Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Prayer vs. Science
Your choice on May 3rd: participate in National Prayer Day, or actually do some good by donating blood.
I can't donate any longer - have spent too much time in the UK. But I have donated over 5 gallons of blood in my lifetime (I used to go every two months). It can be annoying, but unlike annoying prayer coming from the "we're more holy than thou" types, it actually makes a difference in someone's life - frequently in several people's lives.
(Via MeFi.)
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Why can't you give blood?
Jim
As a reader from the UK I was interested to know why you can't give blood after having "spent too much time in the UK"?
Is there something in the air here? :)
Red Cross guidelines.
Oh, it's paranoia about CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease). If you've been in the UK for a total of like 12 weeks from 1980 on, you're disqualified.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
seriously?
Are y'all being obtuse on purpose, or do you really not get the connection between belief in God and giving? It's cool if you want to dance around the facts, but you should at least be trying to change the subject instead of blatantly distorting the facts.
And off topic, a friend told me this argument this weekend...let me know what you think of it: if you knew me and not my wife, and you heard me discuss the details of my relationship with my wife, and in all other ways you knew me as a lucid individual, what would be the difference between you questioning the existence of my wife and you questioning the existence of God with the same circumstances? My thoughts are that athiests have trouble with God telling them what to do, and not necessarily with his existence, but I am presuming. What say you??
Being obtuse
" ... athiests have trouble with God telling them what to do."
It's a common belief that atheists hate God. Or maybe have some sort of problem with God's authority.
And ... I could explain why both of those ideas are not quite the case – at least with this one atheist. I could explain about my misgivings with the "connection between belief in God and giving."
Instead, right here in this moment, I heave a bit of a sigh. Your two paragraphs of comment will take an hour or two of writing for me to respond to. Yet ... typically, when I devote this kind of time to such a response, I find that the person asking was not asking in good faith. It's more common than not that someone asking such a question actually doesn't want to hear the answer. What they WANT is to quash the arrogant misguided atheists, and sit back to rest content in their deep faith.
If you'd do me the slight favor of reading THIS, and then let me know what you think about it, I'd be more willing to talk about this other stuff. Seriously.
...
Just on your wife question, though, the short answer is:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I've met a wife before. Probably hundreds, perhaps even thousands of them. In person. In the flesh. Wives are so common and mundane, I wouldn't even bother to question the fact of your wife's existence.
Just two days ago, I met a woman at my writer’s group who in all other ways seemed lucid, but proceeded to tell us all about her experiences with detecting and communicating with the dead. She also mentioned her husband sometime during the night.
Would you automatically believe her about the husband? I did. Would you automatically believe her about feeling, seeing and talking to ghosts? I didn’t.
Why? Because one is so common and usual and inconsequential that it wasn’t even worth verifying. Because the other is so extraordinary, so unbelievable, so contrary to all physical laws as I know them, that I’d have to see these ghosts for myself AND have a crack team of scientists, investigators and maybe even a stage magician along, before I’d accept it.
I’ve met people who seemed lucid in all other ways, but who were convinced they were going to win millions in the lottery, were irresistible to women, or could beat the cops in a race on the freeway.
Seeming lucidity doesn’t guarantee veracity, especially when we seemingly lucid humans get out into the domain of the fantastic, where our common everyday truth-meters don’t work very well. People can lie. People can be deluded. People can believe and repeat lies or mistaken statements other people tell them.
Most distressing of all, people can be lucid, honest, good-hearted, trustworthy, and still be flat-out, dangerously wrong. By no means do I think all Conservative Republicans are insane or evil, but here we are in Iraq ... and somebody’s real, actual son died today, for no good reason, because of it.
...
Dang it. I went on at length, where I intended to go to bed instead. I’m really hoping your response is something other than “But you still didn’t address the connection between believing in God and giving.”
No, that's not right...
Hank Fox wrote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
No it doesn't. That is a piece of "conventional wisdom" that needs to die a quick, violent and painful death.
The problem is the subjectivity of the evidence. As your fellow atheist Richard Carrier once noted if God wanted everyone to believe in Him, He should have written "Jesus is Lord" in block letters on the surface of the moon. To which a Christian replied "But there would still be people who would deny Him because they say He should have wrote in cursive."
The fact is that a person's presuppositions strongly affect how and to what degree the "extraordinariness of the evidence" criteria is applied.
A much fairer method is to examine what evidence is given and, by applying common historiographic methods that can be used on any event that occurs in time and space, measure said evidence by a high but uniform standard.
And that is the point most atheists miss when debating the Bible. The Bible reports to be a record of the interaction of God with humanity. In numerous places the Book claims evidence was left behind of the interaction. Some of this evidence is lost to us through the passage of time, but not all of it. We should examine it carefully (remembering Aristotle's first rule for literary criticism - assume the writer is telling the truth until the evidence refutes him). The evidence lost to us we can still examine the way it was examined by the original writers for clues as to its trustworthiness.
This is what the Bible asks in the first place; the word most often translated as "faith" in the NT is "pistis", a Greek word used by Aristotle that is transliterated as "forensic proof" (as a noun) and "trust based on prior reliability or evidence" (as a verb). The Bible says "A event occured, and the reason it happened (we conclude) was God. Here is our evidence of what and how it happened. Do you trust the conclusion?"
But because the Bible asks us to make a life-changing decision based on its trustworthiness, we should be careful of partisans on both sides who seek to manipulate both the data and our decision. (The late) Ron Wyatt cannot be trusted, but Ben Witherington can; Israel Finklestein cannot be trusted, but Kyle Gerkin can.
