Hi,

As you might have heard, some anti-religion groups have been deleted recently. I have been looking at your group as well, and a few things are beyond what I would normally authorise, but most of the contents are discussion orientated and not just plain bashing and hatred. This is the reason why I am not deleting this group. But I strongly encourage you to keep a strong moderation going, so it does not become mindless hatred.

As an example, “Metal against Islamism group was deleted… BASTARDS!” and “Oh good grief. Stupid bastards, creating a mass of groups for exactly the same thing. That’s just confusing.” are the kind of things I would rather not want to see appearing.

In this thread various opinions were heard, some coming from the Metal against Islamism admins who tried to explain that they had no warning and no chance to fix things before being deleted. The admins of Last.fm also chimed in to explain that they would simply prefer to avoid rampart hatred but have no problem with reasoned arguments. Apparently one of the main reasons why MAI was deleted was their shoutbox was flooded with seething anti-Islam posts, far too many to delete individually. So the whole thing had to be taken down. It reminds of how the Protoss used to clean the Zerg infestations in the popular Starcraft^[I] PC game.

The ironic thing is that the reason the ACP group was spared was the strong moderation we were seen of having which prevented a lot of the most questionable stuff. This moderation, which takes the form of requiring people to join the group before posting in the forum or shoutbox, was implemented in fact to prevent Christian trolling as we would often get fly-by posts and shouts from people who only wanted to disrupt. They would spam the forum with dozens of pro-christian nonsense for example and then leave before being banned, making it impossible to stop them.

The interesting thing is that all this purging has given a very strong boost in activity to the ACP as it has now become a haven for all those people left groupless in the anti-religion department. Hopefully this will make for a healthier and more active anti-christian community that does not devolve into a circle-jerk of mindless christian bashing.

It also points out the benefits of having an external website complementing your last.fm forum such as the one you’re currently reading. In case the ACP had been taken down, we would still be able to use this area for a staging area until we found a new home, either under a new name or a new forum.

As for Last.fm, unfrtunately it seems to be taking more and more of the corporate route. One can only hope that they won’t go to the extent that Microsoft has for example when they started banning all mention of homosexuality in their allowed usernames. One can only hope that if “hateful” anti-religion groups have been deleted, the same has been done to the hateful religious, fascist and racist groups but I have no knowledge of this either way.

Footnotes

1. I was thinking of linkin to a wikipedia article of this but then I thought: Seriously, if you don’t know what Starcraft is, you’re probably too old for this site anyway

First of all, McCane assumes that the goal of these new atheist books is to convince Americans to there is no God. As far as I’m concerned, only Dawkins’ book does that. Dawkins argues that there the idea that a God exists is not supported by evidence at all, and that therefore this belief is a delusion. Hitchens writes about religion and not god in particular; he argues that religion has bad influence on the world. Where he does mention God is mostly to criticize this God’s behaviour as being immoral (this is particularly true for the Old Testament God.) Dennett did not write about God at all in his book, and simply argued that religion should be studied in a scientific framework, as opposed to it being off-limits to science.

And even though Dawkins does argue against the existence of a supernatural creator, I think he is well aware he is no going to convince anybody who is firmly rooted in the belief that this being does exist. The title of his book suggests an entirely different audience – people who have serious doubts about this particular belief, or are already atheists but who have never examined this belief philosophically or scientifically. Or perhaps it was written to provide those closet atheists who live in a community of theists some ammunition to come out. Nor should one see Dawkins’ book merely as a reason why one should not believe in a god, but also why one would not believe in a god.

Secondly, McCane suggests the new atheism failed because Americans will not be swayed about religion by logic and science. He cites that a survey showed that only 2% of people say logic and science play a role in their choice of religion. He says Americans are pragmatic about their religion, as most go through a series of religious affiliations in a lifetime as spiritual seekers. There is a duality I feel about this percentage. Two important aspects about religion is that it provides a moral code and that it provides ideas about the universe. On one side, I think it is sad that only two percent of people care enough about logic, science and reason to use it in determining what religion offers the most accurate ideas about the universe. On the other side, I am glad that only two percent thinks their religion is supported by logic, science and reason, because I feel they often oppose these religious ideas.

More importantly, it is important to realize that you can’t convince somebody who doesn’t accept the epistemic value of logic (and indirectly, science) about anything. It is the same as talking to a brick wall. No argument and no fact bears any weight any more. There is a symmetry here with “us atheists” who are confronted by theists who will make claims based on their particular holy book. Because we do not accept these books as infallible, we must investigate those claims on more than their souce. The difference is that people who still use logic, have more to go on than the inerrant authority of whichever book or person. People who do not believe in an afterlife can not be scared into submission by threats of hell, and people who do not accept logic can not be persuaded by any argument, no matter how sound the argument is. In the mindset of those 98%, any book that disputes their particular religious beliefs is best ignored. No wonder it doesn’t work for them.

Thirdly the new atheism failure is said to be due to it being intolerant of religion, which clashes with the now widely held value of religious tolerance. I am willing to concede the point that the new atheism is perceived that way, but I dispute the fact that it is really as intolerant as people might think. Religion, like politics, is one of those subjects people have decided talking about during dinner is not done. Not only is it a subject that people might disagree over fervently without getting anywhere (remember the 98%), it is also considered sacred or holy. Vocal and written opposition to deeply held religious beliefs can easily be hurtful, especially when the conclusion to such opposition is that you are delusional. On the other hand, these conclusions were not reached as a goal to attack religious people. These are conclusions reached through arguments, and remembering the poll, only 2% of all religious people have reason to be offended by such conclusions in the first place.

The new atheism is more about bringing atheism out of the closet as an acceptable position, and to bring religion down from it’s uncritiqueable pedestal and into serious inquiry -  which is the only thing Dennett is arguing for. Toes will be stepped on, and people will be offended – not only by words as delusional, but by secular and atheist ideas in itself alone – but that should not stand in the way of intellectual discourse. In conclusion: I do not think the new atheism has failed at all.  By putting arguments for atheism and against religion out there, in it has helped making atheism and scepticism a valid position. The books are interesting in themselves for their ideas and arguments, and make up for a modern addition to a historical plethora of written material on the subject of religion.

If you would like to read the debate for yourself directly on Amazon you can go to his review here. The content I am posting starts on page 3.
If you’re new to this series, here’s The Prelude, Part 1, and Part 2.

Anath said:
>>I see your point on “decreasing genetic diversity”. Perhaps my arguments have been erroneous, due to my research of the Global Seed Vault ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault ). Here, however, one can see what happens when a person applies one branch of science (in this case, agricultural biodiversity) to a wider field (biodiversity as a whole).

Yes, I am not sure how you drew the conclusions you did, but I am glad that you understand now. When I read the article on the global seed vault one thing stuck out at me that may not have stuck out at you : “The Seed Vault will provide insurance against the loss of seeds in genebanks, as well as a refuge for seeds in the case of large scale regional or global crises.” They are saving the seeds so that essentially if the world were to end in a horrible fiery apocalypse, the few survivors would be able to start anew, or if something were to physically happen to the genebanks, we would not have lost everything. This is very important goal, but has little to do with how genetic diversity works or doesn’t work and everything to do with guarding against the unknown factor for posterity. It would be a very good thing if our greatgreatgreat grandchildren could grow corn and not starve to death after the zombie apocalypse because we were insightful enough to set aside some seeds for them : )

>>When I said apes, I meant APES, not primates. My question is, did man descend from apes? I have heard of numerous evolutionists argue for and against this theory.

You are mixing up forms of taxonomic classification for confirmation bias.

Primate is an Order, which we share with every sort of “monkey and ape” from lemurs, to aye-ayes, to golden tamarins, to gorillas. Go further down the line to “ape” and we are talking about a superfamily which contains two families, one is primarily gibbons and the other is Hominidaie– Great apes which include orangutans, gorillas, chimps and US. We ARE apes. The question is how far do you want to go in your taxonomic evolutionary tree. We have a hominid (ape) ancestor, since we ARE apes from taxonomic family, subfamily, genus, to species and subspecies, but are distinctly different from other great apes. We had a common hominid ancestor, but we had many other common ancestors that would not be considered “apes” by the layman sense of the word (orangutan/chimp/gorilla) so it is not inaccurate to state that we had a common primate ancestor, since primates are apes and more. Similarly it is not inaccurate to state that we had a common mammalian ancestor or vertebrate ancestor or animal ancestor or eukaryote ancestor, so cutting off your evolutionary chain at “apes” is quite shortsighted. We are still classified as apes, so we didn’t evolve INTO anything other than a more specific specie of ape. Again, there is no “darwinist” I have come across that would refute this so I would very much love to see what arguments you have seen by “darwinists” that claim we do not have a hominid/primate/mammal/animal/eukaryote common ancestor.

