February 9, 2007

Atheism As A Theory


Fundies often say that evolution is just a theory. Well, anyone who has honestly investigated the theory of evolution knows that evolution is a theory and a fact.

What about Atheism? Atheism can be a conclusion and/or a theory. Fundies like to say it is a faith or religion, and then reinvent the definitions of faith or religion to suit their purposes.

Atheism as a conclusion:

Based on the analysis of the evidence both scientifical and even philosophical, there is no reason to include God or any supernatural entity into the equation of life or the history of the universe. This is coupled with the fact that there is absolutely no evidence God, or any other supernatural entity has ever existed.

Based on the evidence that there are over 3400 different Gods that have been worshipped by various cultures and religions (all having slightly different or extremely different WORDS OF GOD), we can safely conclude that at least every God, except for possibly one, does NOT exist and therefore they were created by man. And there is absolutely no evidence that any of the over 3400 Gods exist.

In fact, there is as much evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists as there is that any of the Gods exist. If someone states the Tooth Fairy exists, it is up to the person making the statement to give proof that he or she exists...the same goes for God.

There is evidence that MAN makes up Gods. All Gods can't be right. Is Thor the right God?, the Sun?, the Hebrew God, where Jesus was just another guy? The Christian God? The Muslim God, where Mohammed was a prophet?, Jim Jones God?, Joe Smith's God?, how about the Buddhist God?, or Hubbard's God? The Jehovah Witness God? The Zoroastrian God?

It is logical that they all can't be right. And it is logical that every God, except for possibly one of them, do not have the story right. Almost certainly, all of them are made up, since there is no evidence that any God has ever existed. But there is lots of evidence that man has made up, and continues to make up Gods.

So the only rational conclusion to make here is that since we know at least 3400 Gods were created by man, if you state God exists, you must prove he or she exists. An Atheist is simply a person who concludes that no evidence for any God exists, just like no evidence for the Tooth Fairy exists so why should one even consider the Tooth Fairy or any God exists? Especially with the knowledge that man invented the Tooth Fairy and has invented at least all but one of the possible Gods.

Atheism as a theory:

My theory of Atheism states that everything everywhere, throughout the history of time, can be explained scientifically either now, or will be explained scientifically, in the future. Also, the theory states, that absolutely no supernatural event has ever happened or will ever happen, and that supernatural entities do not exist.

Since Atheism theory is supported by scientific evidence and observational facts, Atheism, like evolution, is both theory and fact as well.

If a supernatural event occurs, or if proof that such an event ever happened, or if there is proof that a supernatural entity exists or has ever existed, then Atheism theory will be destroyed.


*******************************************************************************
Since the Paula Zahn farce is pretty fresh, and some people may be doing some web searches to find out for themselves what Atheism is all about, I think it is a good time to clear the air a bit.

THE TOP 10 ATHEIST MYTHS BY AMERICAN ATHEIST'S DAVID SILVERMAN

Myth 1 : "Atheists are all the same"


You can understand why theists believe this, after being told this over and over by their preachers. This belief is reinforced by the fact that believers must be bound by
much more than a simple belief in God. For example, Catholics must also have the same stances on abortion, contraception, and homosexuality in order to be called a "good Catholic." It only goes to follow that atheism must be similar.

However, atheism is not a religion, rather the absence of religion. As such, we are bound only by our atheism. We are republicans and democrats, men and women, gays and straights, blacks and whites. We accept every person as they are as equals, and delight in our diversity (not many religions can say that). We disagree with each
other on many issues, and discussion is encouraged and common. Above all, atheists demand the right to disagree, even if it means with each other.



Myth 2 : "Atheists have no morals, since they don't believe in God"


What a sad world it is when people can seriously say that humans need to fear eternal damnation in order to do good. It is the one statement which at the same time stirs both anger and pity in most atheists; anger because it is a bigoted, prejudicial statement which serves no purpose except to promote intolerance, and pity because it highlights the speaker's ignorance and willingness to accept such crap without question.

At the risk of validating the question, a reply needs to be made in order to expose the speaker to the idea that what they've heard is wrong on so many dimensions. It must not be answered with anger, but with compassion.

Humans have the idea of right and wrong imbedded in them by their own brains, as well as their upbringing and society. Atheists do good, not out of fear of reprisal, but because it's the right thing to do. We value family, society, culture, and, of course, freedom. Many of us will - and have - defend these values with our lives. Examples:

1) Many Catholics make judgement calls on moral decisions against their church. For example, some use birth control or have abortions, despite what their church preaches. If these people can make moral decisions despite what their church preaches, then atheists can make similar choices without a church altogether.