The notion that "extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence" is at its core, an excuse to ignore the direction the evidence is heading when it's heading somewhere unexpected. For that reason, its attractiveness as a stance is obvious. Don't be seduced.
You're joking, right?
OK, Hank handled this just fine, but let me give you another take on the whole notion that you need to support extra-ordinary claims with extra-ordinary evidence.
Your comment:
...fits perfectly with what the bible says and was commonly believed until about 500 years ago: geocentrism.
Just because the bible said it, and it fit with most people's experience, doesn't make it true or accurate. And to overcome that belief system took a scientific revolution, with plenty of extra-ordinary evidence to back up the (then) extra-ordinary claims that contradicted the common, and biblical, belief.
Authors can believe that they are telling the truth - as undoubtably the authors of the various components of the bible certainly believed - and still be objectively wrong about the facts. Just because you and others might believe that the "revealed truth" of the bible (or your own spiritual experience) is correct does not actually make it so.
What is more likely, that those self-same authors of the bible put down what they thought was true based on their understanding of the world around them, or that God was wrong about the structure of the solar system? And don't tell me that this is just one little glitch in the otherwise inerrant bible that no Christian believes any longer.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Heh. Good one.
Yes it does.
And it isn't "conventional wisdom" if MOST people accept some amount of ghosts, flying saucers and gods. Most of the people I’ve told the saying to have been sort of surprised at the idea. I myself was surprised at it the first time I heard it, which was well into my adult life.
And it WORKS, despite your facile denial of it. “The far side of the barn is blue” is a completely different statement from “The far side of the barn is a trans-dimensional portal.” Ditto for the difference between “I have a wife” and “I have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, an infinitely powerful superbeing who takes a personal interest in every facet of our lives and doesn’t want us to masturbate, or eat Spam.”
Yeah, godders are good at that. There should be a name for the way some people can fire off a snappy comeback before even considering the meat of what the other person has said. It’s like when the doctor taps that little hammer below your knee – your leg jerks even before your brain knows you’ve been hit. The Christo-Patellar Reflex, maybe.
As to all that Bible stuff, I wonder what you’d would be saying in this post if you'd grown up in Islam. Something really different, I betcha.
“Forensic proof.” Heh heh heh. If the CSI team were on the job, they’d conclude there WAS no one-armed man on the scene, and Dr. Richard Kimball’s “I didn’t kill my wife; I was in the arms of the Lord at the time” alibi wouldn’t hold water. Okay, I’m pokin’ fun, but ... EVERY time the extra-biblical evidence has been looked at, or looked for, it hasn’t held up. Despite all those titillating specials on TV looking into ghosts and UFOs and personal appearances by the Virgin Mary, there has never been any decent, objective evidence for any of them.
The problem with the whole Bible story, the vast Christian mythos, is that there’s so much of it and it’s SO fantastic that it can be attacked in a thousand different places, and shown to be false at each place. The problem with nice devout Christians is that in order to continue to believe in it, they have to not-see every one of those flaws, and continue to say “I’m not listening to you! Lalalala! I still believe in Jesus!” After a while, that results in a manner of thought which is impervious to ANY evidence, or argument, or reason.
Every single Muslim in the world knows how wrong you are, PapaBryant. You can translate Greek, but you don’t know Allah is the REAL ruler of the universe?
Jeez.
gimme 2
"The problem with the whole Bible story, the vast Christian mythos, is that there’s so much of it and it’s SO fantastic that it can be attacked in a thousand different places, and shown to be false at each place. The problem with nice devout Christians is that in order to continue to believe in it, they have to not-see every one of those flaws, and continue to say “I’m not listening to you! Lalalala! I still believe in Jesus!” After a while, that results in a manner of thought which is impervious to ANY evidence, or argument, or reason."
So give me 2 examples of this that can be attacked "in a thousand different places." Make sure you don't use any information that can't be proven.
Does it matter?
As Hank said
Of course, if the contradictions within the bible to logic, evidence, and even to its own story are not enough to convince you, why don't you look into the fact that the new testament in particular provides little that is new beyond names. Most of the 'miracles' were performed under the aegis of some other god in some other myths before the authors decided to apply them to this dude they didn't even know named Yeshua.
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
sweeping generalization
Please be specific with your proof. Remember, I'm an inane Jesus freak, and it has to be spelled out to me.
your subject line is typical of the borg
Learn to read first and then we can spell it out. Do you want the personal view (caustic) or the scholarly (boring) or the encyclopedic (researched and easy to read)? If I find the time, I will go and find some resources for you. Most of it involves the fact that plenty of miracles referenced to Jesus in the bible happened to others in other religions predating the time Christ is supposed to have been here.
In any event, this highlights another problem with your inanity. Given that, to date, you apparently have not done the research yourself shows the willfulness of your ignorance which indicates you are not standing on solid ground when it comes to a defense of your faith and the futility of discussing this with you since you have most likely rejected everything you've come across (I know this already, as I have dealt with too many of the inane to count and I am sure you have some handy Ken Ham references which purport to refute the refutations but which ultimately end up with "the bible tells me so" which means we will have done this dance for naught as you fall down the rabbit hole).
Now, the logical point to be made in all of this is that I/we have nothing to prove. If you are a believer, you are affirming something positive and therefore you must provide the evidence. So, while I try to find the time to do your research for you, why don't you go out and give me some testable proofs of god.
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
something wrong with this post
First, although I know both that this was not your intent you have just esentially said "it is how I say it is so there." Still, I also know that there is no feeling quite like the futile one of carefully explaining a point only to realize it's gone so completely over your audiences head that they didn't even notice.
Now let me point out what's wrong with your post.
