See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #301
   On July 12th, 2009 at 3:38 pm, right4life said:

   and of course the ‘tree of life’ has been one of the foundations of evolution…now its wrong…but evolution has GOTS TO BE RIGHT…because evolution is true!!

   just those other FAILED darwinian concepts, ‘vestigial organs’ and ‘junk dna’

   but no matter the data, the hairygod of evolution is ALWAYS TRUE!! praise darwin!!!

   laughable.

2. #302
   On July 12th, 2009 at 3:40 pm, right4life said:

   the fossil record does NOT show gradual evolution…it cannot be duplicated in a lab….so how many failures does it take to shake an atheist’s faith in evolution???

3. #303
   On July 12th, 2009 at 3:42 pm, jangar said:

   Let’s just throw out radiometric dating

   Good. It’s flawed anyway. One has to assume the age of a certain element in order to determine the age of all others.

   geology, and the exsistence of multiple layers of sediment more or less everywhere

   Yup. That’s what you get with a cataclysmic flood…mud and layers of mud…more mud, canyons, rivers, errosion, etc. Oh, did I mention mud, and a lot of it?

   this is precisely the kind of nonsense that liberals mock conservatives for

   Well, mock on. I would rather answer to the Creator than the pride of men.

4. #304
   On July 12th, 2009 at 3:42 pm, right4life said:

   On July 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pm, zeroangel said:
   Right… and the mob shot JFK…

   the darwiniacs sure persecuted STERNBERG though didn’t they?? good little nazis that they are!

5. #305
   On July 12th, 2009 at 3:48 pm, zeroangel said:

   Jangar:

   That is not how radiometric dating works. It works by calculating a date in relation to the appearance of daughter and parent isotopes and a known invariable decay rate. You do not get multiple layers with one flood. You get one layer, that is not what is observed.

6. #306
   On July 12th, 2009 at 3:54 pm, Ragspierre said:

   his theory is clear in its implications…and these evolutionists are absolutely right.

   Respectfully, I have to disagree with this.

   Very often, we can have a flash of insight or make a discovery, and NEVER begin to comprehend the implications of what it is that we have found.

   Please understand that I am speaking from the abstract here, as I do not specifically know what Darwin did or did not draw…either soundly or absurdly…from his root insight.

   I am not even certain that Darwin ever held to the notion that his theories accounted for the origin of life. Such is the confusion on what he did say, as opposed to what people said he said.

   In any event, I am not prepared to assume that Darwin was aware of the perversions that his ideas might be taken to by others.

   Of course, this then suggests the question: should any inquirer have to presage every possible bad use of an idea or discovery before having it and publishing it?

   I suggest no, nobody should have to inquire under that restraint.

   Powerful ideas are like any other powerful thing; they are neither good or evil in and of themselves. They certainly may be used for good or evil.

7. #307
   On July 12th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, jangar said:

   That is not how radiometric dating works

   http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

8. #308
   On July 12th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, jangar said:

   In any event, I am not prepared to assume that Darwin was aware of the perversions that his ideas might be taken to by others.

   Maybe not, but the seed of thought was planted. Did he foresee a generation eager to kill their own? And it doesn’t stop at abortion and racism, but continues into family, community and politics.

   Consider why there are so many laws on the books, all of which primarily deal with situations from aftermath of sin and corruption.

   Evolution has given us a sad legacy, proving that the wisdom of man is foolishness and folly.

   Darwin’s ideas really are not the first of their kind, just the most recent in our western culture. Since the begining of man, we have sought to disprove the existance of a devine Creator in order to go do our own thing and not feel guilty about it. Liberals are really adapt at this part.

9. #309
   On July 12th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, zeroangel said:

   Jangar:

   Answersingenesis is notorious for misrepresenting the data. It is true that one has to worry about tainted samples. The answer is to just expand the sample size and variety. Samples from the Moon confirm the age of the Earth and Moon at some 4 billion years. Did the flood reach the Moon too?

   In any case, where are the dinosaur saddles? Records of dinosaur sales? Dinosaur drawings? Books written of dinosaur care? Why is it that we have no evidence?

10. #310
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:10 pm, zeroangel said:

    Jangar:

    Since the begining of man, we have sought to disprove the existance of a devine Creator in order to go do our own thing and not feel guilty about it.

    Yah, right. That was my motivation. I also wanted to just piss off my parents and make my mom cry! Unbelieveable! Does it occur to you how ridiculous this sounds?

11. #311
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:16 pm, jangar said:

    Well zero, you have free will. Therefore, indulge yourself.

    Time to wash the dog… not what I really wanted to do. He’s a skank.

12. #312
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:22 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    Darwin had no opinion as to how the very first form of life arose. He focused on the “after that”. He knew his ideas would upset the applecarts of those who believed in Special Creation, but even the Roman Catholic church no longer teaches the literal interpretation of the creation stories of the Old Testament.

    As for Darwinism, the Church finds nothing anti=religious or heretical in Darwin’s teachings of a mechanism through which God operates in the living world.

    As for liberals mocking conservatives for literal belief in the Bible:
    what about libs who believe in nonsense such as homoeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, aromatherapy, Pyramid Power, auras, and all the other New Age nostrums they’ve bitterly clung to in the face of scientific evidence showing them to be false.

    Hell, the NIH spent $2.5 billion the past ten years trying out “alternative medicine” along side the scientific version, and concluded it a total waste of money.

    So this “liberals are rational, conservatives are superstitious” dichotomy is just plain self-serving tripe.

13. #313
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:30 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Yah, right. That was my motivation. I also wanted to just piss off my parents and make my mom cry! Unbelieveable! Does it occur to you how ridiculous this sounds?

    That was a revealing little vignette…

    Janger posted his comment to me.

    Yet, you took it personally, and felt the need to defend yourself personally.

    Interesting…

14. #314
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:34 pm, zeroangel said:

    fulldroolcup:

    I agree WRT to the litany of stupid stuff normally attributed to libs. That still doesn’t change the fact that Creationists are “our” bad apples.

15. #315
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, zeroangel said:

    Rags:

    Nothing interesting about it. I have, for quite a long time now, dedicated myself to dispelling ridiculous notions that jangar posted to you. I have often jumped into a discussion where I wasn’t addressed when someone said something foolish about atheists in general.

16. #316
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:37 pm, zeroangel said:

    …I merely used my own example to illustrate how absurd what jangar said was.

17. #317
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:46 pm, jangar said:

    …I merely used my own example to illustrate how absurd what jangar said was

    as is your opinion.

18. #318
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:48 pm, jangar said:

    You, zero, are not the torchbearer of truth to enlighten the world. You are one person, with one perspective. As I said earlier:

    you have free will. Therefore, indulge yourself

19. #319
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:50 pm, right4life said:

    In any event, I am not prepared to assume that Darwin was aware of the perversions that his ideas might be taken to by others.

    But Darwin enthusiastically adopted it in the 6th edition of his Origin of Species as a substitute term for “natural selection.” Nor did he ever demur when other advocates of evolution’s social application came pleading their case. Karl Marx asked if he might dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, which request Darwin declined only because he did not want to offend the religious sensibilities of his deeply Christian wife.

    link

    and here’s what Darwin wrote to his first cousin Galton, the founder of the eugenics movement…and who actually coined the phrase ‘eugenics’

    Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race. I should be inclined to trust more (and this is part of your plan) to disseminating and insisting on the importance of the all-important principle of inheritance

    link

    Thirdly, Darwin prepared the way for eugenics. Indeed, his immediate family would soon be involved in that movement — his sons George and Leonard became active in promoting it (Leonard serving as “president of the Eugenics Education Society, the main eugenics group in Great Britain”), and his cousin Francis Galton became the founder of the “eugenics crusade.” Evidently, Darwin was sympathetic to eugenics: West quotes him as vowing “to cut off communication” with his disciple Mivart when the latter “criticized an article by Darwin’s son George that advocated eugenics.”

    link

20. #320
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, zeroangel said:

    jangar:

    It’s not my opinion that I did not come to my atheism in order “to go do my own thing and not feel guilty about it.” That much is fact, and it is true of virtually every atheist I have ever met. Of course, it is your (absurd) opinion that we are all lying about our own feelings and experiences.

