’t help you. If you are really not trolling me I am sorry, but I have to assume you are because it is literally an illustration of many previous complaints. Plus you don’t even respond to any of my clear assertions. If you honestly don’t see it then it is a ridiculous level of bias on you part. Either way there is no reason of continuing to debate this.

        • Susan

          I am saying that when I made my response from the side panel that is all I saw of his argument originally.

          Disqus does some funny things. I’m not sure what you’re describing but will accept for now that that’s all you saw.

          It’s not like Paul to edit stuff in without documenting those edits but will leave it to him to tell us if he did so. Check his history and you’ll find him honest in that respect.

          Now that you’ve seen the full comment, you could address that one.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “P.S. I see now there is more that has been added that wasn’t there originally.”

          Please point out the “more” which had “been added” after your initial reply.

          As far as I recall, I wrote the comment in its entirety before posting. I don’t even remember editting this one.

          It’s certainly possible that I did edit it, but I usually make a note at the bottom of a post when I do, as I did in this post, specifically to avoid confusion about who said what, when.

          If I feel the need to make a substantive edit which changes the meaning/message of a post, I will usually do so with an asterisk or by striking out the offending original material before contributing new text.

          Of course, Disqus doesn’t email me with copies of my own original comments, so I am unable to compare the version of the post which exists now with a hypothetically-un-editted previous version, but I’m going out on a limb here to say that I think you’re lying here to cover your ass.

          The rest of your post-script is nonsense. You have failed to comprehend my post.

          Declaring a the post talking, which talks about [witch-doctors and oracles-at-Delphi as being “uninformed”], “ad-hominem” is just silly.

          You are a very silly person. <- (That's ad-hominem)

          *Edit for clarity and missing words. Edits bolded.*

        • MNb

          “Genesis is not claiming to be science.”
          Right. And thus you should throw creacrap like Don Patton produces immediately where it belongs: in the dustbin. Just look at the title his website:

          http://proofthebibleistrue.com/tag/patton/

          That means also “scientifically true”. According to Don Patton Genesis is scientifically true. And he’s your guy, remember?

          Hey, my compliments! Do we finally have found a creationist capable of learning? You’re more or less right on the relation theory and fact.

          Scientific facts:
          1. The fossil record.
          2. Mutations.
          3. Observed speciation.

          All of them (the list is not complete, but this will do for us amateurs) are correctly described by one theory – Evolution Theory.
          Just like many scienfic facts are correctly described by Classical Physics, which includes Newton’s Law of Gravity.

          “Enter Jesus Christ …..”
          Ah no, not that capable of learning after all. Whatever Jesus has done or not done, it has nothing to do with science in general and Evolution Theory in particular. You know – the Gospels are not claiming to be science either. The guy is just irrelevant for science.

          “it makes zero sense to say that a Christian would want to do away with your need for God!”
          Read again. You wrote (apparently you already have forgotten, thus confirming that creacrap is a virus that rots the brain away – but perhaps it’s not too late for you yet; there are positive signs):

          “the purpose of the model? To do away with our need for God”
          To which I replied:

          “Yeah, the christians Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins are very eager to “do away with our need for God”.
          “Our” obviously referred to “Miller’s, Collins'” and of course “your” need for god and not to mine. Apparently you are also ignorant enough to not know who Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins are. They are christian evolutionary biologists, who thus totally contradict your silly

          “the purpose of the model? To do away with our need for God”

          “And methodological naturalism has presuppositions behind it”
          Yes. Nobody ever denied that.

          “is only true science for a while until the evidence points elsewhere”

          BWAHAHAHAHA!

          Evidence by definition is part of our natural reality. So it cannot point at anything but naturalistic theories. That’s exactly why almost all atheists don’t claim that science disproves god. It’s exactly why christians like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins totally can be OK with Evolution Theory.
          And it’s why creationism is not science. Science is only about our natural reality. Creationism is not.

          “at which juncture, a new theory is required.”

          Which will be naturalistic again as long as you use the scientific method.

        • adam

          “That’s right, it’s still a scientific theory”

        • Brian Jenkin

          Adam, this is a wonderful example of ignorance, thank you. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is a LAW, my friend. If you don’t understand the difference, go ask a 17 year old high school Physics student.

        • Careful. Newton’s Law is a law, but there is a theory of gravity. (More than one, I think.)

          Do you know the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory? Impress us.

          You didn’t a few hours ago when I responded to a prior comment, but perhaps you’ve gone to Wikipedia in the meantime.

        • Greg G.

          Right but the theory of gravity explains it. Some mutations are good. The goods ones propagate while the bad ones get removed from the gene pool quickly leaving more good ones than bad ones. When you realize that, you see that evolution must happen as a law. The Theory of Evolution explains it.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Why don’t you ask me instead? I’m a qualified and experienced teacher physics. A Law of Physics is nothing but a description of an aspect of our natural reality. It’s part of a scientific theory.
          The quote Adam gave is not about Newton’s Law of Gravitation (which has been shown incorrect by Einstein btw, but never mind), but about gravity. Actually to get it completely correct it should have read

          “Evolution Theory is just a theory?
          So is Newton’s Theory of Gravity and I don’t see you jumping out of buildings.”
          Yup – Newton’s Theory of Gravity contains more than his Law of Gravity. For instance G =m*g is also part of it. Plus his Theory of Gravity is part of Classical Mechanics, which again is part of Classical Physics.
          You educated? You simply don’t understand what you’re writing about. Ah well, that’s what happens when you get your information exclusively from creacrap sites.

        • adam

          And yet gravity itself is STILL a THEORY, which demonstrates YOUR wonderful ignorance or else just more of your DECEPTION

          http://www.britannica.com/science/gravity-physics

          http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

        • Greg G.

          But instead, what is being dug up are fossils of dinosaur bones with live red blood cells and intact blood vessels!

          Blood vessels now? And the blood cells were still alive? This is your brain on Creationism.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Hey Adam. I have recently come across some awesome content that really addresses an amazing array of science from a new perspective, and it’s gaining a lot of traction in the scientific community because it provides a more feasible, comprehensive, probable and realistic scientific model for understanding the universe around us and everything it.

          It is exactly what you have been asking for and I hope it brings you some satisfaction knowing that there is a credible alternative view that (effectively in my view) demonstrates evolution to be “bad science”.

          Delve deep enough, and your view might just change too. It’s worth the exploration even if just to gain a deeper conviction of your current faith system (in random chance) should the evidence laid out in this content be proven to be itself, “bad science”. It will give you knowledge at the very least as to what your current dissenters are posing as science.

          Enjoy,

          http://www.creation.com

        • You’re a funny guy! But let’s pursue this.

          What does, “it’s gaining a lot of traction in the scientific community” mean? You’re saying that biologists are increasingly rejecting evolution for Creationism? I want the evidence for this.

          You do realize that evolution is the scientific consensus, right? I wonder by what logic a layman like me should use to reject the scientific consensus.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Bob, I certainly can be funny, but I’m not sure I’ve given you evidence for that yet. 🙂

          I get that you aren’t in a place of genuine investigation right now, so I’m not going to spend my time entering into discussion to support my stance when you aren’t actually willing to consider what I would offer you anyway. If you were, you would have had an honest, genuine response/inquiry to the first video I posted about the scientifically, statistically impossible probability of a single cell coming into being without a designer. Did you watch it? There is nothing to threaten, right?! The truth is just truth, why would we want to restrict it’s flow?

          There is a massive amount of contradictory evidence to evolution out there, and thousands of scientists producing work that just doesn’t fit with the current theory. I used to go to discussion groups to ‘beat up’ on creationists with ‘facts’, but as time has played out, I have been humbled by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and being someone with a heart to uncover truth rather than to simply be right, I allowed the information at hand to speak to me with neutral listening.

          Bob, it’s your job to consider the evidence at hand and make up your own mind. You hide behind the authority of the experts, well, may I suggest grappling with what some of the less-‘popular’ experts are putting forward.

          The scientific community at large have, over time, ostracised people who have come to a different conclusion, to such an extent that careers are jeopardised if one should question the tenants of evolution. Just like the gay community was once cut off from ‘socially acceptable’ society, today creation scientists find themselves in the same position.

          But such ridicule has actually served as a favour, forcing those with a creationist viewpoint to produce science that has merit, and in recent decades, it has surpassed the dogmatic science of evolution for credibility, and no, I’m not going to produce evidence for you Bob. It’s simply not my job to coerce you into investigating with a honest, neutral approach. You either want to know truth or you don’t and as yet, you haven’t navigated through what modern creation science has thrown up to upset the evolution apple cart.

          But no conversation about it like this will change the facts, and I challenge you to respond from those, rather than avoiding the conversation by resting so assuredly in what conveniently supports your view. It has been massively challenged recently (20 years) in what is a very slow debate (150+ years)!

          Here are some resources for you Bob. God bless you,

          https://answersingenesis.org/creation/
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qp3oNIRb90
          http://www.creation.com
          http://origins.ctvn.org/episode-guides/

        • MNb

          “the scientifically, statistically impossible probability of a single cell coming into being without a designer.”
          Here’s the evidence that you’re a funny guy. You talk about probability calculation and don’t understand it. You showed this with

          “your current faith system (in random chance)”
          See, “a single cell coming into being without a designer” is totally not random chance. In fact no single scientific theory is. You don’t even understand the difference between randomness and probability. Randomness is a specific case of probability, namely a probability of exactly 50%.
          Here is someone who does understand:

          http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/astrobiology-made-case-god

          “Non-randomness is now understood to have a likely impact on the first appearance of life. For example, new insights into geophysical and chemical processes in extreme environments suggest that early Earth naturally favored the production of relatively large organic molecules.”

          “The truth is just truth”
          Science doesn’t care about truth. Truth means 100% absolute unchanging eternal certainty. Science doesn’t provide that and doesn’t claim to provide it either. So much for you doing science.

          “There is a massive amount of contradictory evidence to evolution out there,”
          Of which you thus far have failed to present a single one.

          “and thousands of scientists producing work that just doesn’t fit with the current theory.”
          Yeah.

          http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

          That’s not exactly thousands. Now compare:

          http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

          As you don’t even have a grasp of numbers above 100 I’m pretty sure you don’t have a grasp of evidence either – so this “no conversation …. will change the facts” is just silly when coming from your mouth.

          Anyhow, to have some fun I listend to the beginning of the video (note: science is not decided by videos, so you’re already at a disadvantage).

          First blooper: “if we are to find evidence for evolution it’s in the fossil record.”
          Genetics (mutations) and observed speciation (google it if you care as much about “truth” as you claim to do” also provide lots of evidence for Evolution Theory.

          Second blooper: “When you reach scientific proof”
          Science never proves anything. Science only confirms theories and hypotheses.

          Third blooper: “the evolution from ape to man is not repeatable”
          Yup. The births of Don Patton’s great-great-great-great-grandparents are not repeatable either. According to his logic I can conclude they were aliens.

          Fourth blooper: “Evolution Theory predicts a gradual development beginning with something simple.”
          Not always, but yes, it happens. For instance like this:

          http://www.phizie.nl/images/embryonale-groei.gif

          OK. That’s four minutes, four bloopers (I may have missed a view). Well, that’s to be expected from someone like this semi-fraudulous guy:

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html

          “Since early 1989, Don Patton, a close associate of Carl Baugh and leader of Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, has claimed a Ph.D. (or “Ph.D. candidacy”) in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia. However, QCU is another unaccredited school linked to Clifford Wilson. When questioned about this at a recent MIOS meeting, Patton indicated that he was aware of some problems relating to QCU, and was withdrawing his Ph.D. candidacy.

          However, the printed abstracts of the 1989 Bible-Science conference in Dayton, Tennessee (where Patton gave two talks) stated that he was a Ph.D. candidacy in geology, and implied that he has at least four degrees from three separate schools. When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was “three days away.” Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent. Australian researcher Ian Plimer reported, “PCI, QPU, PCT, and PCGS have no formal curriculum, no classes, no research facilities, no calendar, no campus, and no academic staff….Any Ph.D. or Ph.D. candidacy at QPU by Patton is fraudulent.”

          Confirmed here:

          http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/liar-for-christ-by-tristero-blood.html

        • Brian Jenkin

          1. Observed Speciation is an interesting topic. This quote is from a very interesting article on the subject found in a most ‘unlikely’ source, “No reputable creationist denies speciation—in fact, it is an important part of creationist biology.” It is found in the second article on the first page of the list, which has about 80 articles concerning the subject.

          http://creation.com/search?q=observed+speciation

          So thanks for mentioning that. Observed Speciation doesn’t act as evidence directly for evolution, but rather for the processes of natural selection and genetic variation (which creation science has finally caught up with and fully embraced, and it DOESN’T undermine the Biblical model at all!). In fact, the speed at which it can occur serves to support Creation more than Evolution, but in and of itself is not partial to either theory, unless you are un-informed as to how it sits within the Creationism argument.

          2. In mathematics, there are such things as ‘proofs’. It is described this way “In mathematics, a proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement. In the argument, other previously established statements, such as theorems, can be used. In principle, a proof can be traced back to self-evident or assumed statements, known as axioms..”

          In science however, it is not as emperical and more dependant on logic and probability: “All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics”. So I agree with you on this point!

          It could be stated generously this way, ‘that proof’s only exist is so much as our available methods currently show a consistency of result that leaves the outcome beyond a reasonable doubt”.

          So it begs the question, why do so many evolutionists I speak to tell me that science has ‘proven’ that God does not exist?

          3. I don’t get the statement: ‘According to his logic I can conclude they were aliens.’

          I would concede though that indeed evolution is not repeatable in that you would not expect the same outcome running the evolution machine through a second time. But if it were repeatable, we would expect something to come from apes. Just as we would expect to see all kinds of inter-familiar (not just inter-special) fossils in the rocks, and not as many fossils of modern creatures in the rock layers as we do, but both are not true!

          4. This is just plain absurd! Why would you use the development of an ovum into a child as an example of an evolutionary process? I mean I sort of get using this example as a very, very loose analogy, but you said: “Not always, but yes, it happens. For instance like this:”.
          The words ‘for instance’ mean that you are actually invoking this as an example of evolution!! Please explain to me the difference in the DNA (as a result of evolution) between the ovum in this diagram and the child?

          In the article you linked for me, as far as this notion of randomness being a driving force, it is merely nothing more than fancy word play. From the article you sent me:
          “Furthermore, a recent interesting, if speculative, proposal suggests that, when driven by an external source of energy,matter will rearrange itself to dissipate this energy most efficiently. Living systems allow greater dissipation, which means that the laws of physics MIGHT SUGGEST that life is, in some sense, inevitable.”

          ‘Speculative’ and ‘Might suggest’ is as good as he can conjure! It’s utterly insulting to people of scientific inclination.

          And this one:
          “…has vastly increased the set of conditions under which we can IMAGINE life existing on this planet.”

          The author is given nothing more than ‘imagine’ as the basis for believing in the spontaneous formation of the extremely complex ‘simple’ cell. He likens the randomness of traffic to the conflicting conditions required to have the 72 different proteins present at the same time for the formation of a simple cell.

          There are a host of mechanisms at play in a cell, all of which are needed simultaneously for it’s survival and reproduction, including a host of repair enzymes to maintain DNA in it’s structurally sound form. VERY, VERY complex systems, likened to ‘catching a cab’, and getting ‘stopped at a light’?! This article is so insulting to logic, it actually leaves me unable to explain it ineptitude! No offense, but the quotes he is ‘de-bunking’ are more articulate and scientific in nature than his arguments!

          But please consider each of these images very carefully and ‘imagine’ if you will, the complexity of the chemical make up required for each part to function, and that each part has it’s code stored in the DNA strand which scientists still don’t understand how it manages to guide the magnitude of construction that it does.

          Simple cell complexity-

          Nucleus:

          Endoplasmic Reticulum:

          Peroxisome:

          Mitochondrion:

          Robisomes:

          Golgi Aperatus:

          Cytoskeleton:

          DNA:

          DNA repair enzymes:

          Chromosomes:

          Cell Membrane:

          ATP (for energy):

          All of these processes are required for the simplest cell to function, and many other for more complex cells. Every one of these massively complex molecules needed to occur at the same time, in the same conditions, and in exactly the right formation and design for a replicable, functional cell to exist. But the law of thermodynamics, which your author so poorly invoked the use of, says that everything decays into it’s simplest forms given the lack of outside influence. This means that the time window for all this to be set in place is around 4 to 8 minutes before it starts to fall apart again!!

          The different parts of cells require 72 different proteins to exist, many of which can’t actually synthesize in the same conditions!! The ‘proof’ (beyond reasonable doubt) of a designing hand is simply undeniable. When I refer to the probabilities and ‘numbers’ involved in the ‘random’ likelihood of all meeting in such a way, this is what I am referring to and people much smarter than I have calculated it to be 10^340,000,000! What does this mean?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuMvRExazAw

          If you are staking you soul on there being no God, these are the odds you are playing with.

        • MNb

          “Observed Speciation doesn’t act as evidence directly for evolution”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Excellent method! Everything that possibly could be brought up is classified by you as “doesn’t act as evidence directly for evolution”. Head creationism wins, tail Evolution Theory loses.
          Except of course that it’s totally unscientific.

          “The rapid appearance today, of new varieties of fish, lizards, and more defies evolutionary expectations …”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Hey – rapid appearances like that have given risen to Evolution Theory for more than 100 years.

          “but fits perfectly with the Bible.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Everything fits perfectly with the Bible – that book you claimed was not a scientific textbook. Man man, are you contradicting yourself. Not that you will ever accept it. You rather lie for Jesus.

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/269445

          “why do so many evolutionists I speak to tell me that science has ‘proven’ that God does not exist?”
          Ask them. I don’t know any of them. I never made that claim. Not my problem. I gave you the names of two christians who also are prominent Evolutionary Biologists.

          “I don’t get the statement: ‘According to his logic I can conclude they were aliens.'”
          I didn’t expect you to.

          “Gaps in the fossil record hence Evolution Theory is wrong hence creationism hence God”
          is the same as

          “Gaps in your genealogy hence the assumption that you’re human is wrong hence you descend from aliens.”

          “Why would you use the development of an ovum into a child as an example of an evolutionary process?”
          To show that “gradual developments beginning with something simple” totally do happen. It might have escaped you, but a fertilized egg-cell is a unicellular organism developing within 9 months to a mammal. Suddenly a unicellular organism evolving into a mammal by means of procreation looks very acceptable.
          My main point though is that Don Patton, besides not being a scientist (he is a fraud), also doesn’t have a scientific attitude. Just four minutes made that clear. Watching that crap for another hour hence is a waste of time.
          So are you, except that you pull off one other familiar blooper, that fortunately will remain funny forever:

          “the law of thermodynamics, which your author so poorly invoked the use of, says that everything decays into it’s simplest forms given the lack of outside influence.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          You claimed to be educated. Wherever you received your education, you should demand your fees back. They haven’t educated you at all. Every single high school student physics can tell you this quote of yourse is simply wrong.
          Let some pros explain the Second Law (You don’t even know which one it is! BWAHAHAHAHA!) to you.

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

          http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/06/23/evolution-and-the-second-law/

          The latter guy understand why you make me laugh:

          http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2015/09/19/an-essay-on-simplicity/

          “obviously knowledgeable people are going to laugh at you.”

          Sorry, another apologist (not as foolish as you, but still rather foolish) has tired me out, so for today I don’t feel like anymore. Maybe tomorrow.

          One remark though.
          You have lied and refused to withdraw them.
          You have misrepresented Evolution Theory and continued to do so despite you being corrected.
          You have given a video from an established fraud to back up your views.
          You have contradicted yourself.
          You consistently link to a creacrap site not written by scientists to say something about science.

          And you expect respect and a quiet discussion.
          BWAHAHAHAHA!

        • MR

          This is one of the key things that led me away from Christianity. Hearing Christian leaders misrepresent science so they could knock down their little strawmen. I just remember thinking, science may or may not be wrong about some particular point, but if you’re misrepresenting that point, whether it’s wrong or not, I know you’re wrong. It doesn’t matter whether science is wrong or right; if you have to use deception and misrepresentation, then you likely don’t have God on your side.

        • Kodie

          Whether or not something sits well with a creationist argument is not on the list of things to care about, unless you are a creationist.

          Science has disproved creationism, believe it or not. Creationism only cares whether they can fit or adjust reality into a presupposed model, and everything else can go fuck itself, and dummies like you pretend it doesn’t exist.

        • Ron

          You wrote:

          “Observed Speciation doesn’t act as evidence directly for evolution, but rather for the processes of natural selection and genetic variation”

          From An introduction to evolution:

          The definition

          Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

          And from TalkOrigins – What is Evolution?:

          “Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.”

          Congratulations! You’ve just admitted that you subscribe to the Theory of Evolution despite being unaware of what it actually postulates.

        • Brian Jenkin

          I don’t think the pictures loaded, so you might want to cut and paste each word from the cell structures into Google images to get an idea of their magnitude!

        • I get that you aren’t in a place of genuine investigation right now

          As I mentioned in a previous comment, I’m very familiar with Creationist claims.

          As for closed mindedness, I’m not sure it’s me who has a problem in that area.

          you aren’t actually willing to consider what I would offer you anyway. If you were, you would have had an honest, genuine response/inquiry to the first video I posted about the scientifically, statistically impossible probability of a single cell coming into being without a designer.

          There is no consensus about abiogenesis. What do you conclude from that? “Science has no answer to this question; therefore, God”?

          There is a massive amount of contradictory evidence to evolution out there, and thousands of scientists producing work that just doesn’t fit with the current theory.

          Turn this into something useful: show me how biologists are rejecting evolution. Nothing else will do it for me.

          I used to go to discussion groups to ‘beat up’ on creationists with ‘facts’

          Oh? Should be easy to poke holes in the flimsy arguments you’re trotting out, then.

          Bob, it’s your job to consider the evidence at hand and make up your own mind.

          You bow to no authority? You know more than your doctor? More than the pilot of the airplane?

          Gee—and I thought it was the atheists who were supposed to be arrogant.

          You hide behind the authority of the experts, well, may I suggest grappling with what some of the less-‘popular’ experts are putting forward.

          Look, Chester, this isn’t hard. I’m not an expert, and I don’t have the qualifications. You don’t have a terminal degree in biology? Then you don’t, either!

          Just like the gay community was once cut off from ‘socially acceptable’ society, today creation scientists find themselves in the same position.

          Hilarious. I can totally see Creation scientists marching in a Pride parade, arm-in-arm and fighting for common cause with The Gays.

          I can imagine you wearing nothing but chaps and a leather vest and riding a float at least year’s parade.

          You either want to know truth or you don’t and as yet, you haven’t navigated through what modern creation science has thrown up to upset the evolution apple cart.

