November 24th marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. On November 19th, a guy named Ray Comfort, who does not accept evolution, will celebrate the fact that when copyrights expire and works enter the public domain you’re free to do with them what you will. Thus Comfort will be distributing his own edition of Darwin’s masterwork, with a new introduction. This is roughly the equivalent of me fingerpainting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel so as to improve the work.
…
The NCSE has set up a Web site with useful, truthful info. It’s at www.dontdissdarwin.com.
Read More from Scientific American
I am insulted FOR Darwin, that two mental throwbacks like Comfort and Cameron actually try to place themselves in a position of authority with regard to Darwin’s work. They somehow get evolution better than Darwin? A Preacher and an out-of-work actor? They somehow see themselves on the same level, or even in the same game, as one of history’s greatest thinkers?
It gets my blood boiling, but the above-referenced article and website are worth the read.
And I have nothing but pity for you for regarding Darwin as any kind of “authority” on genetics or biology. He knew virtually nothing of those sciences at the levels at which his supposed evolution should take place, yet he’s revered as a god by “brilliant thinkers” like you!
Really, who do they think they are?–comparing themselves to someone who managed to bamboozle the entire secular scientific world into buying a “theory” without so much as one corroborating experiment…
Little mouse is still trying to sell his mouse pellets as cheese, I see.
KA…try refuting instead of insulting. That is…if you can…?
Good post JC. Unfortunately closed minds will never agree with your truths…
What Dave’s comments really do is paint everyone into a corner. Anyone who either defends or criticizes Darwin, is somehow not qualified to express their opinion. Typical motus operandi from the “Left”.
Sheesh…!!!
Usually I ignore you, gramps, but hey – if you’d been paying attention w/an open mind, I’ve pretty much pulped him more times than I can count.
How stupid is that sentence? Darwin’s not above criticism (he got a lot of things wrong, but that’s been taken care of), & why anyone defending evolution (or Darwin) wouldn’t be ‘qualified to express their opinion’ is another fairly moronic statement.
But you make a lot of those, which is why I don’t bother w/you anymore.
yes, that dang “evolution ‘theory’”; how dare scientists say it as only as equally scientifically sound as “germ theory” and “gravitational theory”.
Let’s scrap all them dang theories just like the theory that Hitler escaped to South America and spawned Barack Obama.
Quote from jcc: “And I have nothing but pity for you for regarding Darwin as any kind of “authority” on genetics or biology.”
You mean he didn’t have knowledge that hadn’t been discovered yet? Tell me, how much General Relativity do you think Galileo or Newton knew? I guess that means their theories were crap, too. It has nothing to do with “authority” and everything to do with a theory that conforms to the empirical facts of the universe.
No, I mean he made a WAG that wasn’t based on any hard science whatsoever. Sure, he thought that if we could breed a Great Dane from a mutt then we could eventually get a bird from a fish, but somewhere along the way he totally overlooked the fact that no matter how many generations of selective breeding take place, in the end, the Great Dane was still a dog and not an entirely new species.
None, because they weren’t making relativistic predictions—they worked solely in the Newtonian framework of physics.
Wow, you really had to push yourself to arrive at such a stupid conclusion. Here, try to consider this minor detail: Newton and Galileo made empirical observations of the phenomenon they were studying; formulated hypotheses to explain what they observed, then designed experiments to confirm them. Newton’s experiments in optics demonstrated the heterogeneous nature of white light—which laid the ground work for his later work on the wave nature of light. Likewise, Galileo also performed experiments to confirm his hypotheses on acceleration—i.e. his famous Tower of Pisa test. Darwin, on the other hand, did no such thing. He performed not a single experiment to support his biological claims.
WRONG. It has everything to do with “authority;” Newton & Galileo put their money where their mouths were and did the necessary leg-work to support their claims—Darwin didn’t because it couldn’t be done then, and it can’t be done now.
But, at least Darwin had the honesty to admit what has proved to be his “theory’s” undoing:
and this most damning admission:
And the final nail in it’s coffin:
JCC
Do you like be ignorant? Looks like ignorance is a compulsion for you! If the buybull said unequivocally that evolution brought into being all species would you then “believe” it?
No, do you “like be” not proof what you write?
And it looks like what I wrote is either beyond your reading comprehension, or you simply didn’t read it.
Uh, yeah, uh, because at least then there’d be some evidence of it.
JCC
So let me get this straight. If the buybull says so then that is evidence but if Darwin’s writings and the writings of countless other scientists says so then that is not evidence. Could you at least be consistently stupid?
Given that the Bible has proved to be a trustworthy historical text, yes. If evolution was the method by which God created species, then, like supporting archaeological evidences for other Biblical events, there would also be supporting scientific evidence for evolution as well.
Please try to understand what I have written earlier. Just because Darwin and other “scientists” wrote about his guess that evolution must be the mechanism by which speciation occurs cannot be taken as truth until it has been experimentally verified. Darwin himself was keenly aware of this utter failing—hence my citing of his admission of this in his letter to George Bentham in May, 1863. To date, there has yet to be an experiment which has yielded an entirely new, morphologically distinct, species from a progenitor species, thus rendering Darwin’s “theory” scientifically worthless.
Given that we’ve never conversed before, that’s an extremely rude and immature thing to say, especially in light of your own apparent lack of comprehension of the subject.
JCC
You just admitted that you would believe it if it were written in the buybull without supporting evidence rather than written by scientists with supporting by evidence. In short the evidence just does not matter to you. So the answer to my earlier question is yes. You like being ignorant.
Don’t give me that BS that the buybull is historically accurate. Your imaginary friend Jeezuz never even existed.
You’re either incapable of comprehending the words I write, or you simply didn’t read them.