Sorry RoonDog, but you can't make a statement (that the things found in the Jesus miracles can be found in other predating myths) without giving any examples and then say "if you say something you must prove it" in the same post without sounding like a total ass.
Personally, the big example I'm aware of is the coming back to life thing, which was fairly common, I used an example of the story of Heracles to illustrate this point. Although I do not know what Bitsh's situation is I myself don't really have time I want to devote to studying facts on religions, actually it's near the bottom of my list of things I'd like to look into. Given the way this particular subject tends to split people it can be a chore looking through sources to find ones that are, shall we say, not at the far ranges of the spectrum of belief/disbelief.
Bah!
Actually, I can and I did. Without sounding like an asshole maybe but I object to ass. The point is that these things can be found in any comparative religion 101 book... one just has to have enough curiosity to study points of interest. I don't want to spend too much time citing chapter and verse because this is stuff I put behind me so long ago that I don't have the reference points tucked away in some drawer of my cranium.
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
be nice now
Be nice with the name! That typo (hopefully it was!) took me back to grade school. Very unkind children getting creative with my last name of Bischoff...I'm sure you can imagine!
Don't overwhelm me
Just give me 2 references please so I can research them.
And, I'd say that just because I've not heard of every point you know doesn't necessarily mean I am on shaky ground.
And using testable proofs isn't how it works. Not everything in life is provable like that.
Also, for the record, I don't know who Ken Ham is.
2?
Here are two fairly simple, researched articles on the web: Source of the Christ Myth and some background of the voluminous research done questioning whether there really was a Jesus since no one who lived during his alleged time on Earth wrote about him, i.e., no one who knew him wrote of him.
Enjoy
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
Seeing the Future
Ladieeees and Gentlemennnn!
I have here in this hermetically sealed envelope (holds up small white envelope in brilliant beam of pin spotlight) a prediction! Yes, I have used my atheist powers to PREDICT the content of Bisch's reply!
At the moment of Bisch's next comment, I will open the envelope in full public view and reveal the contents! You shall all see the penetrating depth of my atheist vision!
Maestro, a drum roll please!
Brrrrrroooommm ....
We'll see
I've seen it all before so I doubt I'll be surprised and there's a fairly small set of responses to choose from when faith goes two-dimensional against logic, research a/o facts.
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
so how'd you do?
Did you get it right, Hank?
let's review
Yeah, that isn't snippy at all.
Dear friends, are you interested in trying to convince me that I am deluded in my belief in God? Do you want to convince me?
Let me suggest that your tactics are painfully misguided.
I read your link to the 4 types of atheists. It said in part
to which I responded (after you asked me to share what I agree with in what you had wrote)
That, in essence, to me just reiterates what you said about yourself. Now, it may not be as pro-atheist stated as you'd like, but I think that it's accurate.
Then RoonDog says (that is one cute kid, by the way)
So, RoonDog is saying that even if he had the proof in front of him, he'd assume it was delivered by aliens? Okay. To me, that says, "I am not interested in hearing any arguments," so I figure it's pointless, and state so, and mention I think it's sad. And then get badgered for that, too, saying I'm stupid, and I need to learn to read.
Then, Roon does give me a couple links, and literally as I am reading the first one, Hank pipes in with his magic show.
Also, my "evidence in court" post didn't get any response.
So I am going to read up on geocentrism and the 2 links that Roon supplied, but I don't feel this is going to be a fruitful exchange going forward. So if I may, allow me to give y'all some unsolicited advice:
-If you are truly interested in convincing others of the fact that God doesn't exist, let me say you are going about it wrong. You'd be more successful if you were more kind and less condescending. If the "stupidity" of believers annoys you, then you probably shouldn't welcome their comments on the site, as you won't convince anyone of anything with the double standards (I believe Roon is typical of the posters on this site-at least be honest with yourselves that you really don't want to hear any arguments about God's existence) and hyper-sensitivity to comments about praying for you and other spiritual matters.
are you interested in trying
No. I want you to convince yourself and after so many years of logical analysis and so many polemic exercises in which one side finally breaks down and admits that there is no proof for their faith I'm low on patience for people who refuse to see the logic of what is in front of them, behind them, above and below, etc. We aren't evangelists. I am sure that most are more patient than I am but that comes from a lack of social grace on my part where I laugh at the ridiculous and call 'stupid' when I see it.
My snotty comment about learning to read was simple recognition of the fact that too many believers just accept it. That is why I think believers weak, overall, i.e., most refuse to ask questions of their faith, most refuse to test that faith, they simply live in the smugness of their assertions and attempt to square every circle into their private world. And that word, assertions, is where it all lies. As we have said here, and as I have said in a million other arenas:
The atheist has nothing to prove and the believer, who has the burden of proof, can't prove anything. I don't believe, I can't believe, the null hypothesis is it because nothing beyond that can be tested. And it is on this logical basis that I could not accept that god is god even if right in front of me. If god appeared, there would no longer be any basis for faith, at that point god would be part of the physical and the supernatural supposition would be shattered. Thus, being part of the natural world, I would have to assume god is not god. This is also the insurmountable wall a believer must climb if wishing to get through to the atheist because if you try to argue from faith, which has no logical foundation, the argument can be summarily rejected because of this lack of logic and if a believer tries to use the physical world to prove faith, it is no longer faith the believer is arguing but superstition which can be rejected for the same reason.
When things like this are written, and I hope this is just something I missed, it is extremely difficult not to be condescending. As for not wanting to hear any arguments about god's existence, we have heard them all, we have argued them all, we have shot them all down, and we tend to find that it is the believers who don't hear our counter arguments, or don't understand, or refuse to understand them and subsequently call us snobs, closed minds, condescending, arrogant, etc.