2) Slavery was not only acceptable 200 years ago, it was considered a good deed by many, and defended using the bible. The bible was also used to justify the Holocaust, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.

Why is this relevant? Because it shows that the bible can be used to defend even the most immoral and unethical ideals, and is therefore not an adequate yardstick to
measure moral or ethical behavior.

3) Finally, mention bad religious people. Remember that Hitler was a religious Catholic, and that Jeffrey Dahmer said grace before he ate his victims. Mention also that one need only open a newspaper to find yet another story about allegations against priests for sexual misconduct, often with children. Don't forget our good friends Jim Baker (who swindled millions from his flock) and Jimmy Swaggart (asked for forgiveness only after being caught using prostitutes).

4) Always couple these statements with the fact that, while atheists make up 8-10% of the population at large, we only make up 1% of the population in prison. I mean, think of it, what if 8-10% of the population (on top of all the religious criminals) decided it was OK to steal, rape, and murder? We'd have chaos! These will serve to prove
that religion and ethical behavior are not even slightly related.

Expect these statements to piss off the theists, and this is where you must mention that what you said is verifiable and that their statement is openly prejudicial against 25
million people. This is the opportunity to open their eyes to the fact that just because we're different from them doesn't make us inherently bad.



Myth 3 : "Atheists believe in evolution, but that doesn't answer as many
questions as creationism"


Atheism is not a scientific theory, rather a lack of religion. We do believe in science, and that all questions will eventually be answered with science if they are not answered today. It's gone well so far, giving theories regarding evolution, geological
movement, and the Big Bang, all supported by evidence, but not necessarily endorsed by all atheists.

Creationism does not give all the answers, either. Furthermore, it goes so far as to choose which questions to answer, and discourages the asking of the rest. Believers are loath to discuss where God came from, or what he was doing before the creation. They refuse to give good answers for the many biblical inconsistencies or for the terrible injustices in the world, because they know that no such answers exist. They merely answer with "there are things which we mere humans cannot fully understand" or "the Lord works in mysterious ways". In the end, religion doesn't answer as many questions as it raises.



Myth 4 : "Atheists cannot know there is no God, since you cannot prove he doesn't exist"


Again, this is a two sided coin, but the theists are loathe to admit the other side. Atheists don't need to prove the non-existence of God, any more we need to prove the nonexistence of Zeus or Jupiter. Can theists prove God over any alternatives? Of course not. Nobody can prove God exists, yet they will stand on their heads saying they're sure. Well, if they can be sure despite evidence to the contrary, we can be sure in light of evidence in support of atheism.



Myth 5 : "Atheists seek to remove religion from society, and to force all
people to be atheists"


Absolutely wrong. We seek only the freedom for people to make their choice on their own, free of intervention from the government or public school system. We seek the freedom not to support religion through taxes, forced participation, or special privileges of any kind.

That being said, your thoughts are your rights, and none of our business. Wear your jewelry, celebrate your holidays, and pray in your house, church, or in public if you like. Just don't force your religion on other people. That's what we're all about.

This is in direct contrast to many of the world's religions, including Christianity, which include worldwide expansion as one of their central objectives. Isn't it amazing that they falsely accuse us of doing what they do openly, only with atheism it's evil?

To try to force atheism would by hypocritical, since we would be placing pressure from the state on people to believe a certain way. But let me give a good analogy to our objectives and at the same time answer this charge using the money we use every day.

"In God We Trust," is the government actively promoting religion.

"In God We Do Not Trust," would be the government promoting atheism.

We advocate the complete omission of the statement thereby rendering the money neutral.

We feel the same way about the rest of the government. It should be the "Switzerland of the religious debate," while at the same time being the protectorate of the individual.



Myth 6 : "Atheists are so closed-minded, they can't see that miracles
happen every day!"


Some people look for miracles where none exist (they never do). Allow me to put things in perspective: Someone's cancer going into remission is no miracle, but we can talk when disease suddenly disappears from the face of the earth overnight without help from medical science. Food getting through to a hungry village: human perseverance. Starvation vanishing from earth without a reason overnight: Miracle. One more time: A child is born - science; The spontaneous end of birth defects - Miracle. Got it?

Note: only good things are miracles, so volcanoes, tornadoes, and hurricanes don't count.



