April 10, 2006
KIRK CAMERON: LYING FOR JESUS
Born Again Kirk Cameron, formerly of Growing Pains (a show I never watched) fame, does a completely dishonest video that states evolution has nothing substantial behind it. Right from start to finish, he and Ray Comfort, a deceitful Minister in real life, go from interviewing college kids he calls "experts in evolution" (note: who knows how many kids they interviewed before they took these edits? and who knows what these kids were taking in school?) to bringing an orangutan into a restaurant, to using out of context quotes, to trying to sell their "science book of quotes," The Evidence Bible. The ridiculous analogies are farcical. Their line of reasoning should be a criminal offense. And why do these snake oil salesmen always equate evolution with abiogenesis?
Don't forget to check out their proof: Questions for Evolutionists, Evolution: True Science Fiction, and this little gem on the Missing Link, Still Missing.
I was writing this post and watching and listening to the video at the same time.
I almost feel like throwing up. This is guaranteed to make any one with a brain queasy.
I wonder if they know they are lying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I happened to see that segment on TV a few days ago. It was pretty revolting. Christian preacher types like that really creep me out. Maybe I've seen too many movies, but I keep expecting Kirk Cameron to morph into Lucifer at any moment. Why is that?
ReplyDeleteThey know they are lying. Right before they introduce their "Evidence Bible", they specifically say they are "circumnavigating the intellect". Their measure of truth is whether something matches what they already believe.
ReplyDeleteWhat a couple of lying, lobotomized tools. The only redeeming value of a show like this is the chance that it may create enough cognitive dissonance to make some true believers start really thinking, when they recognize the lies. This was disgusting.
BTW, the show was Growing Pains, not Full House.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem many have with evolution is that it can't be proved apart from circular reasoning. That is, if evolution is based on the assumption that the universe was formed via natural processes, how does one prove that assumption unless one already assumes in advance that it was formed via natural processes? Consider, for example, the apparent old age of the earth. Many consider it to be a proof of evolution. But, of course, how can the earth be considered old unless it was formed via natural processes? And there's the problem -- the very thing that is sought to be proved is assumed in the proof itself, thus begging the question.
And if circular reasoning is unavoidable, it's no wonder that many say evolution is based on faith as much as creationism is.
Yeah, I was going to say what Jessie did - Kirk Cameron was in Growing Pains. His sister was in Full House. Sad... I used to have the biggest crush on him (when I was like 10).
ReplyDeleteThis is enough to make anyone nauseated.
Jesse, you're not making much sense. All of science is based on the notion that the universe operates according to natural laws. If there were no regularities in nature, science would not have much to work with. (But we wouldn't be here to worry about it either.) So what is your point? I don't know whether you're concerned with the philosophical problem of Induction, but issues in philosophy of science do not single-out evolution in any regard. I also don't understand how you think the age of the Earth might be used as a proof of evolution. Nobody thinks that. However, the advanced age of the Earth does provide enough time for evolutionary processes to act, and hence it is compatible with evolution.
ReplyDelete>>I wonder if they know they are lying
ReplyDeleteI think at some basement level of the brain they realize that they are bending the facts, cherry picking the data, and propogating an emotional, scare tactic argument, about what should be a factual, nonpoliticized, scientific topic.
If I had to take a guess at the inner workings of the zealot mind, it would likely be a case of the ends justifying the means. Any possibility of objectively viewing the data is just small potatoes when compared to the notion of saving the lost souls for jesus.
It's kind of sad to watch actualy, like they are stuck in some type of vodoo trance.
Faith is amazingly succesful at perpetuating this becuase the more rational the argument that one resists, the more laudible the commintment to their faith becomes. A tough cycle to break...
Jesse, get a grip. And maybe hit the books. (Yours is the one whose 'reasoning' is circular. And I'd love to stay here and educate you, but that's really your job now. Obviously, the Ozark School of Science really let you down.)
ReplyDeleteKirk Cameron is a moron. I don't know who he's trying to impress... but she's probably got other assets besides a big Bible.
some guy wrote: "All of science is based on the notion that the universe operates according to natural laws."
ReplyDeleteAs it should be. I agree it should. But if that's the case, then it's not possible for "science" to disprove any claim to supernatural events (such as creation) since it precludes even the possibility of such in advance. Science, then, can't make neutral claims about creationism.
some guy wrote: "However, the advanced age of the Earth does provide enough time for evolutionary processes to act, and hence it is compatible with evolution."
But whether the earth is as old as evolutionists say is part of the debate. Is the earth old? If creation is true, then the earth is not "old." So how can one prove the earth is old unless evolution is assumed to be true -- and there's the circular reasoning problem again. The very thing sought to be proved is assumed in the proof itself.
Jesse. Science has proved that the earth is ancient by using various dating methods.
ReplyDelete99.8% of all scientists know the earth is ancient.
BTW, an ancient earth is a different field of study than evolution. Both fields conclude the same thing.
And creation could still have happened (though I'm 99.9999% sure it didn't) even in an ancient earth and even with evolution.
See, neither geologists or evolutionary biology deal with abiogenesis, which is another part of biology.
Do you want to learn, or is your mind made up Jesse? Let me know, and I and a few others here can help you.
Ok. I'm not trying to evangelize here. I'm simply observing that evolution can't be proved unless its core assumption (that the earth was formed via natural processes) is assumed in all the evidence and arguments for it; hence the problem of circular reasoning.
ReplyDeleteJust consider what the BEAJ says, "Science has proved that the earth is ancient by using various dating methods." But the dating methods assume that the earth was formed via natural processes -- which is the very thing in debate between the evolutionist and the creationist. If the earth was created supernaturally, say, 10,000 years ago, then the only reason people using various dating methods can conclude that the earth is millions of years old, is if they assume in advance that the earth wasn't created supernaturally - which is the very thing in dispute and thus the problem with begging the question.
BEAJ writes: "Do you want to learn, or is your mind made up...?"
Just understand that the question goes both ways.
On a side note, being a fellow Anti PC League blogger, I'll admit your blog scores big points for political incorrectness.