21. #321
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, right4life said:

    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:22 pm, fulldroolcup said

    thanks for ducking the question about what darwin meant by ‘lower races’…and ‘eliminating’ those ‘lower races’

    what a surprise!

22. #322
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, zeroangel said:

    jangar

    …and you are not the torchbearer of truth to tell atheists about our own feelings and experiences. Geeez.

23. #323
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:55 pm, right4life said:

    Darwin had no opinion as to how the very first form of life arose. He focused on the “after that”.

    you never of his ‘warm little pond’ remark huh?

    of course darwinists have run from abiogenesis since it has proven to be such a HUGE problem for the…

    except somebody forgot to tell this guy…..

    Next to life itself, the origin of complex cells is one of the most fundamental, and intractable, problems in evolutionary biology. Progress in this area relies heavily on an understanding of the relationships between present-day organisms, yet despite tremendous advances over the last half-century scientists remain firmly divided on how to best classify cellular life.

    2. John M. Archibald, “The Eocyte Hypothesis and the Origin of Eukaryotic Cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Published online before print December 17, 2008, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811118106.

24. #324
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pm, jangar said:

    Of course, it is your (absurd) opinion that we are all lying about our own feelings and experiences.

    I did not imply this to an atheist, but to a liberal.

    I also see that you have quite a fire in your belly for topics you feel confident about. That is great! I would like to meet you on the kind side of eternity, but of course, that is your choice…one that I cannot make for you.

25. #325
    On July 12th, 2009 at 4:57 pm, jangar said:

    …and you are not the torchbearer of truth to tell atheists about our own feelings and experiences.

    Perhaps not, but I know for a fact that my Savior is. I’m just a lowly representative.

26. #326
    On July 12th, 2009 at 5:15 pm, zeroangel said:

    jangar:

    Ah, and what’s that choice again? I get to go to hell for my crime of skepticism? Nice. So, do Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and countless others go to hell too?

    Evolution / atheism is not a political issue. You seem to equate atheism with liberalism. There is no reason why an atheist can’t be a conservative. My posts seem to incite nearly as much ire and bile on this website as does LGM’s and yet, I have consistently voted Republican and I am an Iraq war vet. Strange, no?

27. #327
    On July 12th, 2009 at 5:23 pm, Ragspierre said:

    My posts seem to incite nearly as much ire and bile on this website as does LGM’s and yet, I have consistently voted Republican and I am an Iraq war vet. Strange, no?

    Strange, yes.

    I have noted the trajectory of your “career” here…at least in my time here.

    You DO generate a lot of heat…very little light…and it always is over your position on religion.

    It is singular. Nobody here, I think, really cares about my religion…or paucity thereof, and I don’t feel impelled to make a bloody exposition of it.

    I note that you do, and have said so. Loudly, explicitly and by demonstration.

    That is suggestive…

    Jes’ sayin…

28. #328
    On July 12th, 2009 at 5:29 pm, zeroangel said:

    Rags:

    It is because things like science education and bigotry toward atheists are important to me. It does no good to post again and again how I agree with you all on the topics of the economy and the war. What would be the point of that?

    Your career here is somewhat shorter than mine. No doubt you did miss many of my posts in the past where I showed a great deal of enthusiasm for the war effort that I ultimately joined.

    No one here would call you evil for your religion or tell you that you have no morals. Obviously, you don’t have to make an exposition of it.

    The day people stop making such absurd comments WRT atheism is the day I stop mentioning the topic and go back to railing against Jihadists and Commies.

29. #329
    On July 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pm, jangar said:

    There is no reason why an atheist can’t be a conservative

    Once again, never said otherwise. Some things do indeed get under your skin, and matters of faith being a BIG part of conservatism bothers you the most. As you eluded to earlier, we are an embarrassment to conservatives, as seen by liberals.

    Now I ask you…why should you care one rotten itty bitty bit what libs think and what they say? Are you that sensitive?

    What I find most remarkable is your obvious understanding of the basics of the Christian faith. Do you have any close friends who are of the evangelical Christian persuasion? Do you deride them on a constant basis, or just threaten Jim-Bob to keep his damn mouth shut or else?

30. #330
    On July 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    Evolutionary biologist Steve Gould, himself an atheist and Marxist, continually admonished people who mocked scientists of the past for their “foolish” and “stupid” beliefs, especially those based on religion.

    One of my favorite Gould books is called “Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle”, in which he analyzes the famous (at least to geologists) frontispiece of Thomas Burnet’s “Sacred Theory of the Earth”, first published in 1681. The engraving attempts to establish a strict adherence to biblical narrative with Burnet’s ideas about “deep time” and the natural history/future of the earth.

    You can see it here:

    http://tinyurl.com/m77es3

    As Gould relates it, this book ( enormously popular in its time) led to Burnet being labled by modern science texbooks as “the archetype of a biblical idolatry that reined the progress of science”.

    Gould finds the charge unsustainable, in that Burnet “insists again and again that the earth’s scripturally-specified history will be adequately explained only when we identify natural causes for the entire panoply of biblical events. Moreover, he urges, in apparent conflicts (they cannot be real) between reason and revelation , choose reason first and then untangle the true meaning of revelation:”

    Though Gould says Burnet wound up tipping the balance toward revelation where he could find no supporting natural evidence, he credits him for adopting an essentially rationalist stance shared by all scientists since Newton

    It’s a sophisticated treatment of the supposed conflict between Science and Religion, and I do it no justice here.

    Bottom line: Gould respected early attempts to explain the natural world, imperfect though they were. He would be the last to jeer at the body of Newton’s work, for example, simply because he also dabbled in alchemy and mysticism.

    Ditto with Darwin’s dalliance with eugenics.

    I urge anyone who wants to get past the silliness and thousand-times rehashed arguments in this thread to read the book, at least the part on Burnet.

31. #331
    On July 12th, 2009 at 5:53 pm, zeroangel said:

    jangar:

    I care what liberals say when “they” are right. Creationism is horribly ignorant and makes you appear terribly stupid. Dinosaurs and humans did not coexist. There is no evidence. It’s laughable idiotic.

    Faith itself doesn’t bother me. Fundamentalism of all stripes does. I have family members that are religious and accept evolution. That type of religion really doesn’t bother me all that much especially since these family members do not think I am immoral or am going to hell.

    What am I misunderstanding about your faith? Do you think I am going to hell or not? What did you mean by this:

    I would like to meet you on the kind side of eternity, but of course, that is your choice…one that I cannot make for you.

    …the implication is clear.

    Is it not your faith the leads you to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? As was pointed out earlier, even the Catholic Church realizes this is painful folly, why can’t you?

32. #332
    On July 12th, 2009 at 5:55 pm, lgm said:

    Whatever Darwin’s shortcomings as a person may have been, the “theory” of evolution has been confirmed and confirmed over again. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of “evolutionary pressure” (raising cows on antibiotics).

33. #333
    On July 12th, 2009 at 5:56 pm, zeroangel said:

    LGM:

    So, are you atheist or otherwise? Just curious.

34. #334
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    you never of his ‘warm little pond’ remark huh?

    You need to read and quote more carefully. Here’s what he really wrote:

    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/DarwinC.html

    “But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”

    Recognizing, however, that the science of his time was not yet ready for such a concept, he added:

    “It is … rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.”

    QED

35. #335
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:03 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    right4life:

    if you go here, you can read that Darwin said, after speculating in a single sentence about that warm little pond, that it is “”mere rubbish” thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.”

    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/DarwinC.html

    QED

36. #336
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:05 pm, jangar said:

    I care what liberals say when “they” are right

    Then perhaps you are giving them way too much credit.

    What did you mean by this

    Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me”. John 14:6

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2014:6&version=31

37. #337
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:09 pm, zeroangel said:

    jangar:

    It’s not just liberals that think dinosaurs and humans did not coexist. My only point was that viewpoints like yours offer excellent fodder to make all of us look like fools in a very public way (on a noteable blog).

    In any case, so anyone who doesn’t believe Christ is their saviour is going to hell? Correct?

38. #338
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:13 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    right4life:

    Re warm little pond:

    Go here:

    http://tinyurl.com/kstvod

    “It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”

    Recognizing, however, that the science of his time was not yet ready for such a concept, he added:

    “It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.”