          I’m guilty even before I start. Got it.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Thanks for the mockery, Bob. Is this how you would speak to someone sitting in a room with you having a discussion? I’m trying pal. Sorry to have wasted your time. And God Bless you. Hope you find a new Chew Toy.

        • Pofarmer

          He would be doing you a favor if he did.

        • Brian Jenkin

          True, I don’t need the disrespect on this lovely Saturday afternoon. I appreciate the support Porfarmer.

        • MNb

          You get all the respect you deserve and that’s very little. Look, I have spend quite some time yesterday to answer your claims about science. I have looked up sources, read them and selected them.
          Thus far you haven’t addressed even a single one.
          Now that’s what I call disrespectful, especially as you have claimed to be interested in information that corrects your wrong views. Thus far you have done nothing to put that claim in practice.
          So I being to suspect more and more that you’re just another dishonest creacrapper. No, that’s not disrespectful. You seem (I haven’t get at the definite conclusion yet) dishonest, you’re a creationist and you produce crap like “evolution is about the origin of the Universe”.

        • adam

          “Now that’s what I call disrespectful, especially as you have claimed to
          be interested in information that corrects your wrong views. Thus far
          you have done nothing to put that claim in practice.”

          THIS

        • No, not really “mockery.” Trust me–I can dial it up way beyond that. I was doing my best to be civil as well as hardball to illustrate the errors in your thinking.

          You’re welcome to stay, but if your arguments are as naive and thoughtless as you’ve given us so far, you’ll get that treatment and worse.

          If you decide to leave, reflect on what you’ve learned. The atheists here are pretty educated, and your arguments against the scientific consensus are paper thin. If you don’t agree, you owe it to yourself to think about it before you jump into another online discussion.

        • Kodie

          I think you’re unintentionally funny, the only way a Christian can be.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Thanks Kodie, I think?

          Hey, what do you call an avocado that has been smashed into 6.02 x 10^23 pieces?
          Guaca-mol-e!

          There you go, funny and educated 🙂

        • Kodie

          Nerds might laugh but I don’t think it’s that funny.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Don’t get it or are you just being vewy sewious? It’s at least funny that I tried to make you laugh with an ‘educated’ joke- isn’t it? Irony anyone?

        • Kodie

          I don’t think most nerd jokes are actually funny. Puns are really hard to pull off, and just because you “get” a joke doesn’t make it funny. I think most nerd jokes depend on most people not getting them and not a lot of stress on being actually funny.

        • Kodie

          I’m also not known for being particularly warm, and I don’t like when Christians try to make pals to insulate themselves or distract us from warranted criticism of their arguments. So I guess you might call me very serious, even though I’m not really. I just don’t like efforts people go to to be more well liked than actually smart. Your arguments come from an uneducated place, so you’re not fooling anyone with a placating joke to prove your intellectual worthiness. I’m the kind of person who likes to point that out right up front instead of wait until you’ve made yourself comfortable.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Fair enough Kodie. I don’t mean to be TOO friendly, I’ll have to work on my gruffness a bit! But seriously, you are not my enemy, and never will be, however you may or may not want to view me. I have loads and loads of ‘real-life’ friends who are atheists and we get on fine. I’m not here to threaten you in any way, but if you’d like to engage in thoughtful, considered discussion, well, I certainly enjoy that.

          Now, that said, it appears you have knowledge of my ‘un-educationed’ past! (Sorry- that was another joke). 🙂 Actually, to be honest, you most probably don’t know what education I have, being that I have never told you. So, if you consider a PhD to be the measure of education, then it’s guilty as charged. If however a Physics Major, a Maths Major and a Chemistry Sub-Major (and first year biology) at Deakin University, Melbourne Australia meets your measure to be called educated, then I guess I’m in luck. I apologise if my jokes make me look less than ‘intellectually worthy’.

        • Kodie

          Then there’s really no excuse for your disturbing ignorance and trying to pass off as knowledgeable. You should send your degrees back to Deakin.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Are you going to say anything of intelligence at all? Enough.

        • Kodie

          I was waiting for you.

        • My suggestion is to focus on making cogent arguments. Humor only confuses things.

        • You know the kid with the clock? His crime was Nerding While Brown.

          And that’s not funny, either.

        • MNb

          When this joke is not about the kid but about the police (and that’s how I see such jokes) it because funny in a very wry way.

        • I don’t blame the police as much as the school in this case, because they probably need to bring a bunch of guys to handle a potential bomb threat. But when you get there and see what the story is? I really don’t think the handcuffs are necessary, guys.

        • Greg G.

          I like it but I like puns, too. I’m trying to think of a way to make a pun along the lines of “we don’t have time/lime for that” but I haven’t had my coffee yet.

        • adam

          “The truth is just truth, why would we want to restrict it’s flow?”

          We dont want to restrict if’s flow ESPECIALLY with the kind of ignorant BS you are trying to restrict the flow with.

        • Brian Jenkin

          ‘One hundred million people might say a foolish thing, it’s still a foolish thing!’ – Chinese proverb

        • MNb

          Put your money where your mouth is. Show it’s foolish. You tried once in reply to a comment of mine and totally failed, to my amusement.

        • Brian Jenkin

          I’m not sure how to counter-argue anything in this video, maybe you can help me…
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qp3oNIRb90

        • adam


          Don Patton’s Alleged Credentials

          Since early 1989, Don Patton, a close associate of Carl Baugh and leader of Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, has claimed a Ph.D. (or “Ph.D. candidacy”) in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia.[33] However, QCU is another unaccredited school linked to Clifford Wilson. [34] When questioned about this at a recent MIOS meeting, Patton indicated that he was aware of some problems relating to QCU, and was withdrawing his Ph.D. candidacy.[35]

          However, the printed abstracts of the 1989 Bible-Science conference in Dayton, Tennessee (where Patton gave two talks)stated that he was a Ph.D. candidacy in geology, and implied that he has at least four degrees from three separate schools.[36]
          When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the
          conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was “three days away.”[37] Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is
          the accreditation of QCU imminent. Australian researcher Ian Plimer reported, “PCI, QPU, PCT, and PCGS have no formal curriculum, no classes, no research facilities, no calendar, no campus, and no academic staff….Any Ph.D. or Ph.D. candidacy at QPU by Patton is fraudulent.”[38]

          You mean besides the fact that Patton is a LYING FRAUD?

        • MNb

          I already did so on this very page. Extensively. But as Disqus sucks I’ll repeat it for you (I don’t know how to link to a comment and am too lazy to learn it).

          Anyhow, to have some fun I listend to the beginning of the video (note: science is not decided by videos, so you’re already at a disadvantage).

          First blooper: “if we are to find evidence for evolution it’s in the fossil record.”
          Genetics (mutations) and observed speciation (google it if you care as much about “truth” as you claim to do” also provide lots of evidence for Evolution Theory.

          Second blooper: “When you reach scientific proof”
          Science never proves anything. Science only confirms theories and hypotheses.

          Third blooper: “the evolution from ape to man is not repeatable”
          Yup. The births of Don Patton’s great-great-great-great-grandparents are not repeatable either. According to his logic I can conclude they were aliens.

          Fourth blooper: “Evolution Theory predicts a gradual development beginning with something simple.”
          Not always, but yes, it happens. For instance like this:

          http://www.phizie.nl/images/embryonale-groei.gif

          OK. That’s four minutes, four bloopers (I may have missed a view). Well, that’s to be expected from someone like this semi-fraudulous guy:

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html

          “Since early 1989, Don Patton, a close associate of Carl Baugh and leader of Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, has claimed a Ph.D. (or “Ph.D. candidacy”) in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia. However, QCU is another unaccredited school linked to Clifford Wilson. When questioned about this at a recent MIOS meeting, Patton indicated that he was aware of some problems relating to QCU, and was withdrawing his Ph.D. candidacy.

          However, the printed abstracts of the 1989 Bible-Science conference in Dayton, Tennessee (where Patton gave two talks) stated that he was a Ph.D. candidacy in geology, and implied that he has at least four degrees from three separate schools. When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was “three days away.” Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent. Australian researcher Ian Plimer reported, “PCI, QPU, PCT, and PCGS have no formal curriculum, no classes, no research facilities, no calendar, no campus, and no academic staff….Any Ph.D. or Ph.D. candidacy at QPU by Patton is fraudulent.”

          Confirmed here:

          http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/liar-for-christ-by-tristero-blood.html

        • I don’t know how to link to a comment and am too lazy to learn it

          Ignoring that you don’t care, I’ll tell you. If you click on the time thingy (“37 minutes ago” in the case of your last comment), that will put the yellow bar on that comment and (more important) will change the URL in the address bar. Just copy that, and there’s your address.

          Alternatively (for Windows), right click on that time thingy and “Copy link address.”

        • MNb

          That looks so ridiculously easy that I’ll overcome my laziness – especially as it worked when I tried it with your comment!
          Thanks.

        • Ron

          Billions of people might believe they talk to an imaginary friend. It’s still an imaginary friend! ~Ron

        • adam

          ‘One hundred million people might say a foolish thing, it’s still a foolish thing!’ – Chinese proverb

        • MNb

          You call “creation. com” new?
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          It has been around for many years and only rehashes outdated debunked stuff.

          “it’s gaining a lot of traction in the scientific community”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Name me one respectable scientific magazine that pays attention to that creacrap.

          “a more feasible, comprehensive, probable and realistic scientific model”
          That’s totally not testable, repeatable and measurable and hence according to your own standard is not scientific.

          “Delve deep enough, and your view might just change too.”
          Done so and it has changed my view indeed – creationism is far worse than I assumed at beforehand.

          “It’s worth the exploration”
          Yeah – if you want to learn how bad creacrap is indeed.

        • Brian Jenkin

          I’m sorry to have offended you MNb. Seems your mind is made up. Good luck.

          PS- Just curiously, how do you explain red blood cells that have survived 50 odd million years? I’d actually like to know- my mind is still open to being corrected, it would actually be very handy if there were no God. Seriously- no mandate on how I should live, a big part of me would love that!! But as it stands with the knowledge I have at hand, I’m out of options because for me, evolution just doesn’t stack up. So maybe you can enlighten me….

        • adam

          “I’d actually like to know”

          What I would actually like to know is where did this ‘god’ of yours get the KNOWLEDGE to create universes, life, etc?

          Once it got the KNOWLEDGE, where did it get the capability?

        • Brian Jenkin

          Without anything in the universe, would 2 + 3 still equal 5?

        • Sound right to me.

          You think the reverse? Why??

        • Kodie

          No.

        • adam

          What I would actually like to know is where did this ‘god’ of yours get the KNOWLEDGE to create universes, life, etc?

          Once it got the KNOWLEDGE, where did it get the capability?

        • MNb

          In our Universe 2 + 3 can perfectly equal 1.
          You don’t know much math either.

        • MNb

          “I’m sorry to have offended you MNb.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          You haven’t offended me. You have made me laugh.

          “Seems your mind is made up.”
          Yeah. That’s why I exactly told you how you could show Evolution Theory wrong: by providing a cat fossil of 150 million years old.
          Now we’re at it – how could you be convinced that creationism is wrong? Take a look at these two questions:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-two-questions/

          If you don’t answer them you demonstrate that you are the one who has made his mind up no matter what.

          “Just curiously, how do you explain red blood cells that have survived 50 odd million years?”
          Just curiously – are you capable of clicking links or even do some googling? I provided you the first and did the second myself to answer this very question of yours.

          This is what I googled: “soft tissue dinosaur fossil”.
          This is what I found and gave:

          http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html

          “my mind is still open to being corrected”
          And will you put your money where your mouth is? Somehow I doubt it, because you repeated your error

          “red blood cells that have survived 50 odd million years”
          They didn’t.

          But perhaps your mind is open to being corrected indeed. Then I recommend you to go through this entire page.

          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

          where you’ll find two more of your claims debunked:

          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

          Finally, if you still want to reject Evolution Theory, I recommend you to read two books:

          http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624
          http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649

          Then at least there is a chance you understand what you’re rejecting.

        • Kodie

          @brianjenkin:disqus, you’re a terrible liar. You really expect anyone educated to believe that we’re “out of options” except god because evolution doesn’t stack up for you? Sure it would be handy that there’s no god, since god and your fairy tale of creationism doesn’t explain whatever you wish were true deeply and sincerely, that you’re trying to sell us that you’d rather he not exist. First comes the hit over the head, then there’s the Christian salespawn at the door trying to sell you some “game-changing” horseshit. Your sources are… unreliable.

        • adam

        • Brian Jenkin

          I’m not sure what you think I’m lying about, Kodie. I am educated too, and I didn’t believe what I am saying today five years ago. And I’m not saying YOU’RE out of options, that would be nuts- you have loads of options. One of them is explore further if you mind and heart is so called. And if not, don’t.

          For me, I walked away from the church at 21, became a staunch evolutionist for 17 years, even going to groups to ‘beat up’ on Christians in discussions. You see I had to to validate my position.

          And then God came knocking in a way that evolution couldn’t explain. It was most inconvenient actually, and I still struggle to submit myself to Him. But what happened happened and it opened my mind to consider the other sources I had been ignoring (and laughing off just like you guys do when I suggest them).

          I’ve been on your side and I get how it looks. And when God knocked, I had to explore everything I believed again with new eyes, and guess what, I discover that for ME, evolution is “bad science”* and FULL of holes, and actually has very little substantive evidence when compared to what’s on the other side of the debate. But you can explore that for yourself if you want to, and I get that that is very inconvenient (and un-necessary to you) for where you say you stand today.

          But lying? Not sure what you are saying there….

          God bless, Kodie,
          Brian.

        • You were a bold evolutionist, kicking Christian ass?

          You were a poorly educated fan of evolution if your prior education allows you to give the arguments you’re giving now.

        • MNb

          “I am educated too”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Not educated enough to do some googling and find out that Don Patton is a fraud. Really, before you brought him up I’d never heard of him. Still it took me just five minutes.
          Not educated enough to know that Evolution Theory is nor about the origin of our Universe and neither about the origin of life.

          “But lying?”
          Probably yes. Your deconversion-reconversion story has grown old since CS Lewis told it many decades ago.

          “But you can explore that for yourself if you want to, and I get that that is very inconvenient”

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          I have explored both Evolution Theory and creationism about five, six years ago and it was very convenient. Creationism turned out to be so bad that I prefer to call it creacrasp. Because crap it is.
          If you think you have brought up anything I haven’t read at least five times before you’re seriously self delusional.

        • You’ve not replied to the question I asked before: by what logic would a layman like me reject the scientific consensus? Doesn’t that sound arrogant, to judge a field that I don’t fully understand?

        • Brian Jenkin

          That’s a fine response if you are not up for thinking for yourself, Bob. Gee, where would your faith system be today if Darwin was as big a cop out as you? Chew away.

        • Chew Toy: I asked you a question, you dodged it, and now I’m annoyed. Think I’d miss that?

          “Thinking for yourself”–is that your advice? Is that your justification for barging into the cockpit to share your musings with the pilot? Or do you keep your seat, knowing that you know nothing significant enough to share?

          When it came to evolution, Darwin in his day was the leading thinker in the entire frikkin’ world. Do you justify your weighing in on the issue with similar logic? Or are you a third-string amateur who, you admit in a sober moment, really doesn’t have the chops to even evaluate the evidence, let alone set himself up as Judge of All Science?

          Think before you click Post next time, OK?

        • Kodie

          You’re not thinking for yourself. You are rather listening to people who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about acting as though they do, and you become easily convinced of wrong things, convinced yourself that you are thinking “for yourself”. I tell Bob over and over again “the scientific consensus” is always going to be misconstrued by idiots like you who don’t bother to learn how scientific research is done vs. whatever Wm. Lane Craig is pulling from his ass so it agrees with a book written during a scientifically illiterate age. You certainly rely on science whenever it doesn’t offend Jesus, but you don’t know what you’re talking about, and you certainly can’t claim to be thinking for yourself. That’s how you’re funny.

        • MNb

          Weird that someone writes that and only parrots long debunked creacrap from frauds like Don Patton.

        • 90Lew90

          What do you think you’d be able to do if there was no god? Just curiously…

        • Brian Jenkin

          Well Ashley Madison has created a great empire for one thing! If I just rolled with ‘lies and adultery are not a moral issues’, it might be fun. Seems like millions of others are having a good time! But within the rules He has given us, I get to fight for integrity with my wife and enjoy her in a full and loving relationship.

        • If I just rolled with ‘lies and adultery are not a moral issues’, it might be fun.

          Who says that lies and adultery are not moral issues? Very few people around here.

        • Greg G.

          There are consequences for rolling with lies and adultery. You shouldn’t need a god to figure that out. The Bible says those are wrong but it also says slavery is OK, so it shouldn’t be taken seriously as a moral guide.

        • Kodie

          Are you seriously saying you don’t actually care enough about your wife as a person not to lie to her or cheat on her? The only opinion that carries any weight morally is your imaginary friend?

        • 90Lew90

          So basically, a promise between two people to become spousal partners for life is not a real promise if they don’t believe in (your) god? I’d never heard that. If you didn’t believe your god was watching, you’d cheat on your wife. Well, that’s revealing indeed about your character. A lot of your cohorts seem to think similarly but don’t have your commendable restraint, even under the gaze of your Lord. Well done you!

        • MNb

          Well well, that tells us a lot about you. Apparently without god you’d think lies, adultery and Ashley Madison fun. I have been an unbeliever for almost 40 years and no, I don’t think that. And unlike you I do not need your god to tell me so.

        • Greg G.

          PS- Just curiously, how do you explain red blood cells that have survived 50 odd million years? I’d actually like to know- my mind is still open to being corrected, it would actually be very handy if there were no God.

          What red blood cells are you talking about? There were some proteins discovered in dinosaur fossils that were older than 50 million years but they were not cells as some creationist sources have reported. It shows that some proteins can survive the fossilization process in certain conditions. Fossilization occurs when a molecule gets dissolved but is replaced by a precipitate molecule. The scientists that discovered the protein had to do some chemistry to make it soft but that chemistry wouldn’t happen during fossilization.

        • “it’s gaining a lot of traction in the scientific community”

          BWAHAHAHAHA!

          Name me one respectable scientific magazine that pays attention to that creacrap.

          Chew Toy imagines that the world is like the movie “Men in Black,” where they get the real news (aliens, etc.) from the tabloid newspapers.

        • adam

          “It is exactly what you have been asking for”

          Not even close.

          The ONLY thing that separates men from ‘god’s’ is MAGIC.

          I want see THIS MAGIC and how it works.

          Not how deceptive theists can be arguing for a ‘god’ of the ‘gaps’.

          ” faith system (in random chance)”

          I dont have a ‘faith system’ (in random chance).

          This phrase demonstrates that YOU dont understand EVOLUTION or me.

          So you’ve FAILED to demonstrate anything except your own ignorance and arrogance.

        • Brian Jenkin

          I’m sorry Adam, I meant my post as a genuine contribution to you, not as an offence. I certainly don’t mean to be arrogant, I apologise if I came across that way.

          I don’t understand what you are meaning when you speak of magic, perhaps you can clarify that for me.

          As far as faith systems go, wouldn’t you say that evolution is the model that you have chosen to describe the origins of the universe? And isn’t evolution an unguided process of random chance, that UV light has corrupted and mutated genes for billions of years to give us what we see today?

          If I were to tell you that there is a Creator God that we have to stand before one day to take account of our lives, wouldn’t you say to me, “I don’t believe that! I’ve got evolution on my side so I’m actually free of that concern!”

          Do you see how that is actually the mechanism that you are putting your faith in to deal with that possible conversation? You have faith in lots of things, that your coffee cup won’t melt when you pour boiling water into it, that you will stop feeling hungry if you eat, that when you speak in English to your friend that they will understand you….. And you have faith that evolution effectively excuses you from dealing with one particular conversation that other people grapple with. It’s faith my friend. And that’s OK, we are all people of faith, it’s not a dirty word. It’s just a question of what you have placed your faith in and if it actually stacks up to the demands that will be put on it. And I hope evolution does, for your sake, Adam.

          The resources I have suggested to you are designed to test the integrity of what you currently have your faith in, no harm in that is there? And I know you didn’t explore them with any due diligence because you came back so quickly, not that you have to- it’s your life and soul. Or perhaps you have previously, in which case I’d love to ask you about a bunch of things that I can’t reconcile with evolution, perhaps you have other genuine scientific sources that can address them for me. Because there is a part of me that would love to have no God to answer to, (and another part of me that would miss His patient guidance and wonder).

          Sorry again if I come across as arrogant, I’m only trying to have genuine conversation, like if we were two blokes
          sitting in one room facing one another as human beings, with dignity. God bless you Adam,

          Brian.

        • As far as faith systems go, wouldn’t you say that evolution is the model that you have chosen to describe the origins of the universe? And isn’t evolution an unguided process of random chance, that UV light has corrupted and mutated genes for billions of years to give us what we see today?

          (funny bits bolded)

          I suggest you go read an evolution textbook and then return.

        • MNb

          “to describe the origins of the universe? ”

          I also suggest you to read a cosmology textbook, specifically about the Big Bang and certainly NOT written by frauds like Don Patton.

          “Sorry again if I come across as arrogant”
          It’s worse – you come across as ignorant.

          Your ignorance is blatantly clear here:

          “I don’t believe that! I’ve got evolution on my side so I’m actually free of that concern!”
          Evolution Theory is NOT an argument against god.

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

          “we are all people of faith,”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Nope, I’m not. Faith means “knowledge derived from revelation” and i reject everything and anything provided that way.

          “you have other genuine scientific sources that can address them for me.”
          Aha! The first sign that you’re dishonest, but far from a conclusive one. I gave you many genuine scientific sources that refute many of your creationist claims.

          “facing one another as human beings, with dignity”
          Until you have read the links I gave you I doubt if you have any dignity, so shrug.

        • adam

          “I don’t understand what you are meaning when you speak of magic, perhaps you can clarify that for me.”

          As I said:

          The ONLY thing that separates men from ‘god’s’ is MAGIC.

          I want see THIS MAGIC and how it works.

          Full Definition of MAGIC – Merriam Webster.

          1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces

          “If I were to tell you that there is a Creator God that we have to stand before one day to take account of our lives, wouldn’t you say to me, “I don’t believe that! I’ve got evolution on my side so I’m actually free of that concern!””

          No, evolution has nothing to do with my disbelief in gods.

          LACK OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE

          Demonstrate that this ‘Creator God’ is not imaginary like all other man created gods.

          Explain to me how this ‘supernatural’ character in a book gets its KNOWLEDGE (other than from MAN)

          “The resources I have suggested to you are designed to test the integrity of what you currently have your faith in, no harm in that is there?”

          The harm is that your ‘resources’ are demonstrated fraudsters, and you want to tell me that this is the best resource that the ‘creator of the universe’ has to convince people comes from fraudsters?

          Faith in the bible is nothing but wishful thinking.