>>If we can “CONTROL our environment”, why does that remove then from “classic, natural evolutionary theory”? Are we not then just “super-evolved”? We are still operating within our “parameters”; we just have more power, a greater ability to “take charge of ours”. It is not like other creatures lack this ability to “take charge”. (and surrounding text)

Of course other animals can “control” their environments, it is the degree to which we can control ours that sets us outside the normal limitations of nature. First of all, our technology can have a staggering unintended impact on the environment, such as our old refrigerators and air conditioning leaking free radicals. Termites have “air conditioning” because they have figured out a way to manipulate their environment and build their structures so that it is natural. Our air conditioning and cars and refrigerators and video cameras and computers and cell phones and skyscrapers are unnatural. Termites don’t create new chemicals in an “artificial” effort to meet their end. They can only do what is natural.

We are still operating within our parameters, however those parameters, set by our ingenuity and capacity for abstract thought and organized creation of nature-defying materials, are outside the bounds of traditional survival-of-the-fittest nature. We don’t just nurse our infirm back to health with motherly care, we give them antibiotics that boost their immune system, or chemotherapy that destroys cancerous tumors. In “pure” nature, a sick creature with a weak immune system would die, a creature with lung cancer has no hope, no matter how much their families care for them. This doesn’t mean its fellow creatures can’t aid it, but they can NOT give it asprin or theraflu and boost its immune system beyond its natural capacity as we can. Thus, we are able to save members of our species that WOULD have been “unfit” by any standards, giving them the potential to reproduce where in ANY OTHER situation they would have died and produced no offspring. The central premise here providing the ability to REPRODUCE and in the process pass on “unfit” genes that would have been eliminated from the gene pool had nature taken its course and flu medication not intervened.

As far as predators, we do have a number of them, but the difference is that now, in the 21st century, our #1 fear is no longer death from natural predators. Lions and bears are physically much more powerful than any human, but they are not more powerful than a human wielding an AK-47. Disease is very dangerous and kills a very large portion of the human population every year, but if you analyze the statistics, these numbers primarily exist in the “third world”, or overcrowded places, or just places with poor medical care and lower levels of hygiene. Many of the diseases that once plagued our ancestors do not even exist anymore for us, and many of the diseases that plague us will not exist for our ancestors. Man has BECOME the #1 predator on the planet, whereas the other hominids have not. We have transcended our “mere” genes and evolutionary tree through ARTIFICIAL means. This means we are NOT subject to the normal predator-prey dynamic that keeps other populations and gene pools in check.

>>If dolphins engage in these irrational activities, are they also to be excluded from the scope of “classic, natural evolutionary theory”? Also, considering their apparently extreme intelligence, how come they have never evolved hands with opposable thumbs? I am sure they could find a use for them

I seem to have missed this on first read.

No, dolphins are not “outside” the scope of “naturalistic” evolution because, while they possess great intelligence and ingenuity, they have not developed a way to ensure that genes that would have been eliminated by natural selection are passed to the next generation.

Why would you think they should have developed hands with opposable thumbs? Would that have helped them swim faster and escape predators? NO. They adapted to fit their marine environment. We adapted to our arboreal one. Different solutions for the same problem.

>>Also intriguing is the universe’s current rate of expansion. When this is taken into consideration, all of the Solar System’s planets ought to be much farther away from the sun then they currently are, when we take the evolutionist’s estimation of the Solar System’s age.

Um, no. The reason the planets are not further away from the sun than they are is because the Sun has maintained a constant gravitational field throughout its existence. The expansion of the universe at large does not affect local gravitational fields. Also I would NOT expect all the planets to rotate uniformly on perfectly perpendicular axes. The universe IS a chaotic and random place, especially during the formation of what we consider a “regular” system, so collisions are incredibly HIGHLY probable. Our own tilted axis as well as Neptune’s is most likely due to a collision, as is the retrograde rotation of Venus, Pluto, and Uranus, as well as the rings around the ringed planets, which are due to colliding moons, asteroids, and comets. Why would you find the anomalies odd? There ARE scientific explanations for apparent “exceptions”.

Also, evolution says nothing about anything other than life. It says nothing about the universe at large or solar system or the movements of planets or the deaths of stars or the big bang or abiogenesis. It has to do with adapting life, and ONLY adapting life. Discussing the estimation of the age of the universe is in the realm of astronomers and cosmologists, NOT “evolutionists”.

>>Personally, I do not worship “peer-reviewed scientific fact.” Aristarchus’ heliocentric model of the solar system was rejected by the science community of his day.

You may find this interesting, but a modern system of peer review was not fully in place until the mid 20th century. Prior to this, there WAS no established, formal, peer review process. And also note that there was not really a “scientific community” in the terms we have today. We had groups of scientists, but science was not an independent realm with its own “community”, and those practicing science had other connections, usually religious. It was not the nonexistent scientific community that spurned the discoveries but rather the religious and philosophical communities that either found an apparent discrepancy between their holy text and the finding, or found the potential implications unsavory (You mean we are just machines??!!11!!? O NOES!!1!!). Also with no peer review process or “establishment” in place, it was just a man and his discovery. In many ways, it still is, BUT the wheat is separated from the chaff more times than not, especially post 1950 when more rigorous standards were put in place.

>>I am afraid I must pass on your generous offer to “fill in the gaps” of my allegedly “misled” understanding. I believe my arguments have been as clear as yours, and have suffered from no more (if perhaps no less) holes in logic. The Bible, English grammar, literature, and science have been my main studies in life so far. I will learn science enough when, Lord willing, I take mechanical engineering in college. Thank you for your time, and the discussion. Good-bye and farewell.

I have pointed out a number of holes in your understanding and misconceptions you hold, you have even admitted to one or two.

Remember that you do not have to give up your Christian faith in order to hold an accurate view of how the universe operates. Many Christians find “God’s power” even more mysterious and amazing once they break out of a young earth creationist mindset. I have seen both sides of the argument. It would be absolutely foolish not to try to do so yourself.

In retrospect, I should have used different wording in the “natural/unnatural” paragraph, but this was written long before the Natural thread in Kriegphilosophie so I didn’t realize how my words could have been misunderstood. I don’t believe Aelnathan ever touched on it again, but any reader who currently has problems with the wording should read the Natural thread for further clarification.

Cleric jumps in again.

>> Cleric Said:
Also intriguing is the universe’s current rate of expansion. When this is taken into consideration, all of the Solar System’s planets ought to be much farther away from the sun then they currently are, when we take the evolutionist’s estimation of the Solar System’s age.

I’m sorry, but you are clearly in error here. This is a ridiculous assumption and to say you have stated “facts” at the end of your response is merely disengenious to what you have written. You attempt to assert that the expansion of the ENTIRE universe somehow changes the way gravitational fields work. This is NOT true. It would be a good idea to learn some gravitational mechanics before you assert such ideas as this. I have no idea who told you this or why you think it’s true.

Furthermore, attempting to relate the evolutionary theory of life to the development of planets is simply a fantasy. The mechanics of how life developed on a planet are vastly different than how large rocks or gas planets developed. Sure you can use the word “evolve” with the defintion of “to develop gradually” but you cannot apply the Theory of Evolution to Celestial Mechanics.

>>Personally, I do not worship “peer-reviewed scientific fact.” Aristarchus’ heliocentric model of the solar system was rejected by the science community of his day.

You are a fool to do so. It would be like me ignoring things like the Pythagorean theorm simply because the scientific community supports it. You also seem to misunderstand that “Peer-review” was NOT a requirement until the mid 20th century. Galileo and Aristarchus did not publish peer reviewed projects. Nor did Tesla, nor did Newton. So to make this statement is to not realize the history of required scientific writing. It is also the reason why you see a gap in “bad science” versus “good science” in times like the 1800′s and before. If the scientific discoveries made then hold up today, then you can be assured that under peer review they are as factual as they’ll get. To say otherwise is to not understand the peer review process and I think you will have an incredibly difficult time with your aspirations in mechanical engineering if you wish to dismiss the process from which you’ll be learning!