39. #339
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:19 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Whatever Darwin’s shortcomings as a person may have been, the “theory” of evolution has been confirmed and confirmed over again. We have bacteria resistant to antibiotics because of “evolutionary pressure” (raising cows on antibiotics).

    Not really.

    And it would depend entirely on to WHICH theory of evolution you refer.

    The adaptation of micro-organisms to antibiotics is no different than the intra-species genetic movement that was not only NOT novel to Darwin’s observation, but had, in fact, been managed by people for thousands of years. (Hence, the breeding of animals and food crops).

    Darwin may rightly be credited with articulating in scientific terms what man had been using for centuries.

    For many of us who actually are of a skeptical bent, any theory of inter-species evolution remains to be demonstrated as having merit…much less be the explanation for the diversity of life we know has existed on this planet.

    As even several “brights” have admitted, it cannot account for the beginning of life on the planet.

40. #340
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:24 pm, zeroangel said:

    Rags:

    What? OK, I’ll bite. Which flavor of evolution has not been confirmed over and over again? Or were you referring to antibiotics? In that case, which theory of evolution does not attribute resistant bacteria to evolutionary pressure?

    The theory of evolution is not meant to account for abiogenesis! That’s like saying quantum mechanics doesn’t account for gravity! Of course it doesn’t!

41. #341
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:25 pm, jangar said:

    It’s not just liberals that think dinosaurs and humans did not coexist

    Proof? And something more than a Hollywood movie showing dinosaurs chasing and eating people.

    The world was made perfect…all were designed to be vegetarians, and nothing was to die. There was nothing corrupt.

    Enter sin. This one act corrupted not only man, but the entire creation as well.

    I do not expect you to believe in any of this, just realize that these beliefs are very common among those of the political isle that you share. We are many, and have been since the dawn of man…back in the day when the first man walked with God.

42. #342
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:25 pm, atheling said:

    lgm is a Third Reich proponent.

    His heroes are Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche.

    I bet he has a copy of Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens on his nightstand.

43. #343
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:26 pm, right4life said:

    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:13 pm, fulldroolcup said

    you do realize that to be logically consistent, evolution would have to include the origin of life. otherwise, evolution would be forced to say God, or some intelligent agency, created life…then evolution took over…basically theistic evolution…which we both know is NOT the evolution taught in school and believed by the evolutionists…

    still no word on those ‘lower races’ hmmmm??

44. #344
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:29 pm, zeroangel said:

    jangar:

    The onus of proof is on one making a claim. There are no dinosaur saddles; no records of dinosaur sales; no dinosaur drawings; no books written on dinosaur care; no humans and dinosaurs buried together. Where is your evidence? Why is it that we have no evidence?

    I know fundamentalists are growing on this side of the political spectrum. It is a major concern of mine and I worry that it will (or perhaps has already) become the undoing of the Republican Party.

45. #345
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:31 pm, right4life said:

    Ditto with Darwin’s dalliance with eugenics.

    I urge anyone who wants to get past the silliness and thousand-times rehashed arguments in this thread to read the book, at least the part on Burnet.

    this is no mere ‘dalliance’

    “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206

    A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

    ‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.” (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix

46. #346
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:33 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Or were you referring to antibiotics? In that case, which theory of evolution does not attribute resistant bacteria to evolutionary pressure?

    Change “evolutionary pressure” to genetic adaptation. Just for fun…

    In that context, within a species, that is not only a demonstrated phenomenon, it was used…again…by our forebearers before they understood the modality of the process.

    In the context of intra-species evolution/adaptation, we could use the terms interchangeably.

    Don’t you agree?

47. #347
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:34 pm, right4life said:

    its plain and simple, racism and eugenics are inherent in the theory of evolution.

    the fittest survive…since we are all ‘evolving’ the races cannot be equally evolved…so one must be more fit than the other…and of course as darwin said:

    “The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).

    so why not give evolution a little helping hand??? thats what eugenics is all about…applied evolution

48. #348
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:38 pm, jangar said:

    I know fundamentalists are growing on this side of the political spectrum. It is a major concern of mine and I worry that it will (or perhaps has already) become the undoing of the Republican Party.

    Don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched. Besides, there are much greater issues at hand than the Republican Party.

    And one other item…

    LGM:

    So, are you atheist or otherwise? Just curious.

    Is there a club that I’m not aware of?

49. #349
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:44 pm, Ragspierre said:

    so why not give evolution a little helping hand??? thats what eugenics is all about…applied evolution

    It is precisely a perversion of sound science, or perhaps human evil using the appearance of science.

    Apart from the inhumanity of the idea (which can only have come from religion, I suggest),
    there is nothing firm to suggest that certain traits are especially heritable in human beings. There may be trends, but the data would never justify killing off a person of middling intelligence, as they could produce off-spring with extremely desirable characteristics. The corollary is also true.

50. #350
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:49 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    As even several “brights” have admitted, it cannot account for the beginning of life on the planet.

    And as I just showed, Darwin never made a claim that it did. It not a case that any Darwinist claimed that it did, and then had to admit that claim was unfounded. Strawman down!

    Darwin may rightly be credited with articulating in scientific terms what man had been using for centuries.

    Dead wrong. Books on the principles of breeding had been around for a couple hundred years.

    See here:

    http://tinyurl.com/ksl642

    (try entering “breeding cattle”, sheep, etc.) for similar results

    In fact, Darwin specifically discusses the breeding of birds, dogs, and plants by humans in “The Origin”, as a way of introducing the idea of Natural, as opposed to Human, selection”.

    But humans weren’t creating new species, just different varieties within species.

    What was completely lacking was a mechanism for how one species evolves in nature, not through human agency, into another that did not interbreed with the older one.

    The adaptation of micro-organisms to antibiotics is no different than the intra-species genetic movement that was not only NOT novel to Darwin’s observation, but had, in fact, been managed by people for thousands of years. (Hence, the breeding of animals and food crops).

    That is not true, sir. The resistance to the antibiotics is inherent in certain strains of bacteria before they are exposed to the drug. The bacteria do not “adapt” to the drug; they survive its effects due to a genetic makeup they already have.

    And again, the mechanism by which Nature “manages” a process is a helluva lot different than humans putting, say, pairs of dogs or horses already chosen for their characteristics into a pen and having them mate.

    The question Darwin answered is how nature does it. I ask: If his discovery is so trivial then why do the creationists and ID folks go so bonkers over it?

    As for “the brights”: that term irritates the carp out of me. Daniel Dennett deserves a good kick in the keester for coming up with a smarmy, smug descriptor that assumes he’s always on the “smart” side of the argument. The more accurate term would be “smart-axxes”.

51. #351
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:50 pm, jangar said:

    And another thing…

    I know fundamentalists are growing on this side of the political spectrum. It is a major concern of mine and I worry that it will (or perhaps has already) become the undoing of the Republican Party

    McCain could have not said it better, along with those country-club, northeastern snob RINO’s.

    Anyway, do you not realize that if those embarrassing people of faith were to skip out on the ‘party’ that you and those like-minded would be the MOST pathetic minority of ALL TIME?

    I’d kiss some butt in thanks for putting up with us. After all, we’ve tried with great patience to put up with unbelievers…not because they do not believe, but because some are so bold as to preach their own brand of ‘how the world began’ and deride us at the same time – expecting to come together on the issues we have today.

52. #352
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:52 pm, zeroangel said:

    Rags:

    I think you are being pendantic. That’s kewl. It’s something I have been accused of as well. No big deal. Unless you are trying to suggest that Lamarck was right or that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, we are fine.

53. #353
    On July 12th, 2009 at 6:57 pm, zeroangel said:

    Jangar:

    Anyway, do you not realize that if those embarrassing people of faith fundamentalists were to skip out on the ‘party’ that you and those like-minded would be the MOST pathetic minority of ALL TIME?

    Maybe, but at least we would be making some sense when we spoke about science.

    Perhaps the reason atheists are so annoyed and deride “you” is that we got sick of being told we are going to hell and we are immoral? People in glass houses…

    Frankly, I admit, we have to tolerate you. It still doesn’t make your idea that dinosaurs and humans coexisted any less stupid.

54. #354
    On July 12th, 2009 at 7:04 pm, Ragspierre said:

    That is not true, sir. The resistance to the antibiotics is inherent in certain strains of bacteria before they are exposed to the drug. The bacteria do not “adapt” to the drug; they survive its effects due to a genetic makeup they already have.