          Hebrews 11King James Version (KJV)

          11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

          I have no ‘wish’ or ‘hope’ for evolution, it is just where the evidences leads.
          So YOU are being dishonest, or at best deceptive.

          ” And I know you didn’t explore them with any due diligence because you came back so quickly, ”

          And AGAIN more dishonesty from you.
          You ‘know’ no such thing, you just have ignorant ‘faith’ that I have not studied the material already or been to the site already.

          But dont worry, I UNDERSTAND why you have to be DISHONEST – you represent a DISHONEST ‘God’…

        • Aaron Siering

          Wow, you really are exceptionally irrational, as is evidenced by your statement which isn’t even coherent.

          You can’t choose your atheism much less even a commitment to a strict materialism based on any appeal to efficient causation (evidence), and the tremendous success of science in creating new technologies without an appeal to final causation–which it can’t make because science must be mute on the question of final causation–is not evidence that final causation isn’t in fact an attribute of nature.

          A commitment to atheism must always be predicated as must commitments to any worldview upon extra-scientific beliefs.

          In my experience people choose atheism much more often for emotional rather than intellectual ones and you in fact seem to exemplify this as your irrationality is so extreme it is strikes me as pathological. Consequently it is a completely untrue thing to assert that you could ever be convinced of anything you don’t already believe, because you are so blinded by your own biases that you have placed yourself outside the grasp of reason.

        • adam

          Irrational?

          “A commitment to atheism must always be predicated as must commitments to any worldview upon extra-scientific beliefs.”

          Disbelief in deity – atheism isnt predicated on anything but a lack of evidence that the deity is not IMAGINARY.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “A commitment to atheism must always be predicated as must commitments to any worldview upon extra-scientific beliefs.”

          No.

          It musn’t.

          One can be an atheist by virtue of the fact that one rejects all extant “extra-scientific beliefs”. Agnostic atheism is by far the most common form, as far as I am aware.

        • Aaron Siering

          Actually yea it must. What you would otherwise be asserting is scientism, which is obviously a self-refuting since scientism, itself, is a philosophical position. This is such a basic point that if you were interested in subjecting your own beliefs to any critical scrutiny whatsoever you’d already would have had to have realized it. So again thanks for proving my point since you are obviously willing to buy any argument as long as it asserts your beliefs.

          And this goes to one of my main arguments about our culture as a whole. Not only is there a marked decline in the ability of working scientists to make even basically good philosophical arguments, due presumably to the increased demands on students of science to be trained in only one way to think–in other words physicists today are so busy mastering the large set of computations they must learn to be competent physicists that they don’t seem to have time any more–or perhaps it is just the interest–for things like literature. How I miss scientists like Stephan Jay Gould and the world that produced scientists like Bohr, de Broglie, Dirac, Heisenberg. and Schrodinger (already we see a marked trace of what was to come in the superficial pragmatism of Feynmen).

          What we end up with both among elite scientists and the cadre of the population, well represented here, who all to eager to follow along, even if their own scientific sophistication is quite limited, is a program to reduce all knowledge to only that which can be technologized.

          Yea well not only things that can be quantified actually count as knowledge.

        • Kodie

          Tell us any other way to know something.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “This is such a basic point that if you were interested in subjecting your own beliefs to any critical scrutiny whatsoever you’d already would have had to have realized it.”

          🙂

          “So again thanks for proving my point”

          I mean, if your goal is to prove that I have a better grasp of logic, history, science, and rhetoric then I will not stand in your way.

          “Actually yea it must.”

          Nope. Still wrong.

          “What you would otherwise be asserting is scientism, which is obviously a self-refuting since scientism, itself, is a philosophical position.”

          Please define “scientism” rigorously before I can weigh your claims here.

          For now: its seems like you’re defining [agnostic atheism] and [‘scientism’] as the same thing, in which case I’ll have to correct you: agnostic atheism is not ‘self-refuting’ since it is a philosophical position of admitting un-certainty about any extra-scientific prpositions.

          One can not be wrong when one truthfully announces that one does not know what to believe. It is possible to reject all the specific deity-claims-of-record, while still being agnostic and open to evidence on the question of an extra-physical creator.

          “I miss scientists like Stephan Jay Gould”

          I have no trouble accepting that you pine for public figures who used to bow to your sense of self-importance.

          NOMA is true only trivially; all meaty religious claims are in the domain of science. If you want to play any game besides “number of angles angels on the head of a pin”, meta-physics gets you nowhere.

          ” the superficial pragmatism of Feynmen”

          1) “Feynman”
          2) That you think it ‘superficial’ seems to me to betray your ignorance of the man and his outlook.

          “What we end up both among elite scientists and the cadre of the population, well represented here, who all to eager to follow along, even if their own scientific sophistication is quite limited [*], with this program to reduce all knowledge to only that which can be technologized.”

          * I quite like the dig you included here 🙂

          “this program to reduce all knowledge”

          Again, I find myself in the enviable position of correcting you: “this program” you’re so frightened of does not exist.

          “I am here to say fuck you, not only things that can be quantified count as knowledge.”

          Finally, something worth applauding! I appreciate your candor and passion here.

          Alas, it is misplaced. Quantification is not destructive to knowledge. People like Feynman are not trying to take away the beauty you see or the numinous feelings you are moved by.

          So.

          To your “fuck you”, I say:

          “Fuck you back. Watch this video.”

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRmbwczTC6E

          *edits for clarity and spelling*

        • Sure, it’d be nice if scientists were well rounded by reading more broadly. I don’t know any reason why the problem is worse now than before.

          As for scientists needing to make philosophical arguments, I don’t know what that means. This is something besides the clear thinking they must display in their papers, books, and arguments with colleagues?

        • Aaron Siering

          Because the nature of scientific education has changed as well as many of the presuppositions that working scientists now hold.

          We all need to make philosophical arguments, exactly because not everything we must believe can be quantified. What I have actually witnessed in a few of the departments I’ve been associated with is what I’d term a compartmentalization of rigor. A lot of scientists are careful in their research but then default to really poor reasoning about other things more generally. Where this has become the biggest area of concern is when they write popular book that purporting to be about science which is really horribly practiced philosophy.

          I personally know a lot of scientists who are very acute philosophically speaking, but these people seldom write books. One who has and happens to be a Catholic (the others I am thinking have a variety of what i term one’s mythological commitments, many are materialists) is Stephan Barr who wrote Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Which I believe every conscientious materialist should read if only to understand the best arguments to a contrary position.

          Really my biggest complaint is among those who have written such books and who are not careful in their philosophical reasoning. In a few cases there has been a general denouncement of philosophy generally before the author proceeds to make long philosophical arguments in the name of science.

        • Kodie

          How do you think Catholicism stacks up or theism in general? Your actual original comment was in another thread, and you had a lot to say about atheism being inferior to theism. Could you go over that again?

        • MNb

          Please teach us, Oh Self Proclaimed Great Intellect, which presuppositions that working scientists now hold have changed last 10 years? Twenty years? 50? 100? 200?

          “We all need to make philosophical arguments,”
          That’s correct, but

          “exactly because not everything we must believe can be quantified.”
          because of this reason. Even if science were restricted to quantifiable stuff (it isn’t) we still would need philosophical arguments.

          “A lot of scientists are careful in their research but then default to really poor reasoning about other things more generally.”

          Also correct, but totally irrelevant for your claim that their presuppositions have changed. This only shows that scientists are human and hence can err. Hey! Do you know who already realized that? Richard Feynman.

          “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”

          I don’t know when exactly he said this and am too lazy now to look it up, but it has been quite a while.

          So Self Proclaimed Great Intellect, will you condescend yourself to answer my question? Foolish me might think otherwise that you sucked it out of your big fat thumb.

        • Please teach us, Oh Self Proclaimed Great Intellect, which presuppositions that working scientists now hold have changed last 10 years? Twenty years? 50? 100? 200?

          Don’t bother Him with this kind of question–ask him which presuppositions will change in the future!

        • Aaron Siering

          You appear to hold a lot of erroneous beliefs about science–at the very least from the things you’ve said have rather naive understanding of it. I would suggest Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science by Richard DeWitt. I’ve used before as course text, and it is a good introduction to the history of and problems in science.

        • MNb

          Will you pay for me and send it to me? With a salary of less than 1000 bucks a month I cannot afford to buy every single book recommended by random apologists. If you do I promise to read it (that’s easy – I’m a fanatical reader). And my gratitude will be genuine and public.

          After googling a bit I found “Analyzes the transitions from the Aristotelian worldview to the Newtonian worldview to a new and currently developing worldview”
          I may hope you are aware of Aristoteles and Newton being dead for more than 200 years – not coincidentally the largest number I mentioned?

          And hey – thanks for not answering my question, Oh Self Proclaimed Great Intellect, thus confirming that you’re a troll.

        • Aaron Siering

          There’s the problem you are regarding me as an apologist, when in this context I am acting solely as a historian of science (and an enthusiast for science more generally) who is eager to see you become more scientifically literate. My criticisms of your use of reasoning and the general level of understanding of science your comments seem to reveal has nothing to do with any thing outside of my own training in the philosophy and history of science.

        • Aaron Siering

          I apologize if I inadvertently gave you the impression that I was speaking as an apologist. Rather, I was only speaking in the context of my training in the philosophy of science and as an enthusiast for scientific literacy more generally.

          I take it that by “fanatical reader” you mean someone who may read a lot and not someone who necessarily comprehends much of what they’ve read? In any event the title is an allusion to Thomas Kuhn’s seminal work The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions, however even if that was lost on you, it does explicitly go on to say in the sub-title that the book is in part a history of science. Do you then mean to criticize it because it attempts to be more of a complete history of science, rather than an incomplete one? Or that in looking over the whole history of science it aims at clarity?

          I imagine myself teaching a class which purports to be on the history of science and only addressing the 20th century, and I imagine as a consequence how confused my students would be after I had failed to provide any context for how we got here. Now I imagine that Dewitt had many of the same thoughts about his own book. Certainly understanding how long believed empirical facts turn out to be only erroneously believed conceptual facts after a major shift in our paradigm is best illustrated from the perspective of the big picture.

          It is also rather fitting because so much of my criticisms here have been in response to the what I charge is a general ignorance of how we got where we are today in regards to scientism as a worldview (here I am just following Stephen Pinker’s concession).

          Again this just goes to show that your only purpose in commenting to me at all is to find fault in anything I’ve asserted, fair or unfair. If I would have suggested a book which was very limited in scope I have no doubt that you would have complained about how specific it was. If I spent hours composing a response which offered detail support for any of my previous assertions you would simply dismiss it with a fallacious quip no matter how cogent my argument may, in fact, have been.

          I believe that by now there is enough evidence provided by your comments for any reasonable and objectively minded person to understand that the above is true.

          So as with every other comment you’ve made to me, I understand this comment as also going to support my original complaint that there is absolutely nothing I could say that you would not dismiss entirely out of hand by function of your sheer prejudice (and perhaps a fair amount of genuine stupidity, not to mention the gross ignorance).

          If you suspect that it might be an apologist then it must be destroyed at all costs and if good reasoning and fair argumentation is the first causality so be it, right?

          P.S. and this goes to Kodie as well who supports your comment enough to have upvoted it.

        • MNb

          “Do you then mean to criticize it ….”
          No. Actually it looks like a good and interesting book to me, or I would not have aked you to send it to me. Had it been creacrap produced by some IDiot from Seattle for instance I hadn’t asked you. It was not a trick, but a genuine request. I live in Moengo, Suriname, where I teach math and physics. As Surinamese postal services aren’t exactly reliable I’m willing to give you an address in The Netherlands, then I will get it sooner or later. If you hurry already in December, January or February.
          It says something about your prejudices that you immediately assume I mean to criticize a book I even haven’t read yet – the more since you don’t provide any quote of me that you interpret as criticism. I reread my comment twice and can’t find nothing that can be understood as criticism.

          “Again this just goes to show that your only purpose in commenting to me at all is to find fault in anything I’ve asserted, fair or unfair.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Says the guy who entered this blog doing exactly that.

          “there is absolutely nothing I could say that you would not dismiss entirely out of hand by function of your sheer prejudice.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Based as this is on your wrong assumption that I meant to criticize the book you recommended you again display your own prejudice. And of course again you don’t provide any evidence in any form of a quote of mine.

          “If you suspect that it might be an apologist then it must be destroyed at all costs and if good reasoning and fair argumentation is the first causality so be it, right?”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          After your prejudice made you attack a strawman you build of me (I did not mean to criticize the book you recommended) you commit the fallacy of a loaded question.
          Ah well, that’s what you are a Self Declared Great Intellect for.

          “I imagine myself teaching a class ….”
          If your attitude on this blog is representative for how you teach in real life even a little bit then you suck badly at teaching. Both your didactics (what you explain and how) and your pedagogy (your attitude towards your pupils) leave a lot to desired. That’s something I can evaluate, because I’m a qualified and experience teacher myself – math and physics. You wouldn’t last long at my school – maybe two weeks. Or perhaps longer, if you are also blinded by your own Intellectual Greatness.

          And now you also know why the book you recommend interests me – it’s about the subjects I teach. Moreover I already had figured out indeed – without recognizing the subtitle though – that DeWitt expanded on Kuhn. I may hope he expands on Lakatos as well. Kind of pity that I have to mention this, because it’s too funny to read your rants about my illiteracy, which leads to you displaying your prejudices over and over again.

          “I apologize if ….”
          Rejected because 1) you did me no harm but highly amused me and 2) you apologize for the wrong issue, as you tried and try to do me harm in an entirely different way – and fortunately totally failed.
          Funny guy.
          Guess I can whistle for DeWitt’s book, you missing the chance of actually lifting the intellectual level of one of your imagined stubborn pupils. Perhaps you’re not interested in doing such a thing after all and you imagining yourself teaching a class is just another form of mental masturbation you’re addicted to.
          Pity but alas peanut butter, as the Dutch expression goes. Maybe I’ll buy it myself. That might take a few years; there is other stuff I want to buy first. Still thanks for bringing it to my attention.

        • Aaron Siering

          Actually, I am very careful in my reasoning, conscientious, helpful, and I don’t make ridiculous assumptions about people based on very limited evidence, especially applying observations made in one context and extrapolating them to another entirely different context.

          Also teaching math and science is very different than teaching history and philosophy. Although I prefer to have a conceptual understanding of things there is something to be said for the “skill and drill” method of how math is taught in the U.S. and the best math teachers I had were always the ones that were most industrious in working out example problems in class. While there is more room in physics for conceptual illustrations, it still is largely a matter of exposing the student to as many example problems as possible. In fact illustration comes more into play when the physics class is more for general education than it is a class to train future physicists.

          You may in fact be a descent math teacher in that you are particularly industrious in providing sample problems, but there is nothing in anything you’ve ever said that suggests you would be able to help students become better critical thinkers more generally, and actually quite a bit that would argue against it.

        • 90Lew90

          “I am very careful in my reasoning, conscientious, helpful, and I don’t make ridiculous assumptions about people based on very limited evidence, especially applying observations made in one context and extrapolating them to another entirely different context.”

          If we were to replace “people” with “ideas” in the above sentence, you’d be making a mockery of yourself. When you come out with something as wishy-washy (not to mention plain wrong) as “truth and love are the same thing” and extrapolate from that, why would anyone bother listening to anything you have to say? With that as your frame of reference, it’s all guff.

        • Aaron Siering

          Thank you for again proving my point. You don’t obviously understand what Christian Realism means to assert, but yet you feel confident to just dismiss it out of hand.

          You might say for example that you don’t believe in the Trinity for various reasons or along the lines of Spinoza in anything that isn’t nature itself, but you can’t say that a perfectly rational model for reality is bullshit simply because you don’t or aren’t interested in understanding how it follows logically from its starting prepositions–and that you simply don’t agree with those prepositions. In other words just because you don’t accept the starting preposition doesn’t make any comment on the validity of the reasoning which then follows from them to the conclusion–and if you simply left it at that, i.e. that you can’t accept the starting prepositions I wouldn’t have anything to say in criticism to you. It is that you then pretend that there is something invalid in the reasoning the follows simply because you don’t like the conclusion.

          You are like a stupid person who thinks that the intelligent and educated person is talking a lot of shit simply because you can’t make sense out of what they are saying giving the assumptions you hold.

          This is simply not a good argument. In fact it is quite stupid.

          I will leave it to the rest of you to have the last word as every comment really just buttresses what I said to begin with, without fallacious arguments you wouldn’t have any arguments. The fact this post amounts to circle jerk of people who all want to congratulate themselves in their inability to reason well is something I’ll take as a concession.

          My advantage is that I know what the good arguments look like, because, unlike apparently anybody I’ve interacted with here, I have the habit of searching for and considering the very the best arguments of those who beliefs contradict my own. I do this because again unlike anybody I’ve interacted with here I care about good reasoning. The problem I believe is that in order to make those arguments you would have concede certain weakness in your own position as Sartre in his ethical system, and as Flew did–and even as Dennett is willing to concede.

          The fact is however is that you are either too afraid, or too dishonest or just too ignorant to concede anything which is why you must make only the bad arguments you actually do. Really they are nothing more than just parodies of logical arguments, which is all I came to say originally. The obnoxious thing for me is that you present yourselves as being people committed to reason and rationality.

          Now after two days and dozens of comments on this groups behalf there is ample evidence supporting that assertion.

        • 90Lew90

          It’s not my fault that you come out with something in your top two paragraphs that can be dismissed out of hand, thus rendering the rest of your word salad bunk. Such as, for example, “love and truth are the same thing”. Sorry. Bullshit. Or designating yourself as a “Christian realist”. That might be handy for the in-group, but I’m afraid it’s an oxymoron.

          It may seem to you as though I’m like that uneducated brat who dismisses what the learned professor has to say as “bullshit”, but I would respond that I know true learning when I see it, and I have respect for true learning, and I will take the time to grapple with difficult concepts. I’m not that dismissive. By the same token, and having taken the time to do some learning, I can also spot bullshit pretty quickly. And everything you commit to these pages raises red bullshit flags, so thanks, but you needn’t condescend to me. Why in the hell would I want to follow you on a wild goose chase just because you may or may not know a little bit about Spinoza? You can take my off-handedness as a complete lack of patience with your type. I might point you to AJ Ayer’s Language, Truth and Logic. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

        • Kodie

          Your answer is a long-winded admission that you have an imaginary friend. You think you have gone to great lengths to explain something that seems so foreign to an atheist, yet that’s all it really is. In another post, you went at length to explain that without a god, your life has no meaning. I lost the post and meant to respond to it at the time, but my browser keeps shutting down lately. For someone accusing the rest of us (ME, namely) of creating straw man arguments against some phantom version of Christianity, your pseudo-intellectual version is not any deeper. It’s just a lot more words, and maybe I can tell you spend more time reading and thinking about how to make it sound better. I’m so sorry, but your answers are not more intellectual or thought-provoking than any other off-the-rack foolish Christian. Your favorite thing is to be defensive, perhaps you really hate being confused with those other Christians who haven’t thought it through as much as you have. You want an A for effort, but that’s a really hollow A you’re clinging to.

        • Susan

          Thank you for again proving my point

          Nice to see you came here with an open mind. Your point has not been “proven”, no matter how many times you type that sentence.

          just because you don’t accept the starting preposition doesn’t make any comment on the validity of the reasoning which then follows from them to the conclusion-

          He didn’t say your argument was invalid. He said that “truth and love” aren’t the same thing. That is, he doesn’t accept your premises. You’ve made no effort to demonstrate that they’re true.

          You know that a valid argument does not a sound argument make.

          For instance, is this a valid argument?

          P 1. Everything green is exceptionally smelly.

          P2. My dog is green.

          C. My dog is exceptionally smelly.

          You are like a stupid person who thinks that the intelligent and educated person is talking a lot of shit simply because you can’t make sense out of what they are saying giving the assumptions you hold.

          Or possibly, he doesn’t accept your premises and you’ve made no progress (nor seem to feel any responsibility) in supporting them.

          My advantage is that I know what the good arguments look like, because, unlike apparently anybody I’ve interacted with here, I have the habit of searching for and considering the very the best arguments of those who beliefs contradict my own. I do this because again unlike anybody I’ve interacted with here I care about good reasoning. The problem I believe is that in order to make those arguments you would have concede certain weakness in your own position

          So, you keep saying.

          as Sartre in his ethical system, and as Flew did–and even as Dennett is willing to concede.

          That is not an argument.

          The fact is however is that you are either too afraid, or too dishonest or just too ignorant to concede anything which is why you must make only the bad arguments you actually do.

          I’m such a troll. Every single person here you’ve encountered is a troll. They prove your point. You graciously thank them every single time (which is all the time) they do it.

          they are nothing more than just parodies of logical arguments, which is all I came to say originally.

          And is all you’ve said since. You’ve made no logical argument, though. The first attempt at an argument you made drew a response that your premises were bullshit and you got all huffy and went into the “it’s valid” defense.

          You called it “perfectly rational”.

          Hmmm… valid and perfectly rational doesn’t say much. I could make stuff up all day, every day, that was valid and I could claim it was “perfectly rational”.

          I could also tell people I’ve read books and the conclusions I’ve reached from those books are absolutely true and anyone who doesn’t grok my allusions just proves my point and confirms my convictions about them.

          It wouldn’t bring me a lot of cred in the field of logic. That is, I couldn’t just claim it. I would have to show my work, not just allude to the idea that I’d done all my work.

          “Thank you for proving my point.” is not a point proven.

          You can’t just say stuff like that. You have to show it.

          What’s superficial about Feynman?

        • MNb

          “What you would otherwise be asserting is scientism, which is obviously a self-refuting since scientism, itself, is a philosophical position.”
          And even such a basic point you get wrong. Or – given your failed entry – you lie again and get it deliberately wrong.
          Scientism – the version that’s popular on this blog – is the observation that no single method even remotely works as well as the scientific one. Even stronger – it denies that there is any other method that works in any way.
          That’s not self-refuting in any way for two reasons.
          1. It doesn’t deny the role of philosophy.
          2. It can be refuted by giving just one counterexample of a non-scientific method that provides reliable results.

          You may not have been lying, but the strawman is yours. Again.

        • Susan

          Actually yea it must.

          It depends on what you mean by “extra-scientific beliefs”, doesn’t it?

          You’ve been remarkably vague, Aaron. If you mean that the scientific method can’t demonstrate that the scientific method is reliable, or something of that nature, then please be clear about it.

          That is, define “scientific” when you make an assertion about “extra-scientific” beliefs. As a fan of philosophy, I’m sure you’ll understand the importance of defining your terms (and I do hope you don’t direct me to a dictionary again. The trouble with that is that if I try to be charitable and ask you to clarify your point, you just state that it’s a commonly understood term I should find in a dictionary but when others take the term as they understand it and respond based on their understanding, you accuse them of strawmanning.)

          in other words physicists today are so busy mastering the large set of computations they must learn to be competent physicists that they don’t seem to have time any more–or perhaps it is just the interest–for things like literature.

