I am curious (question for atheists)

[endersdragon34]

Judging by all the hatred of religion in here, and how dumb we must be for having belief, I am wondering what you would do if one of your kids decided to be a Christian. I highly doubt your kids don't get "brainwashed" into atheism in your house and I HIGHLY doubt they get exposed to any sort of belief system (other then your saying that Christians are idiots), but hey I came out of that sort of household and look at me. So I am just curious what you would do.

[phantom power]

1. I have a story about that...

Our four-year-old daughter asked my wife and I if we believed in god. We explained to her that we did not. She got somewhat agitated and said "that she did, and we should too!"

So, we explained to her that that was OK, and that people believe different things.

[Warpy]

2. What an odd post

accusing all atheists of hating religion and calling believers dumb.

I would suggest you have misread more than you've read.

Rewrite your accusatory post and someone might give you a thoughtful answer.

[endersdragon34]

7. Sorry just reading whats given to me on here

"I disagree with that. I know for certain, that the current religious dogma is a lie because it is not rational. I will absolutely claim intellectual superiority over fairy tales. I don't see anywhere in my post anything about MORAL superiority. That's your projection. I will wholeheartedly admit to the intellectual superiority though. I see the current religious dogma as no different than the Santa Claus story and I definitely know that there is no Santa Claus." For example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x200078#200174

[RaleighNCDUer]

77. Which is the intellectually superior position? To accept unprovable

assertions based on 5000 year old myths, or to accept only that which is testable and provable by scientific investigation?

If you want to believe the untestable and unprovable over the testable and provable, that's just fine. But in doing so you are yielding the intellectual high ground. That doesn't mean anybody hates you for it.

[endersdragon34]

82. Once again see what I am talking about?

Makes me worry about your kids, wonder if I should call CPS, jk ;)

[RaleighNCDUer]

118. You didn't answer MY question. nt

[roguevalley]

120. what is bothersome is the tone and some of the content of the

responses to religious people here. you can find it on every thread. both sides should discuss calmly without the heat but it never happens. the example is one of zillions on threads about religion. I don't have a dog in this fight. My granny was an aetheist until she began to die. My family is religious and I am more spiritual, deist sort of, hard to peg.
All I wish was for more civility.

and as far as the intellectual high ground, the only way either side will prove they are the ones who are right is to die. Since no one can come back and tell us, this appears to be a lession that is going to be learned one dead body at a time.

[humblebum]

354. Perfectly legitimate question. nt

[gadfly]

422. testable and provable

Obviously a verificationist epistemology.

[gooey]

427. Intellectual high ground?

That's funny. But not accurate.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

275. My sig line has never been more apropos.

It's as if I saw this thread, went back in time, and suggested it to my past self. Damn!

[Strong Atheist]

417. !

:rofl:


:yourock:

[Schema Thing]

3. I would shun them

Hey, I was raised a Jehovah's Witness; it's in my blood.

[thereismore]

4. I am a Christian. Any questions? And f*ck all republicans by the way. nt

[Cronus Protagonist]

5. None of the Atheists I know are against someone's personal beliefs

All of them, including myself, are against acting upon religious tenets or beliefs to the detriment of another human being or beings.

Actions such as killing, beating, causing mental distress, torture, war, removal of parts of the body, legislating bigotry and so on.

A person like you would never do any of these things, so I don't think anyone I know, myself included, would have a problem with your having a personal belief structure that includes religious mythology.

[DebbieCDC]

6. There is no "hatred for religion" here

What you will find here is outrage at the meddling of regligion where it has no place -- in the creation of wars so one "god" is "proved" superior to another, inserting itself in the privacy of people's personal lives and most initimate life and death decisions, in job hiring/firing decisions, in tax-exempt religious organizations blatantly inserting themselves into the political process yet demanding they keep their keep the unwarranted tax breaks, and on and on.

I have no personal hatred for religion. I do not espouse any religion. I could care less what anyone believes in -- god, buddha, mohammad, trees and rocks, whatever. Believe what you like -- but DO NOT try to force ME to believe it or live by YOUR rules or subsidize your activities with MY tax dollars.

You are sadly mistaken if you see honest discourse as "hatred", but I understand that some religions thrive on the perception that they are persecuted for their beliefs. I guess it must help with recruitment and retention -- "us" versus "them" always helps to keep wars and hatred alive.

[endersdragon34]

10. You doubt that relegious people are persecuted?

So Muslims here in America are just imaging it. How about Muslims in Serbia? Or Christians in some Africian states. Or Jewish people... well everywhere (face it, the world just never seems to like Jewish people). Persecution hasn't been done away with. Beyond that I am just going with what I am reading here (and elsewhere) where atheists claim to have intellectual superiority over others. Check my last post for proof of that.

[DebbieCDC]

26. You seem to be purposefully misunderstanding my meaning

I am not talking about actual persecution of which there is far, far too much -- and it is NOT just based on religion, but cultural and national differences/hatreds.

When I refer perception of persecution, what I mean is that which people like Bill O'Reilly and his trumped up "war on christmas" and that ilk. It is a useful recruiting tool, particularly amongst the evangelical movement in this country, to feign persecution in order to keep "order" amongst their membership.

I've never heard an atheist or agnostic claim intellectual superiority over people who believe in some faith or another. This, too, is part of the perception of persecution -- "see they think they are smarter than we are" that further divides people.

[endersdragon34]

29. Once again...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x200078#200174 look all around there. They are all claiming superiority over Christians there. Why can't you look at my other posts.

[DebbieCDC]

38. It seems you believe a few postings represent everyone's thinking here

That does not exactly exemplify a "christian" attitude now does it?

It seems rather than honest give and take, you are more interested in stirring up disagreements which you can then use for your own purposes amongst those that believe as you do -- a "see how they hate us?" meme. You won't find any takers here for your faux "honest" questions.

[endersdragon34]

42. I suppose I just haven't seen an atheist do anything besides that

.

[MineralMan]

65. You have now. Indeed, had you read any of my other posts

on DU that have religion as a subject, you'd have found such posts previously.

Umbrage is always lying around. You can take it just about wherever you go.

[trotsky]

47. Uh, this may be a silly question, but...

Are atheists persecuting the Muslims in America or Serbia, the Christians in Africa, or the Jews anywhere?

Here on DU the WORST that happens is someone writes a disparaging comment about religion. If you're going to seriously compare that to the persecution people face elsewhere on the planet (frequently at the hands of... Christians), good luck.

[endersdragon34]

55. Actually

Yeah atheists can be just as discriminatory as everyone else, there just aren't as many of them yet.

[trotsky]

63. So if atheists are just like everyone else,

why are you singling them out for your wrath in your OP?

[endersdragon34]

67. Because they claim to not be like everyone else

I just love hypocrisy

[trotsky]

197. Where do they claim that?

And besides, there are hundreds of millions of more Christians that are hypocrites w.r.t. their holy book. Why don't you go after them?

[PassingFair]

68. Ever looked up the population of China?

You're a quirky one!

[endersdragon34]

72. I think you posted this in the wrong spot...

Either that or your just trying to be random.

[PassingFair]

92. 2/3 of the pop. of China is agnostic/atheist, depending on definition.

Not random.

In many European countries, Freethinkers
outnumber believers.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

76. I do have to jump in here to state

That most atheists on this board do not hate believers. They do hate the intrusion of faith into politics--a position that most believers here agree with.

I will agree that atheists are not now persecuting any faith group in the world, but I must add that Stalin and his pro-atheist agenda did indeed persecute believers in Russia during his time. However I feel that religion was just an excuse to persecute people and for Stalin to gain more power. I also think that religions persecute people for the same reason--it isn't in the teachings of their faith--rather religion is used as an excuse to behave in such a manner.

[endersdragon34]

87. Hey wow someone gets it

Nice

[T Wolf]

50. I would assert that most, if not all, of the religious persecution is perpetrated by

other religious types. The Jews hate and kill the Muslims. The Muslims hate and kill the Christians. The Muslims hate and kill the Jews. The christians hate and kill everyone, including other Christians.

I doubt you can name one instance of atheists hating and killing people of any religion.

[endersdragon34]

57. LOL

Commuinist Russia, communist China, Serbia in general (still HIGHLY atheistic from the Tito days) for example.

[RaleighNCDUer]

False analogy, because those are situations where the persecutions

are committed in the name of POLITICS. Of Marxist economic theory. Nobody in any of those countries ever stood before the troops and said "All right! In the name of Atheism, let's get those guys!"

That is patently ridiculous.

[endersdragon34]

93. Part of communism is atheism

You have read the works of Marx haven't you... he was all for atheism and very much against religion of any kind. Beyond that the only areas that have ever had widespread atheism are those areas.

[cynatnite]

103. And here comes the RW talking points...

That is complete and utter bullshit. :rofl:

[endersdragon34]

108. "Relegion is the opiate of the masses"

Course if you have never read the works of Marx...

[MineralMan]

112. Relegion? Is that when a Legion disbands and then reforms

later? I'm not familiar with your terminology, I'm afraid.

[RaleighNCDUer]

126. And if he'd been writing today it would be 'Television is the opiate of the masses'

and be just as true.

[cynatnite]

128. Actually, I started a bit farther back than Marx when it came to atheism...

Theodorus of Cyrene denied that gods exist, and wrote a book about it. 300 BC I believe it was. And then there's my favorite atheistic dude of them all... Epicurus.

Of course duing the inquisition saying you didn't believe in gawd got you burned, tortured and all that. The Age of Enlightment was when atheism began to find it's true voice and those who spoke out in favor it found a lot of support...thanks to the French Revolution.

Of course, I have no doubt that history bores you since RW talking points are more your speed.

[Hello_Kitty]

402. Marx wasn't for totalitarian brutality.

The people who stood for that simply coopted the structures of religion (authoritarianism, rigid control, lying to the masses) and made them purely political instead of religious. Most atheists and freethinkers are against any and all forms of repression and mind control.

[Why Syzygy]

272. "In the name of POLITICS"? They were killed DUE TO religion. Theirs! duh. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

281. I ask you to THINK about it -

They were killing people who adhered to alternative power structures which could be organized against them. They didn't give a flying fuck about the RELIGION - it was the oppositional structure that was dangerous. They also killed unionists, teachers, retired military, etc., because they belonged to oppositional organizations.

And they didn't do it because they were atheists. They did it because they were power mad authoritarians.

(jeesh)

[endersdragon34]

287. Ahhh but Marx talked specificially about religion

So one could say it was inevitable.

[RaleighNCDUer]

290. And the specifics he spoke of were how religion was used by the

ruling classes to oppress the workers. He made no theological arguments, only political ones.

Of course, a wannabe theocrat would not see the difference.

[endersdragon34]

294. Oh so its okay for an atheist to kill a Christian

as long as hes not doing it for religion, got it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

310. Just as exactly ok as it is for a christian to kill an atheist

as long as he does it FOR religion.

Ever hear the term 'strawman'?

[endersdragon34]

312. Hmmm I still see atheists discriminating and killing Christians

No matter how you slice it thats what was happening. Discrimination both ways is done for politics (despite rhetoric), lets at least look at it that way.

[Why Syzygy]

314. Politicized religion, to be precise. ..edit

When the first century Christians were put to death, it was about "politics". If there is ever another purging, it will be about "politics". There are some governments that do not tolerate. However, I believe that is due to the perception, and truth to large degree, that our first loyalty belongs to a different kingdom.

I've known since I was a little girl (during the "communism threat") that my beliefs could get me killed.

[rrneck]

8. If the kid

were raised rationally and intellegently s/he would take a rational, intellegent approach to religion. Not all religious people are deluded fools, nor are all atheists paragons of clear headed thinking.

Bigoted broadsides don't do anyone any good, although some members of the religious community have turned it into a fine art. Then they cry foul when people like Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins do the same thing.

[immoderate]

202. Would like to see the quotes of Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins being bigoted.

--imm

[rrneck]

251. I like 'em but nobody's perfect

bigot
–noun- a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Hitchens:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070606_christopher_hitchens_religion_poisons_everything/

The position I take in the book is, of course, that all religion is equally stupid and an expression of contempt for reason and an exaltation of the idea of faith, of believing things without evidence. But that doesn’t mean I think a Quaker and a Bin Laden are exactly the same. They all have individual disadvantages.


http://richarddawkins.net/article,1242,Christopher-Hitchens-on-Religion,WBUR-On-Point-Radio

"That's part of what I'm criticizing in this book -- the presumption that faith is a virtue."

Dawkins:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

Harris:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/science-must-destroy-reli_b_13153.html

Science Must Destroy Religion (Bio Title)

Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so.

Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris all have one thing in common with everybody else on the planet. They are human. They are at the vanguard of a long overdue pushback against the excesses of organized religion and they have a great many important and cogent things to say about the issue. Unfortunately, that doesn't keep them from occasionally overstating their respective cases.

Religion is not all bad. We will never make it go away. Claiming that religious practice or faith can be banished is to indulge in unnecessary hyperbole. But it sells books. Religion and faith are as much a part of the human experience as thumbs.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461553528_761562654_-1_1/prehistoric_horses_and_cave_art.html

This portion of the cave painting in Lascaux, France, was created by Paleolithic artists about 13,000 bc. It is believed that prehistoric hunters painted images like this leaping cow and group of small horses to gain magical powers that would ensure a successful hunt.

Religion has gotten away with framing science as a type of faith. It's disingenuous but it works if you don't think about it too much. "Do you actually believe in quantum mechanics? Have you seen evolution in action", they ask. Well, of course you can't see quantum mechanics, you have to believe what researchers say about it. We have to have faith in the chain of evidence that has been carefully and painstakingly established to support their claims unless we would like to reproduce the experiments ourselves. All most people know for sure is that when they throw the switch the lights turn on. Truth be told we must infer the vast majority of what we know about the physical world from those whose veracity we must simply trust.

Science, by methodically offering a better explanation for the physical world around us, is not displacing religion. It is requiring us to redefine it. The only things that are being displaced are the social leeches who profit from religion and faith.

It is unwise to confer upon those who tout the supremacy of reason and the efficacy of provable causation unquestioned authority. It would be ironic indeed that as we stand at the edge of an environmental precipice caused by a love for technology that we begin to create high priests of reason to lead us over the cliff.

[Why Syzygy]

273. Very well stated.

Double standards are easily overlooked within oneself. It is just as shortsighted to assume all Atheists have superior intelligence as to assume all believers do not.

[immoderate]

369. OK, I guess I walked into that, but...

Bigot seems a bit harsh here. What constitutes being "utterly intolerant?" If I say that astrology is complete nonsense am I a bigot? Context must have some import here. These men do not picket churches or denounce people per se.

--imm

[rrneck]

381. I hope you don't feel

like I ambushed you or anything. That wasn't my intent. If I fouled you I apologize.

The attitude that all people of faith are foolish, stupid, misguided, deluded or just plain dumb because of their faith or to lump them together with the lowest common denominator of their group to indict them all starts to sound like, "niggers are thieves, wetbacks are lazy and jews are crooks" to me. Granted, as a son of the south I'm a little sensitive about that sort of thing, but to indict an entire group of people, even by inference, based on race, color, or creed qualifies as utter intolerance to my mind.

If I could use your example, saying astrology is nonsense doesn't make you a bigot. Nor does it make your statement bigoted. But if you say all astrologers are stupid, corrupt, deluded, or otherwise defective people because of astrology, and your reasoning assumed the necessity to remove astrology entirely from the culture, that to my mind qualifies as a bigoted broadside.

But what if a few very bad astrologers had, for the past two thousand years, periodically crawled into bed with secular power for their own profit? What if their activities had caused the deaths of uncounted millions of people, many in the most unpleasant fashion? What if a few very powerful astrologers had, through their own shortsightedness and greed, distorted the political process, exploited the fears and weakness of those in their care, and hampered cultural development of most of the human race? Any thinking person's reply to them, no matter how erudite, might sometimes go over the top. I think that is where we can find the context.

I don't consider Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris bigots. They have made some bigoted broadsides which I feel are over the line, but considering the fight they are in a little overreach should be anticipated. Also, considering the audience they have to work with, who can blame them for overstating their case? Let's face it, the American fetish for quick and easy answers to complex questions screams for overheated rhetoric and extreme positions. Shit, Britney Spears' missing underwear gets more ink than starving children in Africa. So the medium with which they have to work has an impact on the tone of their message. It is interesting that the quotes I found appeared in the context of some very well thought out positions on the issue. The title of the Harris bio in Huffpost comes to mind.

But I'm not willing to give them carte blanche because of the difficulty of their task. They have a responsibility to respect the beliefs of others whether those beliefs make sense or not. And it would be wise for us to carefully monitor the progress of their cultural research and not allow it to become a new orthodoxy of exclusion. All too often oppressed people don't want freedom, they want to trade places with their oppressors. The last thing we need is to replace a tyranny of faith with a tyranny of reason.

