Here they come…”President Bush has cut short his vacation, and urged Americans to pray for the people hurt by Hurricane Katrina. “” In the meantime, America will pray — pray for the health and safety of all our citizens,”I’m not praying, Mr. President. Not to your god, not to any god.He also urges donations to the evangelical Salvation Army and Catholic Charities.It seems like any time there is a disaster of any kind, certain politicians use it as a “free ride” to break the law. They seem to think “Nobody would criticize me for telling Americans to pray if they were praying for a good reason, and if I encourage donations to organizations that evangelize religion and openly discriminate, well, I can do that too”Apparently he’s right. Few are pointing out that he is breaking the law (and obviously pandering). I do. Pushing religion or donation to religious orgs is not the President’s responsibility, and slipping it in when there is suffering is, well, insufferable.Stop it, Mr. President. This is a great time to push community service, national (military) service, and donations to all-encompassing charities like the Red Cross — but remember the Big Easy is also a Big Melting Pot.
For the record, I disagree with alot of what JWB does and says. Never the less his wrong actions/words don’t negate that which is true just because he or anyone else miss uses it. There are many bad apples missrepresenting out there!
My sole argument up to this point:
a) atheism as a belief system is not logical. Agnostisism is however, logical (see my first post)
b) there is no credible evidence for evolution.
1st point of argument: there are no transitional forms
I’m not arguing for the existence of God… yet.
On Puctuated equilibrium:
The gradual changes postulated by Darwin are not the major mode of speciation. Instead new species developed rapidly as subpopulations became geographically isolated from the mainstream species population, reaching and maintaining equilibria for a more extended time until conditions promoted another burst of speciation. This in short is the puctuated equilibrium theory of Niles Eldridge and S.J. Gould.
In this view, the transitional forms appear as an instant in geological time, and only the long-lived, dominant species are significantly recorded in the fossil record. Thus, the fossil record is a much better record of evolutionary change than previously thought. so it is though. However this theory is a substantial departure from the gradualism of Darwin, and is currently the center of major disagreement between evolutionists about the dominant mode of evolutionary change.
Let me point out, that this notion of punctuated equilibrium is no mechanism at all. It is simply a new scenario. They are saying that since we don’t find transitional forms, evolution could not have occurred slowly and gradually, so obviously, then, it must have occurred rapidly. How and why evolution occurs so rapidly, no one knows. As a matter of fact, the idea that multiplied millions of rapid bursts of evolution have occurred is contrary to the science of modern genetics. The genetic apparatus of a lizard, for example, is totally devoted to producing another lizard. The idea that by some random evolutionary process the genetic apparatus of a lizard could be rapidly reorganized to produce something really significantly different is clearly contrary to everything we know. Evolutionists simply have no mechanism for evolution.
Lays down a monster.
I’ve always been old enough to make up my own mind.
It’s all very well to read about sorrows and imagine yourself living through them heroically, but it’s not so nice when you really come to have them, is it?
sinfullyso,
I missed the minute of silence? I didn’t even hear about it (no pun intended), and I was pretty much glued to the cable news channels. Was I the only one to miss it?
Regarding an atheist running for president. Many atheists have probaby run, but they have either sunk without trace, or publically embraced theism – or both.
With regard to actually being president, it seems you have to be white, christian, and rich …. ah yeah and not possess a vagina.
Miss out on even one of those categories and history suggests your race is doomed
What chance does a averagely wealthy, Japanese-American, Shintoist, woman have of becoming president? In theory none of these characteristics should be relavant to the job of President.
I don’t understand what point you are trying to make with the steak and chicken story.
sinfullyso,
Your comment:
“Could someone please tell me which ” constitutional law is being broken” that says a president isn’t allowed to pray or even suggest prayer?
How exactly is this such a bad thing.
Maybe I’m just not getting it, but I would think that it is not any better to “force” atheism on the world any more than it is to force religion on them.”
Maybe I miss understood, but the statement appears to me to suggest that by not promoting prayer, the President would be promoting Atheism. Or, that because we as Atheists would rather the President include all Americans in his call for help, we are somehow ?forcing? Atheism on the country.