We've almost all grown up in a world surrounded by spiritual BS which we can't accept. We are inundated with this nonsense in all forms of media, by strangers on the street, by our neighbors and family members, in overheard conversations, in retail symbolism. We can't help but be defensive when we walk around in a world where so many sheep accept what they hear from on high and never ask questions.
As Hank pointed out, it is that lack of processing that gets us presidents with whom people would like to have a beer instead of those who can manage and lead progressively, i.e., move us ahead into hopefully a better future with constant tweaking towards improvement instead of actors, faux-tough guys, and retread political criminals who speak gloriously of a past that never was and try to move us there. That scares the shit out of us because it is the world we know not the world we believe.
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
a few clarifications
If we are just talking about the existence of God, which was the first point in all this (y'all added the Bible and Jesus), then the verse
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 men are without excuse.
I feel is appropriate. Don't take this as a "the Bible says it so I believe it" statement. I'm saying I look around and can't conceive that this world wasn't created. We can discuss further by whom, but seeing the complexity and how perfectly everything works together, not only systems within organisms, but organisms within ecosystems. My "proof" is the logic that it is obvious to me that this world and all of us couldn't have come about by chance, or maybe better said similar to how Roon did, that, seeing what I do and understanding the physical world as I do, nobody could ever convince me that this world and all living things weren't created or led along by a creator, ever.
I'm not low on patience, but am astounded, at "people who refuse to see the logic of what is in front of them, behind them, above and below, etc." that could come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.
Roon said much earlier
Because people disagree on our purpose as human beings, that shows that we weren't created, or that God doesn't exist? I'm not buying it. The complexity and how it all came together in a coherent fashion is the issue. Nobody disputes it did, in our case and in the Applebee's case. The dispute is in how it did. What does purpose have to do with how it came about? Purpose can be discussed, but it has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
So how did we get here? Evolution over billions of years? Can you prove that in a lab? Replicate anything to do with macroevolution?
It's perfectly appropriate to draw conclusions from incomplete data if the data are incomplete. Science can't prove macroevolution in a lab by replicating it, just as I can't prove we were created in a lab by replicating it, so we must draw conclusions from what we see and from what we do know. Because of the lacking scientific proof of macroevolution, it takes just as much faith for you to believe that that's how we came about as it does for me to believe God created us. For me, it's more logical for me to believe God exists seeing the data that I can know.
You started with a false assumption that God only operates in the spiritual world and would never operate, or couldn't operate, in the natural world. And again, it's interesting to me (just as it was to Hank that I and others misspell atheist) that you set the acceptable parameters by which a God in whom you don't believe may reveal himself to you. No sarcasm intended here at all, but it's no wonder you don't believe.
Well, as for me, I do hear them, understand them, and am calling them bollocks. No offense to you personally, of course.
evolution, not creation
Oivei, this is definitely evidence of someone lacking in scientific knowledge. First off, duh, we weren't created in a lab, we were born. Note we cannot prove macroevolution by replicating it because, to prove it, we would have to be pretty much immortal (in this you are essentially doing what you criticize us of doing, looking at something you don't understand and demanding it show itself to you under your terms or you're not going to listen). We can, however, draw conclusions from what we can observe, including micro-evolution. Lets see, lacking proof for macro-evolution. Hmm, let me see, oh I know! You must mean that we can't do genetic testing on old specimines to see how closely they are related to living species. Perhaps you're refering to the fact that many current species used to illustrate some ancestral transitional species (such as mudskippers and coelacanth) are in fact not the transitional species we're looking for (move along). If you're refering to gaps in the fossil reccord that was true, about a century ago when that arguement was formulated, but paleontologists have been buisilly filling in those (there are some left though, some because we simply haven't found the fossils and others because the likelyhood of those species fossils being preserved is virtually zero). If you're refering to the tired old arguement that a dog cannot become a cat (or that any individual can instantly transform into an individual of a distantly related species) than your right, congratulations on proving the obvious while being stupid enough to think it actually relates to evolution.
I'm trying to think of an analogy so here goes. It is roughly similar to suggesting that you turn 3x5 index cards into a computer capable of playing all the most recent gaming software (that includes PS3, XBOX360 and Wii). Can't demonstrate how it can be done? I should hope not, it's taken more than a century for computer science to evolve from punch cards to microprocessors. For you to simply take a pack of 3x5 index cards and turn them into a computer would be impossible (although Connections made a good show of explaining the steps involved in getting from point A to point VG). "But computers have a designer and are much less complex than nature," you will surely object. "Therefor nature also must have a designer". You're forgetting, it took us billions of years to get where we are now, this is provable (unless, as you claim you do not, you reject the physical evidence around you). Unless I'm much mistaken, if one were to accuse God, who is supposedly so great and all knowing, of taking millions or billions of years (apologies, I'm not sure of the exact timespan) just to go from single celled organisms to multicellular organisms one would be accusing this all-knowing, all-powerful God of being a simpleton. On the other hand, that's a decent amount of time for random mutation, especially when you considder that the living things would tend to keep any beneficial mutations (such as one of the earliest credited with allowing us to be what we are, the ability to perminently keep a healthy population of mitochondria, which previous to this had to be aquired periodically from the environment).
As for how well animals in an ecosystem work together that's only to be expected when the animals and plants have been evolving together for a long time. The prey species evolve adaptations to escape the predators, the predators evolve adaptations to catch the prey, the plants evolve adaptations to avoid being killed by predation and adaptations to take advantage of other species.
warm heart
Ahhhhhh. Now that gives this Bible thumper a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling inside. To hear an evolutionist admit that...I must say it's the first time.
that's good,
glad you're happy. You missed the larger point by the way (perhaps this was the only portion of the post you could understand?). Oh and by the way, I'm still waiting for an explanation of the supposed "holes in the theory of evolution" that you indicated were present.