[immoderate]

392. No, I didn't feel ambushed. Not to worry.

I didn't fully comprehend your statement, and I didn't differentiate between making bigoted statements, and being bigots. So I accept and largely agree with your statements. While I consider certain beliefs to be stupid and deluded I don't confront people with that language. I know that nobody's world view is congruent with reality. So I accept that people's beliefs will vary.

I am wary of the phrase "tyranny of reason." Tyranny is incompatible with reason.

--imm

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. I smell bogus......

You're hiding behind the smokescreen of a bogus question when, I suspect, you have a statement you want to make but, for whatever reasons, didn't do it.

I am curious as to why you posted such a meanspirited bunch of words. I don't recall seeing any "hatred" of religion here at DU. Perhaps you're seeing something I've missed, so why not re-think what you wrote and say what you really want to say? That might be interesting.

Your thuggish attempt to call out some people is not.

[endersdragon34]

14. I suppose I just grow annoyed at being considered an idiot for being Christian

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x200078#200174 I had to post it again, but look all over there (not just that post) and you will see all sorts of hatred for religion, or at least the belief that anyone who believes is an idiot. And its not just there, it seems if you believe anything that isn't part of what is accepted here you must be an idiot. It really does make me worry for your kids.

[MineralMan]

91. Why do you care what strangers think about you?

If you are certain of your belief, what can it matter if others thing your religion is based on superstition? Why on earth would you care?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

186. Tell you what -

don't read threads if they upset you. Just don't.

I don't care what your beliefs are, but your sideways style - which is, essentially, intellectually dishonest - bothers me. Why would someone who is "religious" not be more tolerant of those who don't share your beliefs? Especially on a lefty message board?

And, please, save your "worry" for your own kids. Mine are fine. In fact, if your post is any indication of what sort of thinking you're putting into raising your kids (why do I get the feeling you don't even have children?), then I truly worry for your offspring.

[endersdragon34]

194. I am quite tolerant of those who don't share my beliefs

I am just not tolerant of intolerence. I have no problem with atheism, I have a problem when atheists spread hatred of the religious (or at least what the religious believe).

[Tangerine LaBamba]

199. No,

you're not, although you'd like to believe that, it seems.

Your OP reeks of anger and intolerance.

More intellectual dishonesty.

Not my style, but it takes all kinds................

[endersdragon34]

200. I work all day to help out parents of developmentally disabled kids

Many if not most of them are atheists. I still help them out anyway. I suppose I am angry about being attacked for my believes constantly from atheists, and wonder what would ever happen if I came out with my believes in any sort of educational establishment. But no my orginal post was designed to show that you aren't all that much different of those you claim to hate (Christians don't respond well to their kids "living in sin" as they see it, you don't respond that well to your kids being Christians), all points come to show when they hit close to him. Its easy to hate people that you don't know, harder to do it to those you do know.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

201. Give me a break ..........

So, "... many(,) if not most of (the parents of the developmentally disabled kids with whom you work) are atheists."

And yet, you, you sterling example of love, tolerance and acceptance, "... still help them out anyway."

Aren't you wonderful? I am simply overwhelmed by your wonderfulness. :sarcasm:

In spite of these parents not believing as you do, you still " ... help them out anyway." My god, are there medals for people like you? :sarcasm:

The word, by the way, is "beliefs."

And your religious choice is your own. If you're tired of "... being attacked constantly (emphasis mine) from (sic) atheists ... " then I would recommend you not get into conversations about religion. There are so many other subjects that are constantly being discussed here at any time of day or night.

I'm sorry your faith isn't strong enough within you to be able to be comfortable with those who have beliefs different from yours. Perhaps you can pray on it, or ask your pastor for guidance. In the meantime, you probably should be very careful which threads you choose to read here at DU, since free speech (within limits) helps to define DU, and intolerance and anger don't go very far in promoting lively and respectful exchanges of opinions.

I have never seen any hate for anyone's religious beliefs here at DU. Never. "Hate" is a strong, dangerous word, and I think you might want to back away until you're better able to let people be what they are and not take it so personally.

After all, we're a country of freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.

Goodbye and good luck.......................

[heidler1]

198. IMO, Bush is an idiot and a false Christian.

Through two presidential election cycles Bush had the majority of the various Christian groups snowed into letting him do what he wanted, because of this I believe that majority of Christians are gullible and a dangerous problem. This does not mean that I hate them, but I do not trust them to see past their religion as to what is best for man kind.

By the way the majority of secular voters consistently voted against Bush.

See exit poll for 2000 2004. http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=103

[MineralMan]

99. Indeed! You must accept Jesus Christ as your savior,

and you must do it in a specifically Protestant way, or you will roast on the barbeque spit of Hell, and be basted with spicy sauce by all the believers...for ETERNITY!

I just wanted to clear that up for you, just in case you didn't know. :evilgrin:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

188. I'm fucked

for all eternity.

Lucky me.

Wanna go get a drink?

:toast:

[varkam]

11. So let me get this straight: You read a couple messages on here that offend you, so therefore...

all atheists must hate religion and think that people who believe in God are dumb?

Oy vey. Welcome to DU - you'll fit right in.

[endersdragon34]

15. Its more then just a couple of posts

I suppose it hasn't all been on here, sorry if I made it seem that way, but everywhere I claim to be a Christian (and that I don't believe in evolution) I am basically called an idiot for it. Look at how Bill Mayer just made a movie doing just that. I can't imagine that gives your kids a good opportunity to come to religion themselves.

[cynatnite]

18. Well, religion was indoctrinated in me when I was a child...I wouldn't call that opportunity n/t

[varkam]

32. Ah - there's the problem.

I don't think you're being called an idiot because you're a Christian - it's probably the fact that you don't believe in evolution. After all, there are plenty of Christians who do believe in evolution.

[endersdragon34]

34. LOL so...

A Christian isn't an idiot... but someone who believes the bible is... nice thinking there.

[varkam]

45. Do you not see your conflation?

Many people's problem with Christianity isn't the fact that people believe in the unseen or unknown - e.g. a God of creation as described in the bible. The problem for many people comes when people believe in a 2,000 year old work of a Nomadic people over modern scientific evidence.

There's a difference between believing in the bible and clutching it so tightly that the blood stops flowing to your brain. If God didn't want us to think, then he wouldn't have given us a frontal lobe.

[endersdragon34]

51. Actually

I don't believe in evolution because of Darwin's works... he said his holes regarding fossil records would be filled up as we get a more advanced fossil record... it hasn't happened. We still have very few intermediate species (I think thats the right term) and we still have the problem of the Cambrian explosion. Beyond that I still don't believe a state with life can come from a state without life or a state where there are eyes (or brains or whatever) can come from a state where those things don't exist... I know I am an idiot for that.

[varkam]

60. You can see evolution occur in a lab.

Why do you think that we need to worry about what strain of the flu virus is going to be hitting us? Why do you think anti biotics lose their effect after a period of time? You can, quite literally, go see evolution occur right before your very eyes. There are multiple lines of evidence from multiple disciplines that all confirm this idea that genetic mutations that enhance survival value are passed down, whereas those that don't aren't. There are, indeed, holes in the fossil record - but to focus in on that is analogous to being unable to figure out what the following phase says "Gravity is just a theoXy, too." It's the God of the gaps argument.

Beyond that I still don't believe a state with life can come from a state without life or a state where there are eyes (or brains or whatever) can come from a state where those things don't exist... I know I am an idiot for that.

That's not really within the purview of evolution. Evolution is concerned with how living organisms adapt and change over time - not with how life began. You're thinking of exobiology.

To think that, just because you don't understand something, it must not be true is the height of hubris.

[endersdragon34]

62. So you can explain the Cambrian explosion?

Even Darwin admitted that the fossil record went against the idea of long-term evolution (not short term), not much has changed since then, though now it helps evolution out. And evolution in the long-term is dependant on how things got started.

[varkam]

85. No - I'm neither a geologist nor a arhaeologist - but it doesn't matter.

As I had posted in my last post, to say that something is incorrect because you don't understand it is the height of hubris. In fact, it's a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantum (argument from ignorance).

Furthermore, and as I have already posted, focusing in on the holes in the fossil record is really quite silly when there are multiple lines of corroborating evidence (and, as I also said, you can actually go see evolution occur right in front of your eyes).

If you're really interested in the Cambrian Explosion(and I mean you have an intellectual honest interest in it and not just waiving it around because you don't want to surrender your belief in creationism) have a look at the Wikipedia page for a start - there are a number of different possible explanations that are listed there.

I'll repeat my questions: Why are we worried about which flu strain is going to hit us? Why do antibiotics lose their effectiveness after a period of time? Is that somewhere in the bible?

[endersdragon34]

90. So you believe it...

Despite lack of evidence for it, or rather despite evidence against it. And evolution is taking place right in front of my eyes, but not in the same way as 1 celled organisms with no eyes, ears, brains or anything else developing into humans (skipping ahead quite a bit on the way there).

[varkam]

94. So you believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution?

That seems a very strange distinction to make.

And what evidence is there against evolution aside from the argumentum ad ignorantum? The irreducible complexity theory has been trashed ever since scientists traced the development of our eye (a favorite example of creationists) back to a single cell in a pre-historic hydra that just had the ability to differentiate between light and dark.

So please - I'm all ears - what's the evidence against evolution aside from the argument from ignorance?

And I know that it is such a leap of faith to accept the evolution - just as it is a leap of faith to accept that the X in "Gravity is just a theoXy, too" is really an 'R'. Why, it could be a Q! Or an H! Or a B! Since there's just too many unanswered questions as to what that phrase really says, it must really say "Goddidit"

[endersdragon34]

102. In the works of Darwin

fully formed organisms do not suddenly show up in history. And there a tiny spot developing into an eye assumes that there would be the "knowlege" in the cells of how to develop into an eye. Beyond that an eye is far easier to explain off then say... a brain.

[MineralMan]

105. Uh...Darwin wrote 150 years ago.

We've learned a great deal since then. You may want to read some more modern writings on the subject. Much more data is now available than was available to Darwin. Now, I find Darwin's writings to be enjoyable reading, as I do the Old Testament. And yet, if I wish to discuss evolution, I make reference to current research.

Do read something about the subject you are discussing. You are simply quoting creationist sites, and you're repeating the misinformation found there.

[endersdragon34]

111. So then explain away my problems with evolution

You can't because they haven't been explained away... they have just been ignored. You can't rewrite Darwin anymore.

[MineralMan]

116. Upon my word...I believe you are being deliberately obtuse.

Why should I exercise myself to explain anything to you? I do not waste my time on those who have fixed, incorrect information. That horse is dead, so I shan't beat it.

[endersdragon34]

127. Just quoting Darwin

sorry if you hate him so much.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

283. No, you're not. You're misrepresenting him.

Give us accurate quotes, please.

[endersdragon34]

286. Okay here we go

“Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?” We are not anywhere near "innumerable".

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

291. Taken out of context (which, by my search on Google, creationists are wont to do).

He actually follows from that question to offer a number of possible solutions. The full text of "Origin" can be found here: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/otoos610.txt

This is what comes next. Keep in mind, too, that Darwin (and everybody else) was totally unaware of the discrete (aka digital) nature of hereditarity. That would shortly later be discovered by Mendel; and the underlying mechanism by Watson and Crick a century later.

ON THE ABSENCE OR RARITY OF TRANSITIONAL VARIETIES.

As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable
modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take
the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent-form
and other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus
extinction and natural selection go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at
each species as descended from some unknown form, both the parent and all
the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the
very process of the formation and perfection of the new form.

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed,
why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter
on the imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state
that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less
perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast
museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at
long intervals of time.

But it may be urged that when several closely allied species inhabit the
same territory, we surely ought to find at the present time many
transitional forms. Let us take a simple case: in travelling from north
to south over a continent, we generally meet at successive intervals with
closely allied or representative species, evidently filling nearly the same
place in the natural economy of the land. These representative species
often meet and interlock; and as the one becomes rarer and rarer, the other
becomes more and more frequent, till the one replaces the other. But if we
compare these species where they intermingle, they are generally as
absolutely distinct from each other in every detail of structure as are
specimens taken from the metropolis inhabited by each. By my theory these
allied species are descended from a common parent; and during the process
of modification, each has become adapted to the conditions of life of its
own region, and has supplanted and exterminated its original parent-form
and all the transitional varieties between its past and present states.
Hence we ought not to expect at the present time to meet with numerous
transitional varieties in each region, though they must have existed there,
and may be embedded there in a fossil condition. But in the intermediate
region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find
closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time
quite confounded me. But I think it can be in large part explained.

In the first place we should be extremely cautious in inferring, because an
area is now continuous, that it has been continuous during a long period.
Geology would lead us to believe that most continents have been broken up
into islands even during the later tertiary periods; and in such islands
distinct species might have been separately formed without the possibility
of intermediate varieties existing in the intermediate zones. By changes
in the form of the land and of climate, marine areas now continuous must
often have existed within recent times in a far less continuous and uniform
condition than at present. But I will pass over this way of escaping from
the difficulty; for I believe that many perfectly defined species have been
formed on strictly continuous areas; though I do not doubt that the
formerly broken condition of areas now continuous, has played an important
part in the formation of new species, more especially with freely-crossing
and wandering animals.

In looking at species as they are now distributed over a wide area, we
generally find them tolerably numerous over a large territory, then
becoming somewhat abruptly rarer and rarer on the confines, and finally
disappearing. Hence the neutral territory between two representative
species is generally narrow in comparison with the territory proper to
each. We see the same fact in ascending mountains, and sometimes it is
quite remarkable how abruptly, as Alph. De Candolle has observed, a common
alpine species disappears. The same fact has been noticed by E. Forbes in
sounding the depths of the sea with the dredge. To those who look at
climate and the physical conditions of life as the all-important elements
of distribution, these facts ought to cause surprise, as climate and height
or depth graduate away insensibly. But when we bear in mind that almost
every species, even in its metropolis, would increase immensely in numbers,
were it not for other competing species; that nearly all either prey on or
serve as prey for others; in short, that each organic being is either
directly or indirectly related in the most important manner to other
organic beings--we see that the range of the inhabitants of any country by
no means exclusively depends on insensibly changing physical conditions,
but in large part on the presence of other species, on which it lives, or
by which it is destroyed, or with which it comes into competition; and as
these species are already defined objects, not blending one into another by
insensible gradations, the range of any one species, depending as it does
on the range of others, will tend to be sharply defined. Moreover, each
species on the confines of its range, where it exists in lessened numbers,
will, during fluctuations in the number of its enemies or of its prey, or
in the nature of the seasons, be extremely liable to utter extermination;
and thus its geographical range will come to be still more sharply defined.

As allied or representative species, when inhabiting a continuous area, are
generally distributed in such a manner that each has a wide range, with a
comparatively narrow neutral territory between them, in which they become
rather suddenly rarer and rarer; then, as varieties do not essentially
differ from species, the same rule will probably apply to both; and if we
take a varying species inhabiting a very large area, we shall have to adapt
two varieties to two large areas, and a third variety to a narrow
intermediate zone. The intermediate variety, consequently, will exist in
lesser numbers from inhabiting a narrow and lesser area; and practically,
as far as I can make out, this rule holds good with varieties in a state of
nature. I have met with striking instances of the rule in the case of
varieties intermediate between well-marked varieties in the genus Balanus.
And it would appear from information given me by Mr. Watson, Dr. Asa Gray,
and Mr. Wollaston, that generally, when varieties intermediate between two
other forms occur, they are much rarer numerically than the forms which
they connect. Now, if we may trust these facts and inferences, and
conclude that varieties linking two other varieties together generally have
existed in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, then we can
understand why intermediate varieties should not endure for very long
periods: why, as a general rule, they should be exterminated and
disappear, sooner than the forms which they originally linked together.

For any form existing in lesser numbers would, as already remarked, run a
greater chance of being exterminated than one existing in large numbers;
and in this particular case the intermediate form would be eminently liable
to the inroads of closely allied forms existing on both sides of it. But
it is a far more important consideration, that during the process of
further modification, by which two varieties are supposed to be converted
and perfected into two distinct species, the two which exist in larger
numbers, from inhabiting larger areas, will have a great advantage over the
intermediate variety, which exists in smaller numbers in a narrow and
intermediate zone. For forms existing in larger numbers will have a better
chance, within any given period, of presenting further favourable
variations for natural selection to seize on, than will the rarer forms
which exist in lesser numbers. Hence, the more common forms, in the race
for life, will tend to beat and supplant the less common forms, for these
will be more slowly modified and improved. It is the same principle which,
as I believe, accounts for the common species in each country, as shown in
the second chapter, presenting on an average a greater number of
well-marked varieties than do the rarer species. I may illustrate what I
mean by supposing three varieties of sheep to be kept, one adapted to an
extensive mountainous region; a second to a comparatively narrow, hilly
tract; and a third to the wide plains at the base; and that the inhabitants
are all trying with equal steadiness and skill to improve their stocks by
selection; the chances in this case will be strongly in favour of the great
holders on the mountains or on the plains improving their breeds more
quickly than the small holders on the intermediate narrow, hilly tract; and
consequently the improved mountain or plain breed will soon take the place
of the less improved hill breed; and thus the two breeds, which originally
existed in greater numbers, will come into close contact with each other,
without the interposition of the supplanted, intermediate hill variety.