BEAJ
ReplyDeleteI admire your patience on debating with guys that believe that the Earth was just created a couple of thousand years old. I understand that there is people that need to believe in supernatural events to fulfill their own sense of spirituality, however, from there to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old we have the deep abyss that separates the abstract world from the concrete world.
Jesse, it doesn't work both ways. Every creationist scientist on this planet tried to prove the world is less than 10,000 years old using that as an assumption and failed.
ReplyDelete> I'm simply observing that evolution
ReplyDelete> can't be proved unless its core assumption
> (that the earth was formed via natural processes)
First, evolution says not a damned thing about the formation of the earth. Evolution speaks _only_ to the changes in living things once living things exist.
> But the dating methods assume that the
> earth was formed via natural processes --
Why would your god be a deceitful, lying buttwipe?
BEAJ wrote: "Jesse, it doesn't work both ways."
ReplyDeleteWhat? You're saying your mind is made up and that's ok but it's not ok for me to have my mind made up? Obviously, then, the problem isn't whether either of us has our mind made up, but whether that about which our mind is made up is in fact true.
tpaine95006 wrote: "Why would your god be a deceitful, lying buttwipe?"
You can only say that if you assume He hasn't clearly revealed the truth about the origins of the universe, which, of course, He has -- in the Bible. And that takes us to whole other debate, doesn't it?
I'll cease posting on this topic. I'll simply leave you with my main point and leave ya'll to see whether you're guilty of it when you reason about evolution: "I'm simply observing that evolution can't be proved unless its core assumption (that the earth was formed via natural processes) is assumed in all the evidence and arguments for it; hence the problem of circular reasoning."
fin
You really don't get it Jesse. Lets say a Christian scientist assumed the earth was less than 10,000 years using dating methods available today. They would come away finding out they were wrong about their assumption. You fail to deal with this.
ReplyDeleteScience doesn't work the way you think it does.
These people don't believe in evolution, but can't disprove it, however they agree with an ancient earth, and believe in creation.
ReplyDeleteJesse, read this, at least read Glen Morton's testimony.
An ancient earth is fact. There are no two sides to the coin. It is like saying it is daylight outside right now on the east coast to say the earth is young.
> You can only say that if you assume He hasn't
ReplyDelete> clearly revealed the truth about the origins
> of the universe, which, of course, He
> has -- in the Bible.
Let's be clear here. There are reefs many, many thousands of years old, with fossilized remains underneath them. There are continuous ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years (the latest the Japanese just recovered is a million years), there are hundreds of thousands of years of sedimentary deposites underneath granite domes that have since been uncovered by erosion.
If the world ISN'T millions of years old, then your "god" went to great and extravagent lengths to LIE about it, and he only told the 'truth' to a bunch of itinerant, bronze age goat herders swapping bed time stories?
That's a tall tale, friend.
It makes my brain hurt a little but I think what Jesse is trying to say is that we take it on faith (assume) that natural processes are responsible for the formation of the Earth and all its living creatures. Yet our faith is based on data, gathered by many scientific disciplines, that cross references in uncanny ways. The quality of the evidence continues to improve also. However believers in Deities have their own sources of data, gathered mostly from their own personal experiences and the testimonies of others. Who is to say that the data gathered by trained specialists, that is peer reviewed and cross checked and verified is any more reliable than someone who claims that God spoke to him? And what could be more precise than the statement, “God created the heavens and the earth..” ? The fundamentalist assumes that the divine exists in everything and the scientist assumes that natural processes are responsible for everything.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day it comes down to the usefulness of the theories. Which faith reveals effective ways of healing people or new locations of oil fields or leads to more discoveries and such like. Which faith has the most tangible, verifiable, profitable and repeatable outcomes? Which faith has the most predictive power? Religion is not in the same league as science when it comes to these things. Assumptions are made all the time in science but they are generally pretty useful assumptions. Religious assumptions, however, seem to have few tangible benefits apart from a bit of psychological comfort.
The thinkg Jesse fails to understand is that every single scientific field's research gives us data. This data, collected through research and repeatable observations leads us to conclusions about why things happen. The reason that there are theories in biology, physics, etc.. is because they are formed from observations.
ReplyDeleteJesse and the creationists are under the assumption that Science works like religion where we have an idea and then search for data to prove the idea (notice I did not say theory). In science the theory is a result of observing natural phenomenon and then forming a theory to explain the phenomenon. We do not pick a conclusion and then fix data around it. We take the observations and form the theory from that.
Religion and creationism will always be the opposite of this because they are always workign from the Bible and then trying to prove it.
Trying to say that Science is circular reasoning is rediculous. Religion is the king on circular reasoning. Without god there is nothing. There is a Non-sequitur that directly addresses this.
If I'm going to post here please accept my appolgies for typos. I'm typically posting in between dealing with server crashes, WAN failures, and VOIP outages so I dont have time to proof read well.
ReplyDeleteIn science the theory is a result of observing natural phenomenon and then forming a theory to explain the phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteIt is worth noting that science doesn't only go bottom-up. There is firstly the issue of theory-ladenness in certain observational settings. (You cannot observe elementary particles unless you already have a very sophisticated theory about their properties.) Moreover, when a scientific hypothesis is being formed, scientists absolutely do go looking for observations that can be explained by the hypothesis. When someone comes up with a new mathematical model of, say, visual perception, you can be damn sure that they will be on the lookout for observations (i.e., facts) that are consistent with their hypothesis, and that hopefully are either more accurately and/or more parsimoniously accounted for by their hypothesis. This is the biggest error in the 7th-grade version of the scientific method. Unless you're just watching a potato grow roots, making scientific observations is highly labor-intensive and very expensive. Nobody makes observations without having a prior theory or hypothesis that leads them to expect interesting or useful results. In fact, one could say that due to inherent biases in human perception and cognition, the entire notion of theory-independent observation is incoherent. When the very first person said to himself "Isn't it odd that clouds don't fall down" he was only able to make that observation as a result of having some theory of "falling" to which clouds represented a startling anomaly. Anyway, I'm rambling, and I have to get to the lab now to make some theory-laden observations.
taken
ReplyDeleteExcept my understanding is that these original theories come from observation in the first place. It may be observation of something completely unrelated but its still formed out of an overservation of some occurance. Once that theory is formed, there are then experimentations that are done directly related to the theory and the theory is then changed according to the observations of the said experiment.