In short, it just doesn’t matter what I say, or how well I say it—because your cognitive/confirmation bias prevents you from even trying to see my point of view.
Not half as much as you like being arrogant, immature and pompous.
Ok, and don’t offer any counter-argument that it isn’t—that’s a real intelligent and adept debate style you got there.
Thanks, in addition to your immature arrogance, you just showed how abjectly ignorant you are.
The crazy person said:
Despite all the hard evidence contrariwise, he holds fast to the hallucination.
Evolution is the method, but nobody’s up there…
Archeology’s no friend of the book of fables. Which makes this statement all the more amusing.
Christlation: “I will refuse to accept anything anyone offers, because my mind is closed & made up.”
JCC
Yeh I knew it. You have a monkey on your back. That explains your dysfunctional clinging to ideas.
Sorry both degrees are are in the physical sciences.
Huh? Uh, what part of “no” don’t you understand?—must be another manifestation of the same cognitive dissonance that prevents you from offering an intelligent, substantiated rebuttal and inhibits whatever sense of civility you might otherwise possess.
You’ve clearly mistaken me for someone else here.
You’re definitely confusing me with someone else here.
Hope your “dissertations” were proofed better than how you write here. And exactly which physical “sciences” would those be?
rice – you’re better off ignoring JCC. He pretends to try to intellectualize the discussion, but disagreements anger him, & he uses personal issues & attacks as a red herring when confronted w/reality.
Many of the great discoveries were not made by scientists. Many were made by ordinary men who had an idea.
The science upon which evolution is now seen as clearly taking place were not available to Darwin. At the time, they were not available to anyone. His work was based on observation, comparisons, and speculation on those observations. At the time they did not even have the plethora of fossil evidence we have today.
It is amusing how JCC and phreedm, whose minds are closed by religious claptrap keep telling everyone else they have closed minds. How such people can function in this century with all the archaic misinformation they carry about is a total mystery.
…and were capable of buttressing that idea with experimental evidence. Neither Darwin nor any other biologist, geneticist, or paleontologist has devised an experiment that has produced an entirely new species as predicted by his “theory”—i.e. “evolution” has yet to be observed under scientifically controlled conditions. Therefore, until it has, it must be regarded merely as a hypothesis at best, and pure bunk at worst.
That implies that it is available now; if so, please direct me to the findings of such experiments that have produced entirely new species as predicted by his “theory.”
But absolutely NO experimental work—like I said, at least Newton and Galileo understood the empirical approach to science and did the necessary leg work. Darwin did nothing.
Please direct me to findings in the fossil record that corroborate Darwin’s “finely-graduated organic chain”—and not the “plethora” of quantum jumps in body plan changes that I’m aware of.
Not half as amusing as how you continue to make such feeble assertions like this—which are easily and handily dispatched with only a modicum of logic and evidence—and yet you continue to come back for more…
If only you could see the irony of your own words.
Troll:
Feeder of Troll:
Ligers & tigons & ursids, oh my! Oh, but wait! Little mouse refuses to accept hybridization because…why? It would render his talking points to ignorant heckles.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Oh wait…little mouse refuses to accept facts from this source…why?
Because it proves him wrong.
Now there’s a finely tuned changing of goalposts. Little mouse insists not on the way it happened, but on the way Darwin was mistaken about it. Darwin didn’t know how hard it was to become a fossil, obviously. Also didn’t realize that many bodies didn’t survive the salty deep that covers 2/3rds of the planet. & archeology & paleontology didn’t even exist back then.
It’s like faulting Newton for not knowing relativity. Or Cicero not taking Polaroids of Julius.
To laugh or weep @ the lack of self-awareness in that statement – which to choose?
So the fact that there are no ancient Egyptian records that mention an exodus of 600,000 slaves from Egypt, or (in fact) 600,000 formerly nomadic slaves, period. And while one might rightfully say that the number could have been exaggerated, and hence simply elided from the official Egyptian record, the fact remains that in the supposed 500 years during which the Hebrews were enslaved by Egypt, no Egyptian records mention them, no archaeological evidence supports the story, no utensils, living quarters, cookpots… nada, zip, nothing. Proves that the bible has proved to be a trustworthy historical text? Grow up1 It’s a fairy tale.
Your link is not set correctly.
for reals, i can’t believe these idiots are still running around. with quotes that usually go something like “the way of the master will teach you how to circumvent your intellect so that they can see that evolution can’t be real because you will never find fossils of a croco-duck and bananas are such a great fit into your hand”
that guy sounds like he spent about half an hour prepping for the debate against the RRS. really? the best they have is a bad ’shop of a crocodile head on a duck body? and a banana…
this is the guy who’s gonna edit DARWIN – who BTW is revered because he put the pieces together BEFORE we knew about DNA, and everything we’ve seen since then shows just how right he was… based on observation of finches.
darwins theory was testable, and was heavily tested since it’s publication. and, as it happens he was right. i mean modern biology is built on darwins foundation laid out in his origin of species. that includes DNA (testing, screening, bioengineering all fall into that)
getting all that right but the beginning wrong is like getting hubble to orbit a flat planet.
i wonder why, if jcc is not an atheist why he’s here, flaming and trolling. (precisely the opposite of turning the other cheek)
@jcc
Darwin is not worshiped as anything. he’s respected for being correct. i wonder if you’re even remotely familiar with evolution, or if you just don’t like the idea because secularists do. why ya gotta hate?
@Krystalline Apostate: mouse? man… you couldn’t have said monkey and banana? that’s more Comforts style. lol
Yeah…about that…I tricked JCC into thinking he’d won an argument when he hadn’t, & now I call him ‘little mouse’ as in ‘cat ‘n mouse’. Before your time (but not much before).