To sum up, I believe that species come to be tolerably well-defined
objects, and do not at any one period present an inextricable chaos of
varying and intermediate links: first, because new varieties are very
slowly formed, for variation is a slow process, and natural selection can
do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur, and
until a place in the natural polity of the country can be better filled by
some modification of some one or more of its inhabitants. And such new
places will depend on slow changes of climate, or on the occasional
immigration of new inhabitants, and, probably, in a still more important
degree, on some of the old inhabitants becoming slowly modified, with the
new forms thus produced and the old ones acting and reacting on each other.
So that, in any one region and at any one time, we ought to see only a few
species presenting slight modifications of structure in some degree
permanent; and this assuredly we do see.

Secondly, areas now continuous must often have existed within the recent
period as isolated portions, in which many forms, more especially among the
classes which unite for each birth and wander much, may have separately
been rendered sufficiently distinct to rank as representative species. In
this case, intermediate varieties between the several representative
species and their common parent, must formerly have existed within each
isolated portion of the land, but these links during the process of natural
selection will have been supplanted and exterminated, so that they will no
longer be found in a living state.

Thirdly, when two or more varieties have been formed in different portions
of a strictly continuous area, intermediate varieties will, it is probable,
at first have been formed in the intermediate zones, but they will
generally have had a short duration. For these intermediate varieties
will, from reasons already assigned (namely from what we know of the actual
distribution of closely allied or representative species, and likewise of
acknowledged varieties), exist in the intermediate zones in lesser numbers
than the varieties which they tend to connect. From this cause alone the
intermediate varieties will be liable to accidental extermination; and
during the process of further modification through natural selection, they
will almost certainly be beaten and supplanted by the forms which they
connect; for these, from existing in greater numbers will, in the
aggregate, present more varieties, and thus be further improved through
natural selection and gain further advantages.

Lastly, looking not to any one time, but at all time, if my theory be true,
numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species
of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of
natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to
exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently
evidence of their former existence could be found only among fossil remains,
which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future chapter, in an
extremely imperfect and intermittent record.

[endersdragon34]

293. Our record is far more perfect now

We still don't have innumberable transitional fossils.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

298. It'll never be perfect. Hell, we have a hard time cataloguing existing species now.

Nature isn't under any obligation to do comprehensive audits for our benefit. Nevertheless, quite a few smoking guns have been found since. Not the least, a critter that's about halfway between dinosaur and bird. Not to mention the bones of Neanderthals, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus etc. And the fact that, the deeper you dig, the more different from current species the fossils are.

Why don't we find any rabbits at the same levels the dinosaurs are? Or eagles? Or giraffes?

[endersdragon34]

300. From what I have heard we have

I am still looking to varify all my sources (with sources that you would trust more) but it seems like we have found fossils out of place before, though I am sure that would be explained away. And a whole 4 transitional fossils... sorry not buying it, 4 is very numerable. I still do want to see the invertibrae thats starting to develop bone characteristics, there should be at least one in the world right?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

316. This is pointless. Feel free to fulfill the truth of my sig line.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

419. endersdragon34: Most Christians have no problems with evolution

and think creationists are about as misguided as those who believe that Joshua really commanded the sun to stand still.

The evangelical/fundamentalist insistence on battling evolution has nothing to do with the essentials of the faith and is all about theologically uneducated, self-appointed ministers (vetted by no one except others like themselves) finding a common enemy to rally their congregations around.

[varkam]

117. Because your problems with evolution are bordering on the delusional.

You can't refute something that doesn't play by the rules.

[endersdragon34]

125. LOL

Explain away Darwin then. There still is the Cambrian explosion... I am not delusional about that. And last I checked (at least according to Darwin) that still is a problem with his theory.

[MineralMan]

133. What's this LOLling? Are you 14 years old?

For pete's sake. If you're not going to even try, then I'm going to another thread. ROLFLMFAO! See, I can behave like a pimply adolescent, too, if I want.

Go read something. It will be a far better expenditure of your time than this silliness.

[varkam]

136. You realize that Darwin has been dead for quite some time now, right?

You also realize that there's been a lot more in the way of research and discovery since Darwin, right? Right?

[WhollyHeretic]

145. This whole discussion is pointless. No one is going to see it. Computers don't have monitors or

networking capabilities. At least ENIAC didn't so there is no way future computers would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC

[Meshuga]

137. And there is also Kirk Cameron's intelligent design of the banana theory to back you up

Don't worry. Truth is on your side.

[TZ]

151. *titter*

Don't forget the peanut butter too...

[rrneck]

193. Why don't you give everybody else

a chance to be impossibly obtuse. If you have a better theory to explain the development of life on earth, by all means present it and lets have a look.

I'd love to see a testable theory of creationism.

[varkam]

243. Oh but he has.

It involves a virgin birth, a talking snake, and a burning bush.

[rrneck]

269. It seems to me

that the reason people for and against evolution seem to be talking past each other is that those on the side of evolution are talking about science, and those on the side of creationism are actually talking about money and power. Most of them just don't know it.

The result is two different conversations with two different objectives.

[humblebum]

367. Science simply doesn't even have the potential to determine

whether or not a deity exists and whether or not there is an intelligent design. Science only has the capacity to deal with the physical. It is a very narrowly focused epistemolgy, among many others. So, the general argument that science can tell anyone anything about a metaphysical existence negates all discussion about the matter and renders such discussion a wasted effort. The positivist viewpoints of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. are extremely limited for the reasons given as are any counter-arguments presented by advocates of creation and intelligent design. It is all simply a matter of interpretation and can't possibly advance science or religion either way.

[rrneck]

389. I agree for the most part.

Science does what science does. And it does it extremely well.

If you asked a scientist what the chemical properties of hydrocarbons had to do with getting someone to work on time, s/he could probably tell you. If you asked a theologian what a deity had to do with the physical process of getting to work on time, no meaningful answer would be forthcoming. S/he could probably expound at length on why you would need to get to work on time, but that's it.

I have little patience for those who would conflate the aims of science with those of faith. Those that would do so are trying to expand their wealth and power in the physical world, and are willing to use the hopes and fears of well meaning people for their own selfish purposes.

Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are providing an invaluable public service by doing the job that religious leaders should be doing. They are advocating unfettered criticism of religion where it has been conspicuiously lacking.

Religion should ask the same questions of itself that it asks of others.

[varkam]

109. Say what?

"Assumes that there would be the 'knowledge' in the cells"? What in the hell are you talking about?

Not really. It's quite simple, actually - the first hydra to get that cell possessed an advantage over their peers and could have more kids. That gene was in turn passed down until one of those kids got a cell that could, say, discern color, too, and then it passed that cell down. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. "Knowledge" has got nothing to do with it. No assumptions - just science.

On the other hand, your "knowledge" thing assumes that there's some sort of purpose to development - that there's some sort of pinnacle that life has been striving for. Let me guess - we're that pinnacle, right?

[endersdragon34]

119. No we're not that pinnacle

Other animals have better eyes, noses, ears, whatever. Humans would be so much better off if we had the nose of a dog for example, or if we could do echolocation like some animals. There is no pinnacle. And beyond that I am just wondering how cells would know how to combine to form a better eye again and again. Theres a huge difference between one celled organisms and their many celled counterparts.

[MineralMan]

123. Nah. In reality, you're just a big walking cell colony.

[varkam]

132. Okay, I'm gonna try 'splainin' this to you.

Cells don't "combine to form a better eye again and again". I want you to read very carefully now.

Let's take the hydra example. Let's say that, a gazillion years ago, there are a bunch of hydras in this ocean and none of them have any eyes or anything like that. One day, one mommy hydra and one daddy hydra have a baby hydra - except that the transmission of the DNA isn't perfect - there's a mutation in the baby hydra. This baby hydra has a cell that can distinguish light from dark. It turns out that one little cell makes a big difference and that baby hydra goes on to have lots of little grand baby hydras (lots more then it's "eye"-less peers). Within several generations, all the hydras have that cell because all the hydras that didn't have that cell got "phased out"; they just couldn't compete. Then, one day, another mommy and daddy hydra have a baby hydra. This time, however, both the mommy and the daddy have that cell. Like last time, though, there's a mutation. Except, this time, the baby hydra can not only distinguish between light and dark, but also can make out vague shapes and can start to see color. That baby hydra out competes all the other hydra with the first cell, and has lots of grand baby hydras.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Of course, that's grossly over-simplified. I'm not trying to be arrogant or talk down, but I'm not sure if you genuinely do not understand or are just being intentionally obtuse.

[endersdragon34]

139. Has there ever been a case of that

A species developing a body part that had never been seen in their species (not a 6th finger, but like a primate that developed gills). Because after all thats what this all comes down to. Doesn't that go against the idea of genetics. How would they have such a gene.

[varkam]

157. So, if there hasn't been a massive mutation like that, then evolution is bunk?

Again, truly spectacular.

[endersdragon34]

163. And the fact that it goes against well established theories

Like the theory of genetics for example.

[varkam]

210. Good thing evolution doesn't rely on the notion of those massive mutations.

It's all about small changes over time.

[TZ]

162. FYI humans have GILLS during one stage of development!

It is a reflection of earlier form....

[endersdragon34]

165. Then why was it biologically advantageous to lose them?

Wouldn't it have doubled our capabilities to keep them?

[TZ]

170. we lost them when we left the liquid environment

Babies need them since they are living in amniotic fluid and don't HAVE LUNGS YET!
Lungs developed and gills disappeared during the evolutionary process. And no, having gills in a non liquid environment is NOT advantageous. Can a fish survive on land? Nope.
I want to ask you something again. If someone told you that the earth was flat agaisnt all known data, would you understand why someone would label that person ignorant?

[endersdragon34]

172. Sure gills would be advantageous

Unless you are really against the concept of humans eating fish... and... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071106-tree-fish.html Fish can survive on land.

[TZ]

175. they actually have something close to lungs...perhaps you have heard of lungfish....

Which are another evolutionary link they you seemed to have missed. No--lungs in non aquatic large creatures don't work. The basic physics of the atmoshphere with the amount of Oxygen and Nitrogen make it impossible for anything of substantial size to have gills.

[Silent3]

345. I must be crazy to jump in and comment on this nonsense...

...but here I go anyway.

Very few biological features are clear-cut all-around benefits. Evolution is about trade-offs, creatures evolve to have lean feature sets matched to the niches they try to exploit.

Take gills. Sure it would be great to be able to breathe both on land and underwater, but gills have costs as well as benefits. Gills are an opening in the body that invites possible infection. Gills need to stay moist, which can only be done on land at the cost of losing water through evaporation, or by developing a new set of mutations, which simply may never arise, for sealing gills away from a dry environment.

Large body size can be helpful in defeating rival mates or catching prey, but it also means you need more food. In times of plenty large predators might be favored, but in lean times large predators can starve while smaller creatures survive.

Color vision is useful for finding edible vegetation, but isn't as sharp as monochrome vision. Sharpness of vision can be more important for some predators than seeing color.

Large eyes are better for night vision, but they displace skull space that might be used for more brain capacity. They are more vulnerable to damage and infection than small eyes.

If you're trying to understand evolution, and you think it's a big mystery why everything didn't evolve to be a flying, swimming, air-and-water-breathing omnivores with color vision, night vision, an acute sense of smell, cheetah-like speed and the ability to spin webs, then you completely misunderstand how nature selection works.

[laconicsax]

371. Wrong!

Show me a half-alligator, half-squirrel or a half-fish, half-motorcycle! Show me a cat giving birth to a basketball! It can't be done! Evolution is false!!!!!

:rofl:

[MineralMan]

122. Yes! Yes!

"Let me guess - we're that pinnacle, right?"

We are, indeed. Created in the very image of one of the deities or another, I believe. Or did we create a deity in our image. I can never remember. But a pinnacle in our own minds...you betcha.

[RaleighNCDUer]

167. Do YOU have any idea what it takes to make a fossil?

How little Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian strata there is available for examination? 530 million years ago was a LONG, LONG time ago.

The fact that Darwin couldn't explain the Cambrian explosion does not disqualify his theory - there are MANY hypotheses about how it came about, and what the fossil record really means. Darwin just didn't have the science at that time, which is understandable in as much as the science was only decades old. That's like having Ben Franklin explain solid state circuitry based on his recent kite flying.

[TZ]

61. Wow. That came straight out of the Discovery Institute.

You REALLY don't understand evolution I see. Same old nonsensical Creationist arguments. You don't need to look at the fossil record to see evolution. All you got to do is look at the genetic phylogeny (relatedness)of different species. Actual science ya know? BTW, do you believe in DNA testing? Cause all of that stuff is based in evolutionary theory. Evolution is far more than simple Darwinism. This blatant ignorance of science WILL get you name calling. Its like saying "I'm a flat earther and I'm proud of it!" :eyes: I suggest reading scientific material, and not the Bible if you want to be respected for your scientific "beliefs". Because whatever you believe or not. Evolution happens and there is oodles of evidence for it. None so blind as those who don't wish to see..

[endersdragon34]

66. So because species are related...

they must have evolved from the same parent species, even if we can't find said parent species (or rather we can find the parent species... and the child species... but nothing in between).

[varkam]

86. Nothing in between?

Wow. Just wow.

[endersdragon34]

96. Do you even know what the Cabrian explosion is?

[varkam]

101. No - I don't know what the Cabrian (sic) explosion is.

Are you saying that there are zero transitory fossils in the record? Is that your claim?

[endersdragon34]

104. Not at all

And sorry, I am dyslexic, and don't spell words like that very often. But basically in that era of our fossil records, fully formed organisms suddenly show up with no sign of what they could have evolved from.

[varkam]

115. Stunning. Simply stunning.

Do a google search for transitional fossils. You, my friend, are incorrect.

Furthermore, there are many explanations for how the Cambrian Explosion could have come about. Check out the Wiki on it.

[endersdragon34]

130. LOL wiki...

[varkam]

134. Did you do the google search? Did you read the Wiki?

No? Shame - because it seems like you might want to at least have an idea about what you're trying to refute.

[endersdragon34]

143. Yes, but none of them are testable or varifiable

And most don't have a shread of evidence to back them up. They are all just theories, and not very scientific theories at that. Most of them would compare to, "Because God did it".

[varkam]

154. According to whom? eom

[endersdragon34]

160. Welll.... how would you go about testing any of those theories

You can test evolution in the long-term based on evolution in the short-term and the fossil... but you can't test this at all. Or come up with a strategy for doing so, if you think they can.

[varkam]

211. You said that there was no explanation. I mention that there are several plausible possibilities.

I can't believe I'm still wasting my time with someone who soberly asserts that there are zero transitional fossils in the record.

[endersdragon34]

212. When did I ever say there was zero?

[varkam]

214. Uh your entire argument has been about since no one can explain it, it must be god.

I'm saying that other people can explain it.

[endersdragon34]

217. Uhhh... thats where I said zero

Please answer the question asked of you.

[varkam]

220. I just did. I invite you to carefully re-read my last post. It's not lengthy.

[endersdragon34]

223. It also was totally off-topic

[varkam]

225. Has your dyslexia affected your reading comprehension?

You asked me for where you said that there was no other explanation. I pointed out that the no other explanation angle is the crux of your argument from ignorance. How, exactly, is that off-topic?

[endersdragon34]

229. No I didn't say there was no other explanation...

I asked where I said there were zero transitional fossils... therefore what you said was totally off-topic.

[varkam]

232. Oh - so it has affected your reading comprehension. I'm so sorry.

Because we were talking about hypotheses for the Cambrian Explosion - not transitional fossils. It appears to be you who is off topic.

Nevertheless, please read post 104, wherein you wrote the following in re transitional fossils:

And sorry, I am dyslexic, and don't spell words like that very often. But basically in that era of our fossil records, fully formed organisms suddenly show up with no sign of what they could have evolved from.

The subject of that post was "Not at all" and so there were two competing interpretations - one being that it was not your claim at all that there were zero transitional fossils and the other being that your claim was in fact that there were zero transitional fossils. Given that you then wrote "fully formed organisms suddenly show up with no sign of what they could have evolved from" led me to believe the latter interpretation was correct.