You know, I find creationists funny, they claim they were created by god but when it comes to humans creating humans in a lab (thereby proving humans can be created in a lab) most tend to run scared and claim we are doing evil. So which is it?
get your own dirt
Creating something out of nothing and manufacturing something with parts supplied to you is quite different, don't you agree? Loose definition of "creating," I'd say.
There was a joke I heard along the lines that a scientist and God were talking and the scientist told God he wasn't necessary anymore because the scientist could form life. God asked the scientist to show him, and the scientist started forming a body out of the dirt, and God said, "no, kiddo, get your own dirt."
I haven't seen any evidence of transitional species in the fossil record. We should be hip deep in them if they exist at this point, since we've uncovered billions of fossils.
I also have heard evolutionists say, and you can correct me if I'm wrong or don't remember correctly, that evolution addresses the origin of species, not the origin of life. So how do you explain life even got started? Spontaneous life in the primordal soup doesn't ring true to me. Am I correct in my knowledge that nobody's gotten any closer to spontaneous life than Stanley Miller did in the 50s? If there's no mechanism to get everything started, then there's no start.
I already stated my disbelief that a functioning arm could become a wing over millions of iterations of mutations and have that individual animal's genetic material successfully passed on to the next generation. Use gill to lung if you don't like the arm to wing story. Survival of the fittest tells me that the still fully-functioning arm/gill will enable that animal to survive, and the mutation of the "freak" will cause him to meet a dissimilar fate, i.e. die prematurely. This also doesn't ring true.
As an aside, I would like to continue the discussion, and will do my very best to keep the comments to the issue, and keep away from conversion attempts (!), if I really am welcome. Let me know.
As another aside, we can stop if we get to the point that we disagree on the conclusion of a point, but I don't really think you (as a whole) have blown an idea out of the water. Maybe it's that we have addressed a bunch of points and it got lost in the shuffle. Are we interested in making a new blog entry and addressing one or two points at a time?
Again, I read it all and understood it, and am saying it's bollocks. Your analogy with the 3x5 cards was not a good one.
You have exhibited an appalling
lack of scientific knowledge and now you jump in with problems of transitional species? You see, this makes it very easy to dismiss you, i.e., we know quite clearly that you are arguing from direction, e.g., Strobel, without actually understanding the underlying issue. Even if I was a believer, I would be damned sure to educate myself thoroughly in biology, at the very least, before stepping into a forum such as this.
Okay, define the transitional species and, while you're at it, tell us how much of the fossil record you have actually seen. Or, are you looking for a complete lineage (that will be the next step of doubt if a very specific and associative fossil could be found, BTW)? Can you guess why finding a transitional species will be next to impossible? Hint: go read Dawkins breakthrough work (The Selfish...) Do you know how many actual fossils have been found of vertebrates (and do you understand that it is one hell of a lot more than the physical evidence available to show god's existence)?
As for origins, this is where the hang up most often is, i.e., what all of these arguments boil down to. In geometry, did the teacher ever ask you to give the measurement of a line? That was one of the most profound questions I had ever been given and, with less than 25 years separating me from that, I might be able to pinpoint that question as the beginning of the end for me and god. The response for me was absolute fascination with the concept rather than a fear based on a lack of comprehension. Where did it all come from? I don't know, I would like to but for now my most-educated guess, and one with which I am comfortable as, again, it has more evidence than god, is that there was no beginning.
Chew on this Bisch, while I explain to Hank that it is generally better to just stroke the cases until the padded wagon arrives than poke them with sticks: I have been told that I should thank god for my life. My response even from the days in which I was an ostensible believer has been that I didn't ask for it so why should I be thankful. If I hadn't been born, a situation in which I had no say, I wouldn't know any better... I wouldn't know at all... because I wouldn't be. Now, apply that to the universe...
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
Waiting for the padded wagon
Good advice.
I think I'll want to go back through this fellow's comments to figure out what was so ... "inspiring."
My real goal is to reach larger audiences of young people. When I meet someone who so obviously is deliberately not getting it, for his own internal reasons of fear or whatever, I usually just move on.
Hmm ... I wonder how Dawkins did on O'Reilly's show tonight?
Not much you can do with fear
That is the one emotion that means less and less the farther I get from religion. It has been taken over, at least as far as it concerns my own being, by wariness conditioned through experience. It did have a massive resurgence following the birth of my son because biology takes over and you want nothing more than absolute protection for the little one who came out of your physical lineage. But, it has since been calmed by the experience of his two grandmothers.
Fear is the killer, though, when it comes to adopting religion. True fear is always going to lead to god which is the primary reason I so often consider believers weak.
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
Brilliant! Brilliant!
Yes, Bisch, you're totally right. There is no evidence of transitional fossils. Seriously. And gosh, scientists have NO idea at all how life started. Arms into wings is, like, TOTALLY impossible, you're right.
It's like all those idiot evolutionists claiming cats could turn into dogs. Or that chimpanzees could evolve wings. And what about that hotbed of evolutionary controversy, PYGMIES + DWARVES??
Gills into lungs – everybody knows that all those evolutionists claiming gills turned into lungs are just crazy. I mean, they're not even in the same part of the BODY. Far more likely, if evolution worked at all, which it doesn’t, that ... oh, something like the swim bladder of early fish was some sort of precursor of lungs. But that’s still just insane.