>>The Bible, English grammar, literature, and science have been my main studies in life so far. I will learn science enough when, Lord willing, I take mechanical engineering in college. Thank you for your time, and the discussion. Good-bye and farewell.

My father is a mechanical engineer, and so are a few friends of mine. You will NOT learn the things you claim to have opinions of. Mechanical Engineering does not take you down the path of evolutionary biology, it doesn’t not bring you to astrophysics, it will not explain the intricacies of geology, or anything of that nature. If you want to find out what the scientific world says about these things then YOU will have to seek out the information. Reading the Bible, going to young Earth creationist propaganda sites, will NOT help you understand any of these topics. Anath and I have delved into these topics pretty heavily so to dismiss our help or dismiss our willingness to discuss these topics is further folly. It smacks of not wanting to have your worldview challenged at all costs. This is something I don’t understand and really belies the makings of a poor scientist and mechanical engineer, in my opinion.

If my words anger you, they probably should, for your words have frustrated me. While you have been quite amiable, I can’t help but feel dismay that you would choose to go into a field heavily science laden with such a biased and close minded attitude. I am sorry, but you need to be challenged in some fashion on this. If not by me, then by your future teachers on the subjects. We offer our help, yet it is rejected, that is what angers me.

Aelnathan said:
It has not been my attempt to anger anyone. I am sorry that you have become so frustated.

Concernig man’s evolutionary descent, I will here remind you of a fact that I am sure you are aware of: not all evolutionists are Darwinists. In my post I mentioned and was speaking of evolutionists, not Darwinists. There are contentions about man’s origins. Perhaps you have merely dealt with the evolutionists that follow Darwin.

Concerning the expansion of the planet’s orbits, they are getting farther apart, though perhaps not as fast as I first expected. Here is link to a dis-cussion concerning NASA’s upcoming attempts to study “dark energy”, a mysterious substance that is pushing galaxies and, yes, planets apart. http://www.sitnews.us/1006news/100206/100206_shns_darkenergy.html . Of course these a very small amounts that will not apparently affect us for billions of years, and does not quite illustrate my argument. However, the moon is moving at a relatively rapid pace away from the earth—-somewhere around 3.8 centimeters per year, according to an article by Britt Britt Scharringhausen, PhD, at cornell.edu ( http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124 ). Of course, the article says that it did not always move this fast, saying that the “Moon was slowed down by the tides raised on it by the Earth.” It would be interesting to find out what the rates were “billions of years ago”, before the magma ocean cooled and the tides stopped. Still, just applying the current rate to a time after the magma ocean apparently crystalized (said to be around 215 million years ago, according to wikipedia’s article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_magma_ocean ), that would mean that at the time when the ocean cooled, the moon was 2,150 km nearer to Earth than it is now. That makes for an orbit over .5% smaller than the current orbit of 384,000 km. What affect do you suppose this would have had on the earth’s oceans? The earth and moon may have been even closer than this, actually, because the rate of this orbital expansion is now slowing down ( http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=699 ). I find it interesting that this rarely seems to be discussed in this context. I do not remember claiming that my discussions would be limited to biologic life. In fact, I remember discussing plate tectonics in a much earlier post. Ah, yes, evolutionists do have theories concerning the origin of the universe, do they not? I notice a trend of responses to my posts constantly referring to Darwinism. I never declared that I only would discuss Darwinism.

It is interesting to note the furor that surrounds the comments folowing one’s questioning of the peer-review process. I said I do not “worship” (“to honor or reverence as a diving being or supernatural power”, The Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1997) the peer-review process, not that I discard everything produced by it. Curiously, I am far from the only person who does not think that this process is all that it claims to be. Richard Horton, fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, honorary professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and University College London, and editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that “The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability – not the validity – of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticisms_of_peer_review ) I am sure that Richard Horton does not dispute the Pythagorean theorem. The fact that peer review did become so prominent until the middle of the 20th century raises questions about its proclaimed crucial nature. “Galileo and Aristarchus did not publish peer reviewed projects. Nor did Tesla, nor did Newton.” Thus, why is peer-review so necessary? The “bad science” of the 19th century is not in use today, and fell out of use before the dominance of peer-review.

It is an interesting phrase, “claim to have an opinion”. By definition, an opinion is a personal view. In my study of science so far, I have experienced a reasonable amount of success. For several years my grade average in general science has been above 95. My average in chemistry was 93. I have chosen mechanical engineering because of its practical application of science. As you have put it, “Mechanical Engineering does not take you down the path of evolutionary biology, it doesn’t not [Ah ah ah, let us watch those double negatives! Your words actually mean the opposite of what you were intending to say. "Doesn't not" means "does", technically. "Doesn't" or "does not" are much more fitting for the sentence at hand.] bring you to astrophysics, or anything of that nature.” I am quite fine with that. I am no theoretician, but I do have skill applying science, whether it be gardening or machine repair. At any rate, I did not mean to offend anyone with my choice to forgo the tutelage offered me. I am sorry this has kindled such anger, for that was far from my attempt. I also regret that this discussion has shown the first signs of name-calling arise, though it came in the form of a grammatically absurd remark. In response to my post, “Personally, I do not worship `peer-reviewed scientific fact.’” your comment, “You are a fool to do so.” would have been much better served with the phrase “You are a fool not to worship it.” or “You are a fool not to.” As the phrase currently stands, its peculiarity would render it unintelligible were it not for the sentences that followed. I could be led to believe that I would be a fool to worship the peer-review process, or rather that I was being a fool in my worship of peer-review. Both outcomes are contradictory, with the former contradicting your apparent faith in the system, and the latter carrying this anomaly in addition to the contradiction of my own stated opinion of peer-review. Fortunately, the words that follow clarified this potentially confusing line. One must not forget one’s grammar, even in scientific discussions. It becomes even more crucial when one must write scientific papers to receive one’s degree.

In any case, I am not angry to see my views challenged. I do not mind being called a fool. That of all things is the last item that could hope to sway my passing interest. Alas, that this discussion has come to this! Well, I must retire from this discussion now, for it is obvious that my beliefs are not going to be blown away. For those who have remained calm and resisted the urge to taunt, I congratulate them. For those who almost managed such a feat, but failed at the end, I pity their misfortune, yet am glad that they composed themselves for the majority of the debate. Thank you all for this discussion. I will not be seen posting here again, at any rate not for quite some time. I chance the appearance of being a stubborn brute, yet I am equally stubborn in my belief in the practicality of the sum 2+ 2= 4. Good-bye to all, farewell, and may we come to know the Truth.

Author of the Aelnathan

WOW you got good grades in general ed high school science? That’s amazing and totally gives you credibility on high level topics such as abiogenesis. And its so cool that you know grammar so well and can give us several paragraphs of condescending instruction instead of actually addressing our points.

Cleric obviously was not a fan of this worthless post.

Cleric said:
Yes, it is wonderful that you resisted the urge to taunt, despite the lengthy paragraph analyzing a typo. Obviously one (you) could not resist the urge. Despite this you go into lengthy detail while forgetting the fact that we are conversing in a forum, not writing scientific documents. I’m sorry that was so lost on you, despite the fact that you got the gist of what I was saying. I love how you try to be overly pretentious and high minded through most of this yet imply you resisted the urge not to taunt at the end… splendidly good show sir. Well, you obviously grasp the English language quite well, you should stick with writing and leave science to the scientists. I hope you find the truth that 2+2 does equal 4 someday.

Next week, the typo/grammar drama continues, and I call Aelnathan out to either step it up or step OUT.

Very shortly: This time he is tackling the answers to the ‘Order’ question. Unfortunately his answers can be simply surmised as him falling back onto his ‘Creation’ question. He turned the question from “How can the universe be finely tuned to human life” to “Why have a universe that can sustain any kind of life rather than no life” this is aking to saying “Why is there a universe”.

And my answer to that question is the same as before.