          (Hint: Rather than say “in other words”, it would be better to say “in my opinion” as you’ve made no effort to support this claim.)

          Literature doesn’t do much when it comes to figuring out quantum gravity. Now, I have no data about the interest physicists have in literature (though, in my experience, the popularizers on the subject are better versed in it than the pew sitters I know.) Without data, it’s not a useful point and you haven’t shown how it’s relevant when it comes to ontological claims.

          already we see a marked trace of what was to come in the superficial pragmatism of Feynmen)

          I don’t see it. What do you see? In what sense was Feynman superficial?

          What we end up with both among elite scientists and the cadre of the population, well represented here, who all to eager to follow along, even if their own scientific sophistication is quite limited, is a program to reduce all knowledge to only that which can be technologized.

          More assertions without clarification or support. Please explain what you mean and support it.

          Yea well not only things that can be quantified actually count as knowledge

          Who here said that?

          What does count as knowledge is important.

          How do you define knowledge? What do you claim as knowledge? How do you support it?

        • Aaron Siering

          1) There is a big difference between the confusion over a word like convinced and confusion over a word such as science. One is a straightforward term that means exactly what it appears to mean, while the other is complex social phenomena that could mean many things based on context. In other words suggesting you go to dictionary for one is just as appropriate as it would be inappropriate for the other.

          2) Having said the above, there is nothing hard to understand by what I mean by extra-scientific, I mean beliefs which aren’t subject to being quantified (and by quantified I mean having a number attached to them so that they can be measured) Since where there can be no measurement there can be no science….By the way this term is not my own, it is often found in the literature.

          3) When I say, in other words, I am offering an alternative rephrasing of the statement in order to make the concept more clear (I often do this when the concept is particularly abstract, and in an environment such as this, I may do it too much–or maybe I don’t do it enough as, apparently, I am correct in doing it since even after two examples it seems there is still some lingering confusion). Anyway, in some cases this may be the subject of my opinion however in other cases it will not. So maybe you already see the problem if I took your advice? It is that I would be exchanging a phrase which means one thing for a phrase that means something else entirely different. In other words I would no longer be saying what I intend to mean or even something that may make sense in context. For example, “we now understand gravity as the warping of space time. In my opinion objects travel in a straight line according to the shape of space-time.” You see how it doesn’t work there? Rather, “in other words objects travel in a straight line according to the shape of space-time.”

          Now be honest–I am going finish at least this post regardless–but you’ve got to be trolling me here, right?

          4) Literature is a way of thinking in metaphors. It is a different use of the mind than is thinking in terms of computation–these are complementary ways of thinking and aren’t mutually exclusive, which is all the more reason not to commit to one at the exclusion of the other). The power of what this really means was brought home for me, personally, when I first read Stephen Jay Gould’s The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Which is for a scientific text also a literary masterpiece–although I am starting to understand just how suspect my judgement is in regard to English, may be for you as you apparently don’t even believe I have a basic command of the English language.

          4) I tend towards academic skepticism on the question of knowledge:

          http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_skepticism.html

        • Susan

          There is a big difference between the confusion over a word like convinced and confusion over a word such as science. One is a straightforward term that means exactly what it appears to mean, while the other is complex social phenomena that could mean many things based on context

          The first is not straightforward. It can mean anything from swayed by the preponderance of evidence to the position of unwavering certainty.

          I got the impression when you used the word ‘convinced’ that you meant the latter as your point seemed to allude to it. Rather than make assumptions, I asked you to clarify and you sent me to a dictionary.

          I’ve never heard the second (science) defined the way you seem to want to define it.

          Nor does it seem to be accurate to reduce it to quantification and technology.

          In either case, it’s important that you make clear what you mean by those terms as they are central to the points you seem to want to make.

          As someone concerned about bad philosophy, I hope you understand how basically important it is to define terms.

          where there can be no measurement there can be no science….

          That simply means that measurement is necessary to do science. It doesn’t mean that science can be described as ‘quantification’.

          That is, data is necessary but not sufficient to do science. Or else you get the science of Sir Bedevere.

          When I say, in other words, I am offering an alternative rephrasing of the statement in order to make the concept more clear

          You made an unsupported assertion followed by ‘in other words’ with a stronger, equally unsupported assertion.

          In some cases this may be the subject of my opinion however in other cases it will not.

          Agreed. You have the burden of supporting your opinion. If you do, I will agree that it’s not just the subject of your opinion.

          For example, we now understand gravity as the warping of space time. In my opinion objects travel in a straight line according to the the shape of space-time. You see how it doesn’t work there?

          Do you see how this theory carries its provisional burden, that is, it is the most accurate model we have about how that aspect of reality works? It didn’t just blurt out the assertion on a discussion site without supporting it? Do you see the difference?

          you’ve got to be trolling me here, right?

          My goodness. I’m doing the best I can. I’m not the strawman you’ve constructed. I’ve made real efforts to communicate but I’m not just going to let ill-defined and unsupported premises slide by and accept arguments constructed on them. Is that unreasonable? . You think that’s trolling?

          Literature is a way of thinking in metaphors.

          It is. Literature is lots of things.

          It is a different use of the mind then is thinking in terms of computation–these are complementary ways of thinking and aren’t mutually exclusive, which is all the more reason to not to commit to one at the exclusion of the other)

          They are mutually exclusive on certain questions. For instance, what happens to a pair of virtual particles on an event horizon?

          What did Humpty Dumpty mean?

          I tend towards academic skepticism on the question of knowledge.

          I didn’t find ‘academic skepticism’ on your general skepticism link. I did find it here.

          Is that an accurate description of your position?

        • MNb

          “what I mean by extra-scientific, I mean beliefs which aren’t subject to being quantified”
          Now that is funny! Here we have an alpha

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft

          who claims that only the natural sciences are “real” sciences. And I’m a beta who argues over and over again for almost the opposite! Beta and gamma sciences totally are sciences as well, while it can be argued that math is not.

          All sciences have this in common: they use both deduction and induction, compare the results and if they match they call it knowledge. A fine example from History of Antiquity (as alfa as you can get it):

          “Did Julius Caeasar cross the Rhine to campaign in Germania or not?”
          Totally testable with inductive means.

          http://www.mikeanderson.biz/2011/12/caesars-rhine-bridge-rome-showcases-its.html
          http://www.n24.de/n24/Wissen/History/d/2778178/roemische-legionaere-kamen-bis-limburg.html
          https://www.hessen.de/presse/pressemitteilung/caesars-schuhen-durch-hessen-0
          http://www.rhein-zeitung.de/region/lokales/diez_artikel,-Rostige-Schuhnaegel-zeigen-Caesar-war-in-Hessen-_arid,591097.html#.VgFBvstMK0c
          http://www.kreisblatt.de/rhein-main/Caesar-war-in-Hessen-unterwegs;art801,498442
          http://www.welt.de/geschichte/article115814699/Zwei-Roemerlager-in-Hessen-entdeckt.html

          Answer: he did. We know, with a higher probability than say the higgs-boson.
          You know, it was exactly reading literature – books by Jona Lendering, JB Bury, Fernand Braudel, Richard Overy and Ian Kershaw – that convinced me that historical research is a branch of science – and a damn hard one.
          Similar for psychology.

        • Kodie

          Dear @Aaron Siering,

          What do you say to comments like this:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/09/how-much-faith-to-be-an-atheist-geisler-and-tureks-moral-argument-part-2/#comment-2267220560

          I could be wrong, but here is what I’m getting at. It seems to me that similar to reasonably concluding those trees are truly objective facts of reality from our experience of them (unless we have a defeater); could we not do the same for our experiences of beauty or… morality? I have the belief that a sunset is beautiful and that it is an objective fact from my experience of it. In other words, it would be true no matter what any human believes. I also conclude from experience that raping kids for fun is wrong is an objective fact. So, it seems reasonable to conclude from experience that things like beauty is not subjective and at least one objective moral law exists. Doesn’t that just seem self-evident? 🙂

        • Kodie

          I don’t find any of your arguments convincing at all. I can’t even believe grown adults are that gullible and uneducated.

        • MNb

          “if you have good reason and evidance to think a God exists”
          OK, let me ignore that you use the word “evidence” wrongly again – you mean argument. You provide an excellent example of circular reasoning.
          Beginning of our Universe –> Cosmological Argument –> God –> explanation of what science can’t explain, like the Beginning of our Universe.

        • Dys

          So you’re essentially saying that “God did it” and “I don’t know” are equivalent. Which I agree with, except that “I don’t know” is the far more honest answer, and doesn’t carry any of the unnecessary baggage that comes with using God as an explanation.

    • MNb

      “Those things are metaphors and are not science.”
      It’s science.

      http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

      That we know very little about it doesn’t mean it’s just a metaphor.
      Nice blooper, it’s a new one to me.

      “there are many anomalies”
      Yeah. That means science is imperfect. It does not deny that our Universe is objective and has rules.
      Second nice blooper.

      “Third, matter does not exist. It is energy.”
      BWAHAHAHAHA!
      Never heard of E = mc2 I presume? Matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. Now that’s a metaphor.
      That was an excellent blooper.

      “And at best it is a probability.”
      Yes. And the value of that probability is as close to 1 as you can wish.

      “It doesn’t really exist. An atom is basically empty.”
      Yes. And as you totally consist of atoms you are basically empty as well, whatever empty means in this context.
      You are a very funny guy indeed.

      “I am saying that fundamentally the model of matter is flawed because fundamentally matter doesn’t exist.”
      Very funny. Then you don’t exist either. Neither does your computer. Little question: how come I can read your funny jokes?

      “science being an absolute premise”
      Ah, but that’s a strawman. Science is not absolute at all, so neither is any argument build upon it. The little thing is that nothing works as well as science to explain how come that you and I can have our nice conversation, while living hundreds of kilometers apart. That cries out for explanation, as Richard Swinburne likes to say. If you have something better you’re invited. I hope though you won’t mind if I don’t hold my breath.

      “These very strange properties of our universe could possibly lead to questions such as, “maybe there is something that created these illusions and impossibilities and anomalies?”

      And how exactly would that be the case?

    • Greg G.

      Here is the report about the survivor of the Indonesia flight:

      Indonesian man survives flight in aircraft wheel well
      The flight was two hours from Indonesia to Sumatra.

      According to local media reports, Ambarita had
      spent up to a year studying aircraft taking off and landing, had learned
      from the Internet how to hide in the wheel well and had made an
      unsuccessful attempt in the past to hitch a free plane ride.

      Somethings are not so unexplainable.

    • Philmonomer

      At the risk of ridicule,

      One way to avoid ridicule is to provide support for statements. For example, with regard to both the swimmer and the person in the airplane wheel well, provide links to reputable articles that describe what happened in each of these situations and demonstrate how “science does not explain these events.” That would be a good start.

    • tsig

      God of the gaps.

    • Brian Jenkin

      Gee, for a second there I thought you were pointing towards there being something beyond science, but you threw in a curve ball at the end asking the hypothetical, “Maybe what we assumed to be true and is really false is the creation of something beyond science?” Up until then I thought you had put forward a very compelling case for questioning materialism, but you confused me here and I ultimately don’t get your point.

      There is also the issue of personal testimony of those who have been ‘scientifically’ dead (sometimes for days) and yet live today to tell us about it. Science can only dismiss such testimony as it is not repeatable and testable, pointing to science as being inadequate to tell us the whole story.

      I myself have had experiences that are not testable or explainable by science, such as on a dozen occasions, I have known someone’s name before they have introduced themselves to me, including one time with a person on television in an infommercial, and one time where I actually said the ladies name first, before she did. Not only that, I pronounced her name, Yvonne, in a manner foreign to me in it’s emphasis, like the two different pronunciations of tomato. Her name was placed in my head including the pronunciation. Science is inadequate.

      http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/some-people-were-dead-for-several-days.html#a04

      Can I tell you all about God? No. Is there a mountain of evidence that points towards there being a God? Yes.

      As atheists, it is possible that you listen for evidence that suits your view, and ignore evidence that does not. And it’s possible that you even interpret evidence in a specific way to support your view, just as it is possible that Christians do. So consider this article, the testimony of renouwned scientist (one of thousands) who officially re-aligning himself with a new view that actually is more coherent with the evidence at hand.

      http://creation.com/richard-smalley

      With only a year or so to explore creation science and develop a fully threshed out stance on the issue, his life ended with the stance of theistic evolution, but who knows what he might have come to given the time and chance to explore more fully? But what we do know is this, he was clear that unguided evolution as is the current ‘scientific’ belief is “bad science”, and a false theory. For more evidence of a God driven universe, please consider the content compiled over 30 years at http://www.creation.com and see for yourself just how much evidence there is. You guys are the ones asking for it, so please inform yourselves with an open mind of just how much evidence there is (over 90% of the methods for dating the earth point to a young -created- earth) and make up your mind about God then.

      • MNb

        “Is there a mountain of evidence that points towards there being a God? Yes.”
        You’re invited.
        Testimonies don’t count though. See, my testimony is that I saw in yellow letters written on the sky “there is no god” a couple of weeks ago. I have 500 witnesses, without names and addresses (1 Cor. 15:6), so there you go. Still I’m pretty sure you won’t accept my testimony, so I don’t have to accept any christian one.

        “see for yourself just how much evidence there is.”
        Done so.
        Zero.
        You’re still invited to present some. Like this:

        “over 90% of the methods for dating the earth point to a young -created- earth”
        Source, calculation, examples asked.

        • Brian Jenkin

          Please know I have no antagonism in my voice writing this to you MNb. I would genuinely like to enter into a thoughtful discussion with you to quietly and honestly challenge you, just as I’m sure you can challenge me today. When we have no fear of truth, then challenges are opportunities, aren’t they?

          The question I have for you MNb (I would prefer to call you by your name, but this will have to do for now) is this: Would you die for your testimony about the yellow letters in the sky (as ironic as that would be)? Would you agree that such an act would carry some serious weight, if in fact that was what happened? If that did happen, wouldn’t you have an obligation to share it with the world? Think about Martin Luther King, standing for what he believed was a fundamental truth- his death galvanised people and drove home his dream.

          I know that you know that testimony stands up in a court of law, especially first hand witnesses. It also stands up to the test of history, (laws are passed that change society for centuries based on testimony). When someone dies at the hand of an oppressor for their word being truth, people take notice all the more, and even more so again when 11 of your 12 closest friends who knew you first hand also die brutally at the hand of those same oppressors for your truth? No offence intended here MNb, but I think we can agree that you have some catching up to do on this front if you want your truth to matter in 2000 years.

          Hey, here’s an interesting question for you MNb, have you ever given any thought to how you would handle humanity, on a planet you created, if you were God? You keep asking for evidence of God, but what you probably have not considered is how YOU might create a lasting, credible witness to your power if you were the Supreme Being, of perfect glory, existing with 100% integrity. What are you going to do to communicate if you are God?

          Should He have to jump through our hoops to prove Himself to us? If you were God, would you acquiesce to the people on this blog, people with no humility or genuine desire to know- but rather a people who only want to be right so they can live in ignorance of You (as God) because You offend them and threaten their sovereignty in their own lives? Maybe He has already undertaken assuring that His communication is enduring already- for your benefit, MNb- but you don’t WANT to hear?

          I invite you to explore this whole conversation from an eternal, righteous perspective. It can be hard and challenging, I know first hand, because I have just as much trouble seeing just how idolatrous I am, as anyone else does. And then tell me how you would ensure that in 2000 more years from now, more people will be listening to You and Your truth than are listening today?

          What type of story would you need to tell to get people’s attention? How would you tell it to carry the most weight and maintain integrity through the millennia? Would you choose to tell it through one person only, or would you need to set the scene first so that the world was ready to listen? Would you need a people group to promise yourself to in covenant to set that scene? And when would you choose to come? In this day and age, or at the peak of the greatest and most oppressive empire the earth has ever seen? Or would you just trust your message to stone, carving it out and leaving it for someone to find? Or maybe you’d distribute your message on DVD’s falling from the sky every day for 40 years- that would blow peoples minds, and make them wonder wouldn’t it!

          Or would you entrust your story to people to bear witness to with their own lives, since it is people that you are trying to reach? I encourage you to really give it some thought.

          God bless you MNb, I look forward to your thoughts.

          Brian.

        • “Who would die for a lie?” debunked here.

          Should He have to jump through our hoops to prove Himself to us?

          How arrogant and pompous do you imagine this guy to be? We’re just asking for evidence that he frikkin’ exists. That that’s a lot to ask suggests that you’re just hiding the fact that the emperor has no clothes.

        • MNb

          “I have no antagonism in my voice writing this to you MNb.”
          There is a lot of antagonism coming from my keyboard to you, BJ. It’s only mitigated when you make me laugh.

          “I would genuinely like to enter into a thoughtful discussion”
          It takes two for a thoughtful tango and thus far you haven’t provided any thoughtful comment yet. That’s nothing new. I have at least 6 years with internet experience with creationists like you and hardly ever any produced something thoughtful.
          This one of yours is no exception. You ask the same question in about a dozen variations. That’s condescending as you apparently assume I don’t get it the first and second time.

          “with you to quietly”
          Forget it. I’m never quiet, not even in daily life, so let alone on internet.

          “and honestly challenge you”
          But I’m in for challenges. My experience makes me expect that your challenges won’t be honest. But who knows, perhaps you are the first honest creationist I meet in all those years? So I’ll give you chance.

          “I would prefer to call you by your name, but this will have to do for now”
          If you like typing a name even my compatriots tend to spell incorrectly: MNb stands for Mark Nieuweboer. However I am offended when somebody spells my name wrongly. Also I will be offended if you call me at my first name without me giving you permission, which I don’t. MNb is just easier and far less annoying when someone gets it one wrong.

          “Would you die for your testimony about the yellow letters in the sky (as ironic as that would be)?”
          If I say yes, how are you going to demonstrate that I delude myself?
          Are you aware of the Waffen-SS and especially the Einsatzgrüppe totally willing to die for their racist beliefs? And doing so? If yes, do you think it supports supremacy of the white race? Would you agree that such an act would carry some serious weight, as in fact that was exactly what happened at the Eastern Front from 1941-45?
          If no then your question is irrelevant.

          “I know that you know that testimony stands up in a court of law.”
          We are talking science and history, not court of law. As soon as Paulus is dragged in one I’ll enter one too.

          “I think we can agree that you have some catching up to do on this front if you want your truth to matter in 2000 years.”
          The longer ago people died for their beliefs the more reliable they are? Now that’s silly. Plus of course this means that the beliefs of the Canaanites were more reliable than the beliefs of the early christians. According to your very own Holy Book they were killed for their beliefs several centuries earlier.

          “have you ever given any thought to how you would handle humanity, on a planet you created, if you were God?”
          Yes. I think I would have done a better job. For instance I would have send all European jews a few collective nightmares from 1933 on, to warn them for what was coming.

          “what you probably have not considered is how YOU might create a lasting, credible witness to your power if you were the Supreme Being.”
          Alas for you, BJ, I totally have. I already gave you one example. But I’ll give you another. Being omnipotent etc. I would have send myself disguised as my son (never mind that this doesn’t make sense – that’s what I’m god for) to Africa south of the Sahara before 1000 CE, to the Americas before 1500 CE and to Australia or Papua New Guinea before 1800 CE. I mean, me being god, if I could do it once I could do it a few more times, don’t you think? And I would make sure the key elements would remain the same: the messias claim, the preaching, the torture (each time a different one though given the different cultures) and of course the Resurrection. That would make the message unambiguously clear. As god I would no see any reason to favour one tiny tribe in one remote corner of the world. Imagine the surprise of the European missionaries meeting a population with a belief so similar to theirs!
          Now you can do two things.
          1. You can provide a reason why god has done it only once, implicitely claiming that you understand god’s mind.
          2. You can do the honest thing and admit that you don’t have a point, because you haven’t been thoughtful enough.
          My bet is on the first one – and it would do me great pleasure.

          “God bless you MNb”
          You need it more than me – to sustain your self-delusion.

        • Greg G.

          Plus one ^ for the Canaanite analogy.

        • MNb

          I recently read that the Canaanites belonged to the Phoenician ethnicity. If that’s correct they worshipped Phoenician gods – and were willing to die for them according the OT, which itself claims they had had enough chances to convert.
          Some time I will look up if Baal actually was a Phoenician god. Thus far I was desinterested, but if I can use the Canaanites, Baal and the genocide claimed by the OT to counter the claim “willing to die” I won’t let it slip. It might be even more powerful than the Waffen-SS.

  • L.Long

    Science….I shove my fist into your face at speed x with weight force Y and you fall down!!!!
    Religion…You pray for my death and nothing happens!!
    Religion has nothing…DIRECTLY! Indirectly…you use BS religious beliefs to convince essentially bad people to do evil (kill me), so many are convinced that religion itself has power and reality…it does not. It is a tool that can be used to make bad people act worse. And yes it can be used the other way too, but so many don’t!!!
    And religion does not need any proof or demonstration of actuality because it is all just wishful thinking and irrational emotion.

    • In God’s Defense

      So, religion is a tool that can be used to make bad people worse and good people more good. Sounds like all tools… even atheism.

      • adam

        So, religion is a tool that can be used to make bad people worse and good people more good.

        No, it makes good people do evil…

        • In God’s Defense

          To say that something is evil then you must be appealing to an objective moral as your standard. Although, if you are then I can argue that if an objective moral law exists then God must exist.
          1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
          2. Objective moral values do exist.
          3. Therefore, God exists.

          If your not appealing to some objective moral law, then whether something is evil is just your subjective opinion. Which I can just easily ignore like you ignore mine.

        • Dys

          The first premise is flawed, ergo the argument doesn’t work. Some might argue that the second premise is flawed…I would say instead that absolute objective moral values do not exist, but I see no issue with objective moral values themselves existing. They just don’t exist outside humanity, nor do they require a God to invent them.

          You should stop pretending these logical arguments for God don’t have adequate counters.

        • In God’s Defense

          If they don’t exist outside of humanity then how can they be objective?

        • adam

          If they don’t exist outside of humanity then how can they be objective?

        • In God’s Defense

          I don’t think they can.

        • adam

          How can they not, if they are objective.
          Otherwise it sounds just like subjective.

        • MR

          Subjective to humans. A shared morality via evolution. No God required.

        • “Objective” is an ambiguous word. You should probably define that first.

        • In God’s Defense

          When I say something is objective I mean that it is independent of humans and their opinions.

        • (1) Does such a thing exist? I await the evidence. Be sure to consider the obvious natural alternative explanations.

          (2) Is it reliably accessible?