The difference here is that Creationist take a non scientific book and try to back up the fables in that book by cherry picking data (either from legitimate science or psuedo-science) that fits their limited idea all the while ignoring the gigantic stacks of data that that has been generated using the procedure I spoke of above that may, and often do, refute their idea. There is no change to the idea a creationist has when new data arrives that honestly refutes their position. A scientific theory is always open to being changed when actual scientific proof is presented . Creationists ignore actual scientific proof unless they can take it out of context to use with their claims (ie.. Mt St. Helens and Young Earth Creationists). All of this because they start with a preconcieved idea told to them by the bible.
wow that was a ramble
thanks
I don’t think that their only source of information is the Bible though. Personal experiences and the earnest testimonies of their friends carry great weight with them. These experiences are not clearly observable or verifiable yet they appear to be powerful.
ReplyDeleteI believe that scientists have pet theories that they go out searching for and fudging data to prove. It’s not as infallible as it first appears.
I think it comes down to plausibility in the end. We do compare our personal observations of the world to theories that are presented to us. Many people still have a lot of trouble accepting the theory of relativity because it doesn’t match what we experience in daily life. Religious people do have religious experiences that reinforce their beliefs.
What should worry creationists is that evolution is actually plausible. If their worldview is correct it is amazing that evolution has an ounce of plausibility.
I like to think of evolution as the mechanics of creation. Evolution brings into being new things. If God created everything by using a mind that knows everything he is not creating anything new. Knowing everything already and knowing all that has passed and is to come would not actually be intelligence. Evolution is a fantastic theory because it explains the emergence of new things. Think deeply enough about it and there is no other way for new things to come into being. Mindlessness results in powerful creativity because there are no inhibiting notions of good nor evil. This is why we observe great cruelty in nature as well as great good. It is not chance, it is replication, mutation and selection.
"it's not possible for "science" to disprove any claim to supernatural events (such as creation)"
ReplyDeletescience does not care to disprove things for which there is no evidence in the first place.
Thanks Rubin
ReplyDeleteI sometimes wonder if I come across as rambling and pompous so it’s nice to get some feedback.
Here's the thing that I noticed watching just the beginning of this craptacular show: Evolution is hard to explain unless you're an expert, therefore (according to Kirk Cameron) it's not real. However, since Creationism is easy to explain (God did it), it must be right. Boy, they sure convinced me.
ReplyDeleteAA, your ramblings are welcome here because it makes less work for me. I rarely if ever disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteColin, Fundy "science" is just the attempt to poke holes in real science while using as many wrong definitions as possible.
Wow. That is one of the most despicably dishost loads of crap I have ever had the displeasure of viewing.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of those ID trials. These pious assholes, supposedly all morally superior because of their religion, are reduced to flat out lying in order to defend those beliefs. Talk about hypocrisy.
The question is whether they know they are being deceptive or if they are ignorant morons.
ReplyDeleteOk, Jesse, think of it like this; when you tell a story to a child, do you tell them all the facts or do you break it down as simple as possible?
ReplyDeleteCreation is the same way. It's an allegory. You can be of a religious mind set and still believe in evolution.
Science makes no pretense to being inflexable. There are theories and laws. Laws are from what we have seen are truth. Thoeries are those things that can be changed when evidence that when evidence is present stating that they are wrong or slightly off the mark.
Science never states that evolution is hard fact, but rather a theory that is in a constant state of flux as new things are discovered. Such as the proto-land animal found recently.
Science finds things and it corrects theory or out right burns it to the ground.
Religion spouting as science makes crude observations as FACT! And if one more asshole says the eye is has to be a designed feature, then explain blind spots. No designer would ever create a blind spot.
And from Kirk's little thing. Those kids look no older than 19. They're about as advance Fox News is unbiased.
I hate to point it out guys, but Jesse is absolutely correct.
ReplyDeleteHear me out on this one.
Science makes a HUGE assumption that says The Earth was created by natural process. Now, while Jesse doesn't mention it, Science also makes several other assumptions:
We are not living inside of the matrix, where the entire physical world does not really exist, but is being manipulated by a huge computer, or Spaghetti Monster, or whatever it is
Scientists make HUGE assumptions when they believe that natural laws are made by nature, and not made by God (of course, since God made the rules, God can break them... right?)
Honestly, the point is moot. If there really was an all powerful being (and I do believe there is, but I don't believe this load of crap I'm about to feed you), He could have created all of the evolution backstory in an instant, and the world could have been created a year ago, ten years ago, ten thousand years ago, or whenever he wants it to. The point is, He obviously made up the backstory for a reason, and hasn't given us any factual evidence for any other line of thinking.
Whatever you say about the Bible, it does NOT describe any actual processes, or give hard Facts. Assuming that the Bible is His Word, it is obviously meant to be interpreted (for example, look at how many contradictions there are concerning the opening of the Tomb after Jesus' resurection...)
So, anyways, we're given these hard facts, with nothing else to believe, and no reason to believe anything else. Science will only make sense for those who believe that Natural Laws can't be broken, bent or manipulated. For everyone else that believes in what would otherwise be called Magic... have at it
Science makes an assumption that magic or the supernatural is not involved.
ReplyDeleteSince there has never been one ounce of fact that supports magic or the supernatural ever, why should science put it into the equation?
As porn star Asia says "science explains everything" Well, NOT QUITE YET Asia, but if you were in my house right now I would be agreeing with you.
The best thing about right wing "anti PC blogger" types is that they inevitably make up into their own "politically correct" stances on issues and yell at everyone else about them.
ReplyDeleteJesse totally confused me. I am a Christian, but I don't believe the Earth is ONLY 10,000 years old (or younger). How do you get that? There are fun methods like carbon dating and a slew of others that manage to date rocks and other items and have found these things to be something like 4.6 billion years old, If I remember correctly. Oh, wait, that's right, there was that Bishop guy... Bishop Ussher who determined that the Earth was created in October of some year a few thousand years ago (I forget which year he said). To my way of thinking, Christians underestimate God if when they limit His power or design to involve only elements of the human world. God's clock might not be a little 24/7 thing like we use. I remember from an Anthropology class I took some 10 years ago that in Genesis, the word that says "Day" as in "God created the world in 7 DAYS" in the original text, there was a word that meant "span of time". We humans need something more finite to hang our hats on than "God hung out in the fermament for a while.... and then in the next while he created something..." So the translation became "day". It doesn't mean a DAY like we know it. I'm not even going to go into all of that. It's just dumb.