(h/t FaithlessGod)

A silly “All-Access Customer” was harassing Cleric on his Expelled review (which he also posted on the ACP), and putting forth statements he couldn’t answer, so I was called in for damage control.  If you want to read the original source, my first post is on page 27, All-Access’s comments start somewhere around 20, his complete idiocy is exposed on page 26, but I have condensed the posts here and edited basically nothing. (I may have fixed a few typos and names?)  I left out posts that weren’t by myself, Cleric, or All-Access as they did not contribute to the debate.  If you want to read them, the link is above…

All-Access got confused and a bit angry at my blatant exposure of his logical fallacies, then I smacked him around with some science and he disappeared for over a month, claiming he was “sleep deprived” and couldn’t think about it yet.  When he came back, he complained again that he was sleep deprived and continued to ignore my post.  It seems that most Creationists/ID proponents can not seem to argue outside those tired boxes already set up for them.

Warning: some of the responses are MASSIVE, and there is not much logic to be found.  Overall, it is a pretty typical debate with a supporter of ID.  Also, if you see that I have made a mistake or provided mis-information anywhere, please let me know so I do not repeat it next time.

First, All-Access rambles about the bible, Cleric and he debate stories and dates and Nazis and a little bit of basic evolution. A few creationists come in and leave.  All unimportant. Here is the comment that initiated my posting.

All-Access Customer:

Re-invigorated by Mr. Robledo’s speech, I am going to post at least one more time in this discussion and then I’m tossing the ball.

Cleric, I have not taken your quote out of context. You were very precise in your wording, “The one aspect of evolution that is solid fact is micro-evolution. The only stage of that aspect that doesn’t prove evolution in full is that it hasn’t fully generated a new species, but I’m not entirely sure if people are working on that or if it’s currently being researched. Other than that the fact that organisms undergo genetic changes over periods of time is a fact.”

You’re really contradicting yourself in your Jan. 16th post.

You know, I can never understand what micro-evolution is meant to prove as far as evolution is concerned. If it is true that “Animals from two different species breeding and bringing forth a NEW species is not a mainstay of evolution” (i.e. macro-evolution) then what does MICRO-evolution prove? Is it recombination they’re talking about? Because we know that recombination only redistributes existing genetic material among different individuals; it makes no change in it. Given this fact, is it logical to think that, over any given amount of time, micro-evolution will create a new species? And concerning your article on this topic, I notice you didn’t give the name of the source of said article. From what magazine or news paper did it come? You’re not even sure of the date of the article. As far as these 70 some odd new species: were they different TYPES of an already existing KIND of species or were they completely new species all together?

I want to make it clear that I don’t judge the validity of Evolution based on any religious belief. I judge science with science (or lack thereof).

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:2). It was the earth that was void–not void of God, but rather nonexistent before He created it. You have misinterpreted the Bible like so many non-Christians.

I want to make sure you know Cleric, Sir, that I have no personal beef with you. Compared to Christopher Bair, you seem liken to Glenda the good witch of the north. But while we’re on the subject, I want to pose the same question I asked him. This is a question that has kept Mr. Bair–someone who is usually very persistent and frequent in his posting–silent for nearly a week now, along with all his usual evolutionist cohorts. Mutations are said to be largely responsible (if not the sole reason depending on who you ask) for the many variations in species. But are mutations not very very rare? If so, am I meant to believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mutations are responsible for creating close to two million species?

Cleric:

“Mutations are said to be largely responsible (if not the sole reason depending on who you ask) for the many variations in species. But are mutations not very very rare? If so, am I meant to believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mutations are responsible for creating close to two million species? “

As I keep trying to point out to everyone here… I AM NOT A BIOLOGIST, THIS IS NOT MY FIELD OF STUDY. I have no idea how to answer this question, I have never once made a single claim that I had answers for these minute details.

The article was on Yahoo news. They were variants.

Two different species spawning a new one, how do you get a Mule?

I have not misinterpreted the Bible, you are merely interpreting it in a way that coincides with your beliefs. In which case, the way you see it, it sounds like there needed to be a “void” a space without God, before the Earth could be formed. That’s yet another possible interpretation. But I’m a non-Christian, so I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Anyway, if you want to know the answers to your micro-evolution questions I highly recommend you ask an Evolutionary Biologist, something I constantly tell people here I am not. You’re seriously debating with the wrong person if this what you want to talk about.

Then there is a little banter, “I’ll pray for you”, blah blah, “You’re demonizing me!!11!1″, No I’m not, you’re talking down to me and being condescending, “No I’m not, I’m sorry if I came across like that” Blah blah blah blah. Unimportant. Then I come in with some answers for All Access.

Anath:

I didn’t really want to jump in on this but I feel that I have to point out a very grievous misunderstanding.

“Mutations are said to be largely responsible (if not the sole reason depending on who you ask) for the many variations in species. But are mutations not very very rare? If so, am I meant to believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mutations are responsible for creating close to two million species?”

No, “mutations” are not very very rare. Certain types of mutations are actually very common such as point mutations. Here is a study done on the mutation rate of human genome: (I had a link to the study here, but it appears to be offline as of now, I will attempt to search it down again soon)

The most important sentence to draw out of this study is this: “The human diploid genome contains 7 x 109 bp (MARSHALL 1999 Down) and thus ~175 new mutations per generation (range 91-238)” While approximately 175 mutations per generation is not all that much compared to the billions of nucleotides present in a single strand of DNA, and these changes most likely consist of benign shuffling of Junk DNA, it most certainly indicates that mutation itself is FAR from rare. There is no indication whether or not these mutations are advantageous or disadvantageous, but the fact remains that if a population reproduces regularly with an average of 175 mutations per generation for millions of years… changes WILL happen.

For clarity’s sake when “mutation” is referred to, it generally does not mean X-men-style massive change within a single organism, or even serious adjustments in the chromosomal structures, which are both very rare to near impossible. Instead, we are referring to the shuffling of a handful of nucleotides. Think about it in terms of a deck of cards. First we open the deck (representing a single, parent species). It is organized by suit and number, representing the qualities of that original species and its genome. Now I switch two cards and pass the deck to the next person, representing one generation of that species and its subsequent small scale mutations. He switches two cards, and passes it on, and so on. We circle the table of 10 people once in this fashion. By the end of the first round, we do not see much change in the structure of the deck, but by the end of the 1000th round, we have seen many, many variations, and by the end of the 1,000,000th round, it is hardly recognizable as the same wonderfully organized deck. A near infinite number of combinations are possible, and theoretically daughter-species decks could have emerged at any time during the exercise to begin circling tables of their own.

Genetic mutation has been going on much much much longer than we could ever pass around that deck of cards, and with infinitely more variety. Small-scale Mutations are far more than capable of creating well over two million species given the time they have been running and the amount of material they have had to work with. If this concept seems hard to grasp, perhaps what is really needed is a brush up on genetics, not argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, he just didn’t seem to get it.

All Access Customer:

One of the smaller of many reasons I don’t believe in evolution is that, despite what they have told me, evolutionists are not on the same page. In arguing with a group of evolutionists once, they all conceded that mutations are random and are not evenly distributed from year to year. In other words, mutations are not so scheduled as you suggest. It’s also my understanding, as you hinted at, that mutations are rarely anything but harmful or lethal. It’s also my understanding based on other evolutionary sources that many mutations are so small that you can’t even detect them, which begs the question, “How do we know they happened at all?”. Perhaps it is probable that over billions of years the many changes could be made, but that requires that you believe the earth is billions of years old. And there are I don’t know how many theories for determining the earth’s age. But invariably they all include distorted, weird logic. Let’s remember also that beyond there being nearly two million species, there are hundreds of thousands of each specie creating trillions of different species inhabiting the earth. So I still concede that evolution is improbable if not impossible.

“perhaps what is really needed is a brush up on genetics, not argumentum ad ignorantiam” Now there is an example of someone talking down to someone, Cleric. But I can play that game. What in the world is “ignorantiam”? I know it is supposed to be Latin, but Spell Check doesn’t recognize it. Spare me your attempts at intellectual snobbery, please.

And right after that made another post:

“While approximately 175 mutations per generation is not all that much compared to the BILLIONS of nucleotides present in a SINGLE strand of DNA”.