        • In God’s Defense

          1. I already wrote a comment arguing that an objective moral law exists.

          2. Assuming, “theism is true, then our moral experience, even if conditioned by biology and society, is probably not wholly illusory but is reliable to some degree.” However, if naturalism is true then it seems you have no reliable justification for believing your moral experience is accurate. “Because our moral beliefs have been selected by evolution, not for their truth, but for their survival value, we can have no confidence in the deliverances of our moral experience.” So, a Christian worldview might not be the best but it’s better than a naturalist worldview.

        • adam

          “1. I already wrote a comment arguing that an objective moral law exists.”

          With no evidence of it being true.

          “2. Assuming, “theism is true, ”

          Why assume theism, when you cant demonstrate ‘the’

        • In God’s Defense

          The moral law is self evident.
          The arguments for God give one good reason to believe he exists. You can read a defense of these arguments here. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1

        • adam

          “The moral law is self evident. ”

          Where is the moral law self evidence?
          Not in genocides, not in murdering homosexuals, not in slavery.

          Sorry, but WLC is a deceptive tool.
          He provides NO GOOD reason to believe in your ‘god’, except for the fact that he makes a good LIVING selling it.

          So more ‘self-evident’ moral laws from your ‘god’:

        • In God’s Defense

          Not all of the moral law is knowable. It seems we gradually descover it. However, some moral laws are very clear and accepted. One of these laws is all that is needed to know that at least one objective moral law exists.

        • adam

          “One of these laws is all that is needed to know that at least one objective moral law exists.”

          And yet you FAILED to even understand what ‘objective morals’ even mean.

          So NOPE

          You’ve demonstrated nothing but a ‘god’ of the gaps:

        • In God’s Defense

          Lol please enlighten me.

        • adam

          All you are demonstrating is ignorance and claiming ‘god’.

          Like everyone who creates ‘gods’ in their own image you have nothing but personal rationalizations for your personal ‘god’

          You say: “Not all of the moral law is knowable.”

          And you know this how?

          Easy, YOU MADE IT UP, just like you make up ‘god’

        • Kodie

          I don’t know any objective moral laws.

        • MNb

          “Not all of the moral law is knowable.”
          Then the moral law is not self evident. You’re contradicting yourself.

          “some moral laws are very clear and accepted”
          Yup – by subjects called human beings. Hence these very clear and accepted moral laws are subjective.

        • Pofarmer

          If it’s not knowable and must be discovered then it’s neither self evident nor objective. Is this your first rodeo?

        • Not all of the moral law is knowable … but God judges us against the moral law.

          How can we have a test on material the teacher hasn’t covered yet?

          And what good is the moral law if we can’t see it?

        • MR

          Thank Him, that He saved them from Sodom ‘n Gomorrah, don’tcha know.

        • Kodie

          Why are you shilling some other website? Your name is “In God’s Defense,” but you don’t do a very good job explaining to us in your own words exactly why we should take you seriously.

        • MNb

          Whenever someone uses the term “self evident” I get sceptical. It’s not evident to me at all. Now there are two options.
          1. You can explain it to me, which means admitting it’s not self evident.
          2. You can’t explain it to me, which shows that “self evident” only means “sucked out of my big fat thumb”.

        • Objective morality is self-evident? Show us that it exists then. Why is your objective morality not simply a shared morality (shared because we’re all the same species)?

        • if naturalism is true then it seems you have no reliable justification for believing your moral experience is accurate.

          Accurate? Compared to what? I’m the one who rejects the idea of an objective morality, remember?

          We have a conscience guided by evolution. Doing what it says is our definition of “right.” (And there’s a component from society as well.)

          a Christian worldview might not be the best but it’s better than a naturalist worldview.

          The Christian idea of an objective morality is completely pulled out of your ass. Show me evidence for it. And even if you were right, why even mention it unless we can reliably access it? Your “objective morality” is useless.

          And yet, somehow, you get through the day in a way that I would judge as reasonably moral, and vice versa. Weird–it’s almost like we have a natural moral sense that we share. Let’s stick with that explanation since it’s natural and sufficient.

        • Kodie

          Because interpreting whatever flavor of what you think your god wants and doesn’t want, favors or punishes for all eternity, isn’t at all influenced by emotions, background, upbringing, or the people and authorities you surround yourself by choice, your fears, your insecurities, your own peeves and preferences, you are seriously claiming that obeying a character from a storybook is not illusory?

          You’ve got to be shitting me.

        • Susan

          “Because our moral beliefs have been selected by evolution, not for their truth, but for their survival value, we can have no confidence in the deliverances of our moral experience.”

          That’s a great big mess of implicit and explicit non sequitirs.

          I don’t accept it.

          Explain.

        • Greg G.

          “Because our moral beliefs have been selected by evolution, not for
          their truth, but for their survival value, we can have no confidence in
          the deliverances of our moral experience.”

          But if our moral beliefs have been selected by evolution, it is for our reproduction success, which is what biological life is really about, when it comes down to it. So our evolutionary derived morals are proven to be good for that. That moral systems allow us to interact with one another with less wasted energy, it is easier to thrive. We don’t need divine morality that provides excuses for genocide.

        • MNb

          “if naturalism is true then it seems you have no reliable justification for believing your moral experience is accurate.”
          I don’t have moral experiences. I have opinions. I don’t demand accuracy of my opinions; I only demand accuracy of factual statements. And the accuracy of “there is a god” is about zero, so you’re the one who has a problem, not me.
          I derive confidence in my ethical views in other ways.
          1. They are almost 100% coherent;
          2. The people I interact with in daily life recognize that I’m an ethical person, because I apply my ethical views consistently and especially to myself and they respect me for it.

          See? In point 2 we have the subjective element again.

        • Kodie

          Who else is affected? I mean, aside from other living organisms as we deplete the planet of natural resources and habitats.

        • MNb

          Which in your case means that it is dependent of the subject you call “God” – the summum of subjectivity.

        • Dys

          Then you’re going to have an incredibly difficult time establishing that morality is separate from humanity.

        • Dys

          Objective merely means it doesn’t rely on an individual’s whim. There are demonstrable shared characteristics of humanity as a whole that can easily give rise to moral positions on things such as murder, theft, etc.

          They don’t exist outside of humanity. The problem with asserting that absolute objective morality is that it has to exist regardless of whether humans actually exist. And there’s no indication whatsoever that such is the case.

        • MNb

          I’d rather call that intersubjective – ie the recognition that the vast majority of Homo Sapiens is capable of agreeing on a moral claim, like “torturing a kid is wrong”.

        • MR

          I like the term “universal” morality as defined as “universally shared by humans” because of our shared, evolved capacity for empathy. It feels objective because we all (or, at least, the vast majority of us, as you point out—barring psychopaths, etc.) share a moral connection because of our humanity.

        • MNb

          The Universe is rather big and Homo Sapiens with its endless discussions about morals occupy only a tiny spot in it ….
          But that’s rather tongue in cheek. I’m totally OK with “universally shared by humans”.

        • MR

          Yes, that is the problem with language sometimes. I don’t mean to imply “The Universe”, but just that sense of “universally shared by humans.”

        • Greg G.

          How about “catholically shared by humans”? It means “universal” but has a limitation to humans built in. It shouldn’t be much longer until the RCC implodes and frees up the adjective of some baggage.

        • MR

          😉

        • Kodie

          I don’t think the vast majority of humans can agree on that. There’s this category, first of all, called “torture,” and while many would hear that word and think obvious cruel wartime methods for getting a captive to spill his secrets, I think it really covers a wider range than that. Is it torture to be made to eat vegetables? Or do your homework? To a kid, that’s pretty much all it takes. But I’m not even talking about that – I’m talking about instilling a fear of an actual hell to manipulate them into behaving in obedient ways to please your imaginary friend. Let’s talk about “fun.” Is it wrong to torture a kid if it’s not fun? Is it wrong to torture an adult for fun? Is it wrong to psychologically damage your children for what you perceive is their eternal salvation, because you are also psychologically damaged from the fear by your own similar upbringing? We always feel sorry for the children but not for the adults. Abuse victims become abusers.

          How are we as a humanity dealing with that? I think we recognize in a very narrow, specific way that administering wartime captive torture to a child is pretty cruel, but what if you have to do it to save 10 other children? What if that child is actually a violent, dangerous agent for your enemy, and you need him to talk, and time is of the essence, because a school has trapped hundreds of children with barricades to the doors and armed guards and snipers, while a time bomb counts down? When people say something is “wrong,” they usually mean a very specific level of that thing is really wrong against a specific type of victim that tugs at the heartstrings. Change it a little bit and say, is it evil to torture hundreds of schoolchildren by trapping them at school until they pass 12th grade and graduate? Never mind if they learn what they need to know in life, this is a requirement to fill their heads with repetitive information they will soon forget entirely until some vague memory makes an association. It’s ok, because they can go home every day and eat dinner and sleep in their own beds.

          Yes, I’m being dramatic, school is extremely not torture compared to what we define as torture. When we talk about morality, and try to pin anything objective about it, what we’re doing all the time is negotiating terms, and once you get away from the extremes, you find a lot of subjectivity, a lot of disagreement, a lot of “maybe it’s not as bad as it could be, but it could be improved,” and responses that measure cost-effectiveness, like, “it’s good enough the way it is, improving it would be wasteful.” Those are subjective moral calculations. Is it wrong to torture a child for fun? First you have to say, well that’s not really torture, only wartime captive torture counts as torture, everything else that pains a child, wounds them psychologically or physically, is just a fact of life. We make some of these facts of life and allow children to be hurt, or cause them by our actions to be hurt, and yes, sometimes for our own amusement or personal sense of security, if that’s what’s fun.

        • MNb

          I was writing about one specific moral claim about one specific case – and yes, using torture in the narrow meaning of the word, ie using instruments to to cause physical pain. Moreover I used the word “capable”. I did not claim that we can derive a general rule by means of induction, like eg nearly all humans will agree on all moral claims after a short discussion. Don’t look further than abortion or the historical discussion about slavery. That one lasted at least 100 years.

        • Kodie

          I was pointing out in a roundabout long way that any time I hear about moral laws, it’s always really specific. Is torture wrong? He didn’t say that. He said “everyone would agree that” torturing (implying specific wartime captive torture) children for fun was wrong. Morality and the ongoing discussion about it is the fine details and justifications for torturing children for their own good, or torturing adults is ok, or whatever, or everything short of torturing anyone for fun is not so bad. We do the same thing when we talk about murder, rape, and theft, i.e., when killing someone is acceptable or even a good thing; how we actually treat rape victims and raise a rape culture; or justify stealing things that aren’t things, like media or someone’s time, or just small stuff nobody will miss.

          My view of morality in society seems so drastically different than other people. The way I see it is people are a little bit (maybe some more than others) inconsiderate of other people and justify making the world a little less kind for their own selfish purposes, hardly anyone will call them on it, and they go on their way feeling like a good person all the time.

          Of course we get a lot of our morality from being judged harshly by others, and if we don’t get judged so harshly, whatever we want to do seems ok. It seems like adults tell children how to behave, but as they grow up in a larger society, they learn how far they can break rules without getting thrown in jail or punched in the face, and learn to be very comfortable doing so, and still feel like they are a good person. Hardly anyone steps over the line and justifies the major stuff (namely 1st degree murder). Is that line and every justification up to it objectively not immoral? While everything over that line, well, you should just know better. It’s not like we don’t have laws, even some people justify breaking some of them if they won’t get caught. They don’t care how much of someone else’s time they are wasting. A little murder, a little theft, not a big deal. If you harass someone until they commit suicide, are you better than if you had murdered them yourself? Some people keep their hands clean in very creative ways.

        • MNb

          “My view of morality in society seems so drastically different than other people.”
          Not from mine. To me ethics in the first place is a way to deal with conflicting interests and especially conflicts between an individual and a group.

          “It’s wrong to torture a kid for fun” only confirms that – also when we omit “for fun”, which makes it a different claim indeed.
          When discussing ethics it seems to me that trivial examples are usually clearer than extreme ones like torturing kids. So let’s take standing in line in a supermarket. Why do we make the moral claim that it’s wrong to jump the queu? The interest of the individual obviously is trying exactly that. Now when everybody does so the result is chaos. So the claim reflects the group interest. Then the question becomes why in this case the group interest must prevail. Now the remarkable fact is that people in all kind of circumstances reject the ethical claim that it’s wrong to jump the claim. Think of Black Friday.
          Understanding how this trivial example works makes it somewhat easier to answer your very valid questions, I think. Also I think this trivial example more important exactly because most people are far more likely to meet it.

        • Kodie

          The result of someone cutting ahead in line is usually nobody does anything about it. Some places have a better system of order than others, but there are places where people who are inclined to would rather take a chance and pretend they weren’t sure where the line really ended, not because they know it’s right but because they know nobody will speak up.

          If you say there’s a right and a wrong here, in stores with a lot of registers at the end of one distinct roped-off line, people will themselves maintain a pretty fair order and nobody will cut ahead*. In stores with maybe 2 registers and no way to corral the line, sometimes people will form two lines and stay in their line even if the other one is moving faster and they’re really next, or they will make a kind of mob and wait for an opportunity to give a rough guess who is really next to be checked out. At the supermarket, it’s harder because you are formed into lines and you are basically stuck in your line even if another one is moving faster if someone is behind you. If no one is behind you and you haven’t put your stuff on the belt, you can jump from like 4th or 5th in one line to first in the next one, and nobody will start a fight with you.

          I think following certain rules of social cooperation in the group’s interest are left up to visible indicators of when it is really wrong and when it is only sort of wrong. When the rope line keeps order, the people will obey it, and I think more likely to speak up if someone breaks this unspoken rule. When there is no rope line, people will take opportunities more often and verbally confront a violator less often.

          *At Marshall’s an discounted designer overstock store, they have such a line, and for some reason, moved their sunglasses rack there, so I was browsing, and every single person coming into the line stood behind me until I explained that I was not actually waiting on the line.

          At the post office, they also have such a firm line, but if you show up at the counter unprepared, they will send you to fill out some forms and come back to the front of the line when you’re done.

        • MR

          In Spain they have an interesting system. People don’t line up, but when you approach a group of people gathered around, say, a market stall, you ask, “Who has the ‘V’?” (pronounced oo-bay). The person who last arrived will inform you that they have the ‘V’ and in essence, they pass the ‘V’ along to you.

          Now you don’t have to know the exact order of the “line”, you just have to keep track of the person you got the ‘V’ from. When they’re up, you’re up next. If someone else approaches, you in turn let that person know that you have the ‘V’ and it passes on to them and they know they follow you. And so on.

          I never saw anyone try to cut in line with this system, though it seems easy enough to do. On the other hand, I think there might be a psychological connection that happens with the crowd since you are making a personal connection and briefly become part of a mini “tribe” in a sense.

          @OldSearcher, if you happen to read this, I’d be curious to know your thoughts as a native Spaniard on this system and the morality of cheating.

        • Going into a barber shop, I used the reverse system. Guys not liking to talk to each other, I noticed who was there before me. As they got picked off, I’d eventually know that I was on deck.

          I never heard of the V system, which makes more sense.

        • MR

          Ironically I had some bitch at the grocery store cut in front of me today! I was at the deli counter looking things over, then walked away. She came up, then I came back and stood to the side and a little behind her. She looked things over, then walked away. I walked away again, came back my same spot, then she returned to her same spot. The attendant called for the next customer and she didn’t even hesitate to jump in. Bitch! I was going to tell you to please go ahead! Muggles…, ain’t we a funny bunch?

        • Ron

          In a large crowd, what happens if the person ahead of you suddenly leaves? How do you find out who was ahead of them?

        • MR

          I was wondering that, too, as I wrote it. It never happened to me. Maybe Oldsearcher has experience.

        • Kodie

          They must not have smartphones in Spain.

        • OldSearcher

          Yes, you are right. The system that you describe is quite usual in Spain. Specially in food markets.

          Just to be precise, the exact wording is like this: “¿Quién da la vez?” In this contex “vez” means “the turn”.

          I have not thought a lot on this issue, but it seems to me that if it works is because it is something like a “public contract”, everybody around acting as witnesses. If somebody tries to cut in line he or she is easily spotted, judged and sentenced on the spot.

        • MR

          Yes, that is how I imagined it to be even though it’s not something anyone expressed, nor had I given it any thought: a public contract. It’s just something you intuitively understand.

        • MNb

          Advocating, obeying and pushing an ethical rules are not the same things.

          “If you say there’s a right and a wrong here”
          I’m saying most people will agree that cutting ahead in line is a wrong thing to do, whether they take action or not, when someone does it.

        • Kodie

          I think when a lot of people do it and nobody stops them, that they think it is ok.

        • MNb

          You’re irritating (and that’s a compliment). It took me more than half a day to think about this one sentence. The only answer I could think up is “people can disapprove and still remain silent”, but that only convinces me half.
          And that means that I have to rethink my position.
          Like I said, irritating.

        • Kodie

          I had a lot to say about cell phones, I have probably complained about it before. I encounter people who walk slow in stores and on the sidewalk because they are looking at their phones and unaware of the world and people around them. They claim they can walk and look at their phone just fine, but they really can’t. They walk out the door from a store and suddenly stop, blocking the exit. Same with the bus or subway, completely oblivious to the environment around them and that they share the world with other people waiting behind them.

          Now, they don’t know how they are when they’re doing that, in total denial to how obtrusive this behavior is when they do it – but I get to wondering, don’t these people ever notice other people get in their way, doing the same thing? One of the ways I learn what not to do is not doing what I don’t like when other people do it. It either doesn’t bother them at all, or they think it’s “just a few seconds” of my life so they can leisurely meander in public, occupying themselves with bullshit every second of every minute of tedious shopping or waiting at a light, or whatever, it really either doesn’t bother them so that’s why they think it’s ok, or they excuse themselves because they’re not as terrible as everyone else. Selfishness.

          Where I live, it’s actually more out of place to complain about anything or to anyone. It will get ugly. I find human behavior so inconsiderate of others at so many times that I’d call it hostile and deserving to be called out, but if you are the one who calls it out, you’re the villain, not them. You can’t honk your horn (for a place known nationwide for its rude drivers, honking your horn at a rude driver is even so rude it’s hardly ever done), people don’t even say “excuse me” to another person blocking the aisle in the grocery store for legitimate reasons! Say someone is engrossed in the display with their cart off to one side, and they are on the other side looking at cereal and comparing prices, say, a person will enter the aisle and turn around and go another way rather than interrupt that person with a polite “excuse me:.” Or they will try to sneak by unnoticed, and if detected, will whisper “excuse me,” or even “sorry” for accidentally brushing your cart.

          You want to talk about irritating!

          What’s right, and what’s wrong but right when I do it, that’s how it seems to work.

        • Dys

          The only thing I’d quibble on is “agreeing”, because I don’t believe some of the basic questions of morality are really decided upon. I think some moral tendencies are inborn as a result of inherent human characteristics.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “The problem with asserting that absolute objective morality is that it has to exist regardless of whether humans actually exist. And there’s no indication whatsoever that such is the case.”

          Bing, bango.

        • Kodie

          They’re not, actually.

        • Greg G.

          If they don’t exist outside God, how can they be objective?

        • MNb

          If they depend on the subject you call “God” then how can they be objective?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Absolute – unchanging with respect to frame of reference
          vs.
          Relative – changing with respect to frame of reference

          Objective – independent of individual perception
          vs.
          Subjective – dependent on individual perception

          Objective morality merely means a morality independent of any given individual’s opinion — it can still be relative to Humans/conscious beings.

          *Edits for clarity.*

        • To say that something is evil then you must be appealing to an objective moral as your standard.

          Wrong! To say something is objectively evil, you must appeal to an objective moral standard.

          Is something objectively evil? Then show us evidence of this objective moral standard.

        • In God’s Defense

          The evidence for an objective moral standard or law is self evident. We all have moral beliefs that we believe are objective. For example, torturing a kid for fun is wrong. You believe that is an objective fact about reality. In that, that law is true no matter what anyone thinks. Now the kicker here is that if your going to deny that this objective moral law exits by saying the belief was just caused by social And biological conditioning, wouldn’t you also have to be sceptical of all your other self evident beliefs about objective reality? Because those beliefs have also been instilled in you by social and biological conditioning.

        • Yes, torture for fun is wrong. That doesn’t mean that it’s objectively wrong.

          You say that it is? Show me: where does this objective morality come from? Where is it based?

          More to the point, is this objective morality reliably accessible by humans? If not, who cares whether there are correct answers to every moral conundrum “out there” somewhere but inaccessible to you and me?

          I feel very strongly that some things are wrong or right. You probably have a similar instinct–hardly surprising since we’re the same species. You’re confusing widely held or strongly felt moral beliefs (which of course do exist) with objective beliefs (for which I’ve seen no evidence). The natural explanation does just fine.

        • Ron

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfLN8yH2aSI

          “No torture. I don’t know what happened. This used to be a fun outfit.” – KAOS Agent Luden

        • adam

          “The evidence for an objective moral standard or law is self evident.”

          ONLY in your IMAGINATION….

        • In God’s Defense

          You clearly believe that one objective moral law exists. Namely, that God wiping out millions of people is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks.

        • adam

          “You clearly believe that one objective moral law exists. ”

          No I am clearly demonstrating that none do.

        • In God’s Defense

          That is not what the picture about Noah’s ark suggests.

        • adam

          That is exactly what the story of the drunkard Noah and his ‘ark’ is all about.

        • In God’s Defense

          I can understand you wanting Christians to be consistent with their beliefs. I agree they should be. I also wish atheists and naturalists were consistent with theirs. I of course, disagree that we made God though.

        • adam

          “I can understand you wanting Christians to be consistent with their beliefs.”

          It is not a matter of ‘want’.

          You CLAIM objective morality, I have demonstrated that it is not objective.

          “I of course, disagree that we made God though. “.

          Of course you do, even though it is self-evident.

        • In God’s Defense

          You have not demonstrated that morality is not objective. You just keep claiming that God is made up by man because God and some of his laws are similar to mans. It could easliy be the other way around. You need to provide more evidence in favor of God and objective morality being imaginary.

        • adam

          “You have not demonstrated that morality is not objective. ”

          It doesnt meet the definition, I have provided examples.

        • adam

          ” You need to provide more evidence in favor of God and objective morality being imaginary. ”

          Of course, just like YOU need to provide evidence for Ganesh and Shiva, Zeus, etc being imaginary….

        • Susan

          You have not demonstrated that morality is not objective.

          You claim it is. You made the original claim. That means you have to define your terms i.e. explain what you mean by “objective” and explain what you mean by “morality” and then demonstrate that objective morality makes sense.

          You need to provide more evidence in favor of God and objective morality being imaginary.

          You need to demonstrate that they are real.

          This is basic.

          Except for my Immaterial Snowflake Fairies (which are real by definition), the burden is on the one making the claim.

          Vague terminology, special pleading, logically flawed arguments and the paltriest of evidence (which can only technically be described as evidence but barely registers on the evidence scale for those not already convinced) will not suffice.