ReplyDelete...like that video. That was so WRONG I couldn't watch all of it. They took an Orangatan to a restaurant to prove that primates don't have the the same reasoning skills as humans???? Why didn't they join the Orangatan in it's native environment so they could see how utterly ridiculous they were being?
Why were they asking a bunch of students questions that should have been directed at experts if they didn't want to get the "I forget what the teacher said" answer.
I could only stand to watch about 10 minutes of that rot. It was like watching an infomercial for a get- rich- quick scam or something. Those two morons are an embarrassment to Christians because of the absolutely unintelligible way they attempt to present their case and rip on evolution.
Stephen J. Gould is the guy who came up with that Punctuated Equillibrium (sp?) idea that a species will change rapidly, or punctuate, adapting to strong pressure around it because survival of the species is paramount. That would explain why there are some "missing links".Maybe they didn't know that or they didn't understand what he meant or maybe they set out to be this stupid. Why is it that as Christians, they can't give credit to God for coming up with something that stumps humans?
I am very annoyed over that video. Evolution is hardly a thing to be debated. If one believes that God created the heavens and the earth and all the inhabitants therein, then at some point, the thought must cross their minds that the planet is dynamic: moving, changing, growing, shifting. That might be why God would want critters on the planet who could adapt to the changes of the planet, at least for a while. This could be motivation for having critters possess the ability to evolve.
At least that "Questions for Evolutionists" list reads like something from The Far Side cartoon.
Heartlander, thanks, your post made me laugh. I don't have much of a problem with Christians who don't put their head in the sand with respect to science. Unfortunately 45% of Americans are just like these two.
ReplyDeleteAre you serious? 45% of Americans are this OFF?? Wow. That's scary.
ReplyDeletehell bound alee and ray comfort!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.drzach.net/transcripts/hellboundalleee/050606.htm
an interesting read
Marlek, you say both evolution and creation are both lies?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that man just showed up one day?
What day was that?
That video is truly disturbing.
ReplyDeleteIt's not necessary to look at bones and the past to see evolution at work. All one needs to do is look in a petri dish (or even your yogurt cup http://roguepundit.typepad.com/roguepundit/2006/06/yogurt_evolutio.html )
If science is wrong about this evolution thing, did they just make good guesses with all the vaccines they've developed? The medicines and medical procedures we have based on genetics? The foods we grow and how we grow them?
Any god has had several million years to make human's quality of life better, and yet science seems to have done a better job whenever it's accepted.
But I know whichever side we're on, we're all just preaching to the choir.
Evolution is the most stupid theory that man kind has come up with! Such as the big bang theory... "In the begining there was nothing...then IT blew up!" yeah, like that makes alot of sense. It's not biblical that all of the amazing wonders of the earth happend by accident. Genisis 1:1 says, "In the begining GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth." How can you people say that there is no God, when you're to afraid to try and prove your point with hard evidence? You may say that evolution is a scientific fact, But Jesus christ is the CREATOR of science. He(Jesus), created you and I in his own image. I wish I were as bold as Kirk Cameron, Billy Graham, and all of the great survants of the Most High God. They don't care what you think of them, they know that they're giving their lives to the one who sacrificed his life on their behave, so that one day we may all live with him in paradise. I deeply respect kirk Cameron, and the Ministries that he's begun.
ReplyDeleteKirk Cameron isn't insane. He isn't misguided and he DEFINITELY isn't crazy!!! He is trying to tell the truth to people who continually bury their heads in the deep sand of evolution. Why is it that you must talk in circles and be so upset over the truth? Think. If what he said isn't true then why are you all being so defensive? explain the logic that makes what he says wrong. Can you prove that the world was not designed? can you tell me one organ that is vestigal? can you prove that a bombadier betle happened by chance? Bombbadier beetles have four chemichals in their rear. two of the chemichals join with a third and travel through the pipes in it's rear then the fourth jumps in but just before the chemichals exit goes out again so the beetle doesn't explode then out comes the juice at 210 degrees farenhiet and it kills other bugs and ultimately saves the beetles life. if the beetle evolved, it would never exist because if you even slightly mess up the process or not have one of the chemicals the beetle explodes. Writing that was probably pointless, I can't convince you of anything, you'll always find something to say that will explain it in your mind. I only hope that one day God will convince you of the truth.
ReplyDeleteThank you spider-man, I agree. to the rest of you, why do you continue with this blind faith that evolution will someday be proven? I hope one day God grabs you by the ears and tells you the truth. and I hope that day, you will not be dead and standing before him.
ReplyDeleteThank you spider-man, I agree wholeheartedly. To those of you who are dedicating web space to ridicule God and those who follow him, I say this, Why? Why do you continue in this blind faith that Evolution will prove itself someday? My only wish for you is that God grabbes you by your ears and tells you the truth. I sincerely hope that you will accept His word as truth before the day when you are dead and standing before him begging for a second chance. God DOES love you and he doesn't want you to die, but how can he be a just judge if he lets those that reject him into his holy Heaven? Please, read the Bible, if only to find inaacuracies or learn what it says, Please, do it now. Time is precious. Don't waste it.
ReplyDeleteWhy do most Fundies come here and post anonymously?
ReplyDeleteWhy do Fundies need to come to my site to say evolution is nonsense? Why the insecurity?
Most importantly, why do Fundies deny science?
Now a question a Fundy has yet to answer. Give me one scientific study with a link that contradicts evolution theory.
Kirk Cameron is delusional. He is a reality denier.
Jesus never even existed. Not that this matters, it is just fact that he didn't. You creationists are living a lie.
Because it creeps me out, thats why anonomously. How do you know that Jesus never existed? Do you exist? I never said I denied science, I like science! Evolution isn't science, it's pure fiction. show me something that proves evolution. BTW, there are more people agreeing with you than disagreeing,you are just offended that not everyone agrees with your thinking. I don't hate you, I am just sick of all the evolution propoganda. sorry if this shows u more than once,I'm not used to doing this.