    Yes, it is true. Here is why.

    Individual bacteria do not “adapt”. The gene pool…if it contains individuals with a trait that allows them to survive an anti-biotic AND that trait is heritable…allows the species to adapt.

    And again, the mechanism by which Nature “manages” a process is a helluva lot different than humans putting, say, pairs of dogs or horses already chosen for their characteristics into a pen and having them mate.

    Well, yes and no. As it happens in “natural selection”, it happens to make the collect gene pool more durable to its environment. Healthy individuals (those least challenged by their environment) get to express their genes in the pool.

    As it happens in agriculture, it happens to make the gene pool express a certain phenotype (usually) that pleases the breeder.

    Either way, the individuals with the “survival” trait get to breed.

55. #355
    On July 12th, 2009 at 7:07 pm, jangar said:

    Maybe, but at least we would be making some sense when we spoke about science.

    I get the impression that science means a lot to you…why? You combating global warming too? If so, that’s great. Two perspectives coming together for the greater issue of combatting liberism that wants to enslave us all.

    But back to Sanger and abortion…both were/are sick.

56. #356
    On July 12th, 2009 at 7:09 pm, jangar said:

    Maybe, but at least we would be making some sense when we spoke about science.

    Stay away from TBS and tv preachers…they don’t speak for us, they piss us off too.

57. #357
    On July 12th, 2009 at 7:16 pm, zeroangel said:

    jangar:

    Let’s see, why does science mean a lot to me? Oh gee, could it be because basically every technological achievement that makes civilized life possible is owed to science?

    Just small things like that. Oh yah, that and I don’t want my children to grow up to be idiots living in a country full of ignorant people that believe dinosaurs and man coexisted.

    I’ve been over my views on GW before. Do we really have to rehash them here?

58. #358
    On July 12th, 2009 at 7:29 pm, jangar said:

    Let’s see, why does science mean a lot to me? Oh gee, could it be because basically every technological achievement that makes civilized life possible is owed to science?

    Therefore, a few, brave and dedicated Christians who came to this new world, developed a nation and fought for freedom, giving you the right to enjoy those freedoms to do whatever it is you want to do, including explore science, also deserve a place at the table of politics. It is we, who are in this world, but not of this world, who put up with a whole lot of crap and still manage to keep it civilized and play the game of life.

59. #359
    On July 12th, 2009 at 7:35 pm, zeroangel said:

    jangar:

    Nice try. You forget that I also fought for freedom. You also forget that many of the founders were Deists. None of this means dinosaurs and humans coexsited; that much is still mind-numbingly stupid.

    Keep it civilized, eh? So am I going to hell or not?

60. #360
    On July 12th, 2009 at 7:54 pm, right4life said:

    It is precisely a perversion of sound science, or perhaps human evil using the appearance of science.

    you’ll never hear me claim evolution is sound science!!

    That is not true, sir. The resistance to the antibiotics is inherent in certain strains of bacteria before they are exposed to the drug. The bacteria do not “adapt” to the drug; they survive its effects due to a genetic makeup they already have.

    so in other words, they were DESIGNED to cope with changing conditions…

    I ask: If his discovery is so trivial then why do the creationists and ID folks go so bonkers over it?

    evolution is atheism posing as science. (see the earlier quote from provine on the consequences of this)

61. #361
    On July 12th, 2009 at 7:56 pm, right4life said:

    Frankly, I admit, we have to tolerate you

    yeah sure Johnny Mac!! but we don’t have to tolerate you. I don’t want to be in a party of arrogant condescending darwiniacs..you can have the republicans…your guy did so well last time…

62. #362
    On July 12th, 2009 at 8:04 pm, right4life said:

    Perhaps the reason atheists are so annoyed and deride “you” is that we got sick of being told we are going to hell and we are immoral

    or perhaps its just that atheists HATE christians…not muslims interestingly….but christians…and we know why…

63. #363
    On July 12th, 2009 at 8:09 pm, jangar said:

    So am I going to hell or not?

    That is completely up to you.

    You forget that I also fought for freedom.

    I did not forget. Thank you for fighting the good fight…you are one of many brave Americans:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/12/%e2%80%9cwe-really-are-just-focused-on-what-lies-ahead%e2%80%9d/

    I’m really surprised you have not visited this thread today…

64. #364
    On July 12th, 2009 at 8:12 pm, zeroangel said:

    I hate Muslim fundamentalists an awful lot. After all, more than a few tried to kill me in Iraq. Heck, my dislike for Muslim fundamentalists involves wanting them to die. As for fundamentalist Christians, I would just rather they kept dinosaur saddles in their own churches and out of the school system. Terrible indeed!

    In any case, John McCain was not my preferred candidate. “We” will happily take the Republicans. Go found your own party then. Good riddance.

65. #365
    On July 12th, 2009 at 8:15 pm, zeroangel said:

    jangar:

    Oh? How is it up to me? I can’t believe, don’t you get it? The best I could do is pretend to believe. Obviously, that won’t fool your god. What do you think?

    I have visited that thread and read it. I just didn’t read the comments.

66. #366
    On July 12th, 2009 at 8:20 pm, Ragspierre said:

    S
    

    o am I going to hell or not?

    Certainly no expert, but my understanding is none of us can answer the question of our final judgment for ourselves…much less for you.

    Speaking only for myself, I don’t subscribe to a literal hell, but a place or time when we realize all we might have done and been, but were not–by virtue of our choices.

67. #367
    On July 12th, 2009 at 8:58 pm, right4life said:

    “We” will happily take the Republicans.

    you can have them…they’re a bunch of losers!! and even when they win, they’re just democRAT lite…

68. #368
    On July 12th, 2009 at 9:08 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

    zeroangel said: “The day people stop making such absurd comments WRT atheism is the day I stop mentioning the topic and go back to railing against Jihadists and Commies.”

    If I may interject a comment here, let me confess that it gets on my last nerve when folks bring a lot of religious patter into essentially political conversations. I believe that I commented earlier how annoyed I get sometimes at the amount of Catholicism over on the NRO Corner.

    In my real life (and frequently online), I have been a ferocious defender of religion or, at least, of the religious traditions that are central to our culture. And although I do not whatsoever share the beliefs underneath those traditions, I am quick to point out that “believers” seem to me to constitute the great part of my fellow citizens who seem to have their feet on the ground and live wholesome and productive lives. Contrariwise, our most “educated,” our most “creative” fellow citizens seem to pay a high price for their independent intellects in terms of managing much less well with the commonsense questions of everyday life, not to mention politics.

    These attitudes leave me conflicted. But generally it works out that I honor religion at a distance but get a little crazy when I get too close to it, because it seems to me to be such utter nonsense. And when the Pope starts pushing his political agenda, he plummets like a rock, in my opinion, and I completely forget my respect for him and am overwhelmed by thoughts of how ridiculous is all the chanting and incense and fantastical costumes and hocus-pocus, and I can get extremely snarky in a red-hot, New York minute.

    And it is not “high church” versus “low church,” either. When I was a kid, a very low-church con man named Oral Roberts used to come on television and I would just go nuts. I was just a kid and considered myself a Christian but I know a sleazebag when I see one, some of the time, anyway. And the low church end of Christianity is absolutely infested with hustlers, although most of them are not running a real malignant con like Roberts. Most of them are just trying to hustle up a living by their dogmatic rantings and ability to convince their rustic followers that they have the true word about the hereafter and the Lord, etc., when, in fact, they just have big mouths and a lot of country chutzpah.

    The constitution not withstanding, it really is impossible to completely tease apart religion and politics so I am not — intellectually speaking — surprised that they so often get mixed up online. But still, at bottom, I totally disbelieve and when I find myself confronted with a lot of religion — people speaking with great authority and fervor and at length and quoting their Holy sources, all of it complete rubbish in my mind — well, I can get very snarky. Often, I get snarky with people whom I quite respect for the broader values that they express. It makes me sad, but it would be a lie to say that I am sorry and don’t mean to give offense. Often I do mean to, although it is not my best trait.

69. #369
    On July 12th, 2009 at 9:16 pm, right4life said:

    ability to convince their rustic followers

    yeah we’re just po dumb folks, who wouldn’t know how to make it without a kindly massa atheist like you telling us what to do…you’re a typical lib

    I have an MS degree…you?