[endersdragon34]

234. Sadly for you...

I was responding to this, "I can't believe I'm still wasting my time with someone who soberly asserts that there are zero transitional fossils in the record."

[varkam]

235. Funny, because that's not what the post you replied to said.

In fact, the post you replied to said this:

"Are you saying that there are zero transitory fossils in the record? Is that your claim?"

[endersdragon34]

237. Ummm nope...

Look up, the truth is right there in front of you, and cut, copy, paste, doesn't change words (well at least I have never seen it do that)

[varkam]

239. Maybe the nuance of the word "reply" is lost on you.

In post 101, I asked you the following:

"Are you saying that there are zero transitory fossils in the record? Is that your claim?"

In post 104, which was the direct reply to post 101, you wrote the following:

"And sorry, I am dyslexic, and don't spell words like that very often. But basically in that era of our fossil records, fully formed organisms suddenly show up with no sign of what they could have evolved from."

You don't have to believe me - just click on them and read it for yourself. Do you need me to provide the links for you?

[endersdragon34]

242. So where did I say there were no transition fossils... I am confused...

But beyond that you are taking the word reply VERY liberally (no pun intended) as I must have said that a couple of hours ago and was not the post you were (or I was) replying to right then and there. Then when I ask where I said that you go totally random on me and quote me saying something I never actually said.

[varkam]

246. Something you never actually said? Okay, I'm providing you with a link now. All you have to do...

is to click on it. Do you think you can handle that? You don't have to read numbers, or look through posts. Just click on the funny blue word below.

Click here to be magically teleported to post #104, which was in reply to my question about whether or not you believed that there were any transitional fossils in the record. When I say "reply", I mean a DIRECT REPLY - meaning that in order to post that answer, you had to have read my question (or at least clicked on it - I can't tell if you actually read it or not) and then you HAD TO HAVE CLICKED THE REPLY LINK CONTAINED WITHIN MY MESSAGE.

Jesus H Tapdancing Christ - I can't believe I'm still debating this with someone who is obviously playing a game.

[endersdragon34]

250. I NEVER EVEN USED THE WORD TRANSITIONAL

And I was talking about the Cambrian explosion... so I am really confused.

[varkam]

255. I did - in my question - to which you responded "Not at all"

Yeesh - is it really so tough to understand?

[endersdragon34]

257. LOL

I think we had a misunderstanding. I said not at all to that I don't believe that at all.

[varkam]

259. See? Was that so hard? eom

[endersdragon34]

262. Well it did require you to explain what the heck you were thinking

I knew what I was thinking... and I knew you were wrong... I however didn't know what you were thinking.

[varkam]

267. How could you know that I was wrong if you didn't know what I was thinking?

More pronouncements from on high, I suppose.

[endersdragon34]

270. You were wrong

because you assumed I meant something I didn't mean and believed something I didn't believe. That is sortof the defination of wrong...

[varkam]

280. You dodged the question.

How could you know that I was wrong without knowing what I was thinking?

[endersdragon34]

288. Easy

I knew I never would say there were no transitional fossils so I knew you must be wrong, I just couldn't figure out how you got that information.

[varkam]

324. So you saying...

that fully formed creatures just popped out of no where without any record of how they formed means that there are transitional fossils?

Gotcha.

[endersdragon34]

327. Fully formed creatures poping out of nowhere...

refers to the Cambrian explosion, where we still haven't found what those species came from. We have had transitional fossils since... and I am still wondering what your problem is.

[varkam]

329. So if there *are* transitional fossils, then I am wondering what your problem is

What, you think that evolution is a process that just started after the Cambrian Explosion? :rofl:

[endersdragon34]

334. No it should have started before then

But we have yet to see innumberable transitional fossils, and we have yet to see an animal within the process of transition (starting to develop a bone structure but not quite there for example).

[varkam]

337. So you accept evolution as fact *after* the Cambrian explosion? eom

[endersdragon34]

338. Nope

I will do that after I see innumberable transitional fossils and one invertabrae gradually developing a bone structure. Deal?

[varkam]

340. As I note below, you're setting up an impossible standard

that sort of evolution takes millions of years and countless generations - you're not going to see it before you go get to ride around on a white horse in heaven all day long (or whatever it is that you do up there).

But why not? If you accept that there are transitional fossils after the Cambrian Explosion and if you agree that things like diseases and viruses are constantly evolving, then what's your beef?

[endersdragon34]

350. I am not wanting to see it over millions of years...

I am wanting to see one in the middle. A species who is starting to develop a trait that isn't there yet. And you say evolution takes millions of years... wheres the innumberable transitional fossils then. Shouldn't there be a species every step along the way that we could see?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

352. "A species who is starting to develop a trait that isn't there yet." (UPDATED)

What about bipedalism in bears? It's useful to them, but it could improve vastly.

Or the use of language by chimpanzees and whales.

Another one: you know how you can sometimes "feel" there's somebody behind you, but you don't know exactly how? Or, when you're playing pin the tail on the donkey, you sorta know when the wall is near? That's a very crude form of echolocation, same thing bats use to get around. Only theirs is highly advanced, ours isn't.

Flying squirrels -- same thing. Only thing they can do now is glide, but there's lots of room for improvement there.

I could go on and on.

[varkam]

377. Okay, so are you saying that there are or that there are not transitional fossils?

It is a simple question.

And, for the record, there are transitional fossils from the Pre-Cambrian era, there just aren't many.

[endersdragon34]

396. There are transitional fossils

But they are not innumberable.

[varkam]

397. So what is your definition of "innumerable"?

[endersdragon34]

398. Innumberable: adj.

Too numberous to be counted, numberless. Obviously thats impossibe, but where are we now, millions? That would be fairly innumberable.

[varkam]

399. I asked what *your* definition was as I was trying to be charitable.

I mean, innumerable to your average flat-earther could be as low as twenty or so. :P

So if we have millions of fossils in the record, then you'll believe in evolution? What about 1,999,999 fossils? Is there something special about that two millionth fossil?

[endersdragon34]

400. I actually read that we have 100,000,000 fossils on record

So I would think that 1% of those should be transitional considering how long it takes a species to transition (millions of years). But then again .5% wouldn't suck. Anything higher then the couple 100 we have now (most of which aren't all that much different then the fossils that they are said to transition between) would be fine.

[varkam]

401. You would consider 1% should be transitional?

Where oh where do you get these numbers from?

[Name removed]

404. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varkam]

406. You know nothing about me.

So don't presume to. Your ad hominems are sinking to new lows - congrats!

Furthermore - where in the hell did you come from? I believe I was having a conversation with our creationist friend, here.

[salvorhardin]

411. Life is not an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma

And you've managed to sink to a new low. Emotionally bullying a person based on a painful personal life experience is as bad as telling someone they're disabled because they want to be that way.

[Why Syzygy]

412. I'm the mirror here.

Varkam knows what he did that affected me. If you judge one side of the coin, you must judge the other.
However, it would really be best if you keep your attempt at shaming and arbitrating to yourself or in your private dungeon.

For the record, your analogy to disability has NOTHING whatsoever to do with me, and you know it.
You stand on no moral high ground.

[TZ]

415. what gives YOU the right to make judgements about Varkam

when you clearly don't know him. Ugh. Disgusting tactics. I hope I NEVER lower myself to your level...

[TZ]

414. This is maybe the MOST classless posts I have seen on DU>

Except for the one by one of your buddies here saying bad things about a deceased spouse.
So much for the myth of the sensitive liberal.

[cynatnite]

138. This isn't wiki...

http://www.progressiveu.org/231431-the-cambrian-explosion-part-4

Of course, it might take some work to discredit it.

[MineralMan]

142. You read the LOL wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOL

Good job! No, go read some of the evolution wikis.

[cynatnite]

131. Some ID supporters have latched onto this from what I understand...

I remember reading about it on a blog.

[MineralMan]

140. Ripped from the pages of Answers in Genesis,

Still bleeding and screaming. That's your source? That's the place you get your information?

C'est pour rire!

[varkam]

158. Ahhhh, he's getting his stuff from AiG. Suddenly, all this makes a lot more sense.

[MineralMan]

164. Yeah, those are all AiG memes heshe's proselytising with here.

They're so familiar. I'm waiting for him/her to ask why there are still monkeys.

[varkam]

218. The thing that I have found with the vast majority of creationists is that they have no clue...

what evolution actually is.

It's hard to kill what you can't see.

[endersdragon34]

222. Answers in Genesis?

Interesting how I can quote something I have never even heard of? Is this a rock album?

[varkam]

226. If you're going to try to refute something, please use correct english.

"Interesting how I can quote something that I have never even heard of" is not a question, therefore there should be no question mark at the end.

[endersdragon34]

230. tu shay

still not as bad but point taken.

[varkam]

233. Sure thing, Mr. Cabrian.

Note that I had removed my "insult" prior to your pointing it out.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

420. the word is touche with an accent on the e.

It's french.

[MineralMan]

110. Doesn't that have something to do with evolution of goats?

I'm very confused. What did explosions have to do with goat evolution? Can you explain?

[MineralMan]

88. You've drifted the thread from atheism to evolution?

No, thanks. There's enough of that over at FR.

[TZ]

100. What makes you think we don't see the parent species?

It is RATHER easy to see the evolving complexity of species from the more primitive version to more modern version by looking at the genomes. Which IF you followed SCIENCE at all you would KNOW! This is very basic biology you know. HELL we have traced human ancestry straight back to ONE female named LUCY by tracing mitochondrial DNA!
You want to know why atheists can be rude to believers? Its this kind of ignorance. Plainly, you have no interest in actually learning...you know all the answers without actually researching it. Us sciency types kind of resent unschooled people telling us what and what not is true, when they don't even bother trying to get their facts straight. I don't like people spitting PROPAGANDA at me..which is what you have going on here. Creationist propaganda without an ounce of truth in it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

107. Actually, you are very, very wrong about that. The so-called holes

in the fossil record ARE being filled in all the time. New species are being discovered practically every day, which is pretty remarkable considering that we are talking about individual animals that died tens and hundreds of millions of years ago. There are plenty of intermediate forms. Also, the development of specific organs, such as eyes, is better understood every day.

You are simply ignoring the evidence.

You keep saying "I don't believe..." With science, you don't need to believe. You just need to understand the facts. Belief or disbelief doesn't alter the facts.

[laconicsax]

189. There is such stunning ignorace in your comment that I doubt that you've ever read a book

concerning evolution that was published in the last fifty years. Try reading any of these books:

-Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne
-The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins
-The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins
-Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero
-Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins and Lala Ward
-Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin
-The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
-Evolution: The First Four Billion Years ed. Michael Ruse and Joseph Travis
-Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA by Daniel Fairbanks
-What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr

[endersdragon34]

190. Okay deal

You mind reading The Case for Christ too? Any of them I can read online, I am a poor college student after all. And just curious, do all of these books bring up all the problems with evolution that Darwin found and explain them?

[endersdragon34]

192. P.S.

After doing a little more research on the authors you suggested (or the more popular ones) they can't seem to agree amoungst themselves. For example Mayr seems to think Dawkins is an idiot (granted I am a bigger idiot to him) but when they all disagree amoungst themselves, what is one to believe is the explanation for these problems (though I do see a gene based theory to have many problems too, its part of the problem I have with animals suddenly getting something that no species in the tree had ever had before.)

[laconicsax]

204. Their disagreements are on details, not on the broader issue of evolution by natural selection.

One thing you'll find if you investigate the evidence for evolution is that at no point does something come from nothing. Creationists love to claim that evolution posits something from nothing, which is patently false. Evolution says that everything comes from something else while creationism says that something came from nothing.

When you say, "animals suddenly getting something that no species in the tree had ever had before," I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example of what you mean?

[endersdragon34]

207. Vertebrae would be a good example

Animals throughout much of history in evolution were without bone structures right? And no species in the species tree (which is a confusing term I probably coined but think of a family tree) ever had one. Yet they suddenly developed them. Another good example here would be sexual organs, not much need for those when species are reproducing a-sexually. I am not quite sure what the exact evolution here is but it does sound interesting to me. Beyond that evolution neccessates a beginning to life... which just seems so interesting to me.

[laconicsax]

221. It wasn't a sudden event. Bones developed gradually over time.

Evolution is purposeless--things don't develop because there's a need for them, they happen at random and are then selected for if and only if they are useful. Also, evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, only what happens once life had already started. Abiogenesis is the study of how life began.

Here's a nice, concise video about abiogenesis, keep in mind it's one of many competing hypotheses on the origin of life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

[endersdragon34]

227. But how did they develop over time

There would be no genes, no history, no anything, of bone structures. How can something be passed on that isn't possessed by yourself. Doesn't that go against the theory of genetics. I am sure I am wrong somehow here, I am just failing to see it. This is also why I think I would disagree with many of those books you suggested for me, I agree with evolution in the short-term, its just long-term evolution with these beginnings that I don't understand

[laconicsax]

252. Here's a possible explanation

(Note: I am not an expert in this field, I merely have a decent understanding of its principles and mechanisms.)

Where did your bones come from? I ask in context of you--the person behind the keyboard. How did your bones form? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't magic.

One of the key principles of natural selection is that things are made from what is already available. Bones are made of calcium and other minerals in the body. More specifically, they are high concentrations of calcium and other minerals. It is possible (dare I say likely) that genes that cause these substances to become localized (as opposed to diffuse) in the body were selected for over time. It would only take a minute change to a gene to make a cell more likely to store specific minerals and if there's an advantage to having that effect, the gene is passed along to subsequent generations.

Let's say that such a gene was passed along, resulting in areas (let's call them tissues) of the body with higher concentrations of hard minerals. These areas would be more resistant to damage from external sources and give the body a definite shape, no? Both those things could be very advantageous and could definitely be selected for. All that would be needed next would be a gene to regulate the concentration of those minerals and again, it would only take a very small change to get that gene. Once you have very high concentrations in various areas, another very slight variation could result in ossification (bone growth).

If you examine how bones are formed when a fetus is in utero, it follows a very similar process.

Long-term evolution is just short-term evolution repeated over and over again.

By the way, it's really bad policy to simply disagree with something because you don't understand it. It's much better to try to educate yourself (try using a library) while keeping an open mind so you can evaluate something based on its merits. I don't understand how gluten forms but I don't spend time trying to make a point of my ignorance on the Internet while coming up with excuses for not educating myself.

[endersdragon34]

256. Short term evolution involves traits that have been seen

No new genes are created in the short term, just different traits are breeded out again and again based on their usefulness. That part I can agree with and believe, its a bit harder to say that species are capable of all of these "minute" changes, though I must admit they sound pretty huge to me considering that "ability" (for lack of a better term) had never been seen before, especcially when talking about species that breed a-sexually (which still makes me wonder about the creation of sexual organs... but thats neither here nor there).

My bones for example were part of my DNA package. It was genetically there that I would have bones in my body (and a bone structure) and my body knew how to develop bones. There was no change neccessary from past genes.

I don't doubt that the genetics of bones would breed true, they would no doubt be advantageous to an animal. I do however doubt that it could happen randomly. All of thise change, or variation, or whatever, makes no sense based on what I know of genetics. We don't just go against our DNA code.

Lastly, I still contend that no one would are if I was ignorant if I believed what you believe. What your problem is, is that I have some knowledge (most then most I would contend) and I don't believe what you believe. I spend my time and effort doing different things the researching evolution (like researching how to best educate autistics for example. This whole debate started simply by me saying that I didn't believe in evolution and several people contending that, that fact alone made me an idiot (or at least made it okay for people to call me an idiot).

[laconicsax]

271. Must I shine your shoes for you?!?

Genetics proves evolution. If you understand genetics, then you should understand a little thing called mutation. Mutation is what allows for evolution to take place. Since you don't seem to have it in you to understand this, I doubt that you understand genetics. Nothing in modern biology makes sense without evolution by natural selection and just about everything in modern biology points to evolution by natural selection as being an accurate model.

In the 150 years since Darwin first proposed evolution by natural selection, no evidence has come along to show that theory to be incorrect and a ton of evidence has emerged to show that Darwin and Wallace (who came to a near identical conclusion independently of Darwin) were right. Your inability to understand the most basic concepts involved doesn't invalidate the theory one iota. Evolution doesn't require your belief to be true. It happens whether you like it or not.

There's a major difference between science and religion. In science, when new evidence comes along and shows a theory to be false, the theory is tossed out and work begins on a new theory. In religion, when new evidence comes along and shows a belief to be false, the evidence is tossed out.