I mean, it’s like all those people who claim people in America came from Europe. If people in America came from Europe, WHY ARE THERE STILL EUROPEANS?!?
Someday, in some glorious future day, we will all know the truth, that God created humans, just like it says in the Bible.
Meanwhile, I’m just glad that people like you, deep scholars who read Christian books and think broadly and openly about the possibilities presented to us on conservative talk radio, are among us. Voting. Raising their voices in public debates. Entering the fray on the side of True Science, and not this jumped-up evolutionary biology stuff, which is all a plot by homosexuals and liberals to undermine Christian America.
I sleep well at night.
I'm guessing
I'm guessing the answer to my earlier question is that I am not welcome. That's cool. Y'all, I do appreciate your time.
I must say, Hank, you remind me of a version of Ken Griffey, Jr. that Jim Rome talked about in the early 2000s. Ken was complaining that Jim Edmonds was getting more air time on ESPN than he was, since Edmonds was making some great catches, and Griffey wasn't doing much. Rome talked about how on the surface, Griff was just an easygoing, backwards-hat-wearing, fun loving fella. In reality, he was an angry, jealous young man.
Not saying at all that you are jealous or angry or anything else that specifically relates to Griff. Just that smiling, happy picture you present is not what comes out in the bitter, pained comments you type. Couldn't you present your information in a less sarcastic manner? You are one of the main commentators on an atheist website...couldn't you see the presentation of your ideas in a direct way to be your public service to the atheist cause? If your response to that is that you can't suffer my foolishness gladly, then okay. I'm not buying it, but I guess that's what you'd say.
Again, it was fun. I know we all agree that there is one truth...one reality. I hope we all get better at clearly presenting our arguments through this, and all arrive at the truth. I'll be a passive gawker from here on out.
Leaving? Oh, darn.
Here's Bisch:
"You girls are so TOUCHY. I just want to know why you have a problem with cooking and keeping house, when everybody knows these are the things women excel at. [Flicks cigar ash on sofa.] I mean, I'm not one to harp on stuff everybody knows, but I just wonder why you're so angry all the time. You look so pretty, but underneath there's this immense anger."
Bisch, you innocent little rhetorical butterfly. I will miss you and your direct, simple approach to calling me on my evil ways.
I'm not saying you're smugly ignorant. Just that you share some of the characteristics of someone I know who is.
Heh.
I just keep on taking the bait, don't I?
I'd make a helluva mouse. But I wouldn't leave many descendants.
That's it, just whistle past science...n/t
n/t
You want condescension?
Now, I am laughing at you.
Before we get going... Let me ask you, do I need god for something?
That's solid ground you're standing on. Sounds like a good case for either multiple gods competing for power down here or no god. And, competing gods would surely indicate a lack of omniscience and omnipotence and, perhaps, perfection.
Ha-HA-HA! That's rich and the logic is simply overwhelming.
Uh, yes, the ability of so much to work together? That would be E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N. See, that which didn't fit in, couldn't find a way to survive because it didn't fit in, couldn't compete, couldn't adapt, couldn't find a niche didn't find a place... yet. And, it doesn't work perfectly, otherwise we would not see change in the flora and fauna, especially as we are currently witnessing.
Doesn't have to be in a lab. Obviously you don't understand the scientific method, methods of proof, types of analysis. Do you understand the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a fact? Considering we have evidence of earth's age, have a fossil record, have methods of testing all of this, and have models that work... that's a lot more than god's got.
Uh, no, exists there and isn't that the point of faith? If god is interested in my welfare and built me without faith, god better get 'his' ass down here and figure out some way to get through to me. And, yes, I am responsible for setting the parameters. Free will and all that which is supposed to be a gift from god, per believers. Of course, since so many monotheists also push the idea of heaven or hell there isn't much free will available.
So, I'll finish as I started, do I need god for something?
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
no, I don't want condescension
Apparently not. Obviously there are more than many people on earth that get by without God. So from your perspective, you don't "need" God for anything. The Bible says the sun rises and sets on the just and the unjust alike, so for just living...no you don't need him.
Case? So you're gonna use opinions of other people, most of whom you believe are borderline mentally ill, in your case to show there are multiple gods or no god? Why are the opinions and perspectives of people who are deluded useful to you to show what reality vis-a-vis God's existence is?
So riddle me this. When, as you say, a reptile turned into a bird, an arm turned into a wing, what does your logic say would happen to the individual reptile whose arm started to turn toward a wing. That arm would not quite be as good an arm as the other fellow reptiles, but it wouldn't be even close to a useful wing. So when they had to find food and chase it, or beat their fellow brothers to food, or run from being food, which particular reptile would lose that race? And either not get food, or become food? You want us to believe that this particular reptile whose arm isn't quite as good an arm but is becoming a wing would survive fine and escape being prey and find food and catch food, but that mutation wouldn't hinder it passing its genetic material. Multiply that by many many thousands and millions of iterations, but it successfully happens. Now that's FAITH, baby!!!
Sweet how you use currently occurring microevolution, which nobody disputes, to prove your suspect macroevolution. You see, by your own definitions, it would be impossible for us to CURRENTLY witness macroevolution since it occurs over millions and billions of years. Nice try.
Using all these scientific sounding terms doesn't mean macroevolution has been proven anywhere.
You mean carbon dating? I won't say it's completely useless, but it's far from airtight. When the same piece of material is measured at tens of millions of years different, I'd say the testing method is a bit lacking.
Which surprisingly has no transitional species. Hrm. Shouldn't the fossil record be littered with transitional species? In fact, if your macroevolution is correct, shouldn't taxonomy be impossible? There'd be no line between species if what you say is true.