I think people like jcc who post here are trying desperately to validate their dumb beliefs….
does anyone have a link to which universities they are planning to distribute there bullshit…..I want a free copy of Origins of Species and also an opportunity to ridicule the poor saps that are passing them out…
You don’t want that free copy. The lengthy intro from the preacher would surely make some good comedy, but in addition to that they also edited out large sections of Darwin’s writings. Typical.
The only “dumb belief” I’ve found here is the one that has no basis in scientific evidence or corroborating experimental results: evolution.
I thought JCC said he had credentials. Obviously not in science and obviously not in the biology fields.
Darwin did not originate the concept of evolution but helped to proffer it. His publication of the Origin of Species was only made by a hasty decision due to the information that others were getting ready to publish.
Since then other scientists have added to the work, correcting some areas, adding to others. The “theory” of evolution has passed the test of time and now is accepted as fact. There is no belief involved.
Meanwhile let’s label the bible and other religious tomes properly: Exercises in ignorance and fantasy.
Your infantile denial of them will never alter the fact that I do.
Here, for the record AGAIN: I hold a Bachelor of SCIENCE in GEOLOGY; and a Master of SCIENCE in Computer SCIENCE.
The fact that you’re clueless as to how much of the biological sciences are required in the discipline of Geology further illustrates your own ignorance.
Yeah, never mind the FACT that he intentionally held off on publishing it for nearly twenty years for fear of an overwhelming rejection of it by the public… So, given all its failings and utter lack of scientific verification, do you suppose he published too soon?
Only by individuals dispossessed of any proper understanding of what constitutes an actual scientific theory.
There is only belief involved… and your own inability to substantiate that belief beautifully exemplifies it.
Given that every one of your assertions are easily dismantled even with the slightest application of reason, why do you continue to stick your neck out only to have your head handed back to you?
Pure comedy gold. How schizophrenic & how denialist does a person need to be to constantly concern trolling a blog that’s 100% antithetical to one’s own ideals? Despite the constant defeats suffered @ the hands of others? Despite all evidence to the contrary?
We probably should declare Formosa’s law, & leave the little mouse to gnaw away @ himself.
JCC’s logic and reasoning are so skewed that I feel it is pointless to keep pointing out his fallacies. Comedy gold, more like pathetic bantering.
jcc=je-zeus christ cretin
Banana Brain said they passed them out yesterday:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2009/November/Darwin-New-Edition-Book-Features-Christian-Intro/
what a dolt….this is why the rest of western civilization is laughing at the US….
I highly doubt anyone will read the thing anyway. It just gives these joke some publicity.
I don’t understand all the outrage. Not too long ago there was an entire chain about what you all do with the Bible, specifically ones found in hotel rooms. There was talk of ripping out certain passages (specifically Leviticus), tossing them out of the room, highlighting the seeming contradictions, replacing it with atheist literature, etc. You all praised each other for that and for your creativity in ridding the hotel rooms of Bibles.
And yet, I doubt any (or at least the majority) of you are Biblical scholars; How are you any different than Comfort and Cameron?
Actually, being atheists, the majority here no doubt know more about the bible than both Comfort and Cameron.
As evidenced by your posts here, you clearly know less about the Bible than you do of science.
Was the bible written by biblical scholars? Common sense tells us that there were no biblical scholars around until after the bible. The men who wrote the bible were generally uneducated. What is more interesting is that some of the writers of the new testament seem to show that they do not actually know the old law in full. For instance it is suggested in Acts that no commandment for circumcision was given, when in fact, God commands it in genesis.
My point is simply that while we may not be on-par with biblical scholars, we know plenty more than the authors of the bible and can at least stand on equal footing with the likes of fishermen and tax collectors.
Also, if you’re merely highlight bibles, then you’re not doing anything to add or subtract from the message within it’s pages. You’re merely point out the poison. The Dogmatic Duo here has specifically added lies and misinformation in an effort to distort the message of that text. There is a big difference between the two.
Additionally, the Origin of Species makes no claims to inerrancy. That means that the book DOES contain errors that have been corrected by researchers since then. The bible on the other hand cannot be corrected, added to, or have anything subtracted from it because it is the perfect word of God. When Darwin is corrected, the theory of evolution is added to and strengthened. When the bible is corrected, it dissolves.
Well said, Nathaniel!
Tinker
How are we different than Comfort and gang? If you are asking this question with respect to the defacing of books then the answer is simple. We are different because we would only deface books that are total nonsense and sold as being otherwise. Got it?
I did attend College, did not finish. I did study Biology and zoology. If you knew geology as you claim then you wouldn’t be the resident troll here, you’d be an American Atheist’s member.
So, it seems we got a case of diploma envy here…
Oh wow, yet more low hanging fruit… So, according to you, intellect—specifically, “scientific” intellect is formulaic: if one is aware of certain “facts,” then one must concur with the consensus interpretation of them… Yep, you American Atheists members are real “free” thinkers all right.
JCC
I’ll see your BS and MS and raise you two PhDs in the sciences. You have no clue what it is that you arguing about, do you? All you know is that your christian evangelical support structure requires you to deny evolution to remain a member in good standing.
BTW you write and argue like an ex-drug addict. Alcohol. Right?
Lemme guess, in the social “sciences”…
Yep, given that I’ve been the only one in this conversation who’s made any attempt at substantiating his claims, uh, yeah—you’re right—I am clueless and you’re the “king” of rational debate.
And, apparently, all you can do is spew the same old hackneyed, typically liberal, anti-Christian ad hominem garbage without a single attempt at backing-up your assertions with any semblance of fact.
Cute. And the way you write is a clear indication that those “PhD’s” (which, in your case stands for “Piled Higher and Deeper”) must be in the rigorously “scientific” fields like “Women’s Studies,” or “Multiculturalism.”