70. #370
    On July 12th, 2009 at 9:46 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

    R4L>>I have an MS degree…you?

    I won’t embarrass you by responding to your tacky question. I am willing to chat online with anyone who has something to say. I am willing to chat with you, R4L, although my comments were not intended to be pointed particularly at you.

    I don’t, though, get into actual theological conversations. I really don’t know anything about it and don’t care to learn to the level of being able to dispute with people who are bible-obsessed. It is, after all, far, far from being a work of reliable non-fiction. It doesn’t interest me.

71. #371
    On July 12th, 2009 at 10:17 pm, zeroangel said:

    Ignatius Reilly:

    Great post! I pretty much agree. I do want to add though; at some point in the future things won’t be the way they are today. Eventually, atheist bashing will be considered as ignorant and bigoted as anti-Semitism and dinosaur jockeys will be considered as insane and irrelevant as flat-earthers. Well, at least one would hope. I like to think my posts here bring attention to these issues. It is a strange thing IMHO, that on this blog (which is supposed to be one of the best conservative blogs out there) if a far-left radical were to come in here and extol the virtues of communism he would be rightfully chastised and informed how it sounds nice, but simply doesn’t work. Contra wise, when someone asserts that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, there is barely a peep, except from me.

    Anyhow, again, great post. I am ready to rustle up my dinosaur and ride into the sunset at this point.

72. #372
    On July 13th, 2009 at 7:56 am, right4life said:

    On July 12th, 2009 at 9:46 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:
    R4L>>I have an MS degree…you?

    I won’t embarrass you by responding to your tacky question.

    oh go ahead, give it your best shot. have you ever thought that maybe the reason people don’t like atheists is you’re a bunch of arrogant aholes??

73. #373
    On July 13th, 2009 at 8:36 am, jangar said:

    R4L – yesterdays most telling comment:

    I know fundamentalists are growing on this side of the political spectrum. It is a major concern of mine and I worry that it will (or perhaps has already) become the undoing of the Republican Party

    Can you say mole? Or at the very least the same mindset we get from the country-clubber RINO’s of the Noreast…the same ones who do not win elections, but vote along side Democrats.

74. #374
    On July 13th, 2009 at 9:23 am, zeroangel said:

    jangar:

    What the hell are you talking about now? I have never, ever tried to disguise my “libertarianism” and distaste for “social conservatism” on this site. Nonetheless, I often find myself siding with Republicans because of matters of fiscal conservatism and foreign policy are so essential to me.

    The John McCain’s of the world are the polar opposite of my worldview; a bit too social conservative and not enough fiscally conservative. If you ask me, it’s the dinosaur riding Sarah Palin that lost this election, but really, who cares, since she’s a failure and a quitter and the election is over.

    Mole? LOL! How am I a mole? Mole to do what? Spy on a completely public website? Infiltrate a major political party in attempt to affect change? Ohhh… clandestine indeed! I am not a country club member and if being a RINO means a Republican that doesn’t think human beings and dinosaurs coexisted, well, yup guilty as charged.

    Are you going to substantiate that claim? Where are the dinosaur saddles? Records of dinosaur sales? Dinosaur drawings? Books written of dinosaur care? Why is it that we have no evidence?

    R4L:

    LOL! We are the arrogant ones? You claim to know what the creator of the universe wants. You claim to know that those that don’t agree with you will suffer for eternity. You claim that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. On the other hand, we simply say, “Sorry, I don’t buy it,” and atheists are the arrogant ones! HAH!

75. #375
    On July 13th, 2009 at 10:58 am, right4life said:

    Can you say mole? Or at the very least the same mindset we get from the country-clubber RINO’s of the Noreast…the same ones who do not win elections, but vote along side Democrats.

    yeah these people think they’re doing us a favor by *allowing* us the *privilege* of voting republican!!

    they think we’re the po dumb country cousins, that are barely tolerated at the family reunion…

76. #376
    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:03 am, right4life said:

    LOL! We are the arrogant ones?

    yeah you think everyone who disagrees is dumb…ever hear of the ‘brights’ or the earlier comment about ‘rustics’??

    You claim to know what the creator of the universe wants

    yeah cause He told us. you claim there is NO creator…talk about arrogance…ever read any atheist literature?? they’re the brilliant ones…everyone else is a dullard.

    You claim to know that those that don’t agree with you will suffer for eternity

    no, its those who reject Jesus…and yes He is the way truth and life…and without him, you’re SOL…

    christianity has gotten away from the concept of hell, and of an angry, wrathful God…but just as His love is beyond our understanding..so is His wrath, anger, judgment, and vengeance. Ignore this at your peril. I think this is a big mistake. One of the great revivals in american history was during the time of Jonathan Edwards…and his most famous sermon is ‘sinners in the hands of an angry God’

    You claim that dinosaurs and humans coexisted

    and you believe in evolution.

77. #377
    On July 13th, 2009 at 11:12 am, spaceycakes said:

    11:57 am, lgm said

    Liar.

78. #378
    On July 13th, 2009 at 1:12 pm, James Felix said:

    The difference is, in science when they don’t have the answer they keep looking. They don’t simply look at an ancient book of unknown provenance, which has been translated who knows how many times, and say “oh yeah, that must be it”.

    actually they do…its called
    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

    If that were true how do you explain the scientific advances of the last 2000 years? And how do you account for the fact that all the places in the world that do follow religion above all else are primitive backwaters compared to more secular societies?

    “And look, if you want to play the game of “if any part of your theory is unprovable or inconsistent then the whole thing is wrong” then you really have to toss the Bible too.”

    in your dreams

    I really hope that by saying “in your dreams” you mean to imply that the entire Bible is factually accurate. You can’t possibly be saying that, right? Especially in light of the fact that the Bible contradicts itself in several places.

    you are so pathetically stupid, its laughable…its hard to believe someone could be that stupid…but oh you’re an atheist :LOL:

    I have tried very hard to be non-confrontational and respectful of the religious people here. Comments like this are what I’ve gotten for my trouble.

    Very well then, let me lay it right out for you:

    You are basing your entire lives on a book that someone dug up in a cave. You have no idea where it came from, you have no idea who wrote it, you have no idea who edited it, you have no idea who translated it (or how many times) and you have no empirical evidence to support anything it says.

    It is the exact same thing as if someone were to dig up my comic collection 2,000 years from now and decide to worship Spider-Man based on it. The exact same thing.

    And none of you seem to understand what exactly science is. Science is nothing more or less than a method of thought. For you to dismiss “science” because some of its answers contradict your superstitions is absurd. For you to dismiss science while using a computer is doubly absurd.

79. #379
    On July 13th, 2009 at 1:52 pm, right4life said:

    If that were true how do you explain the scientific advances of the last 2000 years?
    And how do you account for the fact that all the places in the world that do follow religion above all else are primitive backwaters compared to more secular societies?

    you do realize that the entire scientific revolution grew out of christian culture, right? ever hear of Newton, Kelvin, Pasteur, Faraday, etc???

    Especially in light of the fact that the Bible contradicts itself in several places

    oh yes of couse it does!! thats why you atheists have been SOOO successful at discreding it…having tried now for centuries…

    You are basing your entire lives on a book that someone dug up in a cave. You have no idea where it came from, you have no idea who wrote it, you have no idea who edited it, you have no idea who translated it (or how many times) and you have no empirical evidence to support anything it says.

    much more evidence for the bible than for evolution. please. and even in the little things, the bible has been proven to be accurate…

    Museum’s tablet lends new weight to Biblical truthDalya Alberge, Arts Correspondent
    The British Museum yesterday hailed a discovery within a modest clay tablet in its collection as a breakthrough for biblical archaeology – dramatic proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament.

    link

    do you know of ANY archeology that disproves the bible??? didn’t think so.

    And none of you seem to understand what exactly science is. Science is nothing more or less than a method of thought

    exactly, and because of darwinism, ‘science’ has become atheism….get a clue.

80. #380
    On July 13th, 2009 at 1:54 pm, right4life said:

    On July 13th, 2009 at 1:12 pm, James Felix said

    why don’t you try answering my question, which none of you atheists has the courage to answer???

    what did darwin mean by ‘lower races’ and eliminating those races?

    give examples, please.