Models that work since you say they do. Why do we need to use models? Your richness and logic is equally overwhelming. You're throwing scientific terms around so much, I'm waiting for you to say you personally know PZ Myers.
Impressive skill of talking out both sides of your mouth. First, nobody is built without faith. You choose your unbelief. You say your logic drove you to it. Fine. So it's God's obligation to show himself to you, on your terms, by parameters you set, but free will allows you to not believe anyway. I don't blame you for wanting it both ways, but at least be honest with yourself that you are setting it up that way.
Transitional fossils
We have many transitional fossils whether littered is the proper term for it or not they do exist.
Fossils are rare and there is no doubt that many species remain unknown to us because we have never found fossils for them.
Either way transitional fossils exist.
Example 1: bird-reptiles
In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (a dromaeosaur from China now named Cryptovolans pauli; Czerkas et al. 2002 ) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al. 1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"), Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.
For more check out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_inte...
man, that's comedy
That's comedy gold, that statement right there. Picture it, the comedian (a human obviously) comes on stage and complains that his brother runs faster than him because he runs on all fours rather than being bipedal like a normal human. The key word here "bipedal" applies to birds as well. They are highly likely to have branched off from therapod dinosaurs, a bipedal group which coincidentally includes both avian and non avian feathered dinosaur specimines. It has been hypothesized that the "wings", which would initially have been small, might have increased the height and/or lenght of a jump as these small creatures persued low-flying prey. With your arguement reguarding conflict over food, in most species display fighting is used to settle an arguement the vast majority of the time, only rarely do things get physical. One thing humans seem to have trouble with is the concept of avoiding a serious battle now so you aren't bloody lunchmeat for the next thing that comes along.
substitute
Do wings for arms, do lungs for gills, do any physically functioning attribute you'd like.
How about catching food in the first place? How about running away from a predator?
Like, Duh
Wings for arms is dead easy, a baby could figure it out if shown a picture of a skeleton. Seriously, wings and arms have exactly the same basic structure. In bats the lower and upper arm bones are lengthened slightly, the carples (that's finger and hand bones to you) are much longer, taking up roughly half of the total length of the wing. In birds the rough area is similar, except that bird wings have shorter carples and make up for it in length with the primary feathers. The programmed death of the skin between the fingers has been aborted (yes, humans do start off with webbed hands, the cells just die in most cases before you're born). Lungs for gills is impossible, anyone who's actually studied fish knows lungs evolved from swim bladders, which do roughly the same thing as lungs.
Wow, you must have a really small vocabulary. You don't know what "bipedal" means? It means two-legged. Therefor, like humans they ran around on their hind legs (oivei, I didn't know anyone didn't realize what bipedal, which is latin for "two feet" meant). Catching prey? They caught it the same way birds do and several two-legged dinosaurs did, in their mouthes (you didn't really think that something like a T-rex, which has arms too short to reach its face, needed them for picking up food do you?). I hadn't adressed these two because I thought they were so obvious I'd be insulting your intelligence to have to explain them. You, dear Bitsh, have just asked why people say the sky is blue.
2 different ideas
I didn't say their structure wasn't similar, I said the function wasn't, and if the function in one animal didn't help it survive, in fact inhibited its survival, it wouldn't be conducive to allowing that animal's genetic material to be passed on.
I'm no wordsmith, either, but to say something has "exactly the same basic structure" is not really well stated.
C'mon, you're better than that.
I can change my screenname to "Bitch" if it would help. Then we wouldn't need to beat around the bush...
maybe it's best if I leave you alone
I think we've arrived to the point that we all probably knew was coming.
It appears that we're talking past each other, but with the confidence we all have in our convictions, it's not surprising.
I do wish you guys well.
It's funny, Bisch...
You know, I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that all of us 'unwelcoming atheists' here have plenty of friends and family members who are theists, and have on many occasions had enjoyable discussions with them about faith. I know that has been the case with me. Given the distribution of believers v. non-believers, statistically it is almost impossible for us to *not* have many contacts with theists.
And if you detect a little weariness on the part of some of us to play your games, that's likely the reason. We've all had these conversations so many times that we too know where they're likely to go if the other person is intent on "proving" how blind we are to not accept the fact of Johovah, Allah, YHWH, Zeus, Etc. A good, spirited conversation - yeah, sure, we can do that, and most of us can do it without rancor, since it is absolutely necessary in this society. But consider just how many times we have likely had these conversations, and the ones that are of a different character as well - when having to deal with an evangelical who won't take "no, go away" for an answer, let alone be willing to listen to fact or reason.
Now, it might be a relatively new experience for you to enter this particular lion's den, since until lately most atheists kept their heads more or less down and their mouths more or less shut. (Being literally demonized by a large segment of the population will tend to do that.) It seems that while you are unfamiliar with a number of the high profile members of your tribe, you are using their arguments (which we have encountered many times), and this would indicate to me that you are operating more out of faith and conviction (albeit spoon-fed) than spite or mischief. But the result is the same, from our perspective - anyone who doesn't just want to 'chat', but who is intent on 'proving' to us how wrong we are, is likely to be greeted with wariness if not outright scorn. Because, yes, you came here - we did not come seek you out for these arguments.
So yeah, maybe it is best if you leave us alone. Or, if you're just looking to spar a bit in friendly conversation about this or that, drop by and be welcome. When it come to telling us how wrong or blind or whatever we are, don't be surprised if the tone takes a different direction, though.
And lastly, and sincerely, my compliments on keeping a civil tongue for the most part. You're no troll, I'll give you that - and it was a large reason why I think so many people were willing to chat with you for so long.