I was right about the alcohol problem wasn’t I?
No.
And I must have been right about the “Women’s Studies” and “Multiculturalism” degrees…
Crockaduck = Anatosuchus minor. Seems like a crock with a duck bill. This means that by Hasbeen-Boy’s own criteria, evolution has been proved true!
For those who claim evolution is false, I want them to tell me why they think the “theory” has survived academic scrutiny for so long and why the almost the entire sane scientific community accept it. You can claim it’s false all you want, I want to know why so many think its true.
You see, we can tell why you think God exists and why you think your religion is “true”. It is simply because the nature of your religion (and almost any religion for that matter) is that it is designed to break down your self-esteem and then build it back up again with the religion as the main support. In other words, you a taught that you are nothing without the religion. Any perceived attack on your religion then becomes an attack on you. You have personal and emotional investment in your religion being true. We have no such investment in science. In fact, we are constantly trying to prove others and ourselves wrong. When we are able to completely change what we previously thought of the world, it is called a “breakthrough” and it is applauded. Historically, people who suggested that something was not as the bible said it was were killed. Which group is more intellectually honest?
On another note, Bananaman and Hasbeen-Boy did inspire me to start Devil’s Highlighter, so I’ve got to them to thank for that. As I’ve said before, it’s a movement where we highlight bibles and distribute “recommended reading” cards to increase awareness of the poison in the bible. I personally think that the efforts of this Dogmatic Duo will backfire. I doubt it will have significant impact. At best, their book will be a humorous collector’s item in the future when we can look back and cuckle “haha, humanity used to actually be this stupid!” As for Devil’s Highlighter, I’ve been having so much fun with my biblical research that I’m actually thankful that they inspired it.
“Crockaduck = Anatosuchus minor. Seems like a crock with a duck bill. This means that by Hasbeen-Boy’s own criteria, evolution has been proved true!”
How does that prove evolution? Did Crocodiles evolve into ducks? That’s ridiculous. And by the way, many many scholars in Biology do not believe evolution to be true. You should check out Michael Behe, he totally disproves naturalistic evolution.
“We have no such investment in science.”
That’s just plain false. Have you ever seen the movie Expelled? Guillermo Gonzolas, an extremely qualified physicist was fired for believing in Intelligent Design, and he’s not the only one. So your statement is flat out wrong.
“Historically, people who suggested that something was not as the bible said it was were killed. Which group is more intellectually honest?”
Okay, let’s see, the Spanish Inquisition, which was the worst of the Inquisistions, killed a total of 2,000 people in a span of 300 YEARS! Thats 5 people a year.The Salem Witch Trials killed 18. While i despise the fact that “Christians” would kill people, let’s have a look at atheists. Let’s see, Joseph Stalin comes to mind, Adolph Hitler comes to mind, Mao Sung Il comes to mind, Pau Put comes to mind, as well. These people over a span of 50 years killed over 100 MILLION people in the name of Atheism. Anyway, thanks for bringing that up so we could compare.
That’s Cameron’s claim – it’s a famous 1. You’d know that if you actually did any research @ all, instead of shooting your mouth off about things you know nothing about.
LMAO! Yeah, all seven of them.
ROFLMAO! Are you kidding? That’s been debunked a LONG time ago.
Ben Stein’s a hack, & a moron too.
That’s a fucking lie, & you’d know better, if you didn’t take all your info off a stupid movie.
Look up the Goan Inquisition. Upwards of 7 million people. Crusades, etc.
Adolph Hitler was NOT.AN.ATHEIST. you retard. But hey, you watch 1 movie, you’re an expert, right. WRONG. Read Mein Kampf some time. Or hey – why did the Nazis issue belt buckles that said ‘Gott mit uns’ (God is with us)?
Gimmee a break here. How old are you, about 12? You know that Stalin brought the church back 41-43, right? Besides, atheism (lowercase A) isn’t a religion (which you’d know, if you actually did some homework), & those people were slaughtered in the name of politics, not atheism.
Congratulations, joel, you are about the millionth fuckwit to come & blather @ us w/absolutely NOTHING new that we haven’t heard before. Your prize? A great big raspberry. THWWWWWWWWWWWWPPPP!
I think that as long as they call it “Darwinism” and focus on Charles Darwin, instead of the current knowledge and science of evolutionary change, they’re just giving themselves away as hucksters.
Whenever a creationist focuses on Charles Darwin and what he wrote and reported, I always say “He sailed all over the place and wrote down what he found. When are you doing to focus on biological change over time, as we now know it? Darwin died. Leave him alone.”
Plus I can’t believe so many people think that life doesn’t change. I’m SO glad that humans evolve too!
I find evolution extremely interesting, especially naturalistic evolutionists. I don’t understand how atheists can actually believe that non-living molecules became living molecules and then eventually evolved into humans. It’s baffelling to the mind. Not only does the THEORY of evolution break the law of biogenesis (stating that life can’t come from non-life, only life comes from live) but also that there is no naturalistic explanation for macroevolution. If macroevolution is true, then why are there no transitional fossils? And how could reptiles evolve into birds when their lungs are COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE. The transition between reptiles and birds wouldn’t be able to breathe and would die. Reptiles lungs are sacs, birds have different lungs. Let’s talk about the LAW of Biogenesis. For naturalistic evolution to be true it MUST break the LAW of Biogenesis. No life can come from non-life. It complete common sense. I don’t understand how you could think the LAW of Biogenesis can be broken by the THEORY of evolution. I would love to find out how an atheist could demonstrate non-life becoming life and then evolving. By the way, “chance” isn’t a real thing. “Chance” has no power to do anything, it’s just a word. So “chance” can’t be used when talking about evolution because it has no explanatory power. Think about flipping a coin, what is the “chance” that it will land heads? 50/50, right? But does “chance” determine or even help the coin to land heads? Of course not. Evolution is a theory, and an extremely poor one.