Myth 7 : "Atheists are pushing a negative sentiment, and have a dreary
life"


Wrong. We are "pushing" a very positive statement: that living without dependence on a false deity is easy, fulfilling, and positive. We strive to be a positive influence in the world, and think each person can - and must - find their own meaning of life. We are thinkers, philosophers, and we thrive on discussion and diversity. We are proud, happy, and most of all, free. Compare that to original sin and Hell.



Myth 8 : " If atheists are right, then religious people are wasting their time, but at least they're happy. No harm in that! If religious people are right, then atheists are going to hell. It seems logical that atheists should become religious just to be safe."


I like getting this question. I sense another list coming :

1) Drug addicts go through life happy, so would theists suggest we all use drugs and stay home? We would be happy, and not hurting anybody, so where's the harm?
The harm is the same for believers. They go through life happy, but it's a false, wasteful happiness. Atheists get happiness from family, contribution to society, charity, and truth.

2) Religious people should not be lumped into one category for this question. Remember, religions are also biased against each other (Jews vs. Catholics Vs.
Protestants, etc), so no matter what religion the speaker follows, most of the world thinks they're going to hell (or other punishment), just like atheists. Ask them which religion has the worst punishment, and whether they would convert to that religion on that one factor, just in case they're right. When they tell you how absurd that question is, remind them that they asked it first.

3) To convert and practice a specific religion just to ingratiate yourself with God and avoid going to hell is pure, self-serving greed, which is one of the seven deadly
sins. Therefore, by their own thinking, even if they are right and I do convert, I'd go to hell anyway, along with everyone else in the flock whose actions are so motivated (possibly including the speaker).



Myth 9 : "There are no such things as atheists" a.k.a. "There are no
atheists in foxholes"


More fantasy from the believers, that there could never exist a single human whose reason and logical abilities surpass the pressure from society to believe in a deity. This is especially true in a situation of imminent death, where they believe all atheists would drop to our knees and beg God for forgiveness.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could somehow be sure that those who currently disagree with us would come around in the end and know we were right? Just like most other parts of religion, this is blatant fantasy.

There are 25 Million atheists in the country, more that Jews and Blacks combined. Many atheists became atheists not because they were born into it (like most theists), rather because we contemplated god in its many forms and decided it just doesn't make an ounce of sense. This isn't a choice, it's fact - a logical proof. We are simply too logical to believe God is anything more than fantasy.

As far as foxholes go, when I face death, as we all do sooner or later, I will use the last few remaining seconds of my life to remember my favorite moments, and evaluate my contribution to my family and society. I would definitely not waste precious time praying to a deity "just in case I'm wrong" I'm not.



Myth 10 : "This country was founded by Christians, on Christian values,
and should therefore be a Christian country".

True, some of the founding fathers were Christian, but some were Deists (generally believed in God), and some were outright atheists. But a more important point needs to be made: the founding fathers went out of their way to specify that church and state be separate. They believed that their religion was just that: theirs and theirs alone.
They also remembered that they were their trying to be free of the state church of England, and recognized from their first-hand experience that true religious freedom can only come when belief is left to the individual. It is this ideal, among others, for which our forefathers fought and died.

Individual religious choice - including the right not to practice - is still under assault in this country. Those who would prefer to make the choice for you have labeled us criminal, evil ne'er-do-wells and launched a massive campaign to keep freethinkers subdued. They have been successful, mainly because atheism is fragmented and
closeted.

They continue to be successful, but we can reverse the trend. Atheists must make themselves known. If you are reading this, and you are a closet atheist, you owe it to your country, your fellow atheists, and yourself to let people know how you feel.

52 comments:

  1. I don't understand why an Atheist would need to prove anything. Not believing in God makes sense. If you can't see it, if you can't touch it and taste it, then that's a pretty good basis for dis-believing that something exists. The onus of proof is on the believers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm loving the post BEAJ and plan to link to it on my own page.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BEAJ:

    I've added your blog to my blogroll too, thanks.

    As regards joining the Atheist alliance let me clarify a little.

    I'm probably a Richard Dawkins kind of atheist: a theoretical agnostic but practicing atheist. But here in Europe the debate (theism v. atheism) is a lot more sedate and I don't feel all that challenged. But it'll probably only take one offensive theist cunt to push me over the edge...

    Excellent post, BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Love your photo, Beaj. Is it a recent one?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lex, we really don't have to prove anything. But there is an obvious need for us to explain our position if you've viewed the Paula Zahn segment I posted a couple of posts ago, you'll understand why.

    Thanks Joe, I left a comment for you under your Super Bowl post.