        • MNb

          OK. Every single moral claim depends on the subject who makes it. Example. One subject says the Canaanite Genocide was wrong; the other says it was morally the right thing to do. That’s one. Those who say it was morally the right thing to do defend that claim by saying “God ordered it” – ie Divine Command Theory. That means “whether genocide is right or wrong depends on who orders it; if it’s God it’s morally right; if not it’s morally wrong.”
          That’s the summum of subjectivity.
          Mutatis mutandis this applies to every single moral claim.

        • adam

          ” You just keep claiming that God is made up by man because God and some of his laws are similar to mans.”

          No, I dont make this claim, you are being DECEPTIVE.

          Although ALL of your ‘god’s’ laws are EXACTLY the same as mans. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7c5d688b7138d8ab4e0b2272ecaaa85a6ff869bbd13511df46d34b550dd2720.png

        • The burden of proof for objective morality is yours, pal.

        • Kodie

          Tu quoque. Are you familiar?

          I also wish when a Christian has an accusation to make against whatever beliefs they heard about atheism from the liars at their church or favorite religious website, that they would just spit it out. Don’t make us guess what you’re thinking we’re not “consistent” about regarding our “beliefs.”

        • MNb

          You’re invited to show me my inconsistency. Thus far you have shown nothing but the baseless assertion that I think “genocide is wrong” an objective moral law. Next time you repeat that claim I’m going to call you a liar.

        • Kodie

          More like surprised that it doesn’t bother you guys that much at all. I say nature sure can be inconvenient and deadly at times. You think there’s a person-like being who does those things on purpose, and you lurve him.

        • Greg G.

          If genocide is not objectively immoral, then murder is not objectively immoral. If murder and genocide is not objectively immoral, then nothing is.

        • Uh … I think everyone would agree that someone wiping out millions of people is wrong.

          But when you make that someone God, it suddenly becomes OK. What do you make of that?

        • MNb

          “I think everyone would agree”
          Alas, just nearly everyone.

          Dutch celebrity

          https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Ratelband

          said

          http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/20507335/__Ratelband__Bom_op_Afghanistan__.html

          “Ik ben zelf in Afghanistan geweest en als ik daar dan ben denk ik bij mezelf: gooi er een grote atoombom op, dan is het hele probleem opgelost. Wat een zooitje is het daar zeg”

          “I’ve been in Afghanistan myself and if I’m there I think to myself: drop a big nuclear bomb, then the entire problem is solved. What a mess overthere.”

          Telegraaf is the biggest Dutch newspaper.

        • Could we give this a positive spin and just say it’s hyperbole?

        • MNb

          Sure. My intention was more to show that nuttery is not exclusive to the USA ….

        • Kodie

          Even I know that’s weak. Wasn’t slavery self-evidently moral and righteous?

          People are wrong about a lot of shit they think they are right about.

        • In God’s Defense

          So u could be wrong.

        • Kodie

          You keep saying things are self-evident, and then you go circuitously through subjective moral experiences telling us what is objectively moral or not. What you are really saying is you’re a dumb fuck who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

        • MNb

          “We all have moral beliefs that we believe are objective.”
          Nope. I don’t.

          “torturing a kid for fun is wrong. You believe that is an objective fact about reality.”
          Nope. First of all I don’t believe it. It’s my opinion. Second it’s wrong because the other party, ie the kid, highly likely won’t think it fun to get tortured. And that’s his subjective experience.

          “wouldn’t you also have to be sceptical of all your other self evident beliefs about objective reality”
          I get sceptical as soon as somebody uses the term “self evident”. I don’t hold any belief in any meaningful way, let alone “self evident beliefs”.

        • In God’s Defense

          So you believe solipsism is true? Also when u say I don’t hold any belief in any meaningful way it seems like you hold that belief in a meaningful way.

        • MNb

          “it seems like you hold that belief in a meaningful way.”
          No. That’s not a belief in any meaningful way either.

          On solipsism:

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsism

          “a theory in philosophy that your own existence is the only thing that is real or that can be known.”

          I never claimed anything even remotely close to this.
          I claim your view on morals is real and can be known. I just claim that your view is wrong and that’s only possible on denying solipsism.
          Where did you get your degree on philosophy? Bob Jones University? Some diploma mill?

        • Ron

          For example, torturing a kid for fun is wrong.

          God LOVES torturing kids! Here are two examples from the OT:

          “…and while [Elisha] was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, ‘Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!’ And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.” 2 Kings 2:23-24, ESV

          “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” Hosea 13:16, NIV

        • Paul B. Lot

          ” You believe that is an objective fact about reality.”

          To be more precise I “believe that is an objective fact about [the nature of Homo sapiens morality]”.

          If conscious beings did not exist in the universe, not only wouldn’t it be a “fact” about reality — it wouldn’t be coherent.

        • Kodie

          I ignore yours because you report to your imaginary friend. You choose to live in a society, however, you might want to consider what others have to say about your plans to genocide or enslave others.

        • In God’s Defense

          I believe you might want to take another look at the arguments for God. Here is a link. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1

        • Kodie

          Do you think you’re the first Christian by here?

        • Greg G.

          I like where Craig has argued that Alvin Plantinga has produced two dozen arguments for God and says the combined weight of them favors the existence of God.

          If one argument favored the existence of God, then he wouldn’t need two dozen of them. Craig could point to that one. But the combined weight of two dozen failed arguments for God, plus all the failed arguments he couldn’t bring himself to publish, favor the non-existence of God.

          It’s worse than that because it is not just Plantinga. It is every theologian that has failed to produce an argument for God. It certainly proves that God doesn’t answer prayers for help in developing arguments for God.

          So why bother with them?

        • MR

          And worse, this supposedly from a God who loves the world so much he actively wants us to know of his existence, but can’t seem to be bothered with just telling us flat out.

        • Lots of crappy arguments is just a big pile of crappy arguments.

        • MNb

          “To say that something is evil then you must be appealing to an objective moral as your standard.”
          Nope. A subjective ethical system is good enough as standard.
          Objective morals don’t exist, as your very own OT shows, where your god orders a genocide a couple of times. Still I’m pretty sure you think genocides morally wrong.

          “Which I can just easily ignore like you ignore mine.”
          Which is exactly what believers have done since they started to believe. The religious wars of the 16th and 17th Century provide ample examples.

        • In God’s Defense

          the problem is that you really don’t think that morality is subjective. You probably believe that there are somethings that God commanded were wrong regardless of what anyone thinks. If that is the case, then you believe there is at least one objective moral law.

        • adam

          “the problem is that you really don’t think that morality is subjective.”

          Go ahead, tell MNb what he THINKS……

          “You probably believe that there are somethings that God commanded were wrong regardless of what anyone thinks. ”

          You are IMAGINING that everyone else sees an IMAGINARY character in a book of stories as real, we dont.

        • MNb

          Yeah, and if my father had been king then I would have been heir to his throne.
          Heck, the very starting point of my ethical system is subjectivity. It recognizes that happiness means different things for different people.

        • adam

          “To say that something is evil then you must be appealing to an objective moral as your standard.”

          No, simply the definition of evil from Merriam Webster…

          Oh, and of course the ‘god’ of the ‘bible’

        • In God’s Defense

          If your saying that something like god commanding genocide is evil and it would be evil regardless of what anyone thinks then you believe that at least one objective moral law exits.

        • Genocide is evil because I say so. (Isn’t that how everybody does it?)

        • Kodie

          Come on, we all genocide once in a while. No big deal.

        • adam

          ”’

        • adam

          “If your saying that something like god commanding genocide is evil and it would be evil regardless of what anyone thinks then you believe that at least one objective moral law exits. ”

          No I am quoting the bible where its ‘god’ character in the story appears to be bragging about creating evil.

          And what kind of ‘god’ creates evil,…….

          An EVIL ‘god’

        • In God’s Defense

          God didn’t create evil. Evil is a result of free-creatures choosing to do it. It can also be argued that evil is not even a thing but a lack of good in a thing.

        • adam

          bible ‘God’ says you are a LIAR………..

        • Ron

          “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7

        • Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? (Lamentations 3:38)

          When disaster comes to a city, has not Jehovah caused it? (Amos 3:6)

        • Greg G.

          It can also be argued that good is not even a thing but a lack of evil in a thing. Neither argument makes sense for the same reason. Good is whatever we want and need. Evil is what we wish to avoid. We are indifferent to most things.

        • God boasts that he created evil. You’ve not read that in the Bible?

        • adam

          ..

        • RichardSRussell

          But suppose I say that I think God’s commanding genocide is evil, regardless of what anyone else thinks. (Regardless, for example, of all of his apologists who claim that he must have had his reasons.) I’m saying the exact same thing but making no effort whatsoever to appeal to any outside standard other than my own opinion. It’s still my own opinion. It’s still a moral judgment. And the fictional God, if he actually existed, would still be the most evil mass murderer in all of history.

        • In God’s Defense

          The fact is your subjective moral experience tells you your belief is an objective fact. Just like your subjective experience of the computer in front of you gives you the belief that their is a computer in front of you is AN OBJECTIVE FACT.

        • RichardSRussell

          The idea about what is or is not evil isn’t a fact at all! It’s an opinion! If you honestly don’t know the difference between the 2, you are in a poor position to comment on this subject.

        • Kodie

          If you think it’s a nice thing for god to do, let’s hear your justification.

        • In God’s Defense

          I’m not saying it is a nice thing for God to do. It may very well be an evil thing. I’m ok with that. What I am arguing is that everyone has some moral belief that they believe is an objective fact. So, why doubt that an objective moral law exits?

        • Kodie

          Why believe that an objective moral law exists if everyone who believes there is can’t (a) tell us how they access it, and (b) can’t even agree what it is. You even disagree with a recent poster who believes whatever god does is good. You can say some things god does might be bad. Tell us how you’re not just pulling your impressions of how things are or should be out of your ass, like everyone else. Objective morality exists… in your ass.

        • In God’s Defense

          (A) you access it through your own subject moral experience. (B) everyone in there right mind agrees that the guilty should be punished or raping kids for fun is wrong.

        • MNb

          A) is subjective – “subject moral experience”.

          “right mind agrees that the guilty should be punished or raping kids for fun is wrong.”

          “Right mind” presupposes what you want to show.
          According to you I have a “wrong” mind because I’m not convinced at all that the guilty should be punished all the time. Indeed I think practicising that in class makes you a bad teacher. So the subject In God’s Defense denies that I have a right mind.

          Funny how every single example you bring up actually confirms that morals are subjective.

        • Kodie

          I access the wrongness of raping a child by considering the victim and their right to agency with respect to sexual assault. You don’t seem to think around that, why it is “objectively” wrong. It’s not wrong to subject vulnerable children to other assaults on their agency. (B), everyone might agree that slavery is a good thing as long as you’re not the slave. Many people go to great lengths to excuse child rapists, and will go to great lengths to excuse other rapists and accuse the victims while they’re at it. When the matter comes to your front door, where does this “objective” morality go, if most people think something is wrong until it actually happens? Joe Paterno didn’t (I don’t think) rape any children, but he knew about it and didn’t do what you say moral people should do. People care more about his legacy as a fucking football coach than anything to do with morality. Same with the Catholic Church – even worse. A whole system of not turning perpetrators of this thing you suppose is the one objective evil we can exemplify – a whole religious Jesus system, where folks were placated. They do not believe the victims, they know their priest and still trust him with their own children! The pope did not excommunicate these immoral assholes. Then we have the Boy Scouts of America. No gay den masters!!!! Gayness not allowed! They’ll rape our boys and teach them to be gay!!! It seems they were not so upset if their children get raped as they are with them being taught systematically to be gay.

          That’s where your “objective” morality based on subjective moral experience gets you. Doesn’t seem that objectively wrong to me to rape children. It seems subjective to an abstract, and then not at all an issue when it actually happens, since the perpetrators are beloved community members. Please stop using this stupid example. It’s a stupid stupid example.

        • Without Malice

          If everyone thinks raping kids for fun is wrong, why then does the bible set the punishment for raping kids to be paying the young girls father a certain amount of money and then marrying the underage girl? It seems your God didn’t think it was such a big deal.

        • MNb

          “What I am arguing is that everyone has some moral belief that they believe is an objective fact.”
          No, you’re not arguing that. You’re just repeating that ad nauseam.

          “So, why doubt that an objective moral law exits?”

          I don’t doubt it. I’m pretty sure it does not exist.

        • Without Malice

          What you fail to realize is that quite a few people, such as the millions of good Christian Germans who were Hitler’s willing executioners, did not think that genocide was wrong and had been led by 2,000 years of Christian Jew hatred to think it good and right. Your own bible proves there is no “objective” morality, for your God commands the killing of innocent children and his followers (like yourself) eagerly carry out those commands. So either there is no objective morality or your God is evil beyond belief.

        • Pofarmer

          You need to prove your first two premises. Give it a go.

        • In God’s Defense

          I have defended it in a comment on the newest post on this blog. Or you can read a defense of it here.

          http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1

        • MNb

          The only way you defended it is by repeating your first two premisses at nauseam.
          That link is not about the Moral Argument – you are changing subject. Plus that link needs to prove two premisses as well:

          “1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.”
          See, that’s how dishonest WLC is. This one contains two premisses – and both contradict Modern Physics.

          1a. Modern Physics is not causal.
          1b. Even if it were not everything that begins to exist would necessarily need a cause.

          Moreover 2. “The Universe has a beginning” is subject to doubt – our natural reality very well might exist and have existed eternally.

          May I assume that you just like your hero WLC are a science denier?

        • Ron

          1. If Santa Claus does not exist, naughty and nice do not exist.
          2. Naughty and nice do exist.
          3. Therefore, Santa Claus exists.

        • In God’s Defense

          You need to prove your first to premises. Good luck!

        • MNb

          Just like you need to prove your first two premisses. Good luck!

          (And no, “self-evident” doesn’t work).

        • In God’s Defense

          Yes it does. Isn’t just self evident to you that raping kids for fun is wrong when u think about it? Or that the guilty should be punished? Or that the Christian God is evil?

        • MNb

          “Isn’t just self evident to you that raping kids for fun is wrong when u think about it?”
          The more I think about it the less evident it becomes, let alone self-evident.

          “Or that the guilty should be punished?”
          Not at all. I am a teacher and very often I don’t punish the guilty.

          That the christian god is evil certainly is not self evident, exactly because he doesn’t exist.

          Thanks for confirming with examples that “self-evident” doesn’t work.

        • Kodie

          While most adults will agree that raping a child is wrong, most will also grab at any excuse to find the perpetrator innocent and continue living freely (to rape again).

        • Ron

          Apparently it wasn’t very self-evident to Karla Homolka and her boyfriend, Paul Bernardo.

        • Ron

          My syllogism closely parallels yours, so any concerns regarding my first two premises would attach to yours as well.

        • RichardSRussell

          If I point at X and say “That’s evil”, it is absolutely a subjective opinion on my part, the exact same way it is if someone else points at Y and says the same. And I might think Y is OK while the other person thinks X is OK. It happens all the time, and it’s completely subjective. That’s why there are different standards around the world and thruout all of history as to what constitutes evil. How can you possibly not recognize this?

          And you say that we can ignore each other’s opinions as if (a) it’s a bad thing and (b) it’s hard to imagine it happening. How do you think civilization progresses if not for some people saying “burning witches is wrong” even when almost everyone around them thinks otherwise?

        • Kodie

          Is burning witches wrong, or is it that they aren’t really witches? Is slavery wrong, or is it just enslaving people is wrong? Is genocide wrong, or is it wrong used on people? What if I thought the moral thing to do was to make sure humans went extinct sooner than later? I am just making some conversation here, but I think we do say certain things are “wrong” all the time when something it considered a human. If fetuses are a “person”, then abortion is wrong, so the situation comes back to who is right or wrong considering that a fetus is or is not a person. As a species, we have no problem burning, enslaving, or genociding adults and babies of any particular species that harms us (and cannot change its ways) or is useful to us, while maintaining horror at the termination of something that isn’t sentient because of its species. I might say that some things are wrong to us because we’re us. When you kill another human being, we can’t trust you not to kill me. When a dentist shoots a lion, his response was that he wasn’t breaking any laws, but is it wrong to kill a lion but right to kill a mouse? If we made a law not to kill lions, wouldn’t some people still do it because that’s what they do for fun? It’s fun to shoot a lion, and perfectly moral because it’s not a person? Why do we protect lions anyway? Do humans have any use for lions other than to admire them, and we’d be sad if they went extinct, but we wouldn’t be sad if mosquitoes went extinct.

          I’m just saying that, in essence, some of us invite lions into our tribe in a way that we don’t invite pigs. Even if baby pigs are cute, we still want to eat them when they’re grown – and they could go extinct if we stopped maintaining them as a species just to eat them. Witches want to cast spells on us, so they are better off dead, but mistaking women for witches because they were fearful and superstitious is the lesson we learned (or were supposed to have learned) from history. They’re just people, stop killing them because you think they’re something else.

        • In God’s Defense

          “How can you possibly not recognize this?”

          Of course, I recognize that I might think something is wrong that you think is right. However, that alone does not show that morality is subjective. An objective moral law could still exist regardless if people have differing opinions on what it states. How can you possibly not recognize this?

        • MNb

          Correct. The problem though is that religious history shows that there is no method to decide which differing opinions are correct and which one are incorrect. You implitely admit this by using the word “opinion”. Opinions are subjective by definition.

        • In God’s Defense

          Christians would use the bible to decide which opinions are right and wrong. Or we can use our own moral experience.

        • MNb

          Opinions.
          Subjective.
          Different methods for different persons.
          Subjective.

        • Kodie

          That sounds pretty vague and lacks objectivity, especially considering every Christian uses an interpretation of the bible from other people, which also includes justifications of certain passages, or excuses for them so god doesn’t seem like such an asshole. Really, you are not the only Christian, and we got another Christian by here recently whose entire defense of his own beliefs consisted of not being lumped in with Christians like you and how nasty you are and justify heinous acts using that same bible. He wouldn’t give it up, he just said the bible is difficult material, so the “right way” to interpret it was to gather into committees or something, and work out the real meanings.

          So, using imprecise judgments and subjective experiences, we still do not get to objective morality. You and any other Christian would disagree over whose opinion is right or wrong, and revert to your subjective moral experience – how you were raised, the people around you, etc.

        • Yes, that’s how people decide moral issues. And that’s why we have great disagreement on moral issues like abortion and SSM.

          No objective morality here.

        • MNb

          Funny. In that other thread, in answer to a cartoon of Adam’s you admitted that parts of the Bible (about slavery) should not be considered part of you objective moral law. That makes the Bible an unreliable instrument.
          Consistency is not your forte.

        • adam

          “Christians would use the bible to decide which opinions are right and wrong. Or we can use our own moral experience. ”

          Of course, what I’ve been saying all along
          YOU MAKE IT UP

        • RichardSRussell

          How many people have differing opinions on what “F = ma” means? Or “E = mc^2”? Or that the height of the new World Trade Center is 1776 feet? Or that the atomic weight of carbon is 12 (most common isotope)? Those are facts, not opinions. And, as facts, they can be tested and measured by anyone, anywhere on Earth, at any time, and they will all arrive at the same result. That’s what makes them objective, not subjective. Subjectivity, by definition, produces exactly the results we see with respect to opinions about good and evil, namely that they vary wildly from one person to the next.

      • Dys

        Except that, since atheism has no creed or dogma, it can’t really be used to justify anything. Something more is required.

        • In God’s Defense

          The Beilef that there is no God can be used to justify or part of justification for “bad” behavior and “good” behavior.

        • Dys

          No, it can’t. Not by itself. There needs to be a motivating desire, which would actually be the justification. As I said, something more is needed. Atheism isn’t an ideology.

        • In God’s Defense

          If someone who believed in God found out there was no God, then they might justify their future immoral behavior on the fact that there is no God. Or someone might justify their good actions because they make the moral law because there is no God.

        • Dys

          Justification motivation. You would first have to want to perform the immoral action, and atheism can’t provide the motivation for it. And really, the lack of punishment, either immediate or delayed is hardly a justification for an immoral act. Something else was used to justify the action, atheism simply wouldn’t provide a counter-balance to that justification.

          No matter how you try and paint it, atheism isn’t a sufficient justification or motivation for an action. It doesn’t (and can’t) tell you to do or not to do anything.

        • adam

          And yet there is justification WITH ‘God’ for EVIL behavior…

        • adam

          And yet there is justification WITH ‘God’ for EVIL behavior….

        • In God’s Defense

          Maybe… but there is justification for evil behavior with atheism as well.

        • adam

          You are a LIAR.
          But we understand why you HAVE to LIE to defend your WORSHIP of the CREATOR OF EVIL

          Atheism is just the disbelief in deity.

          disbelief Merriam Webster
          noun dis·be·lief ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf
          : a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

          There is nothing in disbelief that justified evil behavior.

          Your deity is the one who commands evil behavior.

          You deity boasts about creating EVIL…

          I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
          Isaiah 45 7

          When disaster comes to a city, has not Jehovah caused it? (Amos 3:6)

        • Kodie

          There is only justification in religious people maintaining fear and adherence to a hollow list of rules in deference to an imaginary authority that manifests itself in the damaged “interpretations” of the rules of an ancient group of people, because YOU ARE the ones who FEAR what you’ll do if there is no god. They lie to you about Jesus and god, and they lie to you about atheists, and whatever you think atheism can “justify”. We don’t need a god to behave well in society. You do, apparently, but you also (as a fractured group of believers in this imaginary authority) do justify following whatever the interpretations command you to do, such as harass and limit the rights of gay people, for example. God gave you that justification, and that makes you cruel, and superstitious what will happen to you if you don’t harass gay people and limit their civil rights.

        • MNb

          Really? Show me.
          1. Atheism (simple version): there is no god.
          2. Statement (yours and one I happen to agree with): torturing kids for fun is evil behavior.

          How does justifying 2 follow from 1 without making any other assumption?
          If you can’t it shows that you’re just producing manure.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “there is justification for evil behavior with atheism.”

          This is false.

          It’s also stupid, and you’re a careless thinker for having uttered it…but more importantly it’s not true.

        • Kodie

          How so? Please go on. Here is some rope.

        • In God’s Defense

          If someone who believed in God found out there was no God, then they might justify their future immoral behavior on the fact that there is no God. Or someone might justify their good actions because they make the moral law because there is no God. My main point is that you cannot say that religion is bad because it makes people bad or good. So does other things like atheism or almost anything else.

        • Kodie

          I can say religion makes someone a worse person because they can’t even justify doing good things if there is no god. We have another one like you who says there is a god and that’s the only reason he won’t cheat on his wife. You’re following a hollow list of rules whether they make sense or not, in deference to an imaginary authority, rather than those people who are around you. You have learned that those people don’t even matter, without a god, their feelings and reactions don’t matter, you can justify being cruel, it doesn’t matter.