I too find evolution very interesting and it’s very simple to understand as well.
Parents pass on traits to their offspring. Triats that are benificial tend to result in those offspring having more offspring which then pass on their benificial traits, etc… New traits come up randomly, but there is not random selection. Natural selection isn’t random, mutation is. That’s how this stuff happens.
Check out wikipedia’s article on transitional fossils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
You’ve got more than enough info from that short little look to refute quite a bit of what you’ve just said. Also, the law of biogenesis is merely a law that prevents people from thinking that rats are the product of dirty rags and that turtles are what you get when a stone is under water long enough.
Additionally, abiogenesis is independant of evolution. You shouldn’t confuse the two. Evolution explains how existing life adapts and changes over time. Abiogenesis attempts to explain how life might have arisen from non-life. They are two completely seperate theories.
The law of biogenesis is universally applied to all things. Just like the law of gravity. To say that the law of gravity was used just so people wouldn’t think cars would fly is as ridiculous as what you just said. You can’t break a natural law in order to make evolution true. And mutation never changes a species. All it does is distort the already present cells and DNA, it doesn’t add anything to it. You can’t show any examples of one species actually evolving into another, you base your assumption on faith. Actually, all science is based upon faith. You have faith that the universe is rationally understandable and then you base your scientific theories on that rationality. Evolution is a naturalistic theory on how we became humans, but it’s extremely fallacious. Let’s look at a quote from Larry Hatfield in Science Digest. “Scientist who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversies…Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.” If you assume neo-Darwinism then we are products of our genes and you’re saying that the dramatic difference between a chimp and a human are due to two percent of our genes. The problem is that the body-building genes are in the ninety-eight percent. The two percent of genes that are different are rather trivial and little to do with anatomy. So the supposed similarity between chimps and human DNA is a problem for new-Darwinism. You saying chimps turned into humans is like me saying the sidewalk evolved into the street. There isn’t any fossil evidence of this change, you just assume evolution so you say it must be true. Well, give me examples of why it is true. When Darwin looked under a microscope at a cell all he could see was what looked like a glob of jello with a dark spot as the nucleus. But in fact, the cell is one of the most complex things in our universe. And it’s irreducibly complex. The bacterial flagellum also cries out design. it is the most efficient motor we could every think of. A flagellum is the size of a couple of microns (1/20,000 of an inch)with most of it’s length being it’s propellor. The motor itself is 1/100,000th of an inch. Even with all of our technology we can’t make something like this. Another thing i find detrimental to the evolutionary theory is the Cambrian explosion. You have some jellyfish, sponges, and worms before the Cambrian explosion 540 million years ago. Then at the beginning of the Cambrian explosion all of the sudden you have arthropods, echinoderns, chordates, vertebrates, and so forth. This is absolutely contradictory to Darwins tree of life. These animals which are fundamentally different in their body plans appear fully developed without any gradual change. The fossil record itself shows to fallacy of Darwinian evolution.
Geez, you got all that blather from 1 movie? How many times you see it? 12, 13? Or are you some wandering teeny-bopper that got his hands on that stupid AIG site? Look up the word, ‘theory’. Also, abiogenesis doesn’t make or break the ToE. & no, birds’ & reptiles’ lungs are NOT completely incompatible, otherwise they’d not both breathe oxygen. Evolution is the categorization & observation, & then induction & deduction, of how life got to where it’s at, not about how it started.
For the list of evidence that completely deflates that entire spurious bit of folderol, click here.
Natural selection isn’t about ‘chance’. “Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators” – Dawkins.
That comment shows what a lightweight thinker you are. There’s multiple variables involved: how hard the coin is flipped, windage, sweat on the coin, how high it’s flipped, etc. Basic reliance on laws of locality.
There, fixed that for ya.
(He said, taking another hit off his bong)
birds’ & reptiles’ lungs are NOT completely incompatible, otherwise they’d not both breathe oxygen.
They are functionally incompatible! That’s like saying because both a lizard and a human breathe oxygen that a lizard could survive with human lungs. It doesn’t matter if they both breathe oxygen, they’re functionally incompatible.
“That comment shows what a lightweight thinker you are. There’s multiple variables involved: how hard the coin is flipped, windage, sweat on the coin, how high it’s flipped, etc. Basic reliance on laws of locality.”
yeah, and those variables aren’t present in the theory of evolution. You can’t examine something evolving so there isn’t any tangible evidence, it’s a theory based a naturalistic assumption and faith.
“god has no power to do anything, it’s just a word.”
You think that because you assume naturalism. But naturalism can’t account for so many things it becomes fallacious. Naturalism says that the entire universe came by nothing and from nothing. Naturalism also says that life came from non-life, which again, goes against the Law of Biogenesis. Naturalism is just a word that doesn’t provide any evidence to reality.
“(He said, taking another hit off his bong)”
And of course you have to throw that in to try to discredit a valid argument. It has nothing to do with anything, it’s just a shot at my moral character, another thing Naturalism can’t account for.
You’re the one following a theory based on blind faith. Have you ever studied a cell? You should talk to a micro-biologist and ask him about the complexities inside one of the smallest things in our universe and how the cilia and flagellum function better than any of our intelligently designed machines. If it takes intelligence to make a computer it sure as heck takes intellenge to make a flagellum.
Prove it, don’t say it.
Of course they’re not – we’re talking about coin tosses.
More lies. Here’s a link – http://www.talkorigins.org/ – if you’re actually interested in verifying anything @ all.
That’s like saying science can’t account for so many things it’s fallacious. How stupid.
Nobody says that, that’s a common creationist lie.