ReplyDeleteThere is not one piece of historical evidence that Jesus existed, and there should be lots.
ReplyDeleteIf you deny evolution, you deny science.
Again, show me one scientific study that contradicts evolution theory. You can't. You are in denial, and you can't handle the truth.
Here is proof of evolution. I don't expect you to even review one of the links.
"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
"Evolution as Fact and Theory"
by Stephen Jay Gould
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
"Evolution is a Fact and a Theory"
by Laurence Moran
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Evolution FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Evolution proofs:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
Regarding false assertion:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
"Observed Instances of Speciation"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
"Some More Observed Speciation Events"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
proof of observed evolution in the following links from burn_those_pikachus:
Mutations adding and increasing genomic/genetic information:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_new_information
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Beneficial Mutations
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/2358
proof of observed evolution in the following links from burn_those_pikachus:
Mutations adding and increasing genomic/genetic information:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_new_information
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
explain how DNA evolved, how the incredibly complex ecosystem we live in and breathe in came from a dot the size of a period. Explain where you got the brain to make up these arguments. I've said before that I personally can't convince you of anything, God will have to do that. If Jesus never existed, then did his parents exist? did their anscestors exist? it goes all the way back to Noah and the flood or Moses in Egypt. I personally believe that Tutenkammen was the eldest son of the pharoah that God killed in the last plague on Egypt. His tomb was finished in a hurry and nobody can tell how he died. His fathers tomb has pictures of strange people with beards walkign away from egypt after abunch of disasters occured. That is evidence that moses existed. Countries all over the world have tales of a worldwide flood, how can the american indian and the natives in tropical islands have a story with the same storyline if it didn't happen? that is evidence for Noah's existence. Was Muhammed real? do you believe that HE existed? why then can't you believe that Jesus existed? Because if you admit that Jesus was real and who he says he is, then you have to believe that you are a created, loved being and that you are under the authority of God and that in your mind scares you. You don't want to have to answer to anyone. If you are an ape like Evolution says, then how come you have (or had) a conscience and apes don't? I only pray that one day you will let God tell you that he's real. I pray that day is soon. I'm praying for you.
ReplyDeleteReview these sites and materials? I never heard of them in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI didn't expect you to have heard of the materials and sites. They are where you find real explanations of science.
ReplyDeleteThe Ark is a joke. No evidence, and absolutely improbable based on the evidence that is out there. Local floods happened everywhere on the planet at various times. Oh yeah, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000.
The Exodus never happened. A picture is not proof. There should be tons of evidence that a historical Jesus and Moses existed if they did. There is none.
Mohammed was a real person, but do you believe he ascended to heaven in a horse? I doubt it. But you would if you were born into a Muslim family or adopted by Muslims at an early age.
Here is how DNA evolves:
How DNA evolves
Occasionally, there are small errors, or “mutations”, in the copying process and the DNA code is altered slightly. Mutations are the ultimate source of variation and novelty in evolution and we all carry mutations that make us different from our parents. The vast majority of mutations are harmless; in fact, some are good! When the child grows up and eventually has children of his or her own, these mutations will be present in the DNA passed on to the offspring. In this way, mutations are preserved in the genetic code passed on from generation to generation. Over time, these tiny changes accumulate so that one family line develops a unique genetic code that distinguishes that lineage from all others.
You and your ilk should not be discussing science or even thinking about science. You are willfully ignorant and you deny most scientific discoveries and research.
You don't like science because it conflicts your written word.....which was written by man and has been revised over and over again.
You demand no historical that the bible is right, yet with no knowledge of science, you will deny it by poking holes in it with no scientific evidence to back you up.
I feel sorry for you. You are living a lie....and you have no right to inflict that lie on others. You should keep it to yourself and your ilk.
Study: Human Brain Evolved Quickly
ReplyDeleteSeth Borenstein, Associated Press
small text
large text
Aug. 17, 2006 —Scientists believe they have found a key genetic change that helped the human brain evolve from our chimp-like ancestors.
In just a few million years, one area of the human genome seems to have evolved about 70 times faster than the rest of our genetic code since humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor.
That change appears to have played a role in a rapid tripling of the size of the brain's crucial cerebral cortex, according to research published Thursday in the journal Nature.
advertisement
line
Study co-author David Haussler, director of the Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said his team found strong but still circumstantial evidence that a certain gene, called HAR1F, may provide an important answer to the question: "What makes humans brainier than other primates?"
Looking at 49 areas of the genome that have changed the most between the human and chimpanzee genomes, Haussler zeroed in on an area with "a very dramatic change in a relatively short period of time."
That one gene didn't exist until 300 million years ago and is present only in mammals and birds, not fish or animals without backbones. But across nearly all of the animals in which it exists, that gene looks alike from one species to the next.
For example, there are only two differences in the gene between a chimp and a chicken, Haussler said.
But there are 18 differences in the gene between humans and chimps, and they all seem to have occurred in the time since humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor, according to the researchers.
"It looks like in fact it is important in the development of brain," said co-author Sofie Salama, a research biologist at Santa Cruz who led the efforts to identify where the gene is active in the body.
Andrew Clark, a Cornell University professor molecular biology who was not part of Haussler's team, said that if true, that quickly paced genetic change would be "terrifically exciting."
However, the reported genetic change is so fast that Clark said he has a hard time believing it, unless something unusual happened in a mutation. It's not part of normal evolution, he said.
The scientists still don't know specifically what the gene does. But they know that this same gene turns on in human fetuses at seven weeks after conception and then shuts down at 19 weeks, Haussler said.
I don't need to say it again, no matter what I say, until you open up your mind, you won't believe me. Nothing I say no amount of proof or truth will change your mind. I can't make you. i sincerely pray that you will realize you are wrong soon. Jesus didn't go to heaven on a horse. If you read the Bible you would know that. Muhammed wrote the Koran, in the Koran he talks about Jesus. He doesn't call jesus the Messiah but he acknowledges his existence. I'm sorry if I don't have all the schooling in Evolution that you have. I don't have tons of proof for you either but you have very litte as well. I'm tired of arguing even if I had all the evidence in the world you are so closed minded that you still wouldn't believe me. Some Atheists talk about how intolerent Christians are. well, maybe I am, but I find it hilarious that they can't tolereate intolerance. Anyway, I have nothing more to say. Think what you want. Read all the books about theories that you can. when you can find real proof, call 9-1-1. You are delerious.