[endersdragon34]

292. Sorry I am just not buying it

It just doesn't make any sense to me that animals reproducing a-sexually could make that big of a mutation (not to mention it would breed out anymore then usual at first). You could be right, but it just makes no sense to me. It basically seems an untestable, unvarifiable theory, basically, scientifically like saying "God did it". We would need millions of years of study to see anything like this happen again.

Basically my main problem with this is in all of our history, all of our study, we have never seen anything like bone structure being developed, or anything else like that. Considering the amount of invertebrates on this planet, and considering they would still breed out more successfully, shouldn't one of them be in the process of transitioning and have this middle of the road bone structure that you are describing. As far as I know (tell me if I am wrong) none do.

[laconicsax]

322. And that is why you fail.

[endersdragon34]

328. Probably

I guess I should be more like most of western civilization and blindly follow what you say.

[varkam]

330. Actually, you're in good company here in America.

We're behind Turkey in terms of how many people accept evolution over what their bible says.

[endersdragon34]

335. So theres good odds one of your kids teachers doesn't believe in evolution

You better go rescue them.

[varkam]

341. I don't have kids. eom

[Greyskye]

372. In 2005, there was more belief in evolution in the US than in Turkey...

Unfortunately, that's not saying a hell of a lot. :(

[laconicsax]

370. I'm curious.

You don't understand evolution, so you reject it as false.

Do you understand quantum mechanics? If not, do you reject it as false?
Do you understand relativity? If not, do you reject it as false?
Do you understand molecular biology? If not, do you reject it as false?
Do you understand cosmology? If not, do you reject it as false?
Do you understand aerodynamics? If not, do you reject it as false?
Do you understand acoustics? If not, do you reject it as false?
Do you understand Wiles' solution to Fermat's last theorem? If not, do you reject it as false?
Do you understand Swahili? If not, do you reject it as false?
Do you understand topology? If not, do you reject it as false?
Do you understand how a caterpillar turns into a butterfly? If not, do you reject it as false?
Do you understand why gravitational attraction takes place? If not, do you reject it as false?
Do you understand how consciousness emerges in the brain? If not, do you reject it as false?
Do you understand God? If not, do you reject it as false?

Since you reject evolution on the grounds that you don't understand it, then you should reject any of the above things that you don't understand.

[endersdragon34]

382. Ahhh nice little strawman there

I don't reject evolution on the grounds that I don't understand it, I reject beause from what I do understand it seems to be saying "mutations did it" endlessly a million times. Even when we are talking about things that we have never seen before and can't really prove can happen (like mutations gradually creating bones when we have never seen a species in the middle stages of this). Thats why I don't believe in evoution.

[Why Syzygy]

383. 15 Billion years is a long time

Watch this. You'll loveit.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4AE661C971BFC8E8

[endersdragon34]

384. This is true

But it still might not be enough time for the impossible to happen. To say it must have happened... seems disingenuous to me. Why must I believe in evolution absolutely, why can't I have doubt.

[Why Syzygy]

385. Why must you have an opinion one way or the other?

My belief system holds that matter had a creator. My beliefs do not demand to have an opinion of the molecular methods used to achieve the result. Do your's?

Mine don't even require speculation! Though, I do enjoy examining physical evidence.

[endersdragon34]

386. Good qusetion... I think

But beyond that not having an opinion is what got this whole fight started... I said I didn't believe in evolution... they took that to mean I was a huge creationist because I am Christian, and then I start arguing with them on the basis of evolution, using legitimate problems (at least IMHO). I don't know I think science is a religion to them, and heaven forbid you not agree with them. Not having an opinion is not an option to such people.

[Why Syzygy]

387. They sterotype.

If you are a sincere follower, you will understand that truth isn't revealed just for the sake of us wanting it so.

Watch that playlist. It will put your mind at ease.

[laconicsax]

390. An analogy is not a strawman.

You want a species in a sort of intermediate stage between bones and no bones? Take a look at a shark.

I stand by my assertion that you don't understand evolution for the following reasons:

1)You seem to be unable to grasp the basic concept that genetic mutation combined with selective forces can cause the development of new species over time. That would suggest that you don't understand evolution.
2)You seem to be hung up on a big misconception about evolution--that it has a goal or an end result. Since you don't seem to understand why that's a misconception, that suggests that you don't understand evolution.
3)You keep demanding proof of claims that aren't made by evolutionary theory. That would suggest that you don't understand evolution.

I stand by my assertion that your lack of understanding causes you to reject evolution as your stated reasons for rejecting evolution are based on a near-complete lack of understanding of it.

[endersdragon34]

393. Of course its a strawman

1) I get that you say it can happen through mutation, but I see little proof that such a thing can create something that had never been seen in any species before. So its just like saying "God did it to me", untestable, unvarifiable, and hardly scientific.

2) I don't think everything has an end result, but it would seem that things that you believe happened billions of years ago would still be happening today, after all evolution doesn't just stop.

3) Evolutionary theory makes no claims that things are continuing to evolve today? Or just that they aren't evolving today the way they were billions of years ago? Wouldn't that be convient.

I am sorry I don't believe in evolution, but I still don't see why you give that much of a damn. Do I need to see you next tuesday too?

[laconicsax]

394. A strawman and an analogy are superficially similar, so I see how you could get the two confused.

Your rejection of evolution on the grounds that it doesn't make sense to you is analogous to rejecting quantum physics on the grounds that it doesn't make sense to you.

Either way, it's the mark of someone who is uneducated, incurious, and breathtakingly arrogant.

[endersdragon34]

395. Ahhh but its not that its not that it doesn't make sense to me

Its that I don't buy it. Though mutation we are just putting up unproveable, unvarifable, and unscientific theories; and expecting everyone to accept it as divine fact. I am not even proposing an alternative, just that I don't buy it. Whats your problem with that?

[Kali]

409. "mutations did it" endlessly a million times

Hey you are starting to get it! Good for you! Try reading a real book (use a library - they have one of those at your "college" right? Is that a religious institution by the way? Because your understanding of basic biology and science seems very lacking. What sort of high school did you attend? Did you take or pass biology?)

[moggie]

360. Seriously, read a book

Someone mentioned Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish, and I'd second that recommendation. It's entertaining and accessible, and presents evidence from multiple disciplines. I mention it because it has some discussion of bones. Teeth seem to have appeared before bones: 500 million years ago, there were soft-bodied jawless fish like lampreys, with hard teeth. Evolution tends to repurpose things, and not long after those fish (in evolutionary timescales) we find the ostracoderm, a fish whose head was covered with a hard disk for protection. When you analyse that disk, looking closely at its structure, you find the same structure as teeth. Teeth developed first to bite prey, and then were repurposed to provide body protection and support. The book is full of fascinating information about our relationship with other life (did you know where the bones in our ear came from?). Pick it up in the library, then come back and tell us what you think of it.

[endersdragon34]

364. I'll check it out

But if I do, and still don't buy into everything its saying, you can't call me ignorant anymore okay?

[Why Syzygy]

388. "Why do you care what other people think"?

That's what a friend asked me tonight when I told him about the people who have been calling me ignorant.
Something to think about. I mean really.

Write it down even. "Why do I care to offer evidence to dispute their uninformed opinions"?
Why in the hell do I care what people who would call me "ignorant" think of me??? :crazy:
What would make me want to do that. (concern myself)

[endersdragon34]

368. P.S.

Trying to listen to the audiobook online (its checked out at the local library soooooo this is simplier), any suggestions for narrowing it down. I don't really care about this guys life and how he finds fossils and things like that. I get that fossils are layered (roughly) based on when the animal existed, where does he start talking more about evolution and how we can now prove it.

[laconicsax]

203. Read it years ago.

Tortured reasoning does not a persuasive case make.

[endersdragon34]

205. So can you answer my question

Which book should I read and which theory of evolution should I go with. And can I read any of those books online to avoid spending 20 dollars. When I have that much money I would rather get a good book on special education or something more interesting to me.

[laconicsax]

209. There aren't differing theories of evolution.

There are disagreements on the details, none of which affect the theory of evolution on the whole the same way the debate over the best method of putting a spacecraft in orbit doesn't affect the theory of gravity.

As for which book, I'd recommend Climbing Mount Improbable or Why Evolution is True. You might try using a public or school library--if you're a college student, your school should have at least a few of the books I recommended.

[struggle4progress]

191. PHOTOS: 7 Major "Missing Links" Since Darwin (National Geographic)

ttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x49445

[cynatnite]

44. Uh...wrong person. I'm a resident athiest and blasphemer...

:)

[varkam]

48. I believed that I was repyling to the other fellow. eom

[WhollyHeretic]

74. You're upset about being called an idiot for not believing in evolution?

:rofl:

I've got news for you...

[endersdragon34]

79. When I do it based on the works of Darwin

which they have never read... yea

[varkam]

121. Apparently, you haven't read anything published since the works of Darwin. eom

[RaleighNCDUer]

147. Don't you get it? The older the book, the more accurate it is.

That's why the bible trumps Darwin, and Darwin trumps all modern research.

[endersdragon34]

148. I love your lil icon

You compare Darwin to Jesus... then tell me I wrong for looking at his works.

[MineralMan]

150. Neither Jesus nor Darwin were fish.

You see, land animals evolved many million years ago. It is a long way from a fish to Darwin, although it can be traced pretty accurately, at least as far back as the Devonian.

Perhaps that its the problem here. You think Jesus was a fish. You need to reread the Old Testament. The fish was the one that swallowed Jonah, then puked him up. Jesus isn't a fish. That's just silly.

[endersdragon34]

153. Actually that is interesting..

How would it have ever been beneifitial for sea animals to develop lungs... they would die before they were developed enough to reproduce and it would have never breeded out.

[MineralMan]

161. Well, it did breeded [sic] out, you see.

As I thought, you have no knowledge of air-breathing fish, even though they still exist today. You have much to learn, grasshopper, before you can grasp the red hot jar and become a true Shaolin monk.

[SpiderMom]

166. Lungfish

http://whozoo.org/Anlife99/lashawn/africanlungfishindex4.htm

[endersdragon34]

169. Interesting

Makes me wonder why such traits would be lost... after all it would almost certainly be advantageous to be able to live in both sea and land would it not...

[MineralMan]

173. They weren't lost. The lungfish still have those traits.

Other species left the water completely, over time. Lots of food there on land...all those plants to eat. Insects, too. Pretty easy living for those lungfish. Evolution eventually selected those that could survive without the water altogether. Of course there were the amphibians, most of which return to the water to lay their eggs. When their young hatch, they have gils and all that, but they go through a transformation before maturity and the gills disappear. The adults live on land and breathe air.

Lungfish, amphibians, land animals. All still exist, and demonstrate how it occurred. You see...isn't science interesting. Go visit your library. There are lots of fun books about biology that demonstrate how evolution all worked. Reading is FUNdamental.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

206. You say the word "lost"

like someone who has misplaced their fucking car keys. Species don't "lose" traits - for you to say so really shows just how ignorant you are regarding evolution, natural selection, genetics and modern biology.

[RaleighNCDUer]

174. The african lungfish, the chinese snakehead -

just figments of my fevered imagination.

[MineralMan]

149. Then Pi equals 3? I guess so, since that's from a very old book.

[Beetwasher]

81. Or Maybe You're Being Called An Idiot Cuz You're An Idiot

Just sayin'.

[endersdragon34]

135. What a nice thing to say

I love the tolerance around here :).

[Beetwasher]

141. I'm Curious

When did you stop your necrophilia?

[endersdragon34]

208. When your mom...

showed me how fun sex with living people could be. I thanked her for that again last nite... and you did ask for it.

[varkam]

213. That was teh WITTYZ!!!1!

Jesus - mom jokes? Really? Are you in high school or something?

[endersdragon34]

216. Understand of evolution.

Please use somewhat correct English if your going to insult me. Beyond that did you see what I responding to? Given the circimstances it was a perfectly good response. Though I am still wondering how bone structures developed from invertebrae animals. You seem quite knowledgeable can you explain it to me. Though I must admit I will probably never understand much of that biogenesis or whatever you want to call it. Life coming from a state without life. Bone structures coming from a state with no bone structures, etc. Something weird happened there in that stage of evolution. That cells "knew" what structure to take to create this new complex system (and new characteristics being created through a-sexual reproduction...) I must admit I could read a lot about it and never understand.

[varkam]

224. Do you hear that whooshing sound right above your head?

It's the point.

If you're going to insult someone, could you please try to be slightly less sophomoric in your repertoire because, quite frankly, stuff like that is really quite boring.

The discipline examining how life began is exobiology, not biogenesis (as you call it). Again, just because you do not or can not understand something does not mean that its false. Although, I guess since you seem to think that all of life's answers are contained in a book that you can fit in your pocket, I wouldn't expect you to have any sort of intellectual humility.

And for the record, if you compare the time stamps of your post and my edit on my post, you'll see that I had removed my insult prior to your bitching about it. After writing it, I had considered it to be too harsh.

[Beetwasher]

244. "Are you in high school or something?"

High School???? Methinks you give it too much credit.

[Beetwasher]

241. So You Admit To Necrophilia?

Got it!

[theoldman]

12. I do not know anyone who ascribes to being an Atheist.

I do know several people who are not religious and they do not hate religious people. I don't hate but I do try to stay away from what I call religious nuts. These are the ones who try to push their religious beliefs on others.

[Epiphany4z]

13. I don't hate religion,,,I am sometimes

agrrivated and saddened at what gets done in its name.and shoot off my mouth because of it......but I don't hate it and in general leave people have there religion... without comment from me....I won't pretend to believe or sit and be preached at...but if one of my lil heathens goes Christian or some other religion..well they are ultimately there own person and have to do what they feel is right for there own lives.....

[cynatnite]

16. One of my kids is a christian and we let each other be when it comes to this...

She believes her way and feels zero inclination to "convert" me or anyone else for that matter. She's raising her kids the way I raised mine...to decide for themselves what they want.

She also knows that I view believing in any god/gods the same as believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.

[endersdragon34]

20. So basically...

She can come to religion, but she knows that you will see her as dumb if she does. Try substituting gay for religious and sick for dumb there... how much freedom does that sound like to you?

[cynatnite]

27. Where on earth did you read that in my post?

Are you assuming I think my kid is dumb? :wtf: is wrong with you?

My daughter and I don't view some things the same. That's it. I raise my kids to be independent thinkers and thankfully, I don't have them automatically programed to believe in a religion just because of their parents.

You're the one who wants to read something into it that's not there so quit your fucking GODDAMN reading into something you know nothing about.

:grr:

[endersdragon34]

31. Your whole last line

"She also knows that I view believing in any god/gods the same as believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy." So you don't view someone who believes in Santa at the age of 23 (or whatever) as being dumb?

[cynatnite]

39. I did not say anyone was dumb so stop twisting my words to fit your notions...

My bright daughter also believes organized religion is the history's biggest scam and that the idea of God has been left behind by majority of so-called Christians. She thinks christianity would be better off by turning all the churches into homeless shelters rather than be the "holier than thou" meeting place that she believes them to be.

Now, I don't agree with her about the existence of god and all that, but she knows exactly how I feel and what I believe. Neither of us are threatened by the other's belief or nonbelief.

Unlike some people who think that making assumptions and twisting words somehow gives them some kind of fucking moral authority. You fucking pissed me off which is very hard to do at DU.

[endersdragon34]

46. So answer my question

Is someone who believes in Santa at 23 dumb? And it still sounds like she was brainwashed by you btw. And its very easy to do here, just everyone believes what everyone else believes... funny how that works.

[cynatnite]

49. I'll call you out for what you are...a fucking troll...

you came here to stir shit up and got your wish. Go fuck yourself.

[endersdragon34]

52. LOL so you can't answer my question

Nice.

[Meshuga]

179. A belief could be dumb

But obviously that does not automatically make a person who holds such belief a dumb person. Are you seriously unable to see this? Or do you have to take this shallow approach just to make your accusations valid?

[flamin lib]

17. Here's the deal, rational people love the religious, but they hate the relgion.

It's the flip side of loving the sinner but hating the sin.

Accept it with all the love intended.

There, now that I've explained to you that I don't hate you, I only hate what you are don't you feel better?

(For the benefit of the satirically impaired, my tongue is in my cheek.)

[SPedigrees]

19. I don't hate religion.

I am the product of atheist parents, but was brought up to respect other people's beliefs. Here in New England that is considered basic etiquette.

I was quite shocked to be asked prying questions about my religion by people in other geographical regions. Inquiring about someone else's religion is akin to asking how much money they make. Just rude.

[walkaway]

21. I really think christians have plenty to deal with in their own churches

without worrying about what non-believers think of them. Stop your leaders from forcing their dangerous ideologies down everyones throats. I am personally sick of hearing how great the church members are despite their pro-nazi, anti-gay, anti-condom, anti-education and anti-science church policies.