So, who exactly says that? You know that Huxley, evolutionist & agnostic, coined the term? Of course you don’t.
Naturalism: The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
No, I’ll have to say that it does a better job than your superstitious tripe.
Joel, I don’t have to do anything to discredit your argument – it’s invalid, it’s pathetic, & you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Hey, sorry, usually it’s a stoner that comes up parroting that nonsense. Are you saying stoners are immoral? I’m not.
Oh please – what, another supernaturalist who claims their morals come from some unprovable divine source. What a plotz.
& out spring the tu quoque. No I’m not. There’s mountains of forensic evidence.
Who is likely, 9 outta 10 times, an evolutionist.
Better yet, I’ll direct you to an index of creationist claims – please (I’m saying it nicely here), go educate yourself on the topic.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Again – broken analogy, machines can’t be compared to living things.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about (or misapplication of) the word ‘theory’ in this blog. There are (at least) two definitions of the word, the one in popular misuse by the masses and the one used, in a very specialized sense, by scientists.
When a scientist uses the term ‘theory’ he/she does not mean to suggest there may be something wrong or inherently suspicious about the theory they are advancing, as in the commonly misapplied cliche, ‘it’s only a theory.’ In using the term a scientist is merely promulgating a model for inspection and peer review. Over time a model may gain stature, such as the theory of gravity or the Theory of Relativity. Many are confused by this. Why, they think, if it’s established fact is it still called a theory? This isn’t a legitimate question but a confusion about what the term means in the first place. I can assure you all that scientists labor under no such confusion.
Charlie, I couldn’t agree more. I encountered this with my brother. He and I were so close; we had a deep admiration for each other. Subsequently, my enlightenment threatened his belief, and during the last three years of his life he would try to spurn theistic debate with me, which often ended in an agreement to disagree. We simply loved each other too much to allow anger to taint our relationship.
Now that he is gone, I ponder our religious exchanges and his almost desperate need to sway me back. I understand my brother’s motivation by reading the vestigial arguments of JCC and company, whom I think add character to our blog, and can only hope, as with my brother, that they too will discard archaic beliefs and enjoy the quality of life in the now.
And KA-please don’t knock the bong. I do so love it on a Saturday morn:)
what else can it be….I mean I come here to exchange ideas with like minded people and to also vent and try to escape from religious absurdities and what do I find….jcc believing scripture….
I dont have to validate my crazy beliefs like: no talking snakes, no virgin births and no super natural suspension of the laws of nature, by going to a jesus freak blog…
I cant dialogue with these completely unbelievable claims of hocus pocus anymore….I can only ridicule….
I think you do have to validate your beliefs. You believe that the universe popped into existence out of nothing. That is far more absurd then the Creator of the Universe impregnating a virgin. Even modern medical doctors can impregnate virgins. If there is a God, which i hold to the strong fact that there is, then how would miracles be impossible or even improbable? The only reason you find them upsurd is because you assume a Naturalistic outlook on life. But even you reasoning that miracles are impossible is detrimental to naturalism because naturalism can’t account for reason. You just say that claims of Christianity are false, but does you saying that make them false? Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? I understand your frustration, i really do. I would be completely frusterated if people talked about miracles if i didn’t believe in God. But you have to examine all of the evidence and decide whether there is a God. I’m not saying this about you personally, but i find that so many people just close their minds to the evidence about God and presuppose naturalism without any basis in scientific evidence. I would really like someone to give me examples of why naturalism is true and why God does not exist. And i’m sorry if i’ve sounded rude or inconsiderate, i really do value your beliefs and i’m just trying to set the record straight, that you can believe in God based on science and you can believe that Jesus rose from the dead based on the historical evidence. If you would like to know any more of my evidences please ask and i’ll be happy to share.
To repeat: NOBODY SAYS THAT.
Oh wait – your side that says that.
Because
A. The very definition of miracle is A miracle is a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can be attempted to be explained by divine intervention
B. Again, everything has a logical, non-supernatural explanation, &
C. People can’t be trusted on the topic.
There you have it: Joel (& others of his ilk) think we just arbitrarily decide this based on convenience. There’s just no way that anyone could make an informed decision, it’s just GOTTA be so we can party all night long & do what we want. How insulting. How utterly intellectually wanting. How illogical.
No you’re not. The obvious tone of all your posts is condescending, & witless.
Atheism is the lack of belief.
No you’re not, you’re trying to school us. Not only are you bad @ it, you’re insulting too.
HAHAHAHA! Yeah, can’t replicate gawd in a lab. Can’t even get him to talk to everybody en masse. Why? Nobody up there, that’s why.
There, fixed another 1 for ya.
Jury’s in: gawd is out. Go bother some Mormons or Muslims or something. @ least they believe in fairies too.
Cry for turtles, I loved your post and Charlie, I completely understand.
People like jcc and phreedum are not stupid, there afraid. So much of their identity is wrapped in the idea that the supreme father or mother holds daily communion with them. The answers to all their quests are simply and succinctly laid out in the pages of their magic book.
that they will be rewarded in the great hear after for bowing knee and vilifying mind.
It is said that fear created the gods, this might be true, but I know for a fact that fear nourishes them.
I am now of the belief that by trying to convince people like them of the futility of talking to the sky, we in fact activate that part of their brains defense best commented upon by the poet who said “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” and hence our words are only good for the edification of the searcher who stumbles into this parlor.
All i am hearing is rhetoric. Where are some of your examples that prove God is a delusion?
God is Good, except for:
Genesis 6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air
Stupid Religion
1.There are no verifiable events of miracles.
2.The efficacy of prayer is the same or less than a placebo.
3.If god is perfect how did a perfect being make such a defective product? If he created everything, and god is perfect, how did anything ever become corrupted?