And I believe HeathNZ addressed the other point about why it’s inappropriate for a President to call for prayer, in her above post.
finch77dash said
Weak atheism is not a belief system. Rather it is the absence of belief.
Strong atheism asserts a belief that there is no god. Perhaps you are referring to that. If so, please say so. To do otherwise makes you look silly.
lol, sorry HeatheNZ, didn’t mean to go so far off the deep end there… was just trying to make a point that sometimes just because we didn’t get what we want is no reason to beat up on what we got.
It would be great to get the “right” president, but we all know that’ll never happen. I guess I was just a bit distraught over how we seem to be picking at the wrong things at the wrong time here… there is a time and a place for everything, this doesn’t seem to be the time or the place for either. There are people that are dying and we are getting bent out of shape over the president asking for those “who wish to” to pray. (those are my words, not his)so what…
if you don’t want to pray – then heck – reflect – and if you don’t want to do that, then don’t.
But for those of us that want to do something, we will. Regardless of weather it is money, time, volunteering, blood, a home, a box of food, or for those who can’t do anything else – prayer. Again, I say… so what. If it helps 1 person out there sitting on a roof to feel like he’s been heard, then what is the harm in that? You think it will make him feel better to know that the president didn’t suggest anything because he might have offended someone?
I just don’t think that we should be picking apart his (or anyones) words or prayers. They are sent out with the best of intentions. Can you say that “reflecting” on tragady does the same?
sin
Let me restate my argument more concretely for others.
why I’m not an atheist:
Atheism comes from literally the greek, alpha – the negative, and theism – theos the word for God. Negative God. There is no God. That’s what the word atheism really means.
It is not saying I do not think there is a god, it is not even saying I do not believe there is a god. It is affirming the non-existence of god, it affirms a negative. It affirms the non-existance of God. We don’t need to spend too much time on that because anyone with an introductory course in philosophy recognizes that it’s a logical contradiction.
How can you affirm a negative in the absolute? It would be like me saying to you, there is no such thing as a black stone with white dots anywhere in all of the galaxies of the universe. The only way i could affirm that is if i had unlimited knowledge of this universe.
So to affirm an absolute negative is self-defeating, because what you are saying is: I have infinate knowledge in order to say to you that there is nobody with infinate knowledge.
Atheism as any kind of system is self-defeating. Even Bertrand Russell realized that an so moved to agnosticism, which is very easy to defend all you have to prove is that you don’t know.
I would guess that your position is that from the evidence that you have seen and your personal experiences, you could not say that God exists. That’s a respectable position. And technically its an agnostic position not an atheistic position. But you can’t say absolutely that there is no God as do the atheists.
My life is a perfect graveyard of buried hopes. That’s a sentence I read once and I say it over to comfort myself in these times that try the soul.
that is so sad finch77dash
but then hope is pretty much a religous thing…….isn’t it
sin
finch77dash
Can a person say, as an absolute, that the Tooth fairy does not exist?
I feel comfortable in saying I truly believe that by the definition; a supernatural being that comes and collects children?s teeth in the middle of the night and leaves money under their pillow, I can say, and be comfortable with, there is definitely not a Tooth Fairy.
So, why should I give more credence to the idea of a GOD and say, I just don?t know?
For me, the idea has all of the same earmarks as the idea of a Tooth Fairy?fairytales made up by human beings. Nothing more.
finch77dash, did you take a look at the evidence presented regarding Transitional fossils? In case you couldn’t manage to take a look, here’s a link again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
If you are really certain in your belief that transitional fossils don’t exist I’d suggest that you take the time to read the text.