          That’s now how atheism justifies anything, that’s how religious people justify maintaining their shitty list of moral obedience in deference to an imaginary authority, or else they’re the ones who will cut loose and fuck everyone over.

        • adam

          “If someone who believed in God found out there was no God, then they might justify their future immoral behavior on the fact that there is no God”

          So they might, but there is no creed in disbelief, so atheism is not the cause.

          “Or someone might justify their good actions because they make the moral law because there is no God. ”

          AGAIN, nothing in disbelief commands or suggests this.

          “My main point is that you cannot say that religion is bad because it makes people bad or good.”

          Religion is bad when it commands bad things, like murder for working on Saturdays, or killing gays, or nonbelievers

          Disbelief doesnt have a creed that addresses those.

          “. So does other things like atheism or almost anything else.”

          AGAIN, no.
          Disbelief has no creeds or commandments

        • adam

          “If someone who believed in God found out there was no God, then they might justify their future immoral behavior on the fact that there is no God.”

          So does YOUR ‘god’ have a “forgiveness’ program in which bad behavior is forgiven?

          What kind of ‘bad behavior’ is unforgivable to YOUR ‘god’?

        • Greg G.

          If someone who believed in God found out there was no God, then they might justify their future immoral behavior on the fact that there is no God.

          That’s why we should never teach people that morals come from God or religion.

        • crazypreacher52

          When a man hates to go fishing for his own reasons, he simply avoids that activity. When some men hate God/Religion, why don’t they simply avoid it….What is it that makes them go on the attack?

        • Kodie

          Why don’t religious people shut their mouths and stop telling us we’re going to hell, stop telling us stupid things you think, stop believing stupid things and making the government promote your religion as laws we all have to follow? There is no god, only people. Some of those people think they own the right to talk about everything and shut everyone else up. Some of those people think they own the right to live how they want to live but nobody else does. Why don’t you take your religion and pray quietly and privately at home.

        • crazypreacher52

          1) If we all took your recommendation, & prayed quietly & stayed home, you guys would have to get a life? 2) Our beliefs compel us to go & tell everyone whay we believe
          3) I agree with you, that Gov’t should stay out of our lives, except for protection and economics / I am not trying to MAKE anyone do anything? People can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t involve the rights of others to exercise their freedom……If we believe that some things should not be done, it doesn’t stop it?

        • Kodie

          If your beliefs compel you to never shut the hell up about what you believe and why everyone should believe it, I think it’s only fair that you expect we’ll never shut the hell up right behind you and tell you and everyone why you’re an idiot.

        • crazypreacher52

          Your coarse language doesn’t bolster your arguments?
          Your twice choosing the word “HELL”, is an interesting choice…..& a rather imprecise usage of the word as well……

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Your coarse language doesn’t bolster your arguments?”

          I disagree. It’s eminently appropriate in this situation.

        • Kodie

          I don’t really give a fuck what you think. Your language doesn’t bolster your arguments, you have no credibility and you end all your statements with a question mark. What’s up with that shit.

        • Ron

          hell /hel/

          exclamation
          used to express annoyance or surprise or for emphasis

        • Kodie

          In a slight choice I made to tone down the language a bit, he doesn’t like anything. That’s what that means. He doesn’t have an argument, cry about words.

        • Ron

          There’s just no pleasing some people, is there? 🙂

        • Ron

          If you don’t like people making fun of your beliefs, stop having such stupid beliefs! Or keep them to yourself.

        • Some Christians’ idea of freedom is imposing their religious views on others: no abortion, no same-sex marriage, Creationism in public school, prayer in the city council, and so on. When that stops, I’ll be delighted to leave the Christians alone.

        • Dys

          When some men hate God/Religion, why don’t they simply avoid it

          Misotheism is not atheism.

          And your question reveals a stunning lack of understanding. The fact of the matter is that it can’t be avoided, because Christianity is quite prevalent in society, and many people mistakenly believe that god-belief is somehow a prerequisite for morality/being a good person. The primary opposition against gay marriage is little more than the knee-jerk reactionism of “because it says it’s bad in the bible”.

          And then there’s the fact that attacks on Christian privilege do not qualify as persecution of Christians.

        • MNb

          How do you mean attack?
          You are the one who took the initiatieve to enter this atheist blog …..

        • crazypreacher52

          I’ve heard tell recently, of Atheist Churches springing up here & there?

        • Dys

          Apparently you haven’t bothered finding out anything about them. But maybe you’re not playing (and losing) an incredibly idiotic game of gotcha…please tell me what the official atheist creed and dogmas are.

        • crazypreacher52

          I don’t know, I haven’t had time to look into the matter, but I’d think you’d want to?

        • Dys

          So, in other words, you don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about, but you think it somehow contradicts what I said. And the fact that it doesn’t address what I said in the slightest has sailed completely over your head.

          Unlike yourself, I do know what the so-called atheist “churches” are about – they’re basically trying to replicate one of the few things churches are actually useful for – providing a welcoming social setting.

          No creeds or dogmas there. So you’re still wrong.

        • MNb

          Why would Dys or I? I don’t know about Dys, but I have exactly zero interest in the Atheist Churches you’re talking about. I’m not even interested in “atheist communities”, whatever that means.

  • crazypreacher52

    There is no difference between affirming that there is a God, or affirming that there is not a God. Neither statement can be proven or disproven by the scientific method. This is true, simply because the assertions involve not science, but, the fields of metaphysics, philosophy, and theology. 🙂 I’m just sayin……..

    • Paul B. Lot

      “Neither statement can be proven or disproven by the scientific method.”

      A point made so often, a point so basic, a point so rarely contended against….one could be forgiven for calling it trivial.

      The corollary to this, obvious truth, is that there are two ways* of holding oneself in relation to the stated proposition: “god(s) exist.”

      One can be an atheist who claims to ‘know’ that god(s) don’t exist, or one can be an atheist who does not.

      The terminology on this point is not completely settled yet (will it ever be?), but for now you can expect to see terms like gnostic vs agnostic atheists. Strong vs. weak atheism. Positive vs. negative atheism.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

      *at least two

      I do not think I’ve ever met a strong/gnostic/positive atheist.

      *EDIT for clarity*

      • MNb

        Sure you have.
        Me.
        Though “knowing” would be inconsistent, as I reserve “knowledge” for stuff figured out by using the scientific method.
        With that reservation I’m a 7 on the scale of Dawkins.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I think things getting lost in translation, along with a priori difference in defining terms, might explain our disagreement here, to say nothing of underlying epistemological disputes.

          Succinctly, though, let me say this: if you are defining “knowledge” as propositions whose truth-value you ascertain empirically through repeatable observation, hypothesis, and measurement, then it seems to me that you are remaining agnostic on putative ‘meta’-physical propositions.

          Hence, in my head anyway, I’m labeling you as an agnostic/weak atheist. 🙂

          “Weak”, by the way, being a descriptor of the category of atheism in question, not the strength with which it is believed.

        • MNb

          I do define knowledge that way indeed.

          However there is more to it. The strength of a postulation (I reserve “to believe” for religious and other supernatural issus – I don’t believe anything) can determined by other standards.

          Coherence.
          Consistency.
          Occam’s Razor.

          These three turned me from a 4 into a 7.

          Your label “agnostic atheist” seems irrelevant to me, exactly because “knowing god does (not) exist” is a meaningless phrase. You could as well say that I’m an agnostic chessplayer. It doesn’t give you useful additional information either.
          When I say that I am a 7 I mean that I am very positive about “there is no god” – as positive as positive can be (unless according to you positive is synonymous again with knowing, but that doesn’t look handy to me either).
          My main objection is that this

          “the strength with which it is believed.”
          is subjectively formulated. The standards I just mentioned are objective. Plus I don’t really have an idea what “strong” is supposed to mean here.

          Anyway, getting anal about positive/negative gnostic/agnostic strong/weak atheism sounds to me as uninteresting as discussions whether band X plays doom metal, black metal, death metal, goth metal or some mixture (and then in which ratios).
          What I’m saying is that I’m as sure that there is no god as possible and not because I “believe”, with the reservation that science only contributes indirectly to that certainty. Plus I don’t care about your labels.

    • Neither statement can be proven, but that doesn’t mean we’re stuck at this fork in the road with nothing to go on. The supernatural claims have insufficient evidence to believe them.

      • crazypreacher52

        I maintain, that if the stringent requirements demanded by atheists for supernatural claims to be shown believable, were applied to all other fields that claim knowledge, that nothing could be believed.

        • No, those standards are precisely how we do things in other areas of life. Someone says, “the copier is broken.” OK, let’s take a look at the evidence.

          Someone says, “Bigfoot exists!!” OK, let’s take a look at the evidence.

          We might find convincing evidence in case 1, but so far we’ve not for case 2. And so on for the even weirder supernatural claims.

        • crazypreacher52

          I would maintain, that the belief in a supreme being, has a huge deposition of evidence. It’s not, that the proposition is without evidence (Note: as supported by the 90% of the population who agree with me), but, rather, it means, that it does not have sufficient or convincing evidence for your convincing……..

        • Greg G.

          The beliefs of that 90% is not based on evidence so it is not evidence.

        • crazypreacher52

          I’d be feeling sort of jumpy too, if I thought I was in the elite 10% with all the answers….?

        • Ron

          I’d be feeling kind of jumpy if I belonged to the 90% which can’t reach agreement on any of its god beliefs.

        • MNb

          Evidence per definition is empirical, ie part of our natural reality. How can anything be evidence for a supernatural entity like your god?
          You being ignorantpreacher I suppose David Hume is a bit too difficult for you?

        • Most people in the world do believe in the supernatural, but they can’t agree on that. When it comes to god(s), they can’t agree on how many gods there are, how to please/appease them, or even what their names are.

          We’re both in the minority, I’m afraid.

          Are you saying that the Christian position has a huge amount of evidence in favor of it? Can you give me a brief summary?

        • crazypreacher52

          No need to over tire my typing fingers or yours, with long lists of things, each of which you will deny. I think the three best pieces of evidence are: 1) The marvelous universe he has made 2) The millions of positively changed lives of those who’ve come to believe in him & 3) The utter failure of evoloution, or any other system to account for origins.

        • 1) I like the universe, but that doesn’t say that the supernatural created.

          2) Christianity has millions of adherent, but many millions more don’t buy it. If millions of followers means that the religion is true, then you must be almost as convinced by Islam, which is almost as large.

          3) Evolution is the scientific consensus. We laymen are obliged to accept it.

        • MR

          Not obliged, Bob. We could simply ignore it. But for those of us who care enough to seriously consider it, and compare it to the alternative…, well, it is far superior to the Old Stories. A lifetime of Sundays of potlucks and mindless superstition.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Actually those stringent requirements are often less stringent than those for scientific claims. You should change your name – “ignorantpreacher52 would suit you better.

        • crazypreacher52

          Sticks & Stones, you angry intellectual…:)

        • MNb

          Thanks for calling me an intellectual, though I’m not sure if I deserve it. However I am not angry. I never am when I laugh – and you gave me a good laugh.

        • Ron

          And I’ll maintain that theists who demand I meet their god’s stringent requirements on how to live my life must first meet my stringent requirements for establishing their god’s existence.

        • crazypreacher52

          Interesting, but does not answer my prevvious assertion….

        • Ron

          Please specify which other fields claim knowledge based purely on belief. Because science-based fields rely on empirical facts and testable hypotheses rather than belief.

        • crazypreacher52

          religious claims are not made on the basis of belief alone?
          Neither are any fields of science? You believe that Antartica exists, right? Can you prove it? Ever been there? No? You believe it, because you believe that map makers and writers tell you it is so, and you choose to believe they are credible authorities. right?

        • Ron

          Did you miss the “testable hypotheses” part? I can verify that Antarctica exists by physically going there. Can the same tests be applied to religious claims?

        • Kodie

          People have been to Antarctica. Enough people have been to Antarctica for people who don’t think Antarctica exists to prove them wrong by traveling to that area and finding out for themselves. The fact that you fall for such a shitty argument demonstrates your gullibility, and the fact you think it’s such an amazing argument that we would fall for it too demonstrates your ignorance.

        • MNb

          “Can you prove it?”
          No.
          There is evidence for it though – in stark contrast with your god, which lacks evidence by definition.

          “Ever been there? No?”

          Irrelevant. With enough time, money and effort I could visit the place myself.
          With enough time, money and effort I cannot think of any test that confirms that your god exists.

        • You’re saying that belief in Antarctica is no stronger grounded in evidence than belief in Yahweh?

        • crazypreacher52

          No, I’m saying that I’d like to send you & your friends for a long visit to Antarctica….! Ha! Your own body is a maze of fantastic miraculous processes that work together to keep you alive, & there’s no way Evvolution could do it?

        • Science tells us that evolution is the best explanation we have. It’s well supported by evidence.

        • Greg G.

          Can you prove it?

          It’s really simple. Head south until you can’t head south anymore. Look down. If there is a continent under you, it’s Antarctica.

          Now it’s your turn to tell us how to get evidence for gods.

        • crazypreacher52

          Just look around you, Greg! You’re living in God’s universe! There’s evidence of intelligent design everywhere! Evolution, it is said, has no purpose or design?

        • Dys

          In short, as long as you just presuppose God exists, you can pretend everything is evidence for God.

          Your evidence for God is nothing more than flawed circular logic.

        • Greg G.

          I tried that back when I was a creationist. I found that the creationists were either lying or ignorant. I decided to not be ignorant any longer. Which are you?

        • Greg G.

          You have confused atheists with solipsists. We accept things that seem to be real and reject things that seem to be imaginary. You just have to be able to distinguish your god from an imaginary god.

        • crazypreacher52

          My God seems quite real……..

        • Greg G.

          That’s just your imagination talking.

        • crazypreacher52

          Then, I guess that our imaginations are simply communicating with each other, right?

        • MNb

          No, it’s just your imagination talking to you.

        • Greg G.

          You are communicating your imagination.

        • crazypreacher52

          You are communicating to me, your lack of imagination, and your lack of openness to realities that exist outside your little box…?

        • Greg G.

          I am open to other realities. You need to be able to distinguish an alternate reality from pure imagination. Why is that so hard? I am beginning to think it is impossible to do because there is no distinction.

        • What do you say to the Muslim or Hindu who says that?

        • crazypreacher52

          Many things seem quite real……..But, in fact, aren’t….
          I simply made a personal statement, & was not putting it forward as hard evidence…..Muslims & Hindu’s aside, let’s talk Atheism & Christianity for now?

        • I’m not changing the subject. Think of your answer to the Muslim or Hindu who say that their god is real. That’s probably what an atheist would say to you.

    • MNb

      We don’t need science to apply standards like consistency, coherence and simplicity (Occam’s Razor).

      • crazypreacher52

        Occam’s Razor won’t cut on this one, MNb……”…Is it more likely that X, rather then Y happened?…” Without more data, one cannot support either proposition….?

        • MNb

          You just showed that you don’t understand what Occam’s Razor means. Hint: it has nothing to do with your two questions.
          At the other hand, as soon as you talk about “Without more data” you talk science.

        • crazypreacher52

          Please enlighten me on the definition of the Razor…..Oh
          Enlightened one….:)

        • MNb

          Google “Occam’s Razor” ….. or do you also need an Enlightened one how to do that?

        • Greg G.

          W = no physical realm and no spiritual realm
          X = a physical realm but no spiritual realm
          Y = no physical realm but a spiritual realm
          Z = a physical realm and a spiritual realm

          The evidence shows that W and Y can be ruled out. Until you show there is a spiritual realm, Occam favors X. That is what all the evidence shows. Claims for a spiritual realm cannot be separated from imagination.

        • crazypreacher52

          Ah, yes, but….by choosing X, you’re assuming that there actually is a physical reality? We could all be deluded about that, confused, mislead, dreaming? Could you then, also be deluded that assertion Z is nonsense?

        • Greg G.

          Either solipsism is true or the evidence for W is reliable. Either way, we have no evidence for Z.

        • crazypreacher52

          I have no evidence of your existence. It could be an evvil robot using a computer and saying that he’s you…?

        • Kodie

          If Greg G. is a robot, he’s an excellent simulation. Presumably, you accept that people exist, so Greg G. being a person is really not that difficult to believe. Your arguments are so shitty!

        • crazypreacher52

          Kodie’s a potty mouth! I would nnot propose to debate a child…

        • Kodie

          You’re not debating anyway.

        • crazypreacher52

          Do you really think that the old worn out theory of evolution could possibly be considered as the true source of the origins of the universe & our origins? I just don’t have that much faith?

        • Kodie

          I really think your disbelief is not an argument. If you think it’s an argument, then I’m allowed to call it shitty.

        • crazypreacher52

          There goes that potty mouth again….? Why not show some self control & maturity, & simply say….”Your evidences prove nothing.” or “You’re a poor debater!”

        • Kodie

          You don’t have any evidence. Why are you so fussy? Your language is more offensive than mine is.

        • crazypreacher52

          We believe God is eternal & created everything outside himself, and you guys believe that the universe is eternal, right? Can you prove it?

        • Kodie

          You have an imaginary friend.

        • crazypreacher52

          Yeah…………YOU! 🙂

        • You don’t have enough faith to accept the scientific consensus? C’mon–give it a try. You do in every other area of science.

        • MR

          Curious that.

        • Ron

          Perhaps Greg G. is really the time traveler, Dr. Who.

          I’ve seen a TARDIS on TV, and as Garfield and Friends reminds us:

          “If they say it on television, It Must Be True!

        • MNb

          Yes, you do have evidence for Greg G’s existence. What you don’t have is conclusive evidence, because you have an alternative that has not been ruled out yet. Now what are you going to do to decide between these two options? Design a test, of course. It will take time, effort and money, but it’s doable.

        • Greg G.

          You do have evidence that I exist. Maybe I am a robot or a computer or a person with a computer. You don’t have any evidence for gods, though.

    • adam

      “There is no difference between affirming that there is a God, or affirming that there is not a God”

      Of course there is, an irrational belief in – MAGIC.

      • crazypreacher52

        If my belief that God exists, and that he created the universe and everything in it, is MAGIC, then you explain (not evolutionary nonsense?) where the universe came from?

        • adam

          “then you explain (not evolutionary nonsense?) where the universe came from?”

          I dont know,

          Demonstrate this MAGIC for us.

          Demonstrate that it is anything but IMAGINARY.

        • crazypreacher52

          The mirror joke, is truly in poor taste. So, you don’t know where the universe came from, but you’re sure that God didn’t create it, is that right?

        • Paul B. Lot

          No, no.

          The mirror joke is excellent.

          “So, you don’t know where the universe came from, but you’re sure that God didn’t create it, is that right?”

          No, you’ve misunderstood.

          1) @disqus_xusoHBL07f:disqus knows that he doesn’t know where the universe came from.

          2) He also knows that you don’t know where the universe came from.

          3) Finally, I imagine that like *me*, he sees no reason to trust you when you tell us about the make-believe-stories which make you feel good. The ones that ease your mind and steer your consciousness away from the realization that you will die. You will die, and the universe -as far as we can tell- does not care about you.

          You, and the others who have come before you, have provided no reasons to believe your hogwash, your Mormonism, your Scientology, your Christianity – and so people like us are content with an honest “I don’t know where the universe comes from.”

          I am not “sure” that your version of ‘god’ didn’t create the universe – I simply have a policy of not trusting people who try to sell me something without any proof (and who get annoyed when I ask for it) … people who do *that* are usually con-men, idiots, or both.

          If doubt and uncertainty are scary to you; try to learn to embrace them.

          *Edits to flesh out thoughts, and add punctuation/style*

        • adam

          Well said.

        • crazypreacher52

          As I interpret the meaning of the C.S. Lewis statement mentioned, it goes like this…..If we truly lived in a meaningless universe, we’d have never known it, because the word “meaning” would itself be meaningless.

          This is an important piece of information. No, by itself, it doesn’t prove God’s existence. It does show, that our universe does have meaning, thus, launching our quest for the origin of that meaning came from, and at the same time, destroying evolution’s claim to everything happening by chance and without purpose or meaning.

        • adam

          “It does show, that our universe does have meaning”

          Whatever meaning we apply to it:

          meaning Merriam Webster
          noun mean·ing ˈmē-niŋ

          : the idea that is represented by a word, phrase, etc.
          : the idea that a person wants to express by using words, signs, etc.
          : the idea that is expressed in a work of writing, art, etc.

          “and at the same time, destroying evolution’s claim to everything happening by chance and without purpose or meaning.”

          All it destroys is the LAST of your credibility and the vastness of your own ignorance.

          Actually evolution is an idea represented by a word, phrase, etc
          Evolution is an idea expressed.

          Evolution by definition is meaning.

          So where is the MAGIC of your IMAGINARY ‘god’?
          When are YOU going to demonstrate this MAGIC for us? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6af5a339d6ecca2668d43b88e72f8f1f541ecbb0ff33d6635568f01486ec7b74.jpg

        • crazypreacher52

          There would be no definition of the word meaning, if there were no meaning in anything, get it ? You’d better check in with Bob on this one…..I think you’re still missing the point?

        • Kodie

          Wow, you are really confused. We make things mean stuff it means. You think there is some creator who makes things mean anything to you and for all eternity it means that thing. How stupid. How utterly confusingly stupid you are to think that if there’s no god, you’re adrift without any meaning. Pathetic and immature. You’re failing to make any arguments, so I don’t think Bob will help you, since you’ve confused meaning with “ultimate meaning”, something that doesn’t exist. You’ve been mushed in the head by that Lewis crap, it sounds pretty but it’s bullshit.

          Go ahead and miss the point because I said a dirty word, you prude.

        • adam

          “There would be no definition of the word meaning,”

          just like there is no definition of the word ‘glispusdflkj’

          Yes, I get it, before the word ‘meaning’ was created by men, there was no ‘meaning’ in anything, get it?

          Is THIS the VERY BEST your IMAGINARY ‘god’ can come up with?

          Or do you wish to use a different definition of the work ‘meaning’?

        • crazypreacher52

          “If the universe were simply meaningless, we would never have known it.” -C.S. Lewis-

        • adam

          “”If the universe were simply meaningless, we would never have known it.” -C.S. Lewis-”

          You mean by actually LOOKING at it and examining it.

          What a STUPID claim….and an ignorant quote.

        • crazypreacher52

          Before stomping up & down, and calling the statement Stupid, maybe you ought to think about it’s implications a little more. It’s obvious you don’t get it.

        • adam

          It is obvious that YOU dont get it.

          We KNOW about it by observation, no intent (meaning) needed.

          Demonstrate that this ‘god’ of yours is anything but IMAGINARY and we can talk about universal ‘meaning’

        • Paul B. Lot

          1) I didn’t say the universe was ‘meaningless’, I said it may not care about us. Pay attention, now @crazypreacher52:disqus, and be precise.

          Discussing metaphysics doesn’t work when you equivocate, conflate, and play shell games.