4.Why destroy all of humanity in a great flood, then allow it to proliferate afterwards with all imperfections intact?
5.If god knows everything, then there is no free will, as all things are set and can never change.
6.Gods were created by man, man was not created by gods.
The God that the average Christians “thinks” exists is also a farce. If you read the bible cover to cover, you find countless examples of a god that is not all knowing, all powerful and all loving. You find a god that is malicious, cruel, jealous, vindictive, and downright evil. After reading the bible cover to cover, I came to the only logical conclusion an intelligent mind can come to after doing so.
Either:
1. God does not exist and was invented by men.
2. God exists and he is evil.
Either way, I choose not to believe in God and whether he exists or not, I oppose him and his “teachings” because he has proven himself to be evil. That’s one of the many things I try to point on on my own blog. All the proof you need is in your own holy book, read it.
That’s the big difference between us. You are trying to “defend” your beliefs by attacking us while we are trying to educate you, not attack you. Although you perceive an attack all the same because you do not realize that you are not your religion, but that your religion is something you possess (making a challenge to your religion be percieved as an attack on you). If your beliefs were sound they wouldn’t need defending. In fact, your god is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing. One would imagine that with such perfect knowledge and power he would have invented a bulletproof religion and no science would ever be able to discredit it. On the other hand, if our “knowledge” is discredited, we just learned something new, so we welcome such debates. Our entire belief system does not crumble to dust when a single point of it is proven to be false. The theory is modified and we move on to the next point.
To be honest, I’m being pretty abrasive to Joel. Mostly due to
A. the way he began his ‘dialogues’ here, &
B. his fairly weak method of packing piles of ‘info’ into each post.
He’s rude, & he doesn’t listen well. I’m rude, but I pay close attention to detail, & analyze.
I love Carl Sagan…..this is the best explanation which to understand our origins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE9dEAx5Sgw
suck it bible
Ahhh yes, the ol’ Sagan Cosmos navel-gazing sermon–
short onbereft of facts, long on didactic, humanism preaching… I remember buying it hook-line-and-sinker when I was young skull full of mush.JCC
Why do you visit this blog? You have already admitted that if an assertion is made in the buybull you will believe it despite evidence to the contrary. So given that you simply do not care about facts then what are you doing here? We do care!
My wife and her three siblings were raised in a family with a father much like you. His persistent denial of facts and well tested theory in favour of bald assertion and untestable hypotheses – all dispensed in the same preachy style that you dispense your’s – have caused them to lose all respect for her father. That’s a shame and it his doing entirely. That is your fate.
Old mush-skull fancies hisself a fisher of men, dontcha know?
rice:
To tweak people like you.
Uh no, my exact words were:
which is not “believing an assertion despite evidence to the contrary.” It really would behoove you to at least try to understand what I write before you deliberately mischaracterize it.
Uh, as I just demonstrated, it ain’t me who doesn’t “care about facts” here.
Again, tweaking people like you.
…just not about facts…
Really? You were able to ascertain that similarity after exchanging all of six posts?—despite the fact that you’ve falsely accused me of being an alcoholic and you’re either incapable of understanding my responses to your questions or simply disregard them?
Excuse me, but you’re the one who continues to deny the fact that I am not an “alcoholic.” And, which “well tested” theory are you referring to?
Me?—“preachy?”
So, you have as much respect for me as I do for you…
JCC
You have presented no facts that could challenge the predictive power of evolution nor have you presented an alternate theory with greater predictive power. Meanwhile evolution persists as the model with greatest predictive power. Strangely you are blind to this bottom line. Did you miss grade school when your teachers explained to you what the key ingredients of a scientific theory are? I doubt it. I think, as I stated earlier, that your anti-evolution stance is simply a requirement of those who wish to be considered a member in good standing within your theism-centric support structure. You simply lack the courage needed to venture outside that support structure.
Nobody here, especially me, needs or wants your respect. You, however, are desperately sneaking something from the atheists on this blog. Your desperation is – colossal understatement alert – a bit pathetic.
Huh? Let’s see: Darwin’s “theory” predicts a “finely-graduated organic chain” in the fossil record. Reality: no such luck—new species only appear in the record fully formed—there is no “finely graduated chain” between scales and feathers; only the sudden appearance of fully formed feathers. And if Darwin’s theory has “predictive power” then by definition it could be verified by controlled experiment. Reality: to date, no controlled experiment has yielded an entirely new, morphologically distinct species.
Hogwash. Evolution, as a “predictive tool,” is a demonstrable, dismal failure.
Sorry pal, but I ain’t the blind one here.
More cuteness. Really, we hardly know each other, yet you cannot contain your premeditated (pre-indoctrinated) contempt, not for my ideas, but for me personally—that’s real mature of you.
And like so in many other ways, you think wrong.
You’re one to talk. Until you grow a pair and admit that Darwinism hasn’t met expectations, you’d do well not to accuse others of the cowardice that you suffer from.
Not a problem: you’ve done nothing to earn my respect.
And what would that be?—willingness to face the truth?
Still waiting to hear which of the “physical ‘sciences’” these supposed Ph.Ds are in….
I addressed this in an earlier post, but I may as well have been addressing a brick wall.
Christlation: “Duck hasn’t become a monkey, my delusion holds.”
There, fixed THAT for ya.
Still not talking to me, little mouse? Ah well, sour grapes is so attractive on you.
Darwin in battle of wits with unarmed man. Pure gold.
At times on this blog it seems I am in a battle of wits with two unarmed trolls.
dw
All the facts in the world won’t change insecure minds.It boggles the mind that a hundred yrs after many christians including clergy said nothing wrong with evolution theory this debate is still in play.I understand this crowd not trusting our word but their fellow christians,my goodness.