“we are referring to the shuffling of a HANDFUL of nucleotides”. [emphasis mine]

I just want to emphasize just how tiny mutations are in the sense of Anath’s version of evolution.

175 is a SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER number than just ONE billion, but you’re talking billionS (plural). 175 (“handful”) mutations versus ???,000,000,000 nucleotides? The shuffling of a handful (175) of the unknown billionS (plural) of nucleotides?

Mutations have very minute effect on a species and I still concede that they are extremely rare.

I hope to get through to him this time by expanding my examples, yeah right. Beware, this is a huge huge post, a bit overkill… heh heh.

Anath:

I not once suggested that mutations were scheduled. I used a “regular” example to keep it simple, but each person at the table could have been doing a number of things with the deck. You will also note that in the paper and in the quote I posted from the paper it lists a RANGE of about 91-238 mutations indicating that 175 mutations per generation is an AVERAGE, not a set constant. Additionally it is entirely likely that a specimen in this experiment experienced only 23 or 576 mutations in a single generation, but those numbers are anomalies and far outside the bell curve. I, and the peer-reviewed paper, most definitely did NOT suggest that these mutations were some sort of regulated cycle.

But, how do we know the changes happened? Simple. We just observe them. Using an imaginary single celled organism as a model, lets say the original beginning 5 amino acids on one half of the DNA in chromosome 1 is “A-A-G-C-T”. The cell undergoes mitosis and now the 5 beginning amino acids are “A-C-G-C-T”. This is a small mutation where the adenine has been converted into cytosine. Scientists would know this for a fact because they can map the amino acid strings and get the corresponding letters, so even point mutations such as this one are within our ability to measure. Now, maybe this particular mutations means nothing in terms of how the organism functions or looks, especially if the first five happen to be junk DNA. However, say 500 generations down the line the first five amino acids have mutated into: “A-G-T-A-A”. This is vastly different and perhaps THIS particular combination (in conjunction with others on other chromosomes perhaps) changes the shape of the flagellum. Now we have a mutation that is physically obvious, which was arrived at by measurable changes in the DNA code, but this shape change itself was not a SINGLE mutation but the result of a combination of other mutations. “How do we know they happened?” …Observation.

This is similar to a fable I once heard of a bird sitting on a tree branch counting snowflakes in a blizzard. Another bird lands on the branch and is asked, “how much do you think a snowflake weighs?” “Nothing, next to nothing”. At that moment the bird reaches a rather high number (thousands? millions?), and the branch breaks under the weight of the “weightless” snow. And so how much does a single mutation matter? One, ten, might matter nothing, but a thousand can be the difference between species.

Also, the earth’s approximate age does NOT involve strange, convoluted theories. There have been quite accurate assessments due to radiometric dating methods and calculations of the heaviest earth-particle’s half lives compared with similar samples from celestial objects. These are simple mathematical calculations based on sound knowledge of radiation and isotopes. Again, this serious doubt of current calculations appears to be merely a case of personal incredulity. Certainly you’re not going to claim the age of the earth as 6000 years? From your past posts you seem much more reasonable than that.

Improbable though it may be, evolution is here. It happened, it is happening. Ex-post-facto statistics will not help you, and do not constitute a sound argument. What is the probably that you could 50 sixes in a row on a single six-sided dice? Low. But the probability of any other combination of numbers is equally as improbable. Rolling 50 sixes in a row proves nothing but the fact that it happened. The sheer improbability of evolution producing 45938 bagajillion species proves nothing but that it happened. However, the core difference between rolling dice and the complexity of “random” mutation is the sheer fact that evolution is actually NOT 100% random.

Remember those imaginary single celled organisms from earlier? Say the first mutation was actually “G-A-T-C- -”– a somewhat major mutation with two point mutations and a critical deletion of thymine. Say this mutation eliminated the organism’s ability to digest sucrose–its natural food source. It will not reach breeding age and it will die before passing on its genes. This mutation can NEVER, NEVER be passed on, as those doomed creatures who inherited it never survive to pass it on. Now say the original five were “C-A-a-A-G-T-C”, and these small mutations and additions allowed the organism to digest fructose–a new food source that is abundant with no competition. Our new organism would flourish and multiply. This is Natural Selection at work! Natural selection ensures that evolution is NOT purely random, that it is directed, that it does have a “purpose”–continuation of the genes. Simple concept — if it works, it stays, if it doesn’t work, it’s trashed. Mutations are random. Natural selection is not. Both (and much, much more) are components of “evolution”.

Now despite what you may think, I have not been “talking down” to you. I have been writing as though those reading have had a modicum of education and understand the basic concepts of biology and logic, and when they discover a gap in their understanding, they at the very least try to look it up. Since you asked, “argumentum ad ignorantiam” is an official, technical term for a very specific type of logical fallacy based on an argument from ignorance. Of course spell check doesn’t recognize it, it is not an English word and is a proper phrase, but it does trouble me a little that you could not be bothered to type three words into Google… I question how much you really have tried to understand what you are opposing here at its CORE, if you could not be bothered to look up a single unfamiliar phrase? I am most certainly not being snobbish here by utilizing a technical philosophy term any more than you would be by citing a highly specific biblical/theological allusion. The information is readily available and accessible for anyone who cares to find it, not reserved for some elite academic intelligentsia.

Do you concede that mutations, no matter how irrelevant they seem, occur within every generation?

Also do not forget that DNA is a highly complex chemical structure. One nucleotide in the wrong place COULD spell disaster.

All Access Customer:

I am currently sleep deprived and I have to go to bed, but before I do I want to briefly respond and address some other things later. I just want to do some damage control right now.

You are right about Google being a convenient source for nearly unlimited information; however, if you have slow, unreliable Internet service you are more reluctant to use it at times. Usually Spell Check recognizes common foreign words and if “argumentum ad ignorantiam” is as common as you suggest, I figured it would recognize it. It did after all recognize the “argumentum ad” part, which led me to believe that perhaps you made a spelling error or some other kind of mistake on the “ignorantiam” part. For the record, I don’t usual criticize other people’s spelling and grammatical errors, but in your case I felt I was being attacked. And the reason I felt this way was because I have been dealing with a total and complete jerk elsewhere of late. He is very arrogant, very condescending, and, I think, deliberately distorts everything I say and puts words in my mouth. Honestly, the experience has put me in a sort of hyper-defensive paranoid state. So my apologies for that. I realize now that you are a very patient, decent, fair-minded person (albeit misguided in my opinion). If only everyone I engaged were as considerate. I say this in hopes you will not reveal some devilish side later. I will say that is does seem a bit like you are trying to marginalize me in your last paragraph.

Confession: Before posting that “argumentum ad ignorantiam” remark I asked myself if God would have me stoop to that kind of behavior and all my natural instincts told me no. But stupid me did it anyway and it backfired on me as usual when I do things like that. When will I ever learn? For this I must repent.

And that is where it was put on hold for over a month. I suspect that as with Cleric, he wants to engage in debate about trivialities rather than the actual subject at hand, but I’m not taking the bait. I did not respond to his post until he responded again, gave him plenty of time too….

A new person, “Aelnathan”, re-entered the discussion. He had made a post before (which All-Access alluded to in the first post here) but had a large delay in replying. I didn’t respond to him before because my goal was to make All-Access go away, not take on every confused Creationist Amazon could spit at me.  I expect Aelnathan to respond at some point so I won’t include his posts here for now, and if anything comes out of that, I’ll put up a new article.  I don’t expect much, though.

But first, someone commented favorably on the review, Cleric replied thus:

Cleric:

Thanks! I find that, often, to be true of Zealots and the complain that we don’t have open minds and decry our points. For some reason they can’t see that they are blinded by their faith. And there are very few that seem to truly understand the science behind what they’re complaining about. I don’t understand why they argue over something they are unwilling to look at both sides for. Of course pro-evolution people easily do the same thing, but I seem to encounter it a lot more on the religious end of things, based on my personal experience.

All-Access is clearly watching, as he comes back within the day!!

All Access Customer:

“I seem to encounter it a lot more on the religious end of things”–Perhaps it is because you are yourself a BLIND pro-evolution “zealot”.

…. sure.  *shakes head*  These people will never get it.

Cleric:

–Perhaps it is because you are yourself a BLIND pro-evolution “zealot”.