          2) The manner in which we consciously experience the universe necessitates ‘meaning’ – we imbue our own lives and those we see transpiring around us with ‘meaning’. The fact that we feel like something is one way does not mean that we are not, in fact, misunderstanding.

          Lots of people used to impart [thunder and rain] occurring on day xyz with ‘meaning‘.

          Lots of people used to impart [cancer] afflicting person xyz with ‘meaning‘.

          Lots of people used to impart [epidemics] sweeping through population xyz with ‘meaning‘.

          ‘Meaning’ is such a poorly defined word, used in such a vague way by Lewis (himself a master of squishy-squashy thinking), that I can’t claim to be surprised that you’ve used this quote.

        • crazypreacher52

          “Meaningless” in my usage, and I think, C.S. Lewis’s use of the word also, might be used to ask the question as to whether the universe (for example) just happens to be (no meaning or purpose), or whether something or someone might have created it for a specific purpose?

        • Kodie

          What purpose do you think you were created for?

        • adam

          According to the ‘story’ most are created to be tortured for eternity…

        • adam

          “whether something or someone might have created it for a specific purpose?”

          Then you need to demonstrate that this something or someone is not IMAGINARY..

        • Paul B. Lot

          “”Meaningless” in my usage, and I think, C.S. Lewis’s use of the word “

          Do you understand what is going on here?

          A) I made a statement about [the universe (potentially) not caring].
          B) You responded with a quote about [meaninglessness].
          C) I called you out for your poor paraphrasing – for using [a word] which did not mirror [the concept] you were responding to.
          D) You responded by clarifying *what you meant* by the word *you choose* to poorly paraphrase what I said..

          You aren’t very good at this.

        • adam

          It is no joke.
          It is the VERY best explanation of why each of you view your own ‘God’ differently instead of worshipping the SAME ‘God’, why each of you can’t agree on what the bible means, etc.

          No, I dont know where the universe came from and neither do you.

          Demonstrate that this ‘God’ of yours is anything but IMAGINARY and we can THEN talk about what it is capable of doing.

          Otherwise, you are STILL just making it up.

        • Kodie

          What’s in poor taste about it? I’m pretty sure god sounds like what fallible, judgmental, and superstitious humans would invent because they’re afraid and insecure children mentally.

        • crazypreacher52

          “Afraid and insecure children…” If I thought I was adrift in a vast incomprehensible universe without a purpose, that’s exactly what I’d be!

        • adam

          “Afraid and insecure children…”

          EXACTLY the way you come off….

        • Kodie

          You’re afraid that it’s true, why you bury your snotty little head in god’s skirt and call him mommy.

        • adam

          ‘Cept they all seem to have this Daddy fetish…
          Or maybe just a ‘man’ fetish….

        • crazypreacher52

          Whether I am afraid or not, is not the question. if you guys are right, then, I’d just be worm food, the same as you, in the end, right? I’d have lost nothing. If you guys are wrong….???

        • Kodie

          That doesn’t scare anyone because it’s fiction. You’re the one who believes it because reality is too frightening.

        • crazypreacher52

          If a person, really thought that life had no creator, no purpose, no destiny……They ought to be very frightened! If all that were true, then why exist?

        • Kodie

          Why are you so frightened, and think we ought to be frightened? What is so frightening about living on a planet until you die like everything else? Doesn’t anyone care about you?

          Are you afraid if there’s no god, nobody’s love is enough for you?

        • Paul B. Lot

          “then why exist?”

          @disqus_0FsPDLqpUy:disqus brought up the love of others, but what about the purely personal joys:

          Don’t you like food?

          Coffee?

          Clean, clear water after a jog?

          Sleeping?

          Waking up to the sound of birds while on vacation?

          Grass?

          Trees?

          Mountains?

          The stars?

          The night sky?!?!

        • crazypreacher52

          Love of others? Why would one want to show love to others in a Darwinian dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest world, with no God ? All of those wonderful things you mentioned, as good parts of living, would lose their joy for me, if I didn’t believe God was there to thank?

        • Kodie

          Then you’re a fool. You only believe there’s a god because you’re self-absorbed and possibly a violent maniac only being held on a leash by religion. The rest of us can handle living in reality. You have a neurosis.

        • crazypreacher52

          Thanks for your valued diagnosis Dr. Kodie……I’m quite sure that your long list of credentials is what allows you to so easily and quickly make such a precise diagnosis of my disorders.

        • Kodie

          You live just fine in a world without any gods. You fail to acknowledge it, however, by inventing one to give you all that you wish for anyway. I didn’t have to diagnose you, you told us that your life is totally worthless and frightening without a god. You told us that in a way that you imagine we must feel worthless and frightened as you would be, but that isn’t the case. Therefore, I must conclude that you’re delusional and sick.

        • Paul B. Lot

          ” Darwinian dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest world”

          You have been poorly educated.

          There is nothing about the theory of evolution which entails your description of the world as a necessity. The organisms best-suited to deal with the challenges of their habitat survive and reproduce: that’s all.

          If the best-suited organisms happen to be ones which interact cooperatively…then they will survive and reproduce.

          Perhaps you would be better suited to this discussion if you understood even a few of the basic concepts. 🙂

        • MNb

          “dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest world”
          is not Darwinian, but Hitlerian. Hitler was a creationist like you.

        • Susan

          Love of others? Why would one want to show love to others

          Because you love them? Because you find them worthy of love?

          in a Darwinian dog-eat-dog

          Even in Darwin’s world, dogs didn’t generally eat dogs.

          He was describing the behaviour of natural systems and figured out ‘natural selection’. Great progress has been made since then, including figuring out the double helix. None of it rejects natural selection.

          Darwin’s model was descriptive, not prescriptive.

          You claim your deity pulled the facts that Darwin observed out of metaphysical nothingness (I assume). If you believe that, then Darwin was forced to deal with the evidence of a sociopath. Evolution is not pretty. You can deny the model if you like, but the facts are unimaginably cruel.

          Ironic, isn’t it?

          All of those wonderful things you mentioned, as good parts of living, would lose their joy for me, if I didn’t believe God was there to thank?

          I find that a tragic consequence of superstitious thinking.

          It’s completely unpersuasive on the subjects of love, joy and meaning unless you’ve drunk the kool-aid. .

        • Only Christians have meaning in life? Guess again.

        • Dys

          So without God, you’re admitting that you’d be an empty, sociopathic, emotionless robot. Thankfully, most people aren’t psychopaths and wouldn’t behave like you.

          Oh, and you don’t have a clue about evolutionary theory in the slightest either.

        • Esquilax

          Why would one want to show love to others in a Darwinian dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest world, with no God ?

          Serious question: do you have any idea at all what “survival of the fittest” means in an evolutionary context?

          “Fittest” means “best able to survive within the ecological niche that you find yourself in,” and human beings are demonstrably better off when we cooperate. We became the dominant species on the planet because we cooperated, literally your entire life is improved by the works and cooperation of the rest of our species. When was the last time you had to hunt your own food, or make your own clothes? Not did so, but had to do so or else you wouldn’t have any?

          How can you possibly look at your life, in which you were raised from infancy by others and then dropped into a cooperative society where our individual works coalesce into a whole that offers more comfort for us than was even possible at any other point in history, and even need to ask why one would want to love and care for the other humans around them?

        • Charleigh Kimber

          You’re explaining that you find meaning—that is, positive and fulfilling emotion—in a world with the Christian god. Do you understand that other humans find positive and fulfilling emotions without that specific worldview? It is demonstrable that you do not have a monopoly on compassion and empathy. Why must you claim to have a more “true” baseline set of emotions than others? Do you not realize you’re doing just that?

        • MR

          What is our purpose? Why should we be frightened if there is no destiny?

        • Esquilax

          Don’t you enjoy existing?

        • Paul B. Lot

          “I’d have lost nothing.”

          You’d have lost nothing…nothing, that is, except the squandered opportunity to live an honorable, brave, honest, and fulfilling life….each for their own sake.

          ” If you guys are wrong….???”

          If we are ‘wrong’ about god(s) not existing, and we’ve chosen to live decent and just and true lives inspite of being wrong, and your god(s) still punish us, then your god(s) are evil sadists not worth worshiping.

          If we are wrong….and your god(s) reward us for living good lives in spite of being wrong, then we have lost nothing.

          Either way, we are not cowards gambling at a game of chance – the way you, Lewis, and Pascal apparently live(d) your life(ves).

        • MNb

          If you are right and there is a god I lose a lot, because eternal life, whether in hell or in heaven, is way more frightening than non-existence. As Mark Twain already pointed out and I understood as a kid of 9, 10 years old: before I was conceived I didn’t exist for a very long time and it was not in the slightest way inconvenient to me. Now I’m older and wiser and understand that the prospect of non-existing is actually a comforting one.
          You at the other hand are still like the toddler, who is afraid for the big hole in the dark ….

        • Dys

          “I don’t know” and “God did it” are explanatory equivalents. It’s just that “I don’t know” is intellectually honest.

        • Esquilax

          There is no evidence currently to indicate that a conscious being of any stripe was involved in the beginnings of the universe, no. Trying to phrase it as “so, you don’t know how the universe began, yet you’re somehow sure that god didn’t do it,” is misleading.

        • MNb

          “not evolutionary nonsense?”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Evolution Theory says zilch about where our Universe came from.
          Try science – especially physics. You know, the same branch of science that allows you to enter internet via this blog, drive cars and fly in planes. Or perhaps don’t, because you just have admitted that you’re a science denier and hence a hypocrite every time you turn your computer on, Ignorant Preacher.

        • crazypreacher52

          You’re right, in pointing out, that evolution doesn’t even try to determine ultimate origins…..my mistake. I’m not an expert on physics. I’m not a science denier, I’m a pseudo-science denier. I have two masters degrees, but would agree with you, to some extent, that I’m still quite ignorant in many ways and on many subjects.

        • adam

          “that I’m still quite ignorant in many ways and on many subjects.”

          Obviously IGNORANT enough to STILL believe in childish superstition and MAGIC…

        • Ron

          ” evolution doesn’t even try to determine ultimate origins”

          Neither do any of the following:

          – Cell Theory
          – Germ Theory of Disease
          – Atomic Theory
          – Theory of Gravity
          – Theory of Electromagnetism
          – Kinetic Theory of Matter
          – Theory of Radioactivity
          – Theory of Continental Drift
          – Photon Theory of Light
          – Oxygen Theory of Combustion

          Perhaps there’s a theory that does address the origins of the universe. However, the search for that theory is left as an exercise for the reader.

        • Dys

          Cool…then you’re subsequently forced to admit that creationism in its various forms is completely unscientific.

          Off course, if you’re instead attempting to laugh off evolutionary theory out of hand as pseudo-science, then your attempt to use two masters degrees as some sort of credentialism is a sad, sad farce.

        • MNb

          “I’m not a science denier”
          Yes, you are. You deny evolution and hence science. That remains a fact, no matter how many degrees you have.

        • Why is this question relevant? Science has unanswered questions … so therefore God?

    • Without Malice

      “There is no difference between affirming that there is a God, or affirming that there is not a God.” Hogwash. Your first mistake is using the word affirming instead of claiming or believing. Secondly: mankind has uncovered a very large multitude of facts about how the universe and our little world work, none of this knowledge points in any way to there being a supernatural being, or to the need for a supernatural being in any of the workings of the universe. Therefore the evidence is weighted overwhelmingly on the side of no supernatural beings existing. The argument you present is no different than saying that there’s just as much evidence for the existence of pink unicorns or flying monkeys as there is for the non-existence of such creatures. Indeed, since there are plenty of large mammals with horns, and plenty of other mammals that can fly, the evidence for the existence of pink unicorns or flying monkeys is much greater than the evidence for the existence of supernatural beings.

  • towercam

    HEY BOB. What are those numbers there in your copy? Did you put them there?
    If you did, why didn’t you tell us what they referenced??
    We can’t read your mind yet, Bob. Please don’t yank us around; it’s not cool at all.

    “..but for his version see Why I Am Not a Christian (35–9).”

    • Those are page numbers. I should’ve made that clearer.

    • Greg G.

      Pages 35 to 39, maybe?

  • voxvot

    Science has collected some information on the mechanics of how the universe works, that’s not the same thing as explaining ultimate reality is it?

    • Ultimate reality? Like “God exists and he loves you?” What if the supernatural handwaving religions give us is all wrong? Then there is no such ultimate reality.

      • voxvot

        If there is no ultimate reality then there can be no science. By using language like “supernatural and handwaving” in a pejorative way, you sound more like someone who hates Christians than someone who loves reason, you might want to examine that.

        • Thanks–I’ll have to get a therapist and discuss that topic.

          Ultimate reality is like 2 + 2 = 4? Sure, that exists. How is this interesting to our conversation?

        • voxvot

          You say that 2+2=4 but wave particle duality says maybe not.

          “Ultimate reality” would be the greatest amount of information processed by the greatest amount of intelligence…don’t think we’re there yet Bob.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “You say that 2+2=4 but wave particle duality says maybe not.”

          Please explain what you mean by this – it’s the first I’m hearing of it.

        • voxvot

          It’s related to quantum uncertainty, but that was just a throwaway line. My point was really about ultimate reality which I defined above.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “It’s related to quantum uncertainty”

          I had previously heard of 2+2 equaling 4.

          I had previously heard of wave/particle duality.

          I had previously heard of quantum uncertainty.

          I had never before heard of these concepts arranged and stated in the manner you did a few minutes ago. I am quite curious as a consequence; what is the relationship between quantum uncertainty, wave/particle duality, and 2 + 2 not equaling 4?

          “but that was just a throwaway line. “

          Oh, well.

          If you’re going to take the position that you brought up a fancy-sounding topic, which you don’t really understand and have no business talking about as-if-you-did, that’s fine.

          Just say so, and I’ll drop the matter.

        • voxvot

          Woof, woof, big dog. Making ultimatums on a blog comment section, aren’t you da man?

          Last year Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner postulated that ‘wave-particle duality’ is simply a manifestation of the quantum uncertainty principle. Wave particle duality did seem initially to question the basis of Cartesian logic, retrospect casts some perspective on this.

          I’m very sorry to tell you this Paul but you are not the only person in the world who is cognizant of quantum physics.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Woof, woof, big dog. Making ultimatums on a blog comment section, aren’t you da man?”

          Pardon me? What are you on about? I’m merely asking for clarification of your claims.

          You’re the one who called your own claim a ‘throwaway line’.

          If you want to turn-tail, and get away from your earlier position: that’s fine with me. If you’d rather stay and play: please explain yourself.

          Is that a big-man thing to say? “Please explain yourself”?

          I dunno, it sounds rather polite to me.

          “I’m very sorry to tell you this Paul but you are not the only person in the world who is cognizant of quantum physics.”

          Nothing could be less news-worth to me, as I am painfully aware of my lack of expertise in this area.

          Which is why I’m so keen to have you explain to me what your claim was about.

          “You say that 2+2=4 but wave particle duality says maybe not.”

          What does this sentence mean?

          I’m all ears.

          Woof.

        • voxvot

          “Turn tail”, groan…another net warrior.

          I explained it in the post you just read, but clearly can’t understand. What can I say, read some books maybe?

        • Paul B. Lot

          “”Turn tail”, groan…another net warrior.”

          Na, bruh, it ain lik dat yo. Im jus tryin to play off yo’ dawg reference, dawg.

          “I explained it in the post you just read, but clearly can’t understand. What can I say, read some books maybe?”

          Well, no, I can’t understand it. You “clearly” explained what? That 2+2 “might not” equal 4 because…..“related to quantum uncertainty”…..because….“Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner postulated that ‘wave-particle duality’ is simply a manifestation of the quantum uncertainty principle”….or because….“Wave particle duality did seem initially to question the basis of Cartesian logic”?!

          Maybe if you have the time, after you help me understand this “throwaway” line of yours, you can help me understand what “Cartesian logic” is too.

          I’ve never heard of it before now; how does it relate to 2+2 and wave/particle duality?

        • voxvot

          Maybe I can come round and tie your shoelaces too?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Come on now, buddy, you’re in the circle of trust.

          Did you bring up a fancy-sounding topic, which you don’t really understand and have no business talking about as-if-you-did?

          You can tell us – we’re all friends here.

          🙂

        • voxvot

          Everyone knows you are clutching that straw because you know you will be debate raped on any other point.

          Your, “I’ll show this young upstart” bluster is fooling no one, pops; sit back down and drink your cocoa.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Everyone knows you are clutching that straw because you know you will be debate raped on any other point.”

          I am happy to discuss any other topic(s) with you…once you explain to me the relationship I’ve been asking about for five posts now.

          Of course, if you’re incapable of explaining yourself: that’s perfectly fine. Go ahead and let us know, and we we can move on to these other burning questions you’d like to argue about.

          “Your, “I’ll show this young upstart” bluster is fooling no one, pops; sit back down and drink your cocoa.”

          This is literally the first time anyone has ever, to the best of my recollection, addressed me as “pops”.

          Thank you for bringing a smile to my face today, internet stranger!

        • voxvot

          Why would I waste my time trying to explain anything to someone who is too thick to know what cartesian logic is?

        • Susan

          Why would I waste my time trying to explain anything to someone who is too thick to know what cartesian logic is?

          I’m sure there are many intelligent people on this planet who wouldn’t know what you meant when you referred to cartesian logic.

          Why not explain what you mean? Paul might be clever enough to understand.

          To suggest that a person is thick because they’re unfamiliar with a concept you want to slip into the discussion (without clarification) looks exactly like bluffing.

        • voxvot

          Yeah, that really was a “hilarious” post, I mean I bet you could write a comedy sketch based on that reply. it might even be a redefinition of “funny” and render all previous humour redundant and seem as bland as Jed Bush’s, wardrobe, or maybe you are just a “me too” suck up with nothing to contribute?

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Yeah, that really was a “hilarious” post, I mean I bet you could write a comedy sketch based on that reply. it might even be a redefinition of “funny” and render all previous humour redundant and seem as bland as Jed Bush’s, wardrobe”

          🙂

          When you get the chance, please answer my original question to you:

          “You say that 2+2=4 but wave particle duality says maybe not.”

          Please explain what you mean by this – it’s the first I’m hearing of it.

          When you’ve finished answering that question, maybe you could address my next one:

          I tried to educate myself on my own, and I couldn’t get to the bottom of this “Cartesian Logic”/”4 Questions”/NLP question. Please explain it to me, if you can find the time.

          I hope you will take the time to address these questions of mine, as I’m starting to get the impression that you’re not here to discuss topics in-good-faith.

          Maybe you’ll prove me wrong?

          Or maybe you’ll prove that you are a doofus “with nothing to contribute?”

        • Susan

          Yeah, that really was a “hilarious” post

          Especially the second part.

          maybe you are just a “me too” suck up with nothing to contribute?

          Maybe. Or maybe you blurted out a lot of apparently disconnected concepts with no intent to demonstrate their relevance or show a connection.

          Maybe Paul asked you. Then, asked you again. Then, asked you again.

          Maybe I was wondering why you were being so coy and why rather than clarify your points, you decided to call Paul thick because he didn’t know what you meant by “cartesian logic”.

          Maybe then I asked you to clarify and you still provided no response.

          Maybe my natural curiosity and desire to learn something led me to google “cartesian logic” (because I wasn’t getting anything from you) to see if it could give me a better idea and the links led me to the same places they led Paul.

          You could straighten both of us out by answering the question.

          What do you mean by “cartesian logic”?

          .

        • Paul B. Lot

          “too thick to know what cartesian logic is”

          I don’t know what to say. I was previously aware of:
          Rene Descartes
          Cartesian Coordinates
          Logic (and the fact that different frameworks within the topic of “logic” have different names/rules/forms)
          Cartesian Dualism

          I have simply never heard of Cartesian Logic before. When I googled it, the first two listed websites were wiki entries on
          Cartesian circle
          Cartesian doubt

          You will no doubt note that neither of those are your “Cartesian Logic”. The next link down does mention your term explicitly, however.

          What is this next link down? It’s an article entitled “Cartesian Logic | NLP is Fun” on an “NLP”, or “Neuro Linguistic Processing” website.

          It explains briefly how to use the “4 [Cartesian] Questions”, or “Cartesian Logic” in other words, as a method of decision-making.

          What does wikipedia have to say about “NLP”?

          The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors,[14][16] and fails to produce the results asserted by Bandler & Grinder.[17][18]

          I tried to find more info on “Cartesian Logic” and “Cartesian 4 Questions”, and most of the links were to further life-coaching/self-help/psychobabble websites:
          http://juvenate-ltd.com/cartesian-questions/nlp
          http://www.thecoachingtoolscompany.com/cartesian-questions-tool-and-how-to-use/
          http://www.valuedrivenleaders.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Cartesian-Questions-and-Decision-Making.pdf
          http://whitecatcoaching.com.au/cartesian-questions-the-power-of-looking-at-all-possibilities/

          So sorry @voxvot:disqus, but I tried to educate myself on my own, and I couldn’t get to the bottom of this “Cartesian Logic”/”4 Questions”/NLP question.

          Please explain it to me, if you can find the time.

          “Why would I waste my time”

          WHY?!

          How should I know? Am I you?

          No.

          How then can you expect me to make this analysis for you? Although….I have an idea for how I can help you figure this out…

          Just answer these four questions for me, it might help unblock your heart-chakra:

          1.What would happen if you did explain it to me?

          2. What would happen if you didn’t?

          3. What won’t happen if you did?

          4. What won’t happen if you don’t?

        • Susan

          Brilliant. 🙂

          I went through the same process you did. Wondered specifically what voxvot might mean when xhe said “cartesian logic”, as I’d never heard the expression before.

          I knew DesCartes had a lot to say about a lot of things but I couldn’t figure out how it could all be summed up as cartesian logic.

          Googled it. Got the same results. Didn’t bother to write an eloquent and hilarious post about it (like you did).

          I just asked him/her to explain what he meant (like you had done already).

          I love the four NLP questions you provided.

          So far, numbers 2 and 4 have been answered. I eagerly await vv’s input so I can see what 1 and 3 look like.

          EDIT: Added link.

        • Paul B. Lot

          *bows*

        • Isn’t this where you simply apologize for the 2 + 2 ≠ 4 brain fart and then move on to more interesting issues?

        • adam

          Maybe he means this:

        • adam

          “”Ultimate reality” would be the greatest amount of information processed by the greatest amount of intelligence…don’t think we’re there yet Bob.”

          We certainly are, up to this point in time.

          And much MUCH better than just a couple of thousand years ago…

        • So this subthread is a tangent? This isn’t an interest of mine.

    • Kodie

      Religion has collected and compiled many storyteller myths and pretended to know how the universe works, that’s not the same thing as explaining ultimate reality, is it?

    • MNb

      The Universe – or perhaps the Multiverse – is the ultimate reality. So yes, science explains it.

  • Dys

    Flagged as spam

    .