Go in peace.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
thanks, Jim
I'll read what y'all have to say for a couple months and pop in if it feels appropriate. Thank you for the clarification. I did intend to keep from trying to "show you how wrong you are" rather wanted a little back and forth, but I think it was not a conscious effort and my words came off as the former.
And I'm sorry for calling you bitter in the beginning. The comment you made came off that way to me, but I still shouldn't have wrote that.
You also, stay :-) in peace...
Exactly
However, the moment that I find myself in the midst if a group of people who simply slap each other on the back by laughing at others, i.e., we all believe, think, feel the same, I leave. I enjoy the variety available in life, including the variety of belief, thought, feeling, philosophy, and the moment that a group of people cut out variety and stop challenging themselves is the moment that I call this a church and get out. As long as we do challenge one another, whether that is in refining arguments, clarifying portions of personal philosophies, asking tough questions, or calling me an idiot when deserved (and pointing out why), I'm happy to be here.
In other words, to drill it down, Bisch, if you want to come here, you are welcome but it is much more pleasurable for all if you can challenge us, i.e., bring something new rather than the retread arguments we have been engaging probably for a collective couple of centuries among us. And, that is the impasse in our current time since it appears that faith has run out of plausible arguments and so we do get frustrated knocking down the same points time and again.
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
Wow, that's impressive (ly stupid)
If you truly are so dumb that you can't understand my use of your own points to show the weakness of your arguments, there is no point. And, thanks for proving that you are the archetypal faith-head of whom Hank spoke as well as showing you truly don't understand the scientific method. Further, I'm sure you don't know that there are a variety of carbon dating methods that exhibit their own worth in specific situations added to the fact that strata, coupled with carbon dating, coupled with cosmology, coupled with the fossil record, coupled with what is seen today in biology, geology, chemistry and physics, plus a variety of other methods that all go into dating methodologies. No, Dembski doesn't tell you that. Go back to your Strobel books and keep living the dream.
As for whether or not I need god, you're right. I don't. I like reality. Next time you talk to god, tell him he needs to work a little harder to get through and perhaps come up with something he hasn't yet thought of because everything else has failed to get through to me. Or, oh yeah, that's right, he already knows everything that will happen and he is all powerful. I'm sure he'll come to me on my deathbed or in my foxhole since we all know there are no atheists in those places. If he answers you, let me know, one of my mother's friends is an excellent psychiatrist.
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
Dembski and Strobel
I've never heard of Dembski, and have heard of Strobel.
I should have stopped before.
Awww, don't say that, Roon. You're really gonna hurt my feelings now. Calling me a godder and a faith-head really cuts me to the quick, and TOOOOOTALLY proves all your points.
What, are you 12? Why can't you guys have a discussion without doing this kind of dance?
You seem to have read more Christian propoganda than I have. Since you've been an atheist for a long time, when did you read these guys? Why in the world would you be concerned with their writing?
Yeah, I'll be sure to mention it to him that some dude that believes he doesn't exist would like him to show himself to that dude in a manner the dude finds acceptable. Be sure to send me the "acceptable manner" form to me in triplicate so I can ensure God doesn't offend your sensibilities.
You guys should consider doing what I suggested earlier, that is, to note that theists' comments aren't welcome.
Once again
Pointing out that your own words and arguments undercut your arguments is not being 12. And, again, what points do I have to prove?
Regarding Christian propaganda, yes, I have read plenty. It is all in the quest for knowledge and one doesn't gain much knowledge if one isn't willing to try to challenge oneself. This is the very reason why atheists, academicians, science, free thinkers, inter alia are so demonized by believers, i.e., they have the evidence and the logic and use them to build facts which are a challenge to religion. Religious leaders fear this search for knowledge. While I have no doubt that religion will continue with us as long as we are alive as a species, this search will continue to lead people away from the face of god or, at the very least, prove that so much of what is peddled at the top is BS. This is why evolution, after nearly a century and a half of compounding evidence, is considered such a focus of attack. It takes god out of the picture, unless you need to believe there had to be a beginning somewhere at some time in which case god may have done nothing more than trigger the initialization. It is also the basis of so much human advancement through science that if they can knock it down, they can take a lot of science with them.
In short, if these anti-progress, anti-science, anti-logic, anti-reasoning religious leaders do represent god in the least, then we have to conclude that god wants us dumb. Which is what many atheists suspect, in any event (replacing god with religious leaders, of course). In any event, since you aren't capable of arguing science, we are perfectly capable of arguing the finer points of religious philosophy, dogma, and textual material (it's that reading thing again).
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
Jeez.
Good. FINALLY we get to see the archetypal faith-head. Spouting the same, tired drivel that stands like a neon sign on the page: “I don’t read books, I don’t think about things, and I’m proud of it.”
I see yet another godder who uses electronics, computers, doctors, medicine, automobiles and even airplanes, but stabs in the back the innovative, thoughtful, caring men and women who fought the darkness to discover and create those things.
Rising from delicate brain surgery, he turns his back on the team of surgeons, nurses and medical researchers and thanks Jesus. Rescued from a fire by men who risked their lives and a community which spent millions training and equipping them, he thanks God. Saved from war by men who died in the thousands, he spits on their sacrifice as he blubbers joyful tears for the Virgin Mary’s intercession.
Maybe Bisch is from Lithuania or Russia or something, and has none of my same concept of freedom. To me, though, the modern anti-science, anti-intellectual bent of Christianity is profoundly anti-American. Anti-SELF. I listen to these people and I hear greasily seductive hate, a deeply held desire to murder freedom of mind.
I just feel so nasty right now, knowing I spent time on this character.
prediction
So can I presume you didn't get your prediction right?