    Gert, I think the difference between Agnostic and Atheist to me, is that an Agnostic sees a reason still to consider the existence of God, even if it low percentage.

    Shlemazl, that is me, but it may be me in the future...I hope not. Check three posts down, I did the blasphemy challenge. It was video taped around a week ago. I haven't changed much since then.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't agree that atheism is a theory. Rather, it's the non-acceptance of a badly supported theory. As Myth #4 says, "Atheists don't need to prove the non-existence of God, any more we need to prove the nonexistence of Zeus or Jupiter." There are any number of possible hypotheses which we don't accept; atheism is interesting only because the hypothesis in question is a widely accepted one.

    "My theory of Atheism states that everything everywhere, throughout the history of time, can be explained scientifically either now, or will be explained scientifically, in the future." This is a rather strong statement, and I don't think it directly bears on atheism.

    I would say that everything everywhere can in principle be explained scientifically, but it's possible that the universe works in such a way that some information is inherently out of our reach and thus won't ever be explained. This doesn't invalidate reason, but simply recognizes that it works by a specific and finite means.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I do agree with some of what you have said, but not all. It is certainly true that not all religions and definitions of God can be right, since many are mutually exclusive.
    However,
    ...if you state God exists, you must prove he or she exists.
    This is a common mistake made by atheists. (Similarly, it is just as common a mistake for religious individuals to assume that the existence of God can be proven.)
    At least some definitions of God include that His existence is not provable and must be taken on faith. Some definitions of God also include the idea that He is beyond our comprehension, something "other" and greater than ourselves. Any descriptions of such a God are therefore going to be lacking something.
    With regards to myth 2 and morals, I can only say that any religious person who falls for point 3 hasn't done their homework. I always answer the same thing every time an atheist brings this up: not everyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian. In fact, the Bible is quite clear in both the OT and NT about the fact that not everyone who says they belong to the Lord actually does. There are lots of liars out there and there are lots of people who use religious principles for nefarious means. This does NOT negate the religion itself however. It only goes to show that people will use whatever they can to get ahead and do what they want; religion included.

    But a more important point needs to be made: the founding fathers went out of their way to specify that church and state be separate.
    Ack! Please tell me your understanding of this concept is more advanced than "keep church out of the state." Such an understanding flies in the face of historical fact. Separation of church and state (something we do NOT have in Canada, btw) means that the state is not to interfere in church business. The Reformation in England was significantly more political in nature than it was in the rest of Europe and the Church of England was created to give Henry VIII the power to do what he wanted and marry Anne Boleyn. The subsequent fallout was near disastrous.

    PS: Just for the record, I do not believe all atheists are the same. People are always different.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Myth number 2 is the one that always gets me, because deep down it makes no sense. Based on MY understanding of morality, a "moral framework" that revolves around rules imposed by "God" isn't really moral.

    Where's the true sense of what's right or wrong, as opposed to a fear-based adherence to an arbitrary set of rules? Sounds more like someone afraid of paying for his misdeeds in the afterlife than a developed system of ethics.

    I'm more of an agnostic or "weak atheist" than anything else, so I'm not banging the drum for atheism, but I know one thing: my notions of right & wrong are empirical, based on my observations of life, and my own sense of empathy. I don't give a rat's ass what "The Rules" say. Murder & stealing & adultery, for instance, are wrong whether or not they're "commandments."

    The 10 Commandments reflect society's mores. The rules followed the norms, not the other way around. If "God" exists, he followed human needs & ethics, not the other way around.

    Morality comes from life & living, not from rules or "gods."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Don't you heathens, blasphemers, pagans and heretics realize that you must submit your will to the collective?

    The collective loves you. Don't think. Don't question. When you question the collective, you are submitting yourself to evil and you will be punished in the eternal infernal BBQ.

    (I just wanted to see what it would be like to be a follower. It doesn't suit me.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ruth: If God is something which is beyond our comprehension, and if proof of his existence is impossible in principle, then there's no basis for a discussion, because you really haven't said anything specific enough to discuss. Any discussion between theists and atheists has to focus on specific claims, such as the creation of the universe, the existence of miraculous events which contravene natural law, and the efficacy of prayer.

    It's a natural human desire to want to believe in something that can be trusted in, and belief in a God fulfills that. If people want to believe it privately, I see no need to bother them. But once we're discussing whether it's true or not, a factual basis is needed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Pig eater,

    your priest wrote:

    ". “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163."