81. #381
    On July 13th, 2009 at 2:01 pm, right4life said:

    On July 13th, 2009 at 1:12 pm, James Felix said

    and of COURSE you ignored my quote on ‘junk DNA’, the darwiniac orthodoxy which has INHIBITED scientific research…..no surprise!

82. #382
    On July 13th, 2009 at 2:02 pm, right4life said:

    one other thing…list the mutations that led to the eye…in order, please.

    can’t?? but you believe the eye evolved…its called faith..which is what evolution is….

83. #383
    On July 13th, 2009 at 3:26 pm, James Felix said:

    you do realize that the entire scientific revolution grew out of christian culture, right? ever hear of Newton, Kelvin, Pasteur, Faraday, etc???

    Yes. I’ve also heard of people like Galilleo, who was persecuted by the faithful for suggesting that the sun does not orbit the Earth like the Bible says.

    I’ve never suggested that religion has no value. It has been the inspiration for great strides in human rights and the law. But when it comes to the hard sciences advances have always been made in spite of religion, not because of it.

    do you know of ANY archeology that disproves the bible??? didn’t think so.

    I have several answers for this:
    1) The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. It is not for me to disprove it, it is for you to prove it.
    2) Do you know of any archaelogy that disproves the Koran? Didn’t think so. Based on your own logic it is now your duty to convert. Hope you know which direction to kneel when you pray.
    3) I don’t need archaelogy to disprove the Bible. I have physics.

    Museum’s tablet lends new weight to Biblical truthDalya Alberge, Arts Correspondent
    The British Museum yesterday hailed a discovery within a modest clay tablet in its collection as a breakthrough for biblical archaeology – dramatic proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament.

    Do you even see how you use a dramatically inconsistent standard for what counts as proof? If you see anything that supports the smallest part of what the Bible says you contend that the whole thing must be believed. But when we turn the coin over and look at evolution if you see the smallest thing that tells us we don’t have a complete answer it means we have to discard the whole theory.

    You start with an answer and work backwards to try to justify it. Science starts with a question and attempts to answer it. That’s the difference.

    why don’t you try answering my question, which none of you atheists has the courage to answer???
    what did darwin mean by ‘lower races’ and eliminating those races?
    give examples, please

    I have no idea what Darwin meant. But I also know that the value of an idea lays in the idea, not in the person espousing it.

    one other thing…list the mutations that led to the eye…in order, please.
    can’t?? but you believe the eye evolved…its called faith..which is what evolution is….

    List for me, in order, the procedure to remove an appendix. I’ll wait.

    What’s that? You can’t? I guess modern surgical methods are all BS and we should just smack people with Bibles until the evil spirits leave their bodies.

    Or maybe, just maybe, the fact that a guy can’t answer a question far removed from his field of expertise has no bearing whatsoever on anything.

    Since you love the question and answer method so much, I have a few for you:

    1) Why does God hate amputees? Surely among all the people in this world with missing limbs there must be one of them who is extremely faithful and has dilligently prayed for relief. Why doesn’t god ever re-grow a limb?

    2) Please explain how the story of the loaves and the fishes doesn’t contradict the physical law of the conservation of mass. Or do you disregard physics as well as biology?

    3) Please explain why god’s performace of miracles is in direct iverse proportion to our ability to fact check them.

    4) Please list, in order, the chain of custody of the book you so fervently believe in, listing each author, editor and translator, and then prove that every one of them was doing god’s direct bidding.

    Go ahead. I’ll wait.

84. #384
    On July 13th, 2009 at 3:54 pm, James Felix said:

    And by the way…

    This exchange I’m having with R4L illustrates exactly why I try to avoid these discussions with the Faithful.

    He will never convince me that god exists, because I (for whatever reason) insist on empirical evidence before I believe something… much less base my life on it. Because I insist on that proof his faith means nothing to me.

    And I will never convince him that god doesn’t exist. Because he has faith, my proof means nothing to him (or her, sorry but I don’t know).

    But what some of you need to learn is that my rejection of your religious beliefs doesn’t make me evil. Just like not all Christains agree with clinic bombers not all athiests agree with Stalin.

    What should matter to you is that I revere the Constitution and put my life on the line to defend it. What should matter to you is that I believe in individual liberty, and that the government exists to serve us and not vice-versa.

    If those things don’t matter to you, if the only thing you care about is whether I pray to your god, then to hell with you.

    Assuming I believed in hell, that is.

85. #385
    On July 13th, 2009 at 3:56 pm, right4life said:

    Yes. I’ve also heard of people like Galilleo, who was persecuted by the faithful for suggesting that the sun does not orbit the Earth like the Bible says.

    oh yeah it was just brutal…but the bible doesn’t say that…sorry.

    But when it comes to the hard sciences advances have always been made in spite of religion, not because of it.

    yeah religion made it IMPOSSIBLE for newton to come up with his theories…same for kelvin, Pasteur, Faraday, von Braun…etc…sure.

    1) The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. It is not for me to disprove it, it is for you to prove it.

    I’ve already posted a bit of proof, why don’t you put up your evidence of all these ‘contradiction’?

    2) Do you know of any archaelogy that disproves the Koran? Didn’t think so. Based on your own logic it is now your duty to convert. Hope you know which direction to kneel when you pray.

    uh right the koran was written over about 40 years or so where the bible was written over thousands of years..by many different people…laughable…

    3) I don’t need archaelogy to disprove the Bible. I have physics

    post your proof. again, laughable.

    But when we turn the coin over and look at evolution if you see the smallest thing that tells us we don’t have a complete answer it means we have to discard the whole theory.

    you don’t have anything. the fossil record doesn’t show evolution, you cannot duplicate in the lab, or notice it in outside the lab…the various predictions of evolution have been found to be false, from the tree of life, to adaptive radiation, vestigial, organs, ‘junk’ DNA…..

    I have no idea what Darwin meant. But I also know that the value of an idea lays in the idea, not in the person espousing it.

    the idea is racist, and eugenic. the word ‘eugenics’ didn’t exist until afte the theory of evolution…I’ve posted plenty of proof about the racist, eugenicist, effects of evolution…truth hurts.

    but no surprise you wouldn’t be able to criticize your hairygod, or your main article of faith, evolution.

    Or maybe, just maybe, the fact that a guy can’t answer a question far removed from his field of expertise has no bearing whatsoever on anything.

    nobody can list those mutations…you take it on faith.

    Why doesn’t god ever re-grow a limb?

    don’t know, why does He let someone like you continue to live?

    Please explain how the story of the loaves and the fishes doesn’t contradict the physical law of the conservation of mass. Or do you disregard physics as well as biology?

    too funny..because the author of physical laws can contravene them, you think this disproves God. by definition, every miracle contradicts ‘natural’ law…but of course you cannot disprove those miracles any other way, except to dismiss them.

    Please explain why god’s performace of miracles is in direct iverse proportion to our ability to fact check them

    oh you can check them….of course you cannot check thousands of years old miracles with science..but you can use the rules of evidence…

    Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen

    link

    you can also look at something like the shroud of turin…or you can believe all the people living who have had miracles happen to them..but you just dismiss them, because it conflicts with your atheistic faith.

    Please list, in order, the chain of custody of the book you so fervently believe in, listing each author, editor and translator, and then prove that every one of them was doing god’s direct bidding

    as far as God’s bidding…read Ezekiel 37-39….Israel was to be reborn as a nation…with persia (iran) as her primary enemy…and iran would lead a coalition of nations, with Russia’s reluctant help, against israel…sound familiar???

    or the book of daniel with its prophecies of Alexander the great…the only way around it is to claim it was written in Alexander’s time..but of course it wasn’t.

    keep bending over for your hairygod darwin, see if he can save you!

86. #386
    On July 13th, 2009 at 3:58 pm, zeroangel said:

    R4L:

    yeah these people think they’re doing us a favor by *allowing* us the *privilege* of voting republican!!

    No one thinks that. In fact, leave the party. Don’t leave angry, just leave. Found your own party, call it the “Creatocrats” and make a dinosaur your party symbol. My country cousins from TN aren’t dumb, hell, they know that dinosaurs and humans didn’t coexist.