But I’m really not… I’m open to being proven wrong on this issue if you can provide me with precise scientific evidence to the contrary. This is why I make such comments about the other side being blind, they completely ignore this point and I constantly have to repeat it.

And when are you going to respond to Anath’s points, which you said you were going to?

Aelnathan comes back in this time, but his comment is irrelevant to this discussion.

All Access:

“I’m open to being proven wrong on this issue if you can provide me with precise scientific evidence to the contrary”–Well, I thought I did. The problem, I believe, is that you shrug everything off as being minute, irrelevant details. My failure to respond to Anath sooner is due to classic procrastination. Part of my problem is that I wanted to word my response just so and…well, if you know anything about procrastinators (it’s a disease) I shouldn’t need to explain. I’ve decided to just do this no matter how sloppy it turns out. Here is a copy paste job from my other posts from discussions elsewhere (distraction: another part of my problem):

>>>I’ve seen and read about too many hasty and over zealous evolutionists who claim something is fact, only to be shunned by another evolutionist claiming something else is fact.

The best example I can think of at the moment is the case with the Indohyus (a fossilized fox-size deer believed to be the closest relative to the whale). Well upon finding this ONE (count them) ONE Indohysus, the finders hastily claim that it IS the missing link between aquatic and land animals beyond any doubt. But there are arguments within the group about whether it is an ancestor or a descendant of the whale. Yet, interestingly enough, ‘Other experts, however, caution that although the scenario is possible, the ancestry analysis is based on incomplete data. Researchers “really thought the book was closed on this,” says Annalisa Berta, an evolutionary biologist at San Diego State University. “To suggest that this fossil somehow is closer than hippos, that’s a big deal-I’m just not convinced.”‘ So their is another group who believes that the hippo is the closest relation. And notice the phrase “analysis is based on incomplete data”.

Then there’s the fact that there is no solid definition of a species!<<< In other words, I don’t trust them when they say something is fact. I think they’re “jumping the gun” as it were. They aren’t all on the same page as someone opined to me previously. Anath claimed that the assumed transitional fossils prove that micro-evolution has done what the evolutionists proclaim it to have done. Well, I say that micro-evolution is not fact but requires faith since its “proof” is purely subjective in nature.

Lastly, I’ll leave you with this link to carbon dating. It isn’t long at all. Be warned it is from a Christian website but try to keep an open mind (others have not–you could be the first).

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon

-dating.htm

I just want to emphasize that my goal here is to reveal that evolution is not a solid fact but requires faith. I’m not trying to convert anyone.

Cleric:

Just a quick response here, I should have time later this weekend for more. But I really need to isolate this out.

“Lastly, I’ll leave you with this link to carbon dating. It isn’t long at all. Be warned it is from a Christian website but try to keep an open mind (others have not–you could be the first).

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon

-dating.htm”

Carbon dating is incredibly inaccurate and a good archaeologist does NOT use it to date anything beyond 1350BC. The percent error in the decay of that atom is no longer useful because, if I remember correctly, it becomes unstable. Anyone who is knowledgeable or up to date with archaeology could tell you this. I haven’t seen Carbon 14 referenced as being “accurate” since the early 90′s, if THAT. It’s not even mentioned in the newer history text books I own and have read unless it is being mentioned in a “history of archaeology and why this method doesn’t work” sense.

PS: I am also a major procrastinator as well! haha

Anath:

Oh and All-access:
>>The best example I can think of at the moment is the case with the Indohyus<<

You’re putting the cart before the horse and making an example into a generalization. I’ve read over and over about scientists agreeing about the existence and date and evolutionary status of trilobites, ankylosaurus, dimetrodon, Australopithecus, saber tooth tigers, wooly mammoths, therapsids, ancient sea sponges, early bacteria, plesiosaurs, primitive algae… ad nauseum… and in all my studies, there have been only a relative handful of unresolved controversies, most of which are just waiting on another fossil or two.

Current knowledge is also modified by further evidence and investigation, which is ongoing. The debate on the posture of T-rex is one example that comes to mind. As more evidence came in, paleontologists modified their image of the dinosaur to fit its actual bone structure. We now see an accurate depiction of the creature, where it had been wrong for many, many years. As more fossils and information become available, the Indohyus mystery will begin to resolve.

>>Anath claimed that the assumed transitional fossils prove that micro-evolution has done what the evolutionists proclaim it to have done<<

You should reread my post. The first time I mentioned fossils at all was in the last paragraph. Microevolution can now be proven–and has been– on a genetic level by mapping individual strands of DNA in every generation of a population. It does not require faith to see that A-G-T-A-A is now A-A-A-C-G on a data printout.

All-Access:

>>>”How do we know they happened?” …Observation<<< I was asking how we know that micro-evolution is responsible for the various species, so when you said this I assumed you meant observation of the fossil record. What other method proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that micro-evolution is responsible for all the various species in existence.

“The debate on the posture of T-rex is one example that comes to mind. As more evidence came in, paleontologists modified their image of the dinosaur to fit its actual bone structure. We now see an accurate depiction of the creature, where it had been wrong for many, many years”– After many, many years of being wrong how can you be sure we have the “actual bone structure” now. To me, this seems to be another example of the hastiness of evolutionists. Everything is a fact until proven otherwise.

And I think just because we use different branches of evolution in medicine (or what have you) doesn’t mean that the theory of evolution was involved. I’m of the opinion that you could study biology without evolution. Isn’t biology used to support evolution? I apologize in advance if that only makes sense to me. I’m still a little sleep deprived you see.

“Carbon dating is incredibly inaccurate and a good archaeologist does NOT use it to date anything beyond 1350BC”– That is news to me. The other people I have debated have sworn by carbon dating, practically cheering “Give me a C! C! Give me an A! A! Give me an R! R!……” Well, one more piece of evidence that they’re not all on the same page.

“PS: I am also a major procrastinator as well! haha”– Finally, some common ground.

Anath:

>>I was asking how we know that micro-evolution is responsible for the various species, so when you said this I assumed you meant observation of the fossil record. What other method proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that micro-evolution is responsible for all the various species in existance.<<
Stop assuming.

However, there is not much we can know about the past except for fossils at this time. But, if we can prove in a laboratory that microevolution works as predicted, and if not, how it is different, and its subtle intricacies, how can you claim that it did NOT work in the past in accordance with the mountain of evidence in its favor?

The only way you can claim this is, again, PERSONAL INCREDULITY. Figure out what I am actually saying to you before you begin placing words in my mouth. We can prove that microevolution works. We can prove that it is responsible for all variation you see today. We can set up accurate models that predict the past, present, and future in light of microevolution. The facts lie in the science. All you need to do is at least try to understand them, and every post you type makes it painstakingly clear that you do not.

>>After many, many years of being wrong how can you be sure we have the “actual bone structure” now. To me, this seems to be another example of the hastyness of evolutionists. Everything is a fact until proven otherwise.<<

Have you even read ANYTHING on this discussion? There is really only one way a particular hip structure CAN work, and one of the problems was not just the science, but early artist’s renditions of the creature and setups of the skeleton to resemble a kangaroo. The posture was not even really studied until the 1970′s, at which time it was more a bit “ooops, we should have actually looked at that more closely before, that’s not physically possible.” Now we also have computer reconstructions that allow us to test our theories and find the optimal solution… which is the current posture.

>>And I think just because we use different branches of evolution in medicine (or what have you) doesn’t mean that the theory of evolution was involved.<<

How the hell is this even POSSIBLE? Different branches of evolution could not have existed if it weren’t for the theory as a whole. I hope you go get a nice night’s worth of sleep and help us all understand how you can somehow balance extreme paradoxes in your head.

I haven’t exactly had the most rest this semester either, its no excuse.

>>That is news to me. The other people I have debated have sworn by carbon dating, practiaclly cheering “Give me a C! C! Give me an A! A! Give me an R! R!……” Well, one more piece of evidence that they’re not all on the same page.<<

Who have you been talking to? I haven’t encountered this at all, even in science classes, and I read a LOT of science books. At most they acknowledge carbon-14 dating as a historical dating method. They have gone over a lot of past samples with more accurate methods to date.

Please go back and write a full response to my original post. If there is anything you do not understand about it, I would be happy to clarify for you.