    Lotsa Leaf and no Stems, Seeds, Branches, or TREE!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    you are a sorry excuse for sycophant!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kuhnkat, educate yourself on fossils.
    Do people in your family know how wilfully ignorant you are? Or did your genes limit them intellectually as well?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey Pig Eater,

    "True, some of the founding fathers were Christian, but some were Deists (generally believed in God), and some were outright atheists."

    Let's see some numbers big boy. To be MORE CORRECT you should have stated, "...and few were outright Atheists!!"

    At the time of the Constitution 6 or 7 states had OFFICIAL STATE SPONSORED CHURCHES!!!! Kinda makes youu wonder why they would sign onto the Constitution and the Bill of Rights if they would have to disband them now doesn't it??

    Wonder where that idiotic idea of Separation of Church and State comes from??

    Probably from LEFTARD Judges who TWIST the idea of keeping the FEDERAL GUBMINT OUT OF THE STATES RELIGIOUS BUSINESS!!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You MORON!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pig Eater,

    ever hear of a MORON called Haeckl? That is the level of ALL PROOF of evolution.

    How have you been likeing the SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY LATELY???

    Based on good science the prediction was that DNA, Haemoglobin... would Never be found older than about 10,000 years. Well, they have now sequenced Cave Bears, Neanderthal, and are claiming fragments from Dinos and associated creatures over 50 MILLION years old!!!

    Don't you EVER wonder??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You MORON!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kuhnkat, we live in the 21st century not the 19th century.

    I suggest you learn about evolution from secular science sites, not Fundy retard sites that bend over backwards looking for holes in evolution theory without having ANY scientific research behind them.

    If evolution were false, there would be loads of scientific studies that don't fit into evolution theory. There are none.

    I've asked you before and I'll ask you again. Give me one scientific study that contradicts evolution theory. And link it too. Remember, an actual scientific paper or study.

    Thank you.

    If you don't come up with the goods, it means you have bupkiss by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to summarize the situation regarding transitions that should be observed in the fossil record.

    Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.



    And what has been put into the record since 1979??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  17. In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:

    But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless ... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types ... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

    Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.

    Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.

    Hmmmm, doesn't really sound promising for evolution does it??

    ReplyDelete
  18. “... the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.


    And more bad news.

    ReplyDelete
  19. “There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.” Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


    And MORE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. . If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.

    The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissue—that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants]—although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record. Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.




    Ahhhhh DENIAL, that's a big stream in Egypt isn't it??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  21. “The origin of angiosperms, an ‘abominable mystery’ to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.” Colin Patterson et al., “Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.



    But of COURSE you know more than all of these very educated people!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  22. Where are the studies? I just see a bunch of Fundidiots poking holes in evolution.

    Do you understand what a scientific study or paper is?

    I don't see one study.

    I told you, go to a secular science source, not a Fundidiot Desperation site.

    Pathetic. Is your family embarrassed by you? Or did they get your retard genes?

    ReplyDelete
  23. . Evolutionists believe amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. Actually, by the evolutionists’ own time scale, this “transition” occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.

    Table 2. Reptile Transition?
    What
    Who
    When
    Where

    Earliest Reptile
    Hylonomus
    lower Pennsylvanian 315 m.y.
    Nova Scotia

    Transition?
    Diadectes
    lower Permian 280 m.y.
    Texas

    Transition?
    Seymouria
    lower Permian 280 m.y.
    Texas



    [See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411–415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]

    It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile’s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218–219 and Pitman, pp. 199–200.]





    OOOOPS, more holes in the FACTS of evolution!!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. PS: I'll post a few more but I don't expect you to put them out there for your readers!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  25. There is no need for more, unless you want to give a study with a link.

    I have seen refutations for most of your junk quotes, using real scientific studies and reports.

    Been there, done that.

    Keep embarrassing yourself if you want.

    There have been over 200,000 papers on biology in the 20th century, and not ONE contradicts evolution.

    But as predicted, you are a Fundidiot, and I knew that if you found anything it would just be meaningless quotes poking holes in evolution.

    There isn't a biologist out there today that thinks evolution is bs.

    Creationists should be seen and not heard. The internet is killing your flock.

    ReplyDelete
  26. One of my own thoughts.

    The Duckbill Platypus always seemed to me to be the perfect example of EVOLUTION. It appears to be a totally random mishmash of several different lines.

    Of course, there is no MECHANISM IN REALITY FOR THOSE SEPARATE LINES TO MERGE!!!! The Platypus would have had to EVOLVE all on its own with no known ancestors!!!