    I never liked the name ”brights” I use the term ”not religious” around people I don’t know and ”atheist” around those I do. No need to try and sex it up. In any case, you are ”rustic” if you think dinosaurs and humans coexisted. It’s beyond stupid. Your typical religious person doesn’t believe something so ridiculous, it takes a real lunatic like you.

    yeah cause He told us.

    ”He” didn’t tell you anything, (incidentally, why male, don’t you see how this is borne out of ancient man with all his prejudices?) you read it in a book that you pretend came from the creator of the universe despite the fact that it contains bits of stoning rape victims, killing women and children, sacrificing children, and basically just general, evil mayhem. Saying I believe something doesn’t exist because of zero evidence isn’t arrogant.

    christianity has gotten away from the concept of hell, and of an angry, wrathful God…

    …and…

    Ignore this at your peril.

    …and…

    and his most famous sermon is ’sinners in the hands of an angry God’

    …he still sounds pretty angry and wrathful to me.

    you believe in evolution.

    No, I accept it, you clown. When the full soul crushing weight of the implication dawned on me, it wasn’t really a pleasant thing. Now admittedly, this was a slow process, but in the end, I have accepted it and in a way, the idea that this is all there is makes life more precious, not less. Many atheists wish there was an afterlife, but we deal with the grim truth and reality.

    you do realize that the entire scientific revolution grew out of christian culture, right? ever hear of Newton, Kelvin, Pasteur, Faraday, etc???

    You see Mr. Moron, the thing here is, assuming their religion gave them a zeal to discover the wonders of god’s world, it doesn’t mean it is true! Keplar (for example) spent years of his life trying to nail down his perfect geometric solar system model believing that god must have made it following some perfect pattern. In the end, he had to accept it was a bunch of sloppy ellipses. Also, all science is conducted assuming no entities are interfering with the experiment. That is, when a scientist performs some kind of experiment, he assumes that no angels, devils, demons, souls, ghosts, or GOD will interfere with the experiment. By it’s very nature, science is atheistic, it has to be!

    oh yes of couse it does!! thats why you atheists have been SOOO successful at discreding it…having tried now for centuries…

    It’s been discredited. It’s over. It’s not our fault that because human minds are hardwired to look for ”agency” clowns like you want to believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You see, we deal with the harsh reality, you make up stuff to yourself so you don’t have to accept the dismal plight of not living forever. So sad, mah bad.

    much more evidence for the bible than for evolution. please. and even in the little things, the bible has been proven to be accurate…

    Hah! I don’t know where to begin. A good start might be for you to point out the dinosaur saddles, records of dinosaur sales, dinosaur drawings, books written of dinosaur care… Maybe after that we can talk about child sacrifice and misogyny.

    do you know of ANY archeology that disproves the bible??? didn’t think so.

    Like James said, physics, and pretty much all of physics.

    exactly, and because of darwinism, ’science’ has become atheism….get a clue.

    …again, it’s atheistic by it’s very nature.

    Anyhow, around and around you go with the eye, racism, junk DNA, and other things that have been explained to you time and time again. You outright reject them because it f*cks up your fairy tale. It’s really a shame how ignorant you are.

87. #387
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:01 pm, right4life said:

    He will never convince me that god exists, because I (for whatever reason) insist on empirical evidence before I believe something

    you don’t have any evidence for evolution…all you have is FAITH that ‘micro’ evolution adds up to ‘macro’…but of course animals like the tuatara make that claim laughable.

    the Tuatara has the fastes ‘micro’ evolution rate ever seen…yet it is a living dinosaur…

    And I will never convince him that god doesn’t exist. Because he has faith, my proof means nothing to him (or her, sorry but I don’t know).

    post your ‘proof’ I can always use a laugh.

    if the only thing you care about is whether I pray to your god, then to hell with you.

    I don’t really care that much what god you do or do not pray too…thats on you…I do care that your atheistic faith (evolution) doesn’t triumph in the arena of ideas…because it leads to so much bloodshed.

    and so far, my side is winning in this country, and in britain.

88. #388
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, zeroangel said:

    R4L:

    why does He let someone like you continue to live?

    LOL! You are such an a$$. Maybe he is a loving caring god that just used to murder women and children in the distant past. I guess he has taken a break from direct intervention via pillars of flame et al.

89. #389
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:09 pm, zeroangel said:

    R4L:

    and so far, my side is winning in this country, and in britain.

    No it’s not. Even Republican judges are smart enough to know that dinosaur riders don’t belong in science class because it’s STUPID. You are stupid.

    Astrology, alchemy, plam reading, AND creationism is nonsense.

90. #390
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:10 pm, right4life said:

    No one thinks that. In fact, leave the party. Don’t leave angry, just leave

    already have…good luck winning without people like me.

    I never liked the name ”brights” I use the term ”not religious” around people I don’t know and ”atheist” around those I do. No need to try and sex it up.

    that was aimed at atheists in general….not you in particular…reading is fundamental…

    ”He” didn’t tell you anything, (incidentally, why male, don’t you see how this is borne out of ancient man with all his prejudices?)

    yeah He did…and He backed up by giving prophecies…which have been VERY accurate.

    ”He” didn’t tell you anything, (incidentally, why male, don’t you see how this is borne out of ancient man with all his prejudices?)

    I guess my God just isn’t as good as your god (darwin)

    he still sounds pretty angry and wrathful to me.

    He is.

    No, I accept it, you clown. When the full soul crushing weight of the implication dawned on me, it wasn’t really a pleasant thing

    sounds like a religious experience.

    Hah! I don’t know where to begin. A good start might be for you to point out the dinosaur saddles, records of dinosaur sales, dinosaur drawings, books written of dinosaur care… Maybe after that we can talk about child sacrifice and misogyny.

    the bible doesn’t talk about those things…only wacko atheists..

    Many atheists wish there was an afterlife, but we deal with the grim truth and reality.

    grimmer than you can imagine I’m afraid…

    By it’s very nature, science is atheistic, it has to be!

    no it doesn’t. thats just another atheist lie.

    You see Mr. Moron, the thing here is, assuming their religion gave them a zeal to discover the wonders of god’s world, it doesn’t mean it is true!

    but you think that since science is atheist it has to be true…moron.

    It’s been discredited. It’s over

    only in your delusional little mind…2 billion or so people would disagree, but what do they know compared to an atheist

    we deal with the harsh reality, you make up stuff to yourself so you don’t have to accept the dismal plight of not living forever. So sad, mah bad.

    delusional…idiotic and laughable. and just proves what arrogant, full-of-themselves wackos atheists are.

    Like James said, physics, and pretty much all of physics

    more stupidity.

91. #391
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, right4life said:

    Maybe he is a loving caring god that just used to murder women and children in the distant past. I guess he has taken a break from direct intervention via pillars of flame et al.

    He gives life, and He can take it…whenever, and however He wants…and when He does, it is, by definition, the right thing to do.

    moron.

92. #392
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:12 pm, right4life said:

    No it’s not. Even Republican judges are smart enough to know that dinosaur riders don’t belong in science class because it’s STUPID. You are stupid.

    read the polls jacka**

93. #393
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm, right4life said:

    Anyhow, around and around you go with the eye, racism, junk DNA, and other things that have been explained to you time and time again. You outright reject them because it f*cks up your fairy tale. It’s really a shame how ignorant you are

    you cannot dispute what I say, just dismiss it..

    because you are an ignorant arrogant piece of trash…and you get angry when you hairygod is impugned…

    fool.

94. #394
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:29 pm, zeroangel said:

    R4L:

    Oh for goodness sake. I’ll try and limit this to the meatier bits because this is getting lame. I see you are resorting to one-liners which is your typical pattern.

    The prophecies from the Bible didn’t come true. You just want the Bible to be true so desperately that you will look for anything to confirm it to you and shoehorn it into the real world. Its simple pattern seeking, it’s hardwired in the human mind, and it’s stupid.

    the bible doesn’t talk about those things…only wacko atheists..

    LOL! No YOU talk about those things because you are trying to shoehorn Biblical literalism into RL. Why don’t you quote the passages in the Bible that talk about dinosaurs? I’m sure they are rather detailed descriptions and not vague at all.

    Who cares what the polls say? Creationism is stupid, wrong, a lie, and anyone with brain can piece this together.