ReplyDeleteAnon, I started off as a believer. My mind is way more open than you. You are right that you are incapable of changing my mind, because all you have is a stupid book written by man an followed by sheep who need a crutch.
ReplyDeleteI have given you nothing but evidence for evolution. You don't know enough about science to dismiss it, and you are too scared to really understand it, yet you have the audacity to call it wrong.
I have tolerance for Christians who tell the truth. They say they don't understand evolution, or they accept evolution....the ones who state evolution is false are denying reality and lying for Jesus.
It is posters like you who ask for proof, and then deny the proof science has to offer that makes Christians go away from the church. It is those who are on the fence that you turn away by showing your willful ignorance.
Lurkers will look at the links I provide, and realize that it is sad to be like you.
You are partially responsible for Christians who become Atheist and Agnostic. Keep up the good work.
You are saying you have tolerance for people who agree with you. Unfortunately you can do that easily. The REAL christians however, have to tolerate your evolution garbage being taught in school. You say you "started off as a believer" what does that mean? You "tried" the "conversion thing" or you went to church, or you "believed" in God because you wanted to impress someone? How exactly do you "start off as a believer"??? What about the phrase "My mind is way more open than you." Grow up. the only response to that no it isn't and you say yes it is, and there you are arguing like a third-grader. As for being scared of understanding evolution, I DO understand evolution. You believe that all this dirt that came from absolutely nowhere squished together and started spinning. This spinning dot blows up and from a dot the size of a period the planets go flying away. (with absolutely no explanation on why two of the planets rotate backwards.) the world is nothing but rocks, it rains on the rocks for millions of years. (Where does all this dirt come from? in the center of each raindrop is a peice of dirt. that is a lot of dirt that came from nowhere.) then this slime thing crawls out on the rocks and finds something to reproduce with. (If you are about to say it reproduced asexually, when did that change?) then they/it reproduce(s) and over billions of years it becomes a monkey and then a man. There. I just told you about evolution. just because I don't believe it doesn't mean I'm afraid to learn about it. Maybe you should do that with christianity. Don't go to people though. There are a lot of people who say they are christians that aren't. Go find a Bible and read it. Even if you are just looking for errors, read it all. That goes for everyone else who reads this. Read the Bible. Humans make mistakes. If I am turning someone towards Atheism or Agnosticism, I am sorry. Go read the Bible instead of this. Sorry I didn't answer sooner. (Actually I did,four times. Stupid computer.)Go read the Bible. -Soldier for Truth
ReplyDelete(I have to post this anonymously otherwise my computer acts up.)
spider-man wrote:
ReplyDeleteSuch as the big bang theory... "In the begining there was nothing...then IT blew up!" yeah, like that makes alot of sense.
Obviously you're pretending to understand something of the Big Bang Theory (BBT), so you can criticize it. This makes you a poseur, and your "criticisms" of the BBT are a joke.
Given the subject of this blog, I imagine this pretense is offered in the hope that some poor, credulous person will think "spider-man says the big bang theory is wrong, so perhaps science cannot explain how our universe came to be." This is WRONG.
The BBT makes perfect sense if you bother to learn the necessary physics: it explains how our universe came to be without mystical hoo-hah about "uncaused causes." (The big bang can loosely be called an "uncaused event" but these words have a very precise scientific and mathematical meanings in this context, and there's nothing mystical about any of it.)
In the unlikely event that you want to learn about the BBT - rather than just peddle your magical creation myths - you could read Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), which is a good start for the layman. A Short Course in General Relativity by J. Foster and J. Nightingale (Longman, 1979) is lucid, and describes some of the simplest Big Bang models (e.g. the Friedmann models), but assumes you've studied maths and/or physics to 1st or 2nd year university level.
When you've read these books, and can write a sensible post about the BBT, I might read what you have to say without thinking "ignoramus."
Freaking pinheads!
ReplyDeleteWhile Creationists challenge the incompleteness of Evolution (science is always growing with new information) they put absolute faith in a document that has ZERO proof of anything other than having been written by many men and compiled numerous times into "official" versions.
ReplyDeleteThe first task of the thesis writer is to PROVE your own thesis, not require disproof by the challengers. So Kirk et al. where is YOUR scientific proof???
They expect us to accept the "MAGIC" solution writted by ignorant men who thought lightning was a sign from God as oppossed to static electricity....please....grow up. You need a few Growing Pains!
Barry
HEAVEN is a good thing. Dont throw away ur soul on judgement day.
ReplyDeleteAll of u need to understand that know matter how much u say there is no hell its not gonna get u out of it on judgement day. Why would u make fun of someone that cared about u without knowing u. His trying to warn u of what happens when u die. THe devil is laughing at all of u because he knows his got u. And the sad part is that u guys are letting him have ur soul for eternity not a hundred years but eternity meaning the pain will never stop. Ur worst fears will be in hell and more. SO instead of making fun of him give him a chance. There was a reason u saw that. Now take ur ticket to heaven not hell. Cause its just not worth it. God died on the cross for everyone to forgive our sins. They beat him so bad u couldnt see his face anymore. He could of gave up on us at any second but he didnt so get a chance. Instead of selling ur soul to the devil.
If you aren't a Muslim, you don't go to Muslim heaven, and you wind up in hell.
ReplyDeleteI can use your same logic when it comes to being a Muslim.
If the Muslims are right, the Christians are screwed. And the reality is that there is no evidence God exists, and there is a great chance that Jesus was an invention of Paul, and he didn't exist either.
I would rather live my one chance at breathing in reality, not based on myth.
Look, there is a book out there that makes people actually want to be good to each other. Even if it is for the wrong reasons, why must you guys so angrily tear it down every chance you get. Don't go crazy over this either, I'm not saying that it is a book of scientific facts, but it could be an allegory teaching basic values of life, values which even evolutionists use, such as: Reward system (good life rewarded with Heaven and found in all aspects of life) and the Punishment system (bad life punished with Hell, also found in all aspects of life). I'm not trying to start a huge argument like every other commenter, I'm just asking why we need to destroy this book, that, at very least, tries to make people act civil to one another.