    On the other hand the Platypus is a PERFECT example for ID. An animal that is exquisitely designed to operate in an optimal way in its environment!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I bet you never REALLY thought about the fact that eyes and anuses and ears evolved COMPLETELY INDEPENDENTLY in several of the lines where they exist!!!

    Of course, evolutionists tell us that this is because the ENVIRONMENT is the same so CREATES PARALLEL evolution!!!

    Would you like to use a different word than CREATE in the preceding sentence?? Please tell me the MECHANISM where the ENVIRONMENT can INFLUENCE what MUTATION will HAPPEN so that Natural Selection can IMPROVE on it!!!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    This is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT!!!

    Many people seem to BELIEVE that because the ENVIRONMENT requires particular qualities that the organism will be forced to MUTATE according to the REQUIREMENTS!!!

    It has been PROVEN that the environment can cause NATURAL SELECTION amongst the many choices in the GENOME!!!

    What is the MECHANISM that allows the needs of the environment to communicate with the totally random, accidental, MUTATION that CREATES the range in the genome???

    There is NO THEORY or HYPOTHESIS that supports this. In FACT, the THEORY of EVOLUTION SPECIFIES RANDOM and ACCIDENTAL!!!

    This is why I make such a big deal out of chance and probability. YOUR OWN THEORY REQUIRES IT!!!

    Darwinism was based on Natural Selection which the study of Genetics has PROVEN only selects out of a RANGE that is ALREADY in the genome.

    Neo-Darwinism depends on the MUTATION to CREATE INCREASED COMPLEXITY ADDING TO THE RANGE!!!

    Of course, there is no PROOF for neo-Darwinism and reality tells us that it is highly improbable. Mathematics tell us that the chance of what we see on the Earth evolving, based on the time frame the astrophysicists and earth sciences give us, is 0(zero, null, BUTKUSS!!)

    Every new discovery of increased complexity in the Genome puts the possibility past zero, if that were possible!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Leftards SPECIALISE IN MYTHOLOGY!!!

    Does that mean you are one?????

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  27. Pig eater commented:

    "Pathetic. Is your family embarrassed by you? Or did they get your retard genes?"

    Uhhh, Pigeater, I GOT my GENES FROM my family!!! Is this the part of the theory of evolution you are having a problem with??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  28. Bird and theropod “hands” differ. Theropods have “fingers” I, II, and III (having lost the “ring finger” and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. “The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds.” [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand,” Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668.] “... this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy.” [Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?” Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]

    Hmmmmm. Those damn birds again.

    Pigeater, did you know that feathers appear to have evolved from the same roots as HAIR?? They are a follicle style rather than a scale style.

    Kinda like the old Duckbill. Again, what Hypothesis does the Theory of evolution rest on that suggests the MERGING of pieces of separate GENOMES???

    ReplyDelete
  29. . Strange Cambrian fossils, thought to exist only in the Burgess Shale of western Canada, have been discovered in southern China. See:

    v L. Ramsköld and Hou Xianguang, “New Early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoans,” Nature, Vol. 351, 16 May 1991, pp. 225–228.

    v Jun-yuan Chen et al., “Evidence for Monophyly and Arthropod Affinity of Cambrian Giant Predators,” Science, Vol. 264, 27 May 1994, pp. 1304–1308.

    Evolving so many unusual animals during a geologic period is mind-boggling. But doing it twice in widely separated locations stretches credulity to the breaking point. According to the theory of plate tectonics, China and Canada were even farther apart during the Cambrian.




    And the assaults on logic continue!!!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Kunhkat, if you can't find a study you can't find one. Quit with the Fundy holepoking, it is boring.

    Again, where is a scientific study that refutes evolution.

    Are you that dense?

    If I want to see what a bullshit Fundy website has to offer, I will go to it. I don't need the garbage brought over here.

    I can easily refute any and all of your above creationist hole poking shit. All I have to do is a quick Google search and go to a secular science site.

    When I said is your family embarrassed, I was talking about offspring. I already assume your parents have very low IQs and might even be first cousins, or brother and sister.

    Don't bother with any more hole poking nonsense. If you have a study, I will gladly publish your comment.

    If not, you lose.

    ReplyDelete
  31. . “... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable.” Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003.



    So, is the National Academy of Sciences a FUNDIE organisation??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  32. How about NATURE?

    . “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.” Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You are really slow aincha. Oh, I already know dat.

    How does "existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable.” refute evolution???????????????

    How does the fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution refute evolution?