All Access:

“We can prove that microevolution works. We can prove that it is responsible for all variation you see today. We can set up accurate models that predict the past, present, and future in light of microevolution”– Then DO IT! Go ahead, prove it without the fossils. With that last post you take on the same misplaced, arrogant tone that everyone I come across uses. I thought you were different, but I guess you’re all the same. This is a pointless conversation. It has been so from the beginning and I no longer have the patience for it. I’ll go back to thinking you’re in denial and you can continue doing the same about me.

One last time: The Theory of Evolution = SUBjective OPINION. And do your own research folks. If I don’t respond again it is because I don’t look at this anymore. Anyone reading this discussion can decide for themselves who has made the most sense.

Here’s lookin’ at you kid.

Anath:

Read. My. Post. Already.

I explained how microevolution works on a genetic level. I explained how we have observed DNA varying and changing between generations. I explained how scientists do it. I did not mention fossils until the past few posts after you mentioned it. Genetics has worked in this manner since the first amino acids floating around in the primordial soup. GENETICS is at the heart of evolution. If you want to know how X turns into Y, you need to stop thinking about bits of rock and start looking at and learning at the GENES. It works like this now, it worked like this before. I have not seen you present any counterargument beyond fossils. Get into the 21st century already, there’s new information for you!!!

If you want scientists to post the genomes of every creature we currently have fossils of, you will be waiting a long time, and some creatures that do not have any organic remnants will never come. Currently they are working on the Wooly Mammoth and the Neanderthal though, so that is a start.

I have a better one, merely that if we have never known god, how can hell be anything but bad for us if hell means the “absence of god”? I mean, how can you miss something of which you never had and never been exposed to in your life? (Well, some have, but rejected it anyway so I guess it would be a relief for them too.) Nevermind the hellfire thing, it has never been proven anyway and just says “fire and brimstone” in the original, but I guess I wouldn’t mind some warmth. Rather that than freezing aye? Oh yes, I hate winter…

I r redi 2 dai!

My most recent problem has been an auto warranty company informing me multiple times that “this call is my 2nd warning” that I need to renew my warranty.  I’m not sure how they can give me more than one second warning, and I’m not sure what car they are referring to as I ride my bike and public transportation.  Regardless, I hang up on the automated message, and I Googled the number.   Turns out this “company” is actually a scam, and they are spoofing multiple numbers that actually belong to some innocent, ignorant people living in Arizona, Arkansas, and who knows where else!  There was a comprehensive list of numbers they were using, and a poster on one of the numbers suggested searching the address on Google Maps, so I did.

This is what I found:

......

Someone actually dug huge trenches in their lawn so that flying planes and satellites would see those words.  I hope he doesn’t think we’re actually stupid enough to believe those words are NATURAL, some miraculous phenomenon put it there, and have some sort of crazy conversion or soul-seeking session.

We’re far more likely to think he is just a fanatic moron that just wasted a lot of time and energy.

This second part is centered on two main aspects: the nature of the Christian faith and the incredible and grotesque lie in the context of Christianity- “free will”.

This article in particular caught my attention: http://www.everystudent.com/wires/twokinds.html

For me, this says it all about the TRUE nature of the Christians and their “faith”. So, it is not about being happy, altruistic, finding peace in your heart, adhering to a lifestyle that would give you joy. It is exactly the opposite. It is about forcing yourself to believe something and to adhere to some rules that don’t have any meaning to you, struggling daily with natural urges that you try to deny and blame on “the Devil”, a ville oppression against your own mind and spirit, and, most of all, a speculative and opportunistic  way of living.

You heard right: Christianity is the most egoistic, opportunistic and oppressive of beliefs. It has nothing to do with “compassion, love, altruism”. The true essence of Christianity is as follows: give up your own beliefs, your own free thought, your own mind and  bodily urges in order to adhere to a belief system, to some external rules and thinking ways, written in an ancient book. Why? Because it is SAFER ! Because you don’t want to risk going to hell or whatever after you die.

In my opinion, this is the worse case of weakness and of fear of taking responsibility for your actions. Ever since Pascal brought into discussion his (in)famous wager, it has since been used by Christians as a POWERFUL and INDESTRUCTIBLE argument for believing in their god.

Of course, the infantile nature of this argument is so evident that it is more like a source of humor and comedy, than an argument of any kind. The Christians have the incredible courage to say that (even if they were to accept the obvious- that there is no proof for the biblical claims) there is a 50% chance for their god to be existent and that it is a safer bet to accept him in order to avoid eternal punishment. What the Christians forget (or maybe don’t know, since many like to live in ignorance, as a requirement of their christ) are the other thousands of religions that have the same roots and similar myths, just like Christianity. And many also appeared way before the bible did. So why is this Jehowa more special than other gods? The real chance for the Christian god to exist (if we were to accept this wager) is actually somewhere around 0.001%.

Another outraging thing about this way of thinking is that Christians claim that “if there is no god, they have really lost nothing”. And here is where I ask: what about those countless and worthless hours of worship,  the fact that you denied what you loved the most, that you let go of your true convictions in order to become the slave of some nebulous beliefs and of a system demanded by an idol, non-existent god ? That sounds pretty much like ruining your spiritual integrity, and still you say that you have nothing to lose.

Anyway, back to my point: the Christian moral system and faith, although it may look shiny and polished on the outside (to some, at least) is no more than a rotten carrion on the inside. A terminal disease for your mind, not a cure. You are actually forcing yourself to engage in acts that have no meaning to you. The so-called good deeds are really nothing but shallow, heartless acts, done out of fear.

Such is the true nature of Christianity.

Now, about the second part, the free-will. References: http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/yesno.html

Well, this was really (initially) a desperate attempt to explain the fact that people engage in harming acts, even though they were supposedly created in a perfect world, by a perfect creator. Even worse, a noble and vital aspect in a person’s development- free will- that is being in control of your mind in order to follow your own path and build your own system in life, is systematically turned into a weapon that inflicts guilt. Because our evil free-will, we keep bringing plagues upon this world. It is because our free-will, because we do not let the Great Nonexistent govern us and because we want to follow our OWN belief-system in life, that natural disaster, wasting diseases, famine, deaths etc happen. If someone is dying painfully from a terrible disease, remember that WE are responsible for it, because we use our free will to refuse to subscribe to jesus.

That’s how Christianity works, and that’s what free-will is in Christian teachings- the greatest source of evil.

Of course, these theologians still want us to think that god is reasonable, he is a democratic ruler, not some tyrant who rules with an iron fist, but a permissive god who lets us choose if we want to follow him or not, to believe in him, or not. Yet, immediately afterward, they offer another example, of what will happen to those who do not follow god- that is they will burn…in HELL !!!! This makes Stalin, for example,  look like a very sympathetic figure indeed. He didn’t force anyone to adhere to the misery creating fantasy of a system that he brought. You could have easily chosen to be a dizident those days. Of course, you might have also very well ended up in the Gulag, along with your whole family as a result of this. The Christian god is no different than this. How can anyone have the nerve to talk about you being allowed free will, as long as there is a gun pointed towards your head ?

In conclusion, free will and Christianity are two aspects that can never be put in the same room. For us irreligious people,  free will is the boosting engine for our own mental progress. In Christianity, free will is the root of all evil.

Anyway, that’s all for today. I don’t know if there will be any third part to this. I’ll keep on writing more articles independent from this “under siege thing”.

PS: Myth on the same step with the law of gravitation ? HAHAHAHAHA

While I was checking my e-mail one morning, I came across a certain link to a website, with the explanation “Six reasons that lead you to the existence of God”. Curious as I am to view , I accessed the link. I must say that, as I expected, their arguments are more “modern” ones, such as concentrating on the argument from intelligent design- argument which I attacked in this article : on a loving God, on necessity of a personal relationship with God, on Jesus Christ, and on arguments as to why Christianity is the only right path. By and far, distorted images of reality, the bible, and the “god” portrayed in the bible, but also a little bit different from classical christian arguments. I’ll show why.

Anyway, this is the site in question : http://www.everystudent.com. This is the English version. I received the Romanian version on the e-mail. I think they exist in A LOT of languages, but the content is 100% the same.

Now, this site brought me a few laughs, but also a few “revolts”, and somewhat reminded me of why I have such a strong repulsion when i hear the words “god”, “Jesus”, “Christianity”, “religion”.