95. #395
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:40 pm, James Felix said:

    uh right the koran was written over about 40 years or so where the bible was written over thousands of years..by many different people…laughable…

    If it’s so laughable then why can’t you answer it? Do you have any evidence to disprove the Koran? Or the teachings of Shinto? Or the Norse myths? Can you disprove any religion?

    No, you can’t.

    but no surprise you wouldn’t be able to criticize your hairygod, or your main article of faith, evolution.

    Evolution is not my “main article of faith”. I don’t base my life on it, most days in fact I don’t think about it at all. It’s a theory to explain the diversity of life on the planet, one that makes sense to me as a layman. As soon as someone comes up with an alternate theory that makes sense I’ll be happy to listen, and even change my beliefs.

    too funny..because the author of physical laws can contravene them, you think this disproves God. by definition, every miracle contradicts ‘natural’ law…but of course you cannot disprove those miracles any other way, except to dismiss them.

    Again, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of how reason works and upon whom the burden of proof lays.

    I put a can of Coke in the fridge this morning. When I went to get it for lunch it was gone. There are two competing theories for where it went:

    Theory A) Aliens from Sirius, using advanced technology, paralyzed everyone in the office and took my can of soda. They then planted false memories in everyone’s mind so they wouldn’t notice the lapse in time and left in their ship, which travels at faster than light speeds fueled by nothing but happy thoughts.

    Theory B) One of my co-workers swiped my soda.

    According to you, because no one can disprove Theory A it is just as valid as Theory B. According to me, though, the onus is on someone who believes in Theory A to prove it before I’ll believe it.

    Please explain why god’s performace of miracles is in direct iverse proportion to our ability to fact check them

    oh you can check them….of course you cannot check thousands of years old miracles with science..but you can use the rules of evidence…

    Using whose rules of evidence? By any rules I’m acquainted with the Bible would be inadmissable hearsay.

    But that doesn’t matter because you didn’t answer the question I asked, in fact you seem to not even have understood it. To put it more simply my question is this: why has god stopped performing miracles?

    I know you’re going to say he still does perform them, but I’m not talking about the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich or a statue that weeps chicken fat. I want to know why he’s stopped performing miracles that someone like me cannot possibly refute. Show me water into wine. Show me the creation of matter. Show me walking on water. Show me something, anything, that I cannot debunk as a hoax or explain through normal science.

    And the Shroud of Turin has been so conclusively proven to be a fabrication that even the Church has stopped backing it.

    Why doesn’t god ever re-grow a limb?

    don’t know, why does He let someone like you continue to live?

    You don’t know? Then by your own standards of proof your religion has been conclusively disproved.

    The answer to your question though, why does he allow someone like me to live, is very simple. He doesn’t exist and therefore has no power to kill me.

    Please list, in order, the chain of custody of the book you so fervently believe in, listing each author, editor and translator…

    I’ll note you’re unable to do this. Therefore, again using your own logic, your Bible is a lie.

    …and then prove that every one of them was doing god’s direct bidding

    as far as God’s bidding…read Ezekiel 37-39….Israel was to be reborn as a nation…with persia (iran) as her primary enemy…and iran would lead a coalition of nations, with Russia’s reluctant help, against israel…sound familiar???

    Before I’ll accept a prediction as proof it would have to be specific and not subject to interpretation. In other words, tell me what’s going to happen before it happens. Don’t take something that’s already happened and keep interpreting it different ways until it matches something in your bible.

    And can’t almost every religion point to some prophecy in its holy writings and interpret it as having come true? Can’t astrologers do that? Or believers in Nostradamus? Can’t Jean Dixon?

    And would you care to go through the list of Biblical prophesies that
    

    haven’t

    come true?

    keep bending over for your hairygod darwin, see if he can save you

    Hmmm. A fundamentalist Christain preoccupied with people bending over.

    Nope. I’m not going to say it. It’s just too easy.

96. #396
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:40 pm, right4life said:

    The prophecies from the Bible didn’t come true

    so Israel isn’t a nation??? and Alexander didn’t really live?? uh sure…

    Why don’t you quote the passages in the Bible that talk about dinosaurs? I’m sure they are rather detailed descriptions and not vague at all.

    you don’t know what you are talking, as usual…the verses, and there are very few, that MAY mention dinosaurs make a passing reference to ‘leviathian’ no one knows what that is referring to.

    you don’t know nearly as much as you think you do.

    Who cares what the polls say? Creationism is stupid, wrong, a lie

    yet a large number of people believe it…but what do they know compared to a legend-in-his-own-mind atheist???

97. #397
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:50 pm, James Felix said:

    only in your delusional little mind…2 billion or so people would disagree (that the Bible has been refuted), but what do they know compared to an atheist

    Sorry, but reality is not democratic.

    Did the Earth only become round when 50.1% of the population decided it was? Did the sun orbit the Earth until a majority of people decided it didn’t?

    Did OJ not murder two people because a jury said he didn’t?

    If Muslims come to outnumber Christains (a distinct possibility in our lifetime) will you renounce your faith and accept Allah?

    Of course not. Reality is what it is. People refusing to accept it doesn’t change it.

98. #398
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, right4life said:

    If it’s so laughable then why can’t you answer it? Do you have any evidence to disprove the Koran?

    I did answer it…there isn’t much history, or geography to speak of in the Koran. its mostly about the exploits of muhammed in a very specific time frame….not the thousands of years of history recorded in the bible…

    and yes I can disprove religions…like islam…where is the prophecy from the prophet?? there isn’t any. mormonism….no archeology supports it…Jehovah Witnesses, change their own prophecies so many times is sad…haven’t had a chance to look into shintoism…sorry.

    so yes I did disprove religions…sorry.

    Evolution is not my “main article of faith”. I don’t base my life on it, most days in fact I don’t think about it at all. It’s a theory to explain the diversity of life on the planet, one that makes sense to me as a layman

    yes you do….as provine clearly stated the implications of evolution…you really should be a little more honest with the theory, and its implications….

    Using whose rules of evidence? By any rules I’m acquainted with the Bible would be inadmissable hearsay.

    oh I don’t know…one of the founders of the harvard law school…who was a jewish skeptic…in the example I gave you…did you read it, or just dismiss it like everything else that doesn’t fit your worldview???

    But that doesn’t matter because you didn’t answer the question I asked, in fact you seem to not even have understood it. To put it more simply my question is this: why has god stopped performing miracles?

    He hasn’t…I have had several myself…but you wouldn’t believe it, and telling you would be casting pearls before swine.

    Show me water into wine. Show me the creation of matter. Show me walking on water. Show me something, anything, that I cannot debunk as a hoax or explain through normal science.

    God is not a performer to dance when you want Him to…as Jesus said in the story of Lazarus and the rich man…you have the law, and the prophets..that is enough…if you don’t believe them, you wouldn’t believe a man rising from the dead….and you don’t.

    God has done all He is going to do to save you. now its on you. arrogant atheists think God will perform for them…

    Before I’ll accept a prediction as proof it would have to be specific and not subject to interpretation. In other words, tell me what’s going to happen before it happens.

    just did…Iran is going to lead a coalition of nations to attack Israel…and the bible is VERY clear…Israel Reborn…for the first time in 2,500 years….yeah its just an ‘interpretation’

    here’s a few others…there will be a global economic system, with one currency..and you’ll need a mark to buy and sell…but thats just IMPOSSIBLE, isn’t it??

    haven’t
    come true?

    yet

    you didn’t list all your physics that disprove the bible…nor have you disputed what I said about the lack of evidence for evolution….no surprise…you have to ignore those things…

99. #399
    On July 13th, 2009 at 4:54 pm, right4life said:

    Sorry, but reality is not democratic.

    and its not reality because some atheist says so….sorry.

100. #400
     On July 13th, 2009 at 4:55 pm, James Felix said:

     The prophecies from the Bible didn’t come true…

     so Israel isn’t a nation??? and Alexander didn’t really live?? uh sure…

     You keep answering questions I didn’t ask.

     The laws of probability dictate that if you make a bunch of predictions and wait 2,000 years some of them are going to come true.

     So does that mean that Islam is also a true faith? Do the gods of the Aztecs exist and are we angering them by our lack of human sacrifice?

     What I’m trying to make you see is that everything you say to prove your religion can be used to prove every other religion man has ever had.

     But you won’t see that, because within your mind there was a cage match between faith and reason, and reason got its butt kicked a long time ago.