    If evolution was a scam, why don't they just invent some fossils?

    You really don't understand evolution and fossilization at all. And you aren't looking to learn here either. You are and will remain wilfully ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  34. kumquat:
    ever hear of a MORON called Haeckl? That is the level of ALL PROOF of evolution.
    Here, read this:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/exorcising_the_spectre_of_haec.php
    "At this point, I'd say Jonathan Wells' claim is pretty much dead. Haeckel's work is not one of the pillars upon which evolution is built, and biologists have been saying so for at least 85 years (and more like over a century). Next time one of those clowns tries to haunt modern biology with the ghost of Ernst Haeckel, just look 'em in the eye and tell them they're full of crap."
    Based on good science the prediction was that DNA, Haemoglobin... would Never be found older than about 10,000 years. Well, they have now sequenced Cave Bears, Neanderthal, and are claiming fragments from Dinos and associated creatures over 50 MILLION years old!!!
    Who? What? Provide some citations.
    A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.

    Sure they can. Ever hear of an atavism? Reversion to type? It's not a LITERAL parent/child relationship.
    . “... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable.”
    Better call all those CSI labs & tell them their science doesn't work at all.
    Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.
    Of course it is. Africa has high alkaloid soil, which is murder on the fossilization process. Never mind scavengers, weather, etc.
    So, how are the Special Olympics going for you?
    Oh, right. Everyone gets a gold metal in those.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If people who don't BELIEVE in evolution are such stupid whackjobs, why are guys like this falling out of their tree??

    http://www.evolutionsociety.org/download/anti-wedge.pdf

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  36. Oops, looks like chimp fossils were found since 2001.
    From Nature.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Now, for a humor break:

    http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/creation-vs-evolution.htm

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  38. Another reason chimp fossils may not have been found is that evidence now indicates that:

    Humans and chimpanzees may have split away from a common ancestor far more recently than was previously thought.

    Two things are for sure, science will answer everything one day and you will die a wilful ignoramous.

    ReplyDelete
  39. ID got trounced in Dover. And all the big proponents were there. They were embarrassed, and the judge basically called the people behind the ID movement dishonest liars.

    You should read the court findings Kunh. Get with the times. You are wasting a lot of your effort on delusion and false hope. I guess you need the crutch, no matter how much reality denying you have to do to maintain it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hey PIGEATER,

    http://www.ummah.net/harunyahya/evol/ebk2-4.html

    Better let the other LEFTARDS know that they need to kill the IslamoNazis cause they are EVOLUTION DENIERS!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  41. Kuhn, is that what you call a scietific paper? Where is the science? Just conjecture by another reality denier. Just sad. It was another pointless link. You keep trying to turn the pages, but in the end you couldn't find one piece of scientific evidence that contradicts evolution theory.

    Do you realize that if one Fundy scientist could find contrary evidence, evolution would be dead. What is taking Christian scientists so long? Aren't they as smart as secular scientists? Or how about this: you can't find contrary evidence to fact and there is no other answer but evolution.
    Here is a good article. But it isn't for the wilful ignorant like you.

    As far as the left goes, I'll agree many secularists give Islam the benefit of the doubt way too much, and seem to be ignorant of the goals and harms they pose.

    Besides the suicide bombings and the fact that many don't mind dying for Allah, they breed like redneck illiterates and they have the ability to take over by numbers like in France. And they start demanding things, and pretty soon you have more people who are against gays and against separation of church and state.

    Moonbats are on the same page as those who deny evolution and science.

    Except with the Moonbats, the empirical proof is hard to come back because Islamic culture can't be examined in a lab.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Since Atheism theory is supported by scientific evidence and observational facts, Atheism, like evolution, is both theory and fact as well."

    Well, this is not the current view. A scientific theory must give testable predictions to be accepted.

    There are no observations of the supernatural to build a theory on, and many deny that it is possible. For example, theologists usually say that supernatural events can be disguised as natural, or philosophers that gods can be noninterventional.

    Personally I don't think your idea is so easily dismissed. We can say quite a lot about nature today. If we would make a theory on what is natural we could distinguish the nonnatural. Not for certain or in all possible universes but neither is a requirement for a theory.

    For example, by observation and by theory we know that physical laws don't easily change from place to place or time to time. If they did, or if supernaturalistic agents intervened, it would be easily recognized.

    Such a theory would also deny noninterventional gods since theories reject such nonparsimonious elements.