In this case, you are right, I do look right down my nose at anyone who supports that kind of nonsense.

[endersdragon34]

25. See this is what I am talking about

I have never had a pastor who was any of that shit but all my church must be that way...

[walkaway]

33. So if you decide to join the Nazi party

it's ok if your chapter just holds bake sales and wear swastickers. Wake up. You are responsible, you belong.

[endersdragon34]

35. Christians are not Nazis

Wow... where are you getting this shit from.

[cynatnite]

41. There are a lot of Christian Nazis...didn't you know that?

Both today and in Nazi Germany of the 30's and 40's. Plenty of 'em. Hitler was a Catholic who believed he was doing gawd's will.

[walkaway]

53. Isn't this what you want? I'm sure you realize is was an alagory

But you are looking for this kind of stuff aren't you? I don't care what you believe in but I do look down on (especially organized christian) religion. How many people in Africa will die of aids in the coming years because of the Nazi sympathizing pope who declared that condoms CAUSE aids.
How many children live in squalor on top of garbage heaps in India because of Mother Theresa preaching that birth control was a sin to poor woman who believed her mumbo-gumbo. Christians spreading lies and death all around the world. More effective that gun.

[endersdragon34]

59. Umm I am Methodist not Catholic

Please make that distiction. Beyond that its also Christians that are going down there to help people out.

[walkaway]

64. Help them out of what? Their own beliefs and culture?

Does the Methodist church pay taxes?

[endersdragon34]

70. What?

[walkaway]

84. Christians helping out the poor non-christians

I have never heard of such a thing without some attempt at conversion. Tracts, bibles, the"word of god" etc. Possibly the Methodist church just gives the help without it. I will look it up on some Methodist's sites.

[walkaway]

113. Her you go. Right off the official Methodist web site...

"The United Methodist Church is a mission church. Through the work of the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM), the official mission agency of our church, we are reaching out to a world in need to share the love of Jesus Christ."

[MineralMan]

129. That's because Christians know better...they know the truth,

and must bring the truth to the ignorant pagans and other such unfortunates.

It's terrible being the religion of a minority of the world's population. That cannot stand.

CONVERT THE PLANET!

Feh!

[endersdragon34]

144. And whats wrong with that...

Going on mission trips to help disadvantaged people... charity is so evil.

[RaleighNCDUer]

152. They go on mission trips to convert people - the 'charity' is just

the means used to get them to listen.

Kind of like the free meal at soup kitchens where you have to listen to a sermon before you eat.

[endersdragon34]

155. Something tells me I would do it

You give me free medicine if I listen to you... yea I will listen to you... and I don't see to many atheist missions.

[MineralMan]

168. Atheists don't call 'em missions, you see.

They tend to go and pitch in and dig wells, teach literacy, and stuff like that without wasting time with meme-distributing. Lots of secular aid out there. That you do not know of it is not evidence of its non-existence.

Scene 2 from th Mission Trip:

Missionary: Ngobo, tell the woman what I say.

Ngobo: Yes, Bwana.

Missionary: I have the medicine to cure your child, but there are so many sick. Say you love Jesus, and I will give your child the medicine. Save your own soul and I will save your child.

Ngobo: Are you sure you want me to say that?

Missionary: Just translate what I say.

[endersdragon34]

171. I am sure all Mission trips are like that

[MineralMan]

176. Nope. I've been on Mission trips, when I was a Christian.

Yes, there was work done. There was also the preaching and explaining that the bad people living there would burn in Hell for eternity unless they believed like the missionary's did. Do you truly not know how missionaries operate? Really? Don't you remember the missionary who came to your Methodist church and showed slides or a movie? Didn't he tell you how many souls were saved? How do you suppose that happened?

Surely you are not that naive about Mission work? Surely.

[endersdragon34]

180. Actually...

Every mission trip I have ever had a friend go on bragged about what they did to help out the community. I suppose my church is more of a "Preach always... when neccessary use words" then yours is. So they would brag about the houses they built, the people they gave comfort to, etc. Not all churches are like yours though.

[MineralMan]

182. I don't have a church any longer, but

my church was Methodist. I went on lots of Mission trips. Did you?

[endersdragon34]

187. Nope

Never could have afforded them even if I wanted to. But everyone I knew who did always bragged about what they did, I think you just went to a hardcore RW church... or at least are claiming too have gone to one. Not like we can confirm it.

[Greyskye]

373. Let me tell you a story.

My agnostic/spiritually seeking wife, along with our 10 year old son, went to Africa last year to help build an orphanage and Montessori school in Malawi Africa. The trip was sponsored by a church that one of the teachers in her school was involved with.

She made almost all of the materials needed for this school herself, by working her butt off for months before the trip. She substituted the North American flora and fauna in the materials with native African flora and fauna materials to make the program more accessible to the children. She instructed the women who were going to be the teachers. She and our son attended the church services without a word of protest - she actually quite enjoyed them as their was so much music in their services, and she's a musician as well.

Know how they repaid her?

A number of people on that trip made it quite clear that my wife had no business as a "non-believer" to be there. (If you don't accept our religious flavor, you're not one of us. :eyes: ) Even though she had been explicitly told that the entire curriculum as they teach it here would be taught there, they threw out all of the evolution materials. Evidently, they lied in order to get her help - because if she hadn't done almost all of the initial organizing, the trip wouldn't have happened.

And yes, they placed a huge emphasis on 'saving' people. A number of the local pastors tried a number of times to baptize our son. Now we've talked quite a bit over the years with him about religion. My wife and he have gone to various local churches a number of times - I've even gone to UU services myself a few times. We encourage him to make up his own mind. Which he evidently has done. When he refused the baptism, they would ask why, what religion are you? He told them 'Secular Humanist'. When they asked what that was, he explained to them how pretty much every major religion has a version of the "Golden Rule", and that that's what he believes in.

I guess that didn't go over so well. :rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

178. Ever hear of Doctors Without Borders?

No religious mission. Just help people. Only the largest, and most well known medical mission in the world.

No, it is not atheist - but there are atheists who are members, just as there are christians and jews and muslims and buddhists. And none of the preach, except on the benefits of clean water and other aspects of their medical mission.

[MineralMan]

181. And, then, there are things like the Peace Corps.

Peace Corps personnel are not allowed to preach to those they help. They're there from a secular nation to do secular work. That's why the conservos hate the Peace Corps.

[MineralMan]

156. Hmm...let's look at your mission trip, then...

Helping the Disadvantaged

Act I
Scene 1

(In a primitive village of mud buildings)

Missionary: Ngobo, Translate what I say, please...loudly so everyone can hear.

Ngobo: Yes, Bwana.

Missionary: You are all bad people. If you do not believe in Jesus as I told you, you will be burned in a fire for all time. Jesus doesn't want that to happen because He loves you. But, if you don't believe in him, you'll burn and burn and burn.

Ngobo: Are you sure you want me to tell them that?

Missionary: Just say it as I said.

[Critters2]

423. The United Methodist Church isn't reaching out to glbt people.

It hates them. Officially.

[Critters2]

425. Unless you're gay. nt

[MineralMan]

73. Why make the distinction. Is there something wrong with

Catholics? Are they not Christians? Please help me here...I'm very confused by your distinction between versions of Christianity.

[endersdragon34]

195. For the same reason you seperate yourself from Communists

Some people just make you look bad ;).

[Goblinmonger]

248. Pretty judgmental from someone

who hates the way the mean nasty atheists treats them.

[Critters2]

424. The United Methodist Church makes the United Methodist Church look bad.

Open hearts, open minds, open doors.



Unless you're gay.

[MineralMan]

58. Rectangles are not Squares.

[roughsatori]

22. I would Crucify them. NT

:sarcasm:

[MindPilot]

23. I would send my kid to the local American Atheist Deprogramming Center

to have the sickness of christianity scientifically and rationally cleansed from their brain.
:sarcasm:

Seriously no-one is "brainwashed into atheism"; everyone is born completely free of religious belief so atheism is kind of the default state.

[RaleighNCDUer]

159. And truth be told, the vast majority of atheists come from religious families.

I know I did.

I was Lutheran (good hard-core Missouri Synod German Lutheran), then I was agnostic, then I converted to Judaism, then finally gave up on all of it because no matter how i approached it it just wasn't rational. Even Judaism, the so-called rational religion, where intense debating of minutia is de rigueur.

[MineralMan]

24. I don't hate religion. I hate people who try to force me to

accept their beliefs, or else.

My parents are, and were, both atheists. They sent all three of their children, including myself, to church Sunday school every week from age about 6. Of the three, I'm the only atheist in the group, although my sister doesn't actually attend church any more.

I asked my parents about it many years ago. They said that they didn't want to force their atheism on us kids and that we'd figure out what we could or could not believe at some point.

I don't have kids, so I can't say absolutely what I'd do, but I suspect that I would have sent them off to get exposed to Christianity...it being the dominant religion in our culture. Then, I'd let them decide for themselves when they were old enough to do so. Worked for me.

[endersdragon34]

28. I love your viewpoint

Wish more people had it... maybe someday.

[MineralMan]

43. I think you'll find that most atheists have a similar point of view.

What you read here is generally aimed at those religionists who want to insist that everyone follow their precepts. There are plenty of such folks in the USA.

It's a mistake to project a distaste for coercive religious beliefs onto all of those who hold religious beliefs.

I'm not easily offended by religionists, but there is plenty out there from which to take offence. One of those things is a general feeling among religionists that an individual's denial of belief is an attack on the belief of others. Generally, it is not.

There are those atheists who have considerable antipathy towards people who believe in one deity or another. They are mistaken in their antipathy. It is only the actions of people from which one may take offense, not their beliefs.

I'm not annoyed by prayers in public places, except in one notable circumstance. If such prayers take place under governmental auspices in a place where I am compelled to be in attendance, then my objection will always be vocal and strong. The same applies anywhere people are compelled to be in attendance by the government. That is my primary point of offence.

Secondary to that are laws based on specific religious beliefs. Such laws are exemplifed by making contraception illegal or deciding who may marry on some sort of religious basis.

[sinkingfeeling]

30. I am an atheist and my son is a believer. He was encouraged to read a wide variety of things at an

early age. He read not only the Bible, but all the Apocrypha, The Veda, parts of the Bhagavad Gita, the creation myths of the Navajo, and everything written by Carl Sagan and Issac Asimov. He does not accept the 'christian' view of god, but is a believer. What did I do? Absolutely nothing except discuss some of the 'issues' he read about, such as the total lack of consistence in the Bible's depiction of 'god'.

[cosmik debris]

36. Now I'm curious

Are you implying in your first sentence that it is improper to believe that your ideas are dumb or to say that your ideas are dumb.

And by the way, my daughter was exposed to MANY different belief systems while she was growing up. That's what Unitarians do. They try to expose you to as many as possible so that you can make an educated decision.

[endersdragon34]

37. Hmmmm

I suppose if you state your belief then thats wrong.

[cosmik debris]

54. So, If I disagree with you I have to be quiet about it?

The only good atheist is a silent atheist?

I don't think so.

Could you turn that around and see that if you state your belief then thats wrong too?

While you don't seem to know a lot about atheism, one thing you should know is that the only attribute common to all atheists is that theists disagree with us. From the perspective of some, you are the disagreeable one who needs to be told not to state your belief.

[MineralMan]

56. No, not really.

If I state my belief that all religious belief is superstitious nonsense, I am doing nothing more than you saying that you believe in some deity or another.

I don't take umbrage from your belief. Why do you take umbrage from my disbelief? The two are equivalent statements.

I don't hope for you to disbelieve, since I don't care one way or another about your perceptions regarding something I don't believe. Yet, I suspect that you hope for me to believe as you do. Some of your co-religionists go further and work hard to make me conform to their belief system.

It's an unbalanced equation.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

97. Close to equivalent statements, but not quite

The words "superstitious nonsense" could be taken as prejudicial words by some, but simply saying "you believe in some deity or another" does not contain prejudicial terms. I think to make them equal the latter sentence would have to say something like this: "My deity is the only one and all who don't believe in it are deluded, or stupid, or condemned to hell." Then these statements are equivalent, I think.

[MineralMan]

146. Tu as raison.

[angrycarpenter]

40. When you hear a "hateful" comment on religion.

It usually in response to religious hate or ignorance. I would challenge you to find anyone here who has a problem with individual people going to church and practicing their faith. The problem comes when they try to impose their beliefs on secular matters. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. There are faith based groups all over that are actually political organizations who are actively trying to remove and curtail many of our our freedoms. Politics has no business in church and church has no business in politics. There is little criticism here until someone crosses that line that is written into our constitution.

[frebrd]

69. I'd love to get into this, but......

I make it a policy never to feed trolls.

[BurtWorm]

71. I'd probably argue with her about what she believed.

I wouldn't be happy, but what else could I do but argue with her. And accept her.

[Beetwasher]

75. When Did You Stop Eating Babies?

Just wondering.

[Meshuga]

78. I am not an atheist but I would be heartbroken

The focus of my religious tradition is not so much belief but continuity. So my children becoming Christians would suck in my point of view. Of course I think my kids are free to follow the path they wish to follow so if I am one day heartbroken I would only have myself to blame for not making our shtick palatable enough.

So my approach is to teach my kids to be skeptics and to reject conventional belief since my best bet is to gear them toward non-belief because even if they end up being atheists they could still follow their heritage.

[endersdragon34]

196. And this is what I worry about

What kid ever wants to break their parents heart... your kids don't have a choice in the matter.

[WhollyHeretic]

80. I also am curious (question for trolls)

Have you ever heard of the search function?

[cynatnite]

89. Very useful feature...especially, in this instance. n/t

[PassingFair]

83. My daughter announced that she wanted to become Jewish when she was 10....

After 6 months of study, interviews with
Jewish friends and deep thought, she told me she was
ready to make the commitment.

I told her that when she was eighteen, I would
happily take her to the temple to join the
religion.

That's when she said....

"EIGHTEEN!!!That's TOO OLD to have a Bat Mitzvah!"

(She had been angling for a party with LOTS
of money and presents.....)

She frequently tells people that she is Jewish
or Muslim, just to avoid stigma and/or stir up
trouble.

[Meshuga]

95. Lucky for you she won't be getting a Bat Mitzvah

Those could get really expensive.

[PassingFair]

106. That was her diabolical plan.... n/t

[Meshuga]

114. She is very clever.

:-)

[cynatnite]

98. I like her thinking. n/t

[Jokerman]

124. If my children decided to become christian...

I'd slaughter them like hogs.

That's what you wanted to hear as a reply to your dumb-ass flame-bait post, isn't it?

There, you got it. Now run along and tell everybody about those EVIL atheists on DU.

[endersdragon34]

177. Oh well...

This is getting nowhere, but thanks to some of you for giving me hope... even if it wasn't there wasn't a lot to be found.

[WhollyHeretic]

183. C'mon. Stick around. There is pizza coming soon.

O8)

[MineralMan]

184. Off you go, then.

Your bridge awaits.

[RaleighNCDUer]

185. That's OK. You don't need hope. You've got Jaysus. nt

[varkam]

215. Have fun with your persecution complex!

Question for you though: since when did being a Christian require you to check your brain at the door?

[endersdragon34]

219. Thank you will do.

And its always been a requirement, didn't you read the pamphlets?

[varkam]

228. So why do you think that God gave us a brain, then? eom

[endersdragon34]

231. The devil must have did it

If you can't tell I am being sarcastic.

[varkam]

236. I'm asking you a serious question: If God did not want us to think, why do we have brains?

Isn't God more powerful than Satan?

[endersdragon34]

238. :rolls eyes:

Why am I asking questions if not to find the answers. Your just mad because I won't blindly follow you. Oh well.

[varkam]

240. I'm seriously asking you a question: Why do we have brains if God didn't want us to think?

Blindly follow me? :rofl: Your irony thingie is broken.

[endersdragon34]

245. Hello he does want us to think

And I am asking questions as a sign of thinking. If I suddenly said "Okay I believe in evolution" but had no knowledge of it at all, like 3/4 of those who believe in evolution do, you would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with me. Its because I have some knowledge of evolution and its flaws (however rudimentary it may be) and don't believe in evolution, that you have a problem with me. You could at least be honest enough to admit that.

[varkam]

247. What you're doing is not asking questions, as asking questions presupposes intellectual honesty.

You assume that I welcome ignorance so long as it reaches the same conclusions that I hold - which is incorrect.

3/4? Where do you get that number from? Seeing as how your admittedly rudimentary your knowledge of evolution is, where do you come off making that statement? Is it handed down from on high?