These two hucksters are counting on 2 things. 1 many people not understanding that a theory is open to change or rejection as new evidence is discovered.2 evolution doesn’t contradict the bible jewish or christian or the koran because it is not about how life began but how it evolved.
What we are seeing by these two is niche marketing.
It does anger/saddened me to see these huckster taking advantage of fearful people.We have so many problems that can be solved in this country but won’t because of greedy scamps like these two. They should go work on wall street they would fit right in.
this is interesting to know from wikia noting that our currrent GDP is at about 14.5 T and the Total US Debt at about 80 T….
In recent years, the primary economic concerns have centered on: high household debt ($14 trillion) including $2.5 trillion in consumer debt,[18] high national debt ($9 trillion), high corporate debt ($9 trillion), high mortgage debt (over $10 trillion as of 2005 year-end), high unfunded Medicare liability ($30 trillion), high unfunded Social Security liability ($12 trillion), high external debt (amount owed to foreign lenders), high trade deficits, and a serious deterioration in the United States net international investment position (NIIP) (-24% of GDP).[19] In 2006, the U.S economy had its lowest saving rate since 1933.[20] These issues have raised concerns among economists and national politicians.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#After_the_Great_Depression
it gets a tad bit uglier when considering 2/3 rds of GDP is just consumer spending….
The south has been treated like a colony by Wall street for far too long.And i bet new england,midwest,northwest wouldn’t mind joining Canada.The southwest is lost to mexico already.The big shots on wall street and k street don’t give a damn about the rest of us and they control the USA.They didn’t object to break up of USSR so what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
All I want to know is why we have some people trolling this blog right now with their clear ignorance to everything evolution and science.
I find myself increasingly hating religion because I’m sick of the evils it commits against intelligence, rationality, and critical thought. You know, everything that makes us human and separates us from other animals?
They troll out of deep frustration, social resentment and a need to hear themselves talk.
I despise religion yet I have NEVER trolled a Christian site.
IMO, trolling is an aggressive stance flowing from a mish-mash of emotions caused by the inability to reconcile wishful thinking with reality; the inability to “convince” others or yourself.
Even if the scientific and philosophical evidence were presented to them in a form they could understand, they would rebel at the evidence because their religious belief is so essential to their psychological well-being that they could not abandon it.
Just a thought…;-)
Trolls are what my father always referred to as $h!t-disturbers. They just come in to cause trouble simply to cause trouble… or perhaps for attention. They are, however, useful. As you can see, this post has quite a few comments on it, each commenter is interested in not only the topic of the post, but also the contents of the comments. Both they and the trolls continue coming back for this conversation, increasing the views this page gets. Basically, opposing views encourage discussion and trolls are pretty good at stirring up discussion. You can’t have a social group without discussion.
They’re also good for sharpening your teeth on. We are told not to feed trolls, but eating them alive can be fun. Through trolls, we learn the common arguments posited by their side and we learn to develop rebuttals to those common arguments. They’re sort-of like a fundie vaccine. They’re the irradiated and half brain-dead version of a biblical scholar. They cause similar symptoms and responses, but they just aren’t nearly as virulent and through them we gain partial immunity to the well educated fundies (and yes, I realize that educated fundie is an oxymoron).
Personally, I wouldn’t mind a few trolls on my own sites. Everyone else might be annoyed, but I really have a lot of fun with them. Trolls are a sign that what you’re saying is bold enough to make a difference. The fact that this site has trolls, is a testament to it, not a detriment.
I found a wonderful children’s book on Darwin: “One beetle too many : the extraordinary adventures of Charles Darwin”. I plan to purchase it for my school library since the biography collection has zero titles on Darwin.
Books on creationism are cataloged in the 200s: Religion and Mythology.
200 = Religion, and within that category, 213 = Creation.
500 = Science, and some sub-categories of interest are 570 = Life sciences; biology, and 576 = Genetics & evolution.
I’m just sayin’…
it doesnt seem to matter how many fossils you throw at them…their dumb ideas just cant stand on there own….
I ridicule religion when ever its in my public view….and people like banana brain and the washed up child actor make easier to do so….
here’s the banana head making it easy….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvQR4VbkWag
Has anyone noticed a pattern?
Whenever new xtians show up & start throwing their empty weight about, JCC (AKA the little mouse) falls silent. Once the newbies stop or vanish, he comes right back. & strangely, the newbies never come back.
It all seems oddly orchestrated…or is that my paranoia acting up again?
I’ve read about three blogs and the comments that go with it and I’m so sick of JCC’s bullshit that my head feels about to explode. I’m really glad he’s so gung-ho for what be believes in and so fond of the phrase “cognitive dissonance,” but seriously, the guy needs to find a group of friends to hang out with. He’s gonna have a heart attack getting all riled up like that.
Maybe he could volunteer at a soup kitchen or something. Mentor a troubled teen. Go on a missions trip. Do something with his faith besides bug people he’s not going to convince by his COMPLETE AND TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE. A website, a book title, a link to a study, an article in a scholarly journal. Anything.
However…I must say, I’ve not carefully read through every last thing he (and his fellow trolls) have said. I skimmed enough to get the general idea, my patience with name calling immaturity came to an end and I just couldn’t read anymore.
Hope everyone has a great day. Don’t let these trolls get you down too much. Darwin wrote a freaking book that is still being read 150 years later. What have they done lately?
Judging by the condition of your blog, I’d say it already has.
I used the phrase exactly once.
Sorta like the way your “head feels about to explode?”
Sorry to rain on your parade, but all the literature you could possibly want to expose your lack of evidence is just a button click away.
That’s a common shortcoming of atheists here.
You said it!
…that didn’t reference a single experiment that he performed to verify his so-called “theory.”
…by gullible, junk-science addicts whose worldview fetters their common sense.
Tons of stuff.