    In any case we can make many supportive inferential arguments like Dawkins et al on the improbability of the religious view and the probability of a completely naturalistic universe. That this is possible to do has also the consequence that the evidential burden shifts to the theist, even in the absence of a verified theory.

    I also note that quantum mechanical phenomena deny local hidden variables, ie local agent supernaturalism, and makes ideas with global supernaturalistic agents, aka gods as they are preached, akin to solipsist philosophies. Nature is telling us something, and I think we ought to listen.

    ReplyDelete
  43. BEAJ:

    You're completely wasting your time with Kuhnkat: he's basically an irrational denier of anything he somehow sees as "LEFTARD" (his term). Thus Evolutionary Biology is somehow seen as 'leftist' (or "LEFTARD"), so is Man-made climate change and atheism and all three are therefore to be rejected out of hand, "no evidence or proof needed, thank you, I'm a Moron".

    Scientists, in Kuhnkat's parallel universe (if only he would stay there), are basically "LEFTARDS" that need to be fought, no matter what they say or present.

    Regards EB, he's trying to come up with a few randomly selected quotes but privately he's convinced Darwin said chimps are our grandparents. He's a literalist...

    Kuhnkat's 'methodology' regarding gathering 'evidence' for Creationism is similar to those who seek to prove 9/11 was commissioned by the Mossad or that crop circles are caused by UFOs/astral energy/farting angels/etc (delete as appropriate): a bit of selective hole picking here, a bit of conjecture there, some links to religion, a half-baked and self-proclaimed 'expert' and some more self-serving stuff; all amounting to a completely incoherent and self-contradictory pot pourri of "pseudo-evidence"...

    Off topic: I saw a Canadian comedian on satellite yesterday: Glenn Wool? Does that ring a bell? Man, he took some swipes at the religious and the 'Winterval' PC crowd!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Wow.
    What a disappointment. I saw this topic generated 42 comments and so I was hoping for some great discussion.
    Instead, all I see is kuhnkat spam.
    Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Torbjorn, I realize it isn't a current view. And I didn't say it was a scientific view, except for the "fact" inference...but I think that my theory is pretty much held by all Atheists I know. Much like evolution theory, if something unexplainable is found to have occurred, like an ancient male ape who created a female ape by just removing one rib, evolution theory would not be able to explain all life transformation on this planet.

    Gert, I'm pretty sure I know who you mean. He doesn't look Chinese if I'm correct.

    Ruth, what can I say. But if you read all the posts here minus Kuhn, there is plenty of learning material to be found.
    I have a post with over 100 comments a couple of posts down. Same thing, lots of ignoring of answers and goal post moving. But at least Beamish seems sort of half rational, unless he is being deceitful.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "And I didn't say it was a scientific view, except for the "fact" inference...but I think that my theory is pretty much held by all Atheists I know."

    Perhaps I was unclear. I was objecting to calling it a theory, since I'm not sure it merits this (yet). String theory is currently not testable, but it is much more connected to older theories so it merits to be called "an unverified theory".

    Unless you consider the usual conflation between scientific theories and the non-scientific concept of theories is acceptable. I don't, since it confuses people and helps creationists. I much prefer to speak of ideas or views. (Or hypotheses if they are isolated but testable ideas.)

    But aside from this nitpick I support your idea. (Or view. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  47. kuhnkat is a little light in the sneakers and posts using wifi from the Bendover Bar in the Castro.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Torbjorn, the last thing I want to do is appease Creationists. Ellen Johnson did a pretty good job doing that last night by the way when she didn't directly answer where Atheists get their morality.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Let's see if you answer this:

    You claim to be an avowed "atheist" but you previously stated that you or none of your siblings married within the species juden. It seems a civil ceremony would have been the most logical for you. Why then did you marry in a traditional jewish ceremony? Why the hypocrisy? I bet you "did it for the family", whatever that means.

    ReplyDelete
  50. 4 reasons:

    1. My wife assumed it was important for some reason unknown to me.

    2. Because it is part of the Jewish culture to marry in a Jewish ceremony regardless of beliefs.

    3. When I got married, I probably would have considered myself an Agnostic.

    4. For my parents and family. None of my siblings were married at the time btw.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 1. Makes no sense.

    2. It's still a religious ceremony with reference to g-d.

    3. Sounds like an identity crisis.

    4. Always a good answer.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The 'everyone is an atheist to the majority of gods' argument is for me one of the strongest indications that all gods are fictitious. If there was only one true belief system then there would be only one god system.

    My Blog: In Defence of Reason

    ReplyDelete