ReplyDeleteAnd for anyone who tries to claim that the ends don't justify the means, we all do it. "If you're not good, Santa won't bring you any gifts" or "If you masturbate to much you'll go blind," etc. If you don't believe in the Bible, that's fine, but there's nothing wrong with it.
well i can read all of your comments and it seems like you really don't know were you came from. It is funny how a whole book that has surpassed the ages is something oblivious to you and that you would rather belive in some **THEORY**. its like beliving that santa clause, or the easter bunny. The evidence is not there. all the people in the Bible excisted and i still have not seen any of those supposed monkey men. and lets say that we did evolve why did it stop? why is there no more new monkey people? I hope that someday you really understand. There is no proof of this theory that is why it is called a theory. I will pray for all of you that belive in that lye and watch what you people call the servants of God. for all you know you your selves might be lyers.
ReplyDeletetce, you come across as barely educated unless English isn't your first language.
ReplyDeleteBelieving in the bible and Jesus is akin to believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny. There is no contemporary evidence Jesus ever existed, and there should be lots.
As far as your "just a theory" claim............get an education. Or how you might spell it "ejucashun"
I've got a clip of Kirk Cameron on a NightLine debate where he is showing the audience pictures of things like a "crocoduck" and a "bullfrog" (a from with bull's horns) and claiming that they are transitional forms that scientists are looking for.
ReplyDeleteWho is fooling who? When one can look at something with a completely non-biased opinion then you can speak against what you firmly believe in. In your biased opinion they are lying however I am still waiting for that pile of junk that has been sitting in my grandfathers pasture for decades to turn into a Porsche and it is not even close. When you claim someone is wrong then it must mean that you have absolute proof of your claim, meaning that beyond a shadow of a doubt you know this to be 100% accurate in which case you become the very one that you are denying and if that is the case then speed up the evolutionary progress on that Porsche for me would you. Since you have already determined that any such evidence to prove evolution is false, then there can be no intelligent discourse on the matter because your intellect is clouded. In order to be a free thinker one must be willing to accept the fact that their hypothesis could in fact be wrong of course in your thinking this is not possible so therefore you limit your intellect by limiting the realm of reason. Who really are the blind leading the blind? Is it you or them because as they have opened up for others to provide proof of evolution, those who believe in such refuse to accept proof of creation and while scientist who have discovered findings that lead towards creation are quickly discounted and evidence suppressed because it does not fit into mainstream thinking. You see being closed minded is not one sided it goes both ways, which is why this comment will probably never make your site and if it does it will never be met with rational thinking. Of course the main issue with most of your posters is that If they (Kirk and Ray) are correct then that would mean judgment is conceivable and if that be the case then most of us are in major trouble. That is looking at the 2-20% of inaccuracy that one has in their thinking.
ReplyDeleteWho is fooling who? When one can look at something with a completely non-biased opinion then you can speak against what you firmly believe in.
ReplyDelete**********************
I'm totally unbiased when it comes to facts. I used to assume God existed for example. I then asked questions and I found that God was not needed to answer any of them.
In your biased opinion they are lying however I am still waiting for that pile of junk that has been sitting in my grandfathers pasture for decades to turn into a Porsche and it is not even close.
***************************
Junk doesn't turn into a Porsche unless something supernatural were to occur. And I have yet to see something supernatural occur. It would go against science for that to happen. If it did, it would turn me into a believer.
When you claim someone is wrong then it must mean that you have absolute proof of your claim, meaning that beyond a shadow of a doubt you know this to be 100% accurate in which case you become the very one that you are denying and if that is the case then speed up the evolutionary progress on that Porsche for me would you.
****************************
It is the side of Godidiots that would expect junk to turn into a Porsche, not anyone who understands science. They are embarrassments to rational human beings. I think they know they are lying, but their faith won't allow them to admit it.
Since you have already determined that any such evidence to prove evolution is false, then there can be no intelligent discourse on the matter because your intellect is clouded. In order to be a free thinker one must be willing to accept the fact that their hypothesis could in fact be wrong of course in your thinking this is not possible so therefore you limit your intellect by limiting the realm of reason. Who really are the blind leading the blind?
*************************
If there was evidence against evolution, it would be overwhelming by now. The fact is that there hasn't been one piece of evidence or scientific study that refutes evolution or that even leads to a possible other explanation. Again, there would be tons, if evolution were false.
Is it you or them because as they have opened up for others to provide proof of evolution, those who believe in such refuse to accept proof of creation and while scientist who have discovered findings that lead towards creation are quickly discounted and evidence suppressed because it does not fit into mainstream thinking. You see being closed minded is not one sided it goes both ways, which is why this comment will probably never make your site and if it does it will never be met with rational thinking. Of course the main issue with most of your posters is that If they (Kirk and Ray) are correct then that would mean judgment is conceivable and if that be the case then most of us are in major trouble. That is looking at the 2-20% of inaccuracy that one has in their thinking.
************************
Oh, I'm not close minded. If the earth was young there would be overwhelming evidence. Scientists would be able to show over and over again that the earth is young.
BTW, many people who accept evolution also believe in God. They are able to separate fact and faith.
It is disingenuous people like Kirk and Ray, who avoid the evidence to try to fit garbage into a book of crapola written by man for man.
Also, I doubt Jesus ever existed. You are wasting your time praying to a mythological figure. You might as well pray to the Cat in the Hat.
First off I thank you for your comments. I found them to be both challenging and invigorating. I enjoy stimulating logical thinking.