It's not that you disagree with me that I have a problem with you - it's that you're not being honest that I have a problem with you. If someone comes to me with questions, in all honesty, I will be more than happy to talk as long as they want. I do not believe that is the case with you. Why? For starters, you open up this entire thread with lambasting all atheists as people who hate all religion and think Christians are idiots. Then, it comes out that you're really just upset because you've been called an idiot for not believing in evolution. But, your "questions" as you call them are nothing more than Creationist apologetics ripped from AiG or your pastor or some other source as evidenced by your rigid inflexibility in discussion.

You see - people who genuinely have questions approach things with a different attitude than you have expressed. People who have questions recognize that they do not have the answers. They recognize and are repelled by their own ignorance, and seek to eradicate it. You, however, seem to have found all the answers that you require in the Bible - and anything that challenges those answers is seen as a threat to be demolished. So you wear the moniker of someone who is "concerned" and thinks that there are "unanswered questions" - except that for you, it's all a game. A game that you must win, as your world-view depends on it.

You could at least be honest enough to admit that.

[endersdragon34]

249. So all dialogue should be stopped

Honestly that number was just pulled out of my ass, if you want to suggest another number that would be fine with me. I actually do want to challenge my belief structure, so I need some of your help to do that. Though I don't see you as being that much different then the person you are describing. Do you ever question evolution?

[varkam]

254. Shocker - that's actually not what I had written.

And no where did I even claim that your particular brand of dialogue be stopped, either. Rather, you're free to continue engaging in it just don't expect others to believe that you are engaging in such dialogue earnestly.

I actually do want to challenge my belief structure, so I need some of your help to do that.

Here's the thing: I do not believe you. You may very well be telling the truth, but your behavior and attitude has led me to conclude otherwise. I have had many conversations in the past, both with people asking honest questions and trying to deal with doubt, as well as with missionaries and apologists. You do not seem to fit the bill very well for my experiences with the former, but to a tee the latter.

If you merely wanted to challenge your belief structure, you need do no more than pursue an education (and by education, I don't seminary). Regardless of what your belief structure is, you will undoubtedly find it challenged by the multitude of ideas that are in existence.

Though I don't see you as being that much different then the person you are describing. Do you ever question evolution?

Well, except that there's one major difference - my conclusions are informed by tangible evidence as op. I do not question evolution because the evidence supporting it is so strong. At this point, it really would be akin to asking "Do you ever question gravity?"

Of course, I leave the door open that I may be wrong. Should evidence come around that throws the theory on its head, then we adopt a new theory to explain the new evidence. That's one of the things that makes scientific investigation so great - it is self-correcting. Do you leave the door open to the possibility that you might be wrong?

What evidence would make you abandon your creationist credo?

[endersdragon34]

261. Hmmm I am not sure

Though it is interesting that you admit that evolution could be wrong. That is something very few are willing to do. (Looking a bit at most of the books that were suggested to me as much as proves that). It gets tiring after a while listening to people say that science has never been wrong, just incomplete, gets annoying after a while...

Gravity is also testible are varifiable... as much as you might claim otherwise evolution isn't. There is no way to test it... well at least not without seeing it in action over billions of years (or at least millions). You can try to claim short-term evolution makes it real, but short term evolution mainly involves traits that have already been seen, not creating traits that have never seen seen, like bone structure (I really still do wonder how sexual organs were created... I mean what would have been their purpose... other then the obvious, sicko ;) :-p jk).

Beyond that, I could come on here, have a bit more fun, and actually challenge my beliefs the way I want them challenged (so addressing my specific problems) and still have time to read what I want to read (reading with me btw... doesn't work out so well... I can do it obviously but my comprehension skills never fully developed) or read a book by a guy who has called my type child abusers (hence how I created this topic ;) ) and not get to ask my questions just get to read his answers to questions I may or may not have asked... I would rather read my books on how to better educate kids that so desperately need someone who knows how to educate them... can you blame me?

[varkam]

265. .

Though it is interesting that you admit that evolution could be wrong. That is something very few are willing to do. (Looking a bit at most of the books that were suggested to me as much as proves that). It gets tiring after a while listening to people say that science has never been wrong, just incomplete, gets annoying after a while...

As I said, the possibility of evolution being incorrect is about as likely as gravity being incorrect.

Gravity is also testible are varifiable... as much as you might claim otherwise evolution isn't. There is no way to test it... well at least not without seeing it in action over billions of years (or at least millions). You can try to claim short-term evolution makes it real, but short term evolution mainly involves traits that have already been seen, not creating traits that have never seen seen, like bone structure (I really still do wonder how sexual organs were created... I mean what would have been their purpose... other then the obvious, sicko :-p jk).

"As much as you might claim otherwise evolution isn't"? More pronouncements from on high? Scientists regard the value of a theory on its predictive value, among other things. Evolution accurately predicted the placement of fossils in the strata - not a single one was out of place. Of all the loads of fossils that have been discovered, if even one was out of place then the entire theory would have been tossed on its head.

I still don't understand how you can make the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution seeing as how our bodies are nothing more than a collection of cells. Furthermore, that's precisely what mutation is (or can be, at any rate) - the appearance of traits that have not been seen before. You don't have to believe me - pick up your newspaper as you can see it happening right now. You're aware of "Super HIV" and "Super TB"? They're forms that don't respond to any of the known treatments (i.e. they have developed into a strain that, you guessed it, has never been seen before).

Beyond that, I could come on here, have a bit more fun, and actually challenge my beliefs the way I want them challenged (so addressing my specific problems) and still have time to read what I want to read (reading with me btw... doesn't work out so well... I can do it obviously but my comprehension skills never fully developed) or read a book by a guy who has called my type child abusers (hence how I created this topic ) and not get to ask my questions just get to read his answers to questions I may or may not have asked... I would rather read my books on how to better educate kids that so desperately need someone who knows how to educate them... can you blame me?

Again, I don't believe you when you say you want your beliefs challenged - for reasons already mentioned. Nevertheless, if you had a problem with a specific poster then you should have taken it up with that poster instead of broad-brushing an entire group of people (kind of ironic, when you were complaining about atheists broad-brushing Christians). Furthermore, I still find it very strange indeed that it seems a big part of your issue was being called an idiot because you don't believe in evolution, and yet in your OP you made it seem as though you were called an idiot because you were a Christian. In my mind, there's a mighty big difference between the two. Belief in God doesn't make you an idiot.

And if you're going to be educating children, I fear for the intellectual state of our next generation.

[endersdragon34]

268. Okay can I just say **** you?

Is that allowed here? If not oh well. I don't teach science, so what does it matter if I believe in evolution. Then you call me an idiot, thats nice of you. Just love that liberal atheist tolerance. Makes me feel so warm inside.

And (at least to me) there is a difference between a disesee developling resistances (albeit at a super rate) and developing bone structures where had never been seen before (or sexual organs when they served no purpose whatsoever and probably wouldn't breed out). I mean isn't that what they do all the time is adapt to drugs and "learn" how to fight them off.

And not one fossil is out of place... seriously... I only looked a little bit online, but it seemed there was a good deal of evidence that there has been 100s of fossils out of place (that we know about). Seriouly not one? So if I can prove that just one fossil was out of place, you will give up on the theory of evolution... okay.

[varkam]

282. Owie. My poor wittle feewings.

Is that allowed here? If not oh well. I don't teach science, so what does it matter if I believe in evolution.

In my opinion, it matters very much. I wouldn't want someone teaching my kid science who doesn't believe the holocaust happened just as I wouldn't want someone teaching my kid civics who thinks evolution is a bunch of bull. I would prefer teachers to have a mastery of critical thinking abilities and not to be so hobbled by their own personal beliefs that they are unwilling to change in the face of evidence.

Then you call me an idiot, thats nice of you. Just love that liberal atheist tolerance. Makes me feel so warm inside.

I never called you an idiot - but hey, if the shoe fits...

In all seriousness, I don't think that you're an idiot, but I think that you believe in some very idiotic ideas. There is a difference between the two.

Oh, and I'm not an atheist, but I appreciate your continued assumptions.

And (at least to me) there is a difference between a disesee developling resistances (albeit at a super rate) and developing bone structures where had never been seen before (or sexual organs when they served no purpose whatsoever and probably wouldn't breed out). I mean isn't that what they do all the time is adapt to drugs and "learn" how to fight them off.

So you admit that we see evolution occur all the time with illnesses? We've never seen those structures before. When the first hydra possessed that single cell that could differentiate between light and dark, it had never been seen before, either. Why would sexual organs serve not purpose? Again, just because you don't understand something...

And not one fossil is out of place... seriously... I only looked a little bit online, but it seemed there was a good deal of evidence that there has been 100s of fossils out of place (that we know about). Seriouly not one? So if I can prove that just one fossil was out of place, you will give up on the theory of evolution... okay.

Give me a source - and it had better be reputable.

[endersdragon34]

296. Holocaust deniers... people who don't believe in evolution

Yea totally equatable. And you say I am just imagine persectution. After that I just ignored the rest. Use some critical thinking of your own there.

[varkam]

321. You ignored the rest? Why am I not surprised.

Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

Oh, and if you're going to cry persecution, please use correct english.

"Halp! I'm being persecuted in a thread that I started to bash atheists!" :rofl:

[WhollyHeretic]

284. I would be frightened if a creationist was teaching my son.

It shows an utter lack of critical thinking skills.

Do you believe the bible is literal?

[endersdragon34]

295. Oh yes we are going to get him!

He will join the dark side! We got cookies.

[WhollyHeretic]

299. I'm guessing you don't leave the house much so I'm not too worried

[endersdragon34]

301. Well I am not currently a teacher

Still need to finish my masters in special education, which I consider far more important then other studies being suggested here. Still just a college student.

[WhollyHeretic]

302. How are you liking Liberty University?

[endersdragon34]

304. Never went there

Though I love your bigotry suggesting that is the only university that would take me. Do you hate orthodox Jewish people too?

[WhollyHeretic]

305. I just don't like trolls.

Really isn't there anything better for you to do with your time than troll. Why don't you run back to freerepublic.

[endersdragon34]

306. I am quite liberal in many of my views

Do you really want me to stop that? I just don't believe in evolution and get tired of the bias against religious people I see in here. So do you hate Orthodox Jewish people too... you seem like an anti-semite to me.

[WhollyHeretic]

307. You are? Do you support gay marriage?

[endersdragon34]

308. Sortof

I think we should just get rid of the debate by calling it civil unions no matter whos doing it. Thats how most European countries seem to do it and it seems to work quite well. You get a civil union at the courthouse, you get a marriage at the church. That a liberal enough viewpoint for you?

[WhollyHeretic]

309. No. It's an idiotic idea with no hope of success. I've also seen your other posts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3738887#3762917

I did a quick search and amazingly every post of yours I found had you bashing liberals. Now why would that be? hmmmm...

[endersdragon34]

311. I didn't say I am a liberal in everyway now did I

And whats wrong with that idea and why hasn't it failed in Europe? Most Americans will never support marriage for homosexuals. Polls consistantly show that. This is the only strategy with a hope of working. BTW I am more Libertarian in my viewpoint, for example I think voting for a 1.75+ trillion (I think it will be closer to 2 trillion) dollar deficit is dumb. I think being against charter schools that are many aspies/gifted kids/twice exceptional kids only hope of a good education is dumb. And I think discriminating against religious people that don't believe everything you believe is dumb. Other then that you would be amazed at what I believe.

[WhollyHeretic]

313. How about the worldnutdaily article you posted?

Are you also a global warming denier?

[endersdragon34]

315. I make things work with whats around me

I don't think saying the sky is falling is going to help anyone first off. Beyond that with bees being extinction because of hive death and the yellow sand crisis in China huring people all over south east Asia right now... I think more money and more attention should be paid to those crises. Beyond that the past 5 years have shown a cooling trend (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/pronouncement-global-warming%E2%80%99s-demise-thin-ice), yes its not enough but maybe we should see where it goes. If the next 5 years continue to cool do we still assume the sky is falling. Basically lets worry about current crises first, they worry about things that are 100s of years away from crisis level.

[WhollyHeretic]

318. Got it. Creationist and global warming denier

[endersdragon34]

319. LOL

Way to totally ignore everything I say. Ever been to Korea, yellow sand is pretty bad, towards the end of my 5 month stay there (I assume when the winds were getting worse) I couldn't hardly breathe at all when I was outside for very long. I had a prof. over there whos wife and son live here in America because his breathing was getting that bad (which of course is not an option for everyone). Where is all of the money to figure out this health crisis. And beyond that bee extiction is said to be able to start an effect that could result in millions/billions of deaths by starvation. Where is the money to figure out how to pollenate plants without bees (or otherwise figure out how to stop this extinction). No we are just funding global warming research... I am sorry something seems wrong there. BTW where did I ever say I was a creationist... I don't think I ever once said that, I have said I doubt evolution... but not that I believe in creationism.

[WhollyHeretic]

320. Umm... let's see. You are spouting every creationist talking point?

[endersdragon34]

326. Yeah that got from some website/book/whatever that I have never even heard of

I don't believe in strict creationism either btw. I just don't fully believe evolution. Only you have a problem with that.

[TZ]

253. You have no knowledge of evolution my friend.

You clearly believe that evolution=darwinism=exobiology. No where do I see any knowledge of the field of genetics which is the foundation of evolution. I would say the 4/4 creationists don't understand evolution...

[endersdragon34]

258. LOL

And all evolutionists do? Sometimes you guys are funny. And I am sorry I don't believe traits can just pop out that have never been seen before (there has to be a beginning everywhere).

[varkam]

260. And do you see why I don't believe you?

[endersdragon34]

263. This above all, to thine ownself be true

I have to be intellectually honest with myself so when you guys start talking about "minute changes" and "slight variations" regarding genetics... it doesn't add up to me.

[varkam]

266. I didn't think you would. eom

[TZ]

278. I would suggest you take a class in evolution

I studied several semesters of pure evolutionary biology. Plus a course in genetics. And then maybe you will understand the concepts of mutation, and genetic drift along with a correction of your misunderstanding of what natural selection is and how it works.
Understanding the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium which describes and predicts genetic changes in a population would be helpful too.

[endersdragon34]

317. I would argue with the professor you know

Just saying, not like I can take it anytime soon (trying to get out of college ASAP) but sure I will take it eventually, but I will not just blindly follow the professor. I will ask him all the same questions I ask in here.

[SpiderMom]

362. I think that could be a good thing...

I took several biology and animal behavior classes in college, and my professors would have loved to go toe to toe with you on this. I had classmates who stated that they believed fossils of dinosaurs were put on Earth by Satan, and the professor was more than willing to discuss that with them.

The professors I had wouldn't have been upset by you, but they certainly would have debated with you and done their best to answer all of your questions.

[TZ]

405. and they would answer all your points

AFTER they made sure you understood the sound theories and math and genetics that underlie the science. Because, you really can't argue about evolution till you understand it. And its very apparant to me, you don't, yet understand it.

[endersdragon34]

264. P.S.

Your a Washington Nationals fan critizing someone elses knowledge... you have no knowledge of baseball whatsoever! LOL JK (sorry Braves fan here... yea I know we suck... but we still can kick your butt! lol, beyond that I am a Cowboys fan (from Iowa) so I hate your Skins too... with a burning passion of a 1000 suns). And just curious, did you really go through all 100 (maybe) posts of mine. Impressive if you did.

[TZ]

279. Not all. Just the ones that address evolution.

There are many other points here that I disagree with, but the evolutionary arguments are fodder for me, I've heard them and rebutted them enough.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

274. I have a question: Do you think not believing in evolution is a requirement for being a Christian?

[endersdragon34]

285. No not really

I just don't, there is nothing in the bible that says its a requirement, I just don't believe it. Not saying I believe a strict creationist outlook either.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

289. You make that implication in post #34.

And varkam's reply in #32 is the correct one.

The vast majority of Christians don't reject cold, hard, proven facts.

YOU do. You get flak for THAT, and every bit of it is richly deserved.

Creationist == flat-earther.

[endersdragon34]

297. I know something about evolution

I don't believe it... the vast majority of Americans know nothing about evolution, do believe it. And I reject that evolution has been proven or can be proven. When I see an animal start to develop bone structure then I might believe it more.

[varkam]

325. Again, where are you pulling the "the vast majority of Americans" crap from?

"When I see an animal start to develop bone structure then I might believe it more."

When you see it? As with your own two eyes?

[endersdragon34]

332. Or hear about it in a scientific journal

Every species is constantly going through evolution right. Shouldn't all invertabraes be going though evolution to... why are none developing a bone structure in the way described on here. There should be tons of animals developing this bone structure as we speak, you know one of the "innumberable" transitional animals. And you seem to think that anybody who understands evolution has to accept it as fact, only 40% of Americans accept it as fact ( http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html ) and presumably some percentage (even a small percentage) could accept it as fact despite never doing any of the things suggested to me... so I will go with 70% of Americans not understanding evolution. Hows that?