I’d be interested in your response
P.s These are not 100 yr old Gorilla skeletons
Some further comments on punctuated equilibrium.
the notion of punctuated equilibrium doesn’t solve the really serious problem evolutionists have with the fossil record. In fact, it doesn’t even address that problem. The idea of punctuated equilibrium was invented to explain the lack of transitional forms between species. But that is not the real problem. The really serious problem is the absence of transitional forms between the higher categories, that is, between families, orders, classes and phyla. The total absence, for example, of transitional forms between invertebrates and the fishes, a vast gulf supposedly spanning 100 million years. We have no transitional forms between basic morphological designs, or what creationists call the created kinds.
evolutionists find themselves in a most embarrassing position today. They can find neither the transitional forms in the fossil record that their theory demands nor can they find a mechanism to explain how the evolutionary process supposedly occurred.
isn’t that amazing! One hundred and twenty-years after Darwin the missing links are…well… still missing, and that wonderful, marvelous darwinian mechanism that was responsible for swinging the majority of scientists over to evolution is now becoming rapidly discredited. Yet somehow we are told everyone knows that evolution is a fact!
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, said in a talk he gave at the American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981, that he now realizes that in accepting evolution he had moved from science into faith.
In a recent BBC program Dr. Patterson stated that all we really have of the evolutionary phylogenetic tree are the tips of the branches. All else?the filling in of the trunk and of the branches?is simply story telling of one kind or another.
Tommorrow is always fresh with no mistakes in it
finch77dash said
WRONG
You missed the belief component.
Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs (weak atheism) , or of actively believing in the non-existence of deities (strong atheism).
This may seem trivial to you, but it effectively means that your argument only addresses strong atheism. I concede that strong atheism is open to your criticisms, and in part that is why I am a weak atheist.
I have as yet to look up the web site and read it but i will!
My hypocrisy goes only so far
finch77dash, I’m interested in why you seem so obsessed with trying to discredit evolutionary theory. I assume it is because you hold a creationist belief? Would you care to outline the boundaries of this belief as there seem to be so many variations .
HeatheNZ,
You have hi-jacked the word atheism and created your own meaning ever so slightly twisting the origional meaning, while putting just enough truth in it to tickle itching ears.
You can’t weakly affirm a negative in the absolute! You either does or you doesn’t.
Technically speaking you are an agnostic.
Yes, I know. You are a good woman. Then again, you may be the antichrist.
Don’t be mad for keeps.
finch77dash:
Ahem: 4 the record, & honestly, I’m the fellow who brought up the EXAMPLE of finding a 100 yr old gorilla in Africa. My apologies if anyone became confused by this. No one else brought it up. I am not the equal of DNAunion or some of the others vis-a-vis evolution. Let me clarify it once more: EXAMPLE ONLY.
This bit of jugglery is ridiculous: “GoS and DNAunion, guys. You really should do your homework. A hundred year old gorilla skeleton as a transitional form only works if all forms are transition, as you believe.” NO ONE including myself, stipulated this was a transitional form. GoS & DNAunion DID NOT SAY THIS. EXAMPLE ONLY.
Really, how do U expect anyone 2 take U seriously, when U redirect what one person says onto someone else, intentionally misinterpret what was said, IGNORE the person who pointed out UR error, & compound your error w/repetition.
It is most unscholarly.
That’s my nickel’s worth. Spend it in the right place.
Finch77Dash, it seems several of the quotes you offered were either incorrect or taken out of context, Please read the following letter form Dr Colin Patterson, regarding his famous (mis)quote
I would also suggest that if you are going to cut’n'paste quotes directly from sites that you research the quote directly from the source, I do not have the time nor the inclination to fix your research for you.
finch77dash:
& for the record, again, I’m the one who brought up the fact that all fossils are transitional. It doesn’t take a philosophy major to realize that everything mutable is transitional in one form or another. One’s day-to-day life is transitional: growing old is transitional: being born and dying are transitional. Indeed, show me me one item that ISN’T transitional.
Now, how is that for proving a positive?
Cheers.
GoS,
Good web site, I will look at it more indepth in the future. All the fossils bear resemblance to either aps or humans. As stated in the website, “…there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare.” I would grant you that if these were actually transitional forms we would expect to only find fragments. Those examples are not compelling enough.
Those are not transitional just old fossils. How about a fossil halfway between a dog and an ape?