ReplyDeleteHowever even from your comments you have proved the bias in your conversation and comment regarding my statements by again refusing to accept any evidence for a young earth and just as something evolved from nothing my car should eventually turn into something better which I do agree it never will. As for your comment of Jesus never existing there is more evidence of His existence then what you would even like to acknowledge. His existence has been documented by many during His life on earth, not only by the bible but historians of His time, as well as governmental documents and if you are going to throw out the evidence for His existence you would have to do the same for Aristotle or Alexander. In many of the documentation written at that time they not only acknowledged His existence but also many of the miracles that He had performed even Pilate's own wife corresponded with a friend after their expulsion from Jerusalem regarding the trial. Evidence does lie within the eye of the beholder and while you choose to believe the evidence that you see to support your hypothesis I may see it as supporting my own beliefs. The truth is this, I can guarantee you one thing and that is this, it is a fact there is no denying it you will die. It is 100% proven that this will happen. At that moment you will know who was right. I am not trying to convince you of anything nor am I out to prove a point. I simply am stating that by refusing to accept ALL evidence, not just what is provided by the acceptable party you therefore limit your intellect and your wisdom. Then again the most obvious answers are not the first ones seen. Again, thank you for the discourse.
Here is my response.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to leave comments on the new post.
Creationism is about God being in control of all creation. Look at the bible, it consist of over 2000 years of authors and no new writings in the last 1800 years. But with science we are finding out more and more that the bible can not be contradicted. Hence, the world is round, Noah's Ark, etc... Philosophy, science, arts, love, morality, ethics etc... So simply put man made Evolution which is constantly changing as science advances is just a THEORY... What would you believe, A God (Jesus) who made you or a man who tries to tell you that you came from a monkey... ??? DUH>>>
ReplyDeletewww.jesus.com
PS. I dare you to post this message in its entirety...
www.jesus.com
PS. I dare you to post this message in its entirity...
Corbin, your post is idiotic but I have no problem showing any of my readers it.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, the bible is written by man for man. It was edited, there are lost gospels. Some that said Jesus lived.
Jesus is a fictional character.
Since Darwin, there has not been one piece of evidence to contradict evolution. If evolution were false, there would be nothing but evidence to contradict it.
As for the Bible, Noah's Ark story cannot be true, for example. There is zero evidence of a world wide flood. Yes there have been many local floods at various times throughout history. That is how children's stories are made.
why do people of no faith hate people with faith? because misery loves company thats why. kirk is doing what he is ment to do and thats to teach about god and the bible. i feel sorry for you people out there and ill even pray for you but sad is the feeling i have for anyone with no relationship with christ or god. you claim these two men as liers? but why? you dislike fact? you hate god? whats the real issue for your rude comments and hate. i suggest you visit www.myspace.com/reverndchristchurch and see truth
ReplyDeleteTrinity, Cameron is lying for Jesus.
ReplyDeleteI don't hate God btw. I can't hate a fictional character in a way you define hate.
Sorry, but Cameron and other young earth creationists who deny reality are nothing more than laughing stocks.
I have no interest in visiting a site recommended by someone can't even spell "liar" or "meant."
Get an education, you are looking like a fool on this here internet.
Human stupidity truly is infinite.
ReplyDeleteAnd painfully so.
It's curious how religious fundamentalists close their eyes and stop up their ears to all that they see and hear that does not echo what they think should be true.
Genuine science welcomes discoveries of any mistakes in theories, and changes said theories to be able to accommodate for them and explain them satisfactorily. Something that religious fundamentalists seem utterly incapable of doing.
How bizarre is it to actually be proud that you never seek to actually be able to prove your beliefs, and to downright insult your audience's intelligence if you do pretend to do so?
This is pathetic.
In regards to anyone closing their eyes, the same can be said of either party. The truth is that you chose to see any evidence based upon your opinion of evolution and thereby you feel your evidence proves this to be a fact. We look at it from another perspective and determine it to prove creation. For example I have seen a car with a Cadillac emblem on it. Does that make the car a Cadillac? On one hand it can be stated that the existence of the emblem insures that the car is indeed a Cadillac however on the other hand there are variances that have to be taken into consideration one being when did Cadillacs come into production By determining the year you can then state that the car is in fact a Cadillac however I reply that the car is not a Cadillac regardless of what the emblem reveals because there are other conditions that exist. We then determine that Cadillac did in fact build 2 door vehicles in the 90's so that alone proves the car to be a Cadillac again I look at the new evidence and come to the same conclusion that while Cadillac did indeed produce 2 door vehicles in the 90's the car is still not a Cadillac. We then look at colors and determine the colors to be conducive of Cadillac, we look at engines and so on. In every conclusion we still come up with the same answers. You see things your way and I see them my way and neither of us will back down yet there is one thing that is not introduced. Is it possible that some one took a car and placed the emblem on the car. All things considered it is entirely possible that this happened. The fact is that many car companies make cars similar to other car companies. No matter what test we run to determine the true maker of the car we are going to see things based upon what we feel to be true. After all there are so many similarities and while it may appear that you have all the proof to prove that the car is in fact a Cadillac you will not convince me to believe that it is because I see it from my view point and the basis of my argument is this, they did not make a car in that style or model.
ReplyDeleteLook Hisway Dude, it is your problem that you DENY REALITY. And your gibberish about Cadillac doesn't work here.
ReplyDeleteI can look at a hand and say it is a foot, and then I'll be like you.
For now on, can you comment on my more recent posts, please.
There is zero proof that evolution is happening. Atheist do not exist, becuase they do not know there is no God. They THINK maybe
ReplyDeletethere is no God, becuase the stupid idiots can not see God.
Can you see the wind, you idiots?
Wake up, BANG-love, intelligence,
an assume display of creatures,air, water, a perfect revolving universe. Suuuuuurrrre.
All from a big Bang. So very sad, and so very stupid is a proclaimed atheist. Better wake up.
Hey Anon, you internet creationist morons are great. Keep it up. You are creating less and less evolution deniers each day by making idiotic claims that there is no evidence for evolution LOL.
ReplyDeleteDon't bother educating yourself on the subject either. I want you to continue to make a fool out of yourself on the internet, because it gets people on the fence to look into the subject more, and guess what....less Godidiots are the result.
As for atheism. There is no evidence for God. None. That is why I answer no to the question "do you believe in God?"
And morons like you, who need to deny reality so your God can exist only reinforce my atheism.
Funniest blog I've seen in a long time. Roeper and Ebert would give it 4 thumbs up.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing how everyone wants to know how we got here instead of just acknowledging that we ARE here and going from there.
To the guy who asked for an organ that was vestigial: appendix.
ReplyDeleteNext question.