[varkam]

336. You do realize that evolution is a process that takes place over millions of years, right?

As in: not in your lifetime? You're basically setting up an impossible standard.

40% isn't the "vast majority of Americans." It has been a while since I have taken a class in statistics, but I'm pretty damn sure that 40% is less than even a bare majority, let alone a vast majority.

I still don't see where you're getting your 70% figure, I mean aside from pulling it out of your ass - but sure. And you're one of them.

[endersdragon34]

339. Over millions of years yes...

But one animal should have started say 500,000 years ago (and yes I know I am taking the number too literally but you get the point). So one animal should be in the process of developing a bone structure but not be there yet. There should be an animal like described earlier that we can tell has started to localize calcium rich tissues (as I believe he put it) but not have a bone structure yet. Find me that animal.

60% don't believe in evolution as fact (either don't know or are against it). Then unless you claim that everyone who believes in evolution knows that much about it (we can do a little poll here if you wish) then that number should go up a bit right?

[varkam]

342. Wow...just wow.

Why "should there be" such an animal, Doctor?

I don't even know what this means:

60% don't believe in evolution as fact (either don't know or are against it). Then unless you claim that everyone who believes in evolution knows that much about it (we can do a little poll here if you wish) then that number should go up a bit right?

I would be willing to wager that the people who do accept evolution know more about it than the people who do not. I feel quite comfortable in that assertion, as evidenced by our conversation here as well as my prior engagements with creationists and other flat-earthers.

[endersdragon34]

344. Every species is always evolving

And for the exact same reasons that it was beneficial back billions of years ago it would be beneficial now. The species with that mutation would breed out at a higher rate and would continue to develop that trait though more and more mutations. So there should be a species starting to develop a bone structure but not be fully there.

And 60% is from the website I gave you. And you don't think that there is one person with no more then a high school education that believes in evolution.

[varkam]

346. Please proof your posts before submitting them.

It is already hard enough to try to make out what you're claiming without having to wade through three or four typos and misspellings per post. I am dyslexic as well, and being dyslexic does not affect your ability to proof your work.

And for the exact same reasons that it was benefitial (sic) back billions of years ago it would be benefittial (sic) now.

Is that so, Doctor? And why is that? Is that because the environment is the same now as it was billions of years ago?

The species with that mutation would bread (sic) out at a higher rate and would continue to develop that trait though more and more mutations.

That's a whole mess of assumptions.

And 60% is from the website I gave you. And you don't think that there is one person with no more then a high school education that believes in evolution.

Earlier, you had said "the vast majority of Americans don't know anything about evolution and do believe it." Then, you posted that 40% of Americans believe in evolution. 40% is less than 50% (or even something like 70% or 80% - to constitute a "vast majority"). The "vast majority" of Americans do not accept evolution. As I posted above, I'm willing to bet that the people who do not believe in evolution have a greater concentration of misconceptions concerning evolution than people who do accept evolution.

And I am certain that there are people with little education that do accept evolution - I know one of them. Unfortunately for you, you're conflating schooling with intelligence and knowledge. While there is generally a correlation, I know many college students who wallow in their ignorance like a pig wallows in its own shit. I also know at least one high school drop out who is extremely intelligent and is self-taught. In fact, people who I know that have been self-taught seem to be, on average, more intelligent than people I know who pursue their master's degree in education.

[endersdragon34]

347. So it wouldn't be beneficial now?

BTW I edited it, sorry, am a bit tired now. A higher calcium density wouldn't protect an animal from predators now but it would back then. That doesn't seem true to me. What would be the harm in developing a bone structure that didn't exist back then?

And I suppose I was wrong there, so sue me.

[varkam]

349. And more argument from ignorance.

I don't understand it, therefore it is false.

And I suppose I was wrong there, so sue me.

Unfortunately, terminal ignorance is not a colorable claim under tort law.

[endersdragon34]

353. So explain it to me so I do understand

Why are bones structures not beneficial now.

[varkam]

355. That's not the claim.

And I have neither the time nor the patience to explain it to you so that you do understand. I have no reason to believe that any explanation that I or others can give to you is going to pierce your shell of self-imposed ignorance.

[endersdragon34]

356. Well thats nice, see you next tuesday

And please don't bother me until then.

[varkam]

358. Don't spam the board with bullshit histrionics, then.

Oh noes! The atheists! They are so mean!

[endersdragon34]

359. So I forced you to listen

I forced you to debate with me for a day? I forced you to defend your belief system to me? No you choose to do it, but it seems now we have reached the end of our debate, so I will see you next tuesday okay.

[varkam]

361. No - you didn't force me to do anything.

You are the one who wanted to be left alone - so I simply stated if you don't want people to be all mean to you, then you shouldn't engage in such sleight-of-hand tactics.

And defend? Please. Defense implies that something is actually under attack. In your case, you're firing so far off the mark that I'm not even breaking a sweat.

[endersdragon34]

363. Once again whatever, I will see you next tuesday

You insist on getting the last word in don't you. 10 bucks says you respond to this.

[varkam]

366. Next Tuesday is no good for me. How about Monday?

:rofl: I thought about not responding just to spite you, but then I realized I didn't care that much.

[uberllama42]

408. I've been advocating tort reform for a long time

Specifically because I think terminal ignorance should be grounds for a suit.

[varkam]

410. I was considering a career in public defense, but if that reform gets pushed through...

I might just have to go into civil litigation.

[cosmik debris]

331. Stupid evolution post of the year!

Once again you have shown that you know nothing about evolution.

Here is a clue: Individuals don't evolve, species evolve. It happens over many many generations, not while you sit and watch.

Your silly argument "When I see an animal start to develop bone structure..." is a straw man and a gross misrepresentation of evolution.

You are demonstrating the kind of ignorance that leads to the scorn of which you complained in the OP.

[endersdragon34]

333. Actually individuals within a species evolve

It is wrong to say that "species evolve" as that means they are evolving as a whole. That would apply that all dogs would stay the same because they all had a common ancestor. Yet my little cocker/golden mix is no wolf (though he does have some wolflife charactersitics). They are evolving many different ways, so to say the evolve as a whole is wrong.

And you are right that it happens over many many generations, but there should be one in the middle right. One that is starting to develop a bone structure (or more like 1000s that are starting to develop a bone structure) should be readily availble. Show me one.

[cosmik debris]

348. Not even close to the truth.

And not worth my time.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

351. he should have entered the "flies back to his flock" stage 100 posts ago. (See sig)

[cosmik debris]

276. Your posts in this thread exemplify the reason for

"the hatred of religion in here, and how dumb we must be for having belief"

You are the poster child for for the form religion that deserves hatred and personifies "dumb".

[smoogatz]

277. I can only speak for myself.

I don't hate religious belief or expression. I actually kind of admire the imaginative leap required to believe something as improbable on its face as the existence of supernatural beings that control our destinies: the difference between belief in Christianity and the Greek pantheon, say, is paper thin from where I sit. I do think organized religion is mostly a racket, designed to separate the ignorant and the fearful from their bank accounts, and I'm glad our constitution forbids the creation of a state religion or religions.

[humblebum]

374. When I was an atheist, I felt much the same way, then I

realized just how narrowly focused atheism really is. It takes into consideration only a single epistemology, while ignoring all others as being unworthy. The scientific method really cannot give any indication- NONE - as to the validity of religious belief - positive or negative, because it deals only with the physical nature.

[smoogatz]

379. You're conflating atheism and science.

Atheism is lack of belief in god(s). Science, to be a bit reductive, is the search for natural causes of natural phenomena. Science can and often does contradict elements of religious belief--like the notion, say, that the earth was created in six days, or that the universe is 6,000 years old. Atheism rejects the whole supernatural package, generally speaking. Of course, some scientists are atheists, and many atheists have a broadly scientific or rationalistic worldview. My feeling is that the extraordinary claims of religion are still, not surprisingly, unsupported by evidence. I think at best religion is a harmless and pleasant delusion--a lot like the old lady in my grandmother's nursing home who thought she was on a cruise. At worst, as I said, it's a racket--or it's Taliban decency squads, witch burning and the Inquisition.

[humblebum]

380. What I mean is what I mean, the scientific method as an

epistemology, when applied to scientific investigation, cannot in any way determine whether or not there exists a supernatural being(s). That is not the nature of scientific investigation. It is the nature of metaphysics, which is an entirely different epistemology. Neither atheists nor theists can make their cases based upon science. It is in the interpretation of the evidence.

[Tikki]

303. You're not curious about me....

You wouldn't even give me a second look...but, if I told you I was an atheist..
all of the sudden you are curious (interested)....No way....like the cat who thinks
he has a mouse cornered....you like to play. Because we know the terrain...we are the mice that just don't scare...
Follow this link to a site with lots of children you can worry about:
http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/


PS you don't care about my children, either. They are uncornerable nit



Tikki

[Deep13]

323. Okay, let's review your libelous assertions one at a time.

"Judging by all the hatred of religion in here..."
Okay, fair enough. As a non-Christian I am free to hate what I find hateful and to excercise my judgment to decide what is and is not hateful. Only Christians are required to "judge not" and I don't appreciate being judged by Christian religious standards. That's a kind of bigotry. Essentially you are saying that because I hate religion I am a bad Christian for judging those ideas.

"...and how dumb we must be for having belief...."
So, am I supposed to resist the temptation to take the bait you offer with a snarky remark? Frankly, the only idea I have about your intelligence is this self-description.

I have never said believers are stupid. Most believers take the Cartesian point of view and draw a line between their theological ideas and the materialist world. Consequently, most believers are more or less reasonable about most things. That does not make their ideas about god reasonable. I am critical of religious IDEAS and not usually of religious PEOPLE (unless they do harmful things like vote for Prop.8 or hijack airplanes because of their religion.)

"I am wondering what you would do if one of your kids decided to be a Christian."
In point of fact, I don't have any. There are 7 billion people in the world and I cannot think of any reason to make more. Nevertheless, I assume I would do what my atheist father did when I was religious or what my theist mother does now--agree to disagree. Besides, a child who is not indoctrinated at a young age will never be able to look at supernatural religious claims as normal or reasonable. So it is very unlikely that the child of a nonbeliever will ever decide to be a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew unless it is just going through the motions for marriage purposes.

"I highly doubt your kids don't get "brainwashed" into atheism..."
You obviously have no idea what "brainwashing" is. It involves systematically humiliating a person and making her suffer until she loses her sense of personal identity. The second step is using kindness to rebuild her ego around the captors' values or ideology. Frankly, this is text-book Christian indoctrination. Denial of the self, fear of damning sin even in ones thoughts, being unworthy of redemption and finally a loving saviour who sacrificed himself for the convert.

To the children and adults who do ask me about atheism, I do my best to tell the truth.

"I HIGHLY doubt they get exposed to any sort of belief system (other then your saying that Christians are idiots)"
I never claimed that Christians are idiots, and atheism is a lack of a belief system. My sister does not teach her daughter about religion unless she asks about it. When my niece does ask, my sister does her best to tell the truth. Obviously, it is the truth as she sees it, but she does not slander anyone. I have to tell you, my 9-year-old neice's response to the explanation is usually incredulity. She does not see how anyone can believe that Jesus was alive after he was dead or how anyone can be born a sinner or how baptismal water gets rid of that evil.

As Christians see every other religion as at least partially erroneous, my sister, my wife and I extend that view to one more point of view. Since religion is false, there is no reason to indoctrinate a child in any of those beliefs. They can study them for themselves when they are old enough not to be taken in.

"...but hey I came out of that sort of household and look at me."
Look at yourself. It is no concern of mine.

"So I am just curious what you would do."
Tell the truth. If I believe in anything, it is honesty.

[ZombieHorde]

343. My wife and I are both atheists.

Our eight year old daughter believes that all of the gods which people have believed in, or currently do believe in, were once real, but they have all grown old and died. Gods are an extinct species in her eyes.

I believe that she believes this so that both theists and atheists are correct, at least in her mind.

I actually enjoy her theistic/atheistic view.

you would do if one of your kids decided to be a Christian

Not much.

About a year ago my wife, daughter, son, and I were going to a restaurant on a holiday. I told our kids that the restaurant may not be open. Our daughter prayed to God for the restaurant to be open. When we got to the restaurant, it was closed. She became upset that God did not answer her prayer and told us that God did not like her (she was only seven then). I told her not to worry because God was only make believe and was just for fun. This made her feel much better.

[humblebum]

357. You probably shouldn't be talking like this around here.

criticizing atheism seems to be a quick ticket to censorship.

[endersdragon34]

365. Yeah but who cares?

Most conversations on here seem to be "I agree,...." "I agree...." "I concur..." it gets boring. Disagreements are healthy and neccessary. Ever watch Futurama, one of my favorite episodes was the election where there were two identical people running (and Nixon) "your 2% tax break goes too far" "your 2% tax break doesn't go near far enough" thats what it feels like here LOL.

[beam me up scottie]

375. ROFLMAO! "criticizing atheism seems to be a quick ticket to censorship" he says in post # 357

:rofl:

[varkam]

376. Zing!

[beam me up scottie]

378. I guess our obsessive need to be persecuted isn't as well developed.

They've perfected the formula over the years:

Start a thread in r/t accusing and insulting atheists then use their posts in their defense as an example of how angry and hateful they are.

Start a thread in r/t accusing and insulting atheists then use their posts in their defense as an example of how angry and hateful they are.

Start a thread in r/t accusing and insulting atheists then use their posts in their defense as an example of how angry and hateful they are.

Start a thread in r/t accusing and insulting atheists then use their posts in their defense as an example of how angry and hateful they are.

Start a thread in r/t accusing and insulting atheists then use their posts in their defense as an example of how angry and hateful they are.

Start a thread in r/t accusing and insulting atheists then use their posts in their defense as an example of how angry and hateful they are.

Start a thread in r/t accusing and insulting atheists then use their posts in their defense as an example of how angry and hateful they are.

Start a thread in r/t accusing and insulting atheists then use their posts in their defense as an example of how angry and hateful they are.

Start a thread in r/t accusing and insulting atheists then use their posts in their defense as an example of how angry and hateful they are.



And every one of the newbie hacks thinks they're being so clever and original.

:boring:

[saltpoint]

391. Any number of households are split on spiritual grounds.

Some very acutely split.

Across all our familiy trees, there's likely a significant variety of religious viewpoints and practices. A pre-Vatican II Catholic here, an intermittent Unitarian there, plus a handful of hellfire Baptists, agnostics, and the occasional wiccan.

I think generally speaking it's healthy for kids to grow up in a spiritually diverse landscape. For some years they are likely to hew closely to one or another model but many, as they become more discerning adolescents and young adults, begin to forge their own spiritual identities.

Some at that stage will turn to a model within their family tree or school or community, but may gradually migrate toward the library or book shop and choose a model from history's spiritual smorgasboard.

We no more know if they'll choose an atheist model or a Lutheran model or a Norse pantheon model than we know if it will rain the first Wednesday of next month.

[Random_Australian]

403. I wouldn't really mind if my children, or spouse, had a different religion.

As for accusations of hatred, you're not doing very well considering your claims against atheists.

[saltpoint]

407. I think people distrust hypocrisy and when they see it in political or

religious leadership, they open fire.

Cases in point -- Jim Dobson. Pat Robertson. Jerry Falwell. Anita Bryant. Phyllis Schlaffly. Tony Perkins. And right on down the list of religious authoritarian frauds and egomaniacs who litter the landscape of American cultural life.

Add Pope Benedict when he urges rejection of the use of condoms and asserts that condoms actually perpetuate the problem of contagion rather than help in reducing the contagion.

When religion is bashed here, it overwhelmingly tends to be in that context.

Politicians generally mocked tend, also overwhelmingly, to be Republicans as a general category and Dole / McCain/ McConnell / Boehner / Gingrich / etc. more individually, but also more understandably, than the generic Republican. I think Charles Grassley is just as objectionable as Bob Dole but Grassley is such a fumbling idiot that we just can't work up a froth against him the way we can against say, Lindsey Graham or Tom DeLay.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

413. Heh. I guess the final patr fo my sig has been fulfilled for this particular troll.

Now to clean up the bird shit on the board.

[Strong Atheist]

416. No kids ever, thank

dog!


:rofl: MAO!!!!!!!!!

[armyowalgreens]

418. You're not dumb for believing. You're dumb because you cannot put together an argument.

The OP is a stupid generalization of events that, I'm sure, never actually took place.

If you act like a stupid asshole, we will treat you like one.

[Name removed]

421. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taitertots]

426. Laugh in their faces

Then I would tell them I love them no matter what foolish choices they make. As long as they are not hanging with Fred Phelps.

Then I'd have a discussion with them about it, if I can't convince them then they are free to believe what they wish.