And again the experts, Stephen J. Gould for example disagrees with you. Whom to believe? Hmm…
Say when. Come on! Come on! Oh Johnny, you’re no daisy. No daisy at all.
Finch77Dash, as furhter background to Dr Pattersons comments I’d refer you to the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
After reading this you may ask yourself why creationists resort to such deceitful tactics in order to affirm their beliefs.
How is it that Steven J. Gould, Paleoentologist states there is no transitional forms? Many other evolutionists say the same thing.
Don’t make me start quoting again.
Hmm…should I believe reluctantatheist or Gould? Tough choice
Poor soul, he was so high-strung. Afraid the strain was more than he could bear.
Finch77Dash
Nobody has ever posited the hypothesis that apes are descended from dogs as far as I’m aware. It doesn’t matter how rare transitional fossils are. A single example is all that is required to disprove Creationism, that is unless you believe God also created in immutable form:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis New
Homo sapiens sapiens
If this is what you believe then your position is becoming very tenuous indeed.
You wheel me back in, you hear? This is anarchy! Who are these rabble rousers? Oh, dear saints above, I shall swoon. I can’t stand all this fresh air.
In all seriousness though, C. Patterson didn’t backtrack in his letter but says:
“The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues “… a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record”
And that is my point exactly, fossils are insufficient evidence for evolution. ie “ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record”
Also from the letter:
“I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder.”
Had he known that it was recorded would he have not said what he said? Does he say one thing for one audience but change for another?
Here’s my conclusion from what we have discussed so far. The theory of evolution cannot be solely upheld by the fossil record. Many other evolutionists besides C. Patterson, recognize the lack of transitional forms.
I can see no matter the evidence you will not change your possition. Transitional forms is only one aspect of evolution out of many that fail.
Let’s move on to the mechanism of evolution, shall we?
How is it that you think I’m a creationist? I just seriously doubt that evolution is scientific. The theory of evolution should stand or fall of it’s own merit, not as a counter argument to creationism.
Alas, we get to the core.
The real issue here is over:
a) Philosophical presuppositions, not intelligence.
b) Basic worldviews, not science vs. superstition.
c) Empirical data not metaphysics
The theory of evolution: A theoretical house of cards built upon a foundation of assumptions, speculation, fraud and anti-supernatural bias.
So, we’re pretty much friends by now, right?
Finch77Dash
As stated earlier I have neither the time nor the inclination to check the sources of these quotes for you. As a general rule of thumb I would say that the vast majority of these quotes are taken out of context, incomplete, contain reference errors etc.
You see the difference between the way in which science and faith works is that science is continually questioning and testing itself, usually this is jumped on as proof that some kind of controversy exists by the creationists. I can assure you as a theory Evolution has been more rigourously questioned, tested, poked and prodded than any other scientific theory in history, and it has proven to be incredibly robust. conversely there is no evidence of any kind for either creationism or intelligent design.
I don’t want to keep filling this thread with off topic stuff, so I would say if you are so sure of your beliefs, spend some time studying the evidence supporting opposing beliefs. I would suggest starting at the “Pandas Thumb” or “Talk Origins” websites.
Again Steven J. Gould or GoS…whom to believe?
Finch, Please read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
As stated earlier I have neither the time nor the inclination to check the sources of these quotes for you. As a general rule of thumb I would say that the vast majority of these quotes are taken out of context, incomplete, contain reference errors etc.
Of course you would say that. I thought we were kindred spirits.
It’s because you don’t like what I’m saying, if you liked it, you would feel no need to check my source.
Forget the quotes, how about just addressing the argument?
For five glorious seconds I really thought perhaps I could marry you. I used to dream of a moment like this, but now…I can’t describe it… I need to go home.
I appreciate the discusion and am glad to have had a voice. I will return at some unexpected time. I can see that we will not change each others minds. But I’ve seen good argument on both sides, for me however the evidence is overwhelming for the existense of God.
I was once an atheist by the way, and found it most unsatisfying.
This is your life and it’s ending one minute at a time.
*shudder*, apologies to all for the hijaked thread, I should have known better