This will probably be a multi-part article, as there are many aspects I wish to focus on.

The existence of God

Here is the article I spoke about earlier, about those six “convincing” arguments on the existence of god.

First of all, notice how the author of this article prepares the ground for any attack on her “righteous” arguments:

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking.

This clearly shows that it is the author’s intention to “show” that if her arguments fail to convince someone, is because they are deluded and stubborn in not wanting to see the obvious.

Well, let’s check into this “obvious”, shall we ?

The first argument: “The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.”

This first argument concentrates on the fact that the Earth is perfect for its inhabitants, it’s the only planet that has a perfect size, a perfect distance from the Sun, and , as such, it was clearly created for our welfare, as it is the only planet with life.

This argument is really not impressive. Worse, it reminds me of Middle Age teachings, when the Earth was presented as the centre of the universe. They proudly present the fact that Earth is the only known planet that can support life. Some would dismiss this, with all the Mars research and explorations going on. However, even if we were to accept something like this, how much of this universe do we know ? An extremely tiny and insignificant portion of it ! It is like I would live only in my house, and observe a few of the neighbouring houses, where nobody seems to live, and conclude by this that my house is some chosen area, of a grand master plan.

Also, as I stated before, I am not an expert in science and biology (and if there is someone on this site more of an expert in this domain, I would appreciate if he/she gives his/her contribution in such arguments), but still, there are basic rules of science, that everyone knows. One such rule is that it is the organism that adapts itself to its environment, rather than the environment being created specially for it. For example, if I would be sent to live in the North Pole, at -50 degrees Celsius, I would most likely have a very hard time adapting myself in the first few months, and can even suffer a thermal shock if I do something wrong there. It is obvious that I will not adapt myself too quickly to the changes, I will not be able to feed myself as I do in my homeland, and I will have a very hard time surviving, without proper equipment. So is it right to say that my current environment was created especially for me ? Or is it my organism, used to live here, and my genes that made me easily adaptable to it ? On a much larger scale, this is what the Christian argument is saying, that this land, along with its climate and resources, was created just for me to live in it.

The second argument: “The human brain’s complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it.”

As you can see, this argument is pointing towards the intelligent design. Again, I point to you the article I wrote days ago. Here, I clearly state my opinion that Christians use false arguments and that these arguments do not help in any way in proving the existence of THEIR god, the god of the bible!

The third argument: “‘Chance’ or ‘natural causes’ are insufficient explanations.”

As you can read there, they claim that natural cause arguments are insufficient and do not fully explain the origin of this world and our race. But here’s the thing that really made me raise an eyebrow:

It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.

So they point to something and say it is intellectually wanting. Ok, than what do you call believing in some words that some bronze age tribesmen wrote about 3000 years ago, about the creation of the world ? Is it wisdom ? Intellectual superiority ?  Ok, I admit that all scientific theories are insufficient, at the present time at least. But why don’t you check my above mentioned article of what the bible says about creation. So, while everything else is unconvincing, some words written 3000 years ago prove all there is to prove ?

The fourth argument: “To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God.”

Ok, I don’t want to sound arrogant and if I do sound arrogant, I don’t care. Because mass hysteria, paranoia and herds in general have always failed to impress me in any way.

Of course,  no one with common sense will point towards the masses of the medieval period as an example for how many people actually believed in god. Because they were kept in eternal ignorance and terror by the most disgusting institution of all times- the church.

Now about the people who believe in god nowadays, well it’s basically the same thing. They keep themselves in ignorance (of this matter, at least, not necessary in general). You would be surprised to see how many of these “fundamentalists” have never even held a copy of their “holy book” in their hands. But still, they believe in god with all their heart. Of course, there is also the other problem- in which god do they believe ? The god as he is portrayed in the bible, or some distorted image of him ?  Check my article entitled “Nietzschean Musings: God’s suicide”, anyone who wants to know more about what I’m talking about. Also, in another part of these series of articles I will gladly add up  more to this problem.

Anyway, bottom line here: the masses are the worst argument that anyone can bring. It is so easy to manipulate people with the proper tools. Oh, and I guess, if we are to take this argument for granted, that we should all start listening to stuff like Justin Timberlake, Rhianna, Beyonce or Britney Spears. Well, A LOT of people listen to them and think they’re good. So they must be good, RIGHT ? Also, I must check some surveys about the products I use. What if they aren’t that popular among the majority ? That would mean that they are crap.

The fifth argument: “We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.”

Well, this argument fails even on a rational or logical basis. I guess this site exists because god wanted us to create it, to speak against his existence and against the philosophy of the bible, all this being a subtle way in actually making us believe in him. Right !

Anyway, the personal experience of the author of that article is only that- a personal experience. Atheists (or irreligious people in general) talk about god as they talk about any other subject- that is when the subject is debated or when someone asks their opinion. Die hard Christians actually talk A LOT more than anyone else about this subject- I know this because I happened to have met some.

Personally, I discuss several things on the internet and in real life- music, philosophy, occultism, literature, religion- when I feel like it and because it is good to compare points of view with people who basically have the same opinion as you on a certain matter, or on the contrary, have a different opinion. As long as there exists a certain subject- religion (not god), music, book etc.- there will be debates, either for or against. I discuss music, for example, more often than religion. So does this mean that if I speak against a certain genre of music is because I feel a certain “pull” to actually listen to it and eventually will fall on my knees and admit that I was wrong and that music is actually my life? According to this argument, yes.

The author of that article said:

And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don’t believe even exists?!”

I am not bothered if people believe in god if it does not affect me, because I have Christian friends (at least they call themselves such, because they do nearly nothing that the doctrine tells them to). What bothers me is that religion has always affected people outside the sphere of believers. Of course, a lot less nowadays, but it still happens. People still might look down on you if you say you don’t believe in god, faith is still regarded as the highest of all virtues, such as : “He’s a good, Christian man”, or “A good person, god fearing…” or “society is going downwards, a lot of people don’t even believe in god nowadays”. It is not my business (nor anybody else’s) if someone has a PERSONAL belief and respects mine. However, when things leave the personal area, than we’re discussing something else. I don’t feel repulsion if someone says he believes in Jesus. I do, however, have a repulsion when I’m accused about non-believing, when some tells me “you’ll go to hell because you don’t believe. So you better start believing, or else, because this is the only path, regardless if you believe it or not”.

Anyway, bottom line on this argument: Christians show a lot of examples of people “realizing” one night that god exists. But as you can read in that article, the examples given are two subjective experiences, that didn’t even have this ‘revelation” from a concrete source. However, they never give an example of people who, after reading the bible (like myself), rejected this faith as totally non-sense. And there are a lot of examples. Nearly all people I know, who are irreligious, have become like this after reading the “holy book”.

The sixth argument: “Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.”

I will not write too much about this, because this is simply based on the argument that “the bible says so”. And by what is this argument sustained, what solid evidence does it bring, in order to show us that the bible is actually the work of their god ? None!  Like I said in a previous article, the bible is inspired by other works of mythology of its time, basically by the Babylonian and Egyptian myths and legends. In all those books there were resurrection, revolts in heaven, miracles, deluges and other ingredients of every mythology. What if I say that Marduk is the only correct path to achieving eternal life ? Why ? Well, it is clear that he created  the stars, our world, and, none the less, us- the human race. How do I know ? Well, it says so in Enuma Elish, look it up !

Finally, a bottom line regarding all these modern Christian arguments, in general. Because that site is only a single example, as I’ve been hearing these arguments countless time, from every Christian. As you can see, not one of these arguments are based on something real. There is not one single part of them that brings some solid evidence  to support the idea that the christian god actually exists. All arguments are based either on speculation, subjective, personal examples, or the words of the bible- which, of course, I reject them as simple myths.

To be continued with part II, in which I will speak about the perception that believers have about the god they believe in.

Recently I’ve been checking the Antichristian Scout and I noticed that scoutle has ranked us as deserved.

Muahahahahaaaa!

The only thing missing is to somehow lock us at this number >:D

Silliness aside, I’m quite glad at how this thing is progressing. This kind of automation will certainly allow uis to discover the sites that are interedting to each other without even trying. I’ve already discovered at least 5 blogs that I’ve never even seen.