Humans Do Not Need to Comfort Themselves With Fairy Tales
A response to Peter Bowden’s “God, Atheism, and Human Needs”
Kelly O’Connor
Jan. 24, 2008
The idea that human beings universally need some form of mythological belief has been one of the mainstays of the defenders of faith for centuries. They claim that even if god doesn’t exist or religion causes violence and hatred, it’s acceptable because it makes some people feel better about the harsh realities of life. This is a multi-pronged deceptive ploy used to abdicate themselves from any responsibility for those actions and to keep people thinking that their assertion is correct.
Many people have either been raised without theistic belief or have abandoned theism and discovered even greater meaning and value for their lives. Peter Bowden assumes in his article “God, Atheism, and Human Needs” that proponents of atheism such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Onfray, and Dennett must provide “deeper insight into ourselves, our needs as human beings, and ways to conduct our lives.” In essence, a replacement for, rather than the elimination of, religion. Life does seem much simpler when all of the answers are handed to you on a silver platter (or aged papyri), but it eliminates the worthwhile exercise of introspection and discovery that one must engage in to formulate their own self-concepts, needs, and morals.
This makes Bowden’s claim that atheists are “[avoiding] a fundamental quest of the human race” even more absurd. Figuring these things out for oneself is infinitely more important, and difficult, than accepting an ancient dogma in its stead. Perhaps the reason why so many are opposed to self-examination is because it is exactly as I described it—exercise. It can be excruciatingly difficult to step outside of yourself, examine your beliefs, and dissect that which lies beneath your exterior. If one has been inculcated with the notion that whatever resides in there is dirty, depraved, and evil, that urge to integrate your beliefs and behavior will be furiously resisted and likely satiated with religion.
Being told that your worldview is incorrect and that it’s going to be a difficult process to regain your bearings once you realize that there is no grand plan for your life will often be interpreted as an attack. Even if doing nothing more than pointing out the harm that has been done under the auspices of piety, the news will not be received with accolades from the religious. Compartmentalization and rationalization (as in the psychological phenomenon) are fundamental aspects of maintaining any faith-based belief in the face of contrary evidence. Despite the common perception, it is not viciousness which compels us as atheists to speak out against religion. It is with the hope that we can help those who live under the ever-looming spectre of god’s presence to stop accepting the illusion of freedom and truly experience it.
Bowden points out that one of the charges frequently leveled against religion is its bellicosity. The reason that argument is so oft-used is because it is true. Religion has been the impetus for more violence than any other single reason throughout history. Was the acquisition of territory, resources, and power often a corroborating justification? Of course. Religion is unique, though, in the sense that it literally dehumanizes those with different beliefs, similar to the way that racism does. The adherents of a different religion are literally inferior to their opponents, and too often the drive to appropriate their land or wealth is intensified and rationalized by the division between the two groups. Evangelism has long been used as a cover for the usurpation of power from native inhabitants. After all, god would want to civilize the savages, now wouldn’t he? Certainly, religion is not the sole force, but it is definitely a contributing factor, and one that could be eliminated.
The two arguments that can be proposed to counter the case that the hazards of religion outweigh the benefits are the comfort and meaning it supposedly provides people and that religious groups may help less fortunate people. The latter is true, but only within certain confines. Missionaries who traverse the globe “helping people” often do little more than proselytize, and their aid may depend on your acceptance of their doctrine or willingness to attend church services. In the case of the catholic church in sub-Saharran Africa, it can actually be detrimental. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters may have similar prerequisites, although not all do.
Bowden asserts that “atheists are not into helping others in any organized way.” This is demonstrably false as there are more and more secular charities arising every day, but why would one expect there to be large charities funded by what essentially amounts to a non-group of people? Atheists are individuals with no churches and, until recently, little social networking. On an individual level, though, atheists are some of the world’s largest contributors to charities around the world. In fact, the number one philanthropist on Earth is an atheist. Ever hear of Bill Gates? How about Warren Buffet? That being said, I would encourage people to gather together and contribute in whatever way they are able, not to promote a group or a name, but to create a better world for every person. We are all united in the sense that we are humans sharing this planet, and that is infinitely more important than allegiances to imaginary dictators.
Bowden then comes full-circle back to the comfort/meaning/reason for living argument by claiming that we need a reason for being, that reason must be something “beyond the normalities of our daily lives”, and that religion provides it. First of all, I don’t know that making the claim that needing a reason for being is a fundamental attribute of human beings is entirely accurate, but it is plausible that most people desire that kind of affirmation.
This argument falls on its face in the next two steps, though. Why must this meaning be something greater than the daily activities in which we engage? Is life not made up of a series of days filled with these “normalities”? Normalities such as pursuing a career or education, caring for children, or just making it through this existence? What if there is no “greater purpose”? Will civilization suddenly vanish or will people adapt to being the agents in their lives instead of the pawns in a cosmic chess match? Furthermore, I will submit that religion only provides a façade of fulfilling either of the preceding “needs”.
Whether religion is an evolutionary adaptation making sense of a discordant existence or a spandrel of such processes, coming to terms with reality would only be the next step in our development. Holding on to the crutches that we once needed after the cast has been taken off is counter-productive, and as long as we do so, we will never run. Life can be frightening, bewildering, wonderful, and tedious. It can be mysterious, magical, and ordinary. It can be all of those things at once. Making up answers where there are none is not the solution, and in fact, prevents one from seeking answers themselves. Atheism is not the destruction of the quest for meaning—it is the necessary starting point for the journey.
- Atheist Volunteers
- http://www.earthward.org
- Atheists for Autism Research
- Online atheist community raised $3,555 in the last few weeks for a family in need.
- kellym78's blog
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
magilum
Magilum may not want to expond on this comment, and it is quite understandable because it has been, as a concept, beat like a dead horse, but I will expound.
Magilum is giving it no weight as an argument, as he should, for the same reason, "smoking cigarettees makes me feel good" is an argument. It may act as a crutch or an addiction or placebo but long term causes damage and isnt really good for you.
In laymen's terms, people do all sorts of superstitious things they think are harmless, but what is harmfull at a minimum, is the waste of time they could be putting to better use, and more often than not, what they think is helping them is merely a missfire and often quite harmfull.
The reality in laymens terms about why people believe in deities is not because deities exist, but because people project human qualities onto a fictional utopia. They are subconciously trying to excape their own mortality. Not accepting ones own mortality can shorten the ride or waste oportunities of finding ways extending the finite ride.
The missfire of believing in deities is not a sign of perfection or disign, it is a product of imperfect evolution.
I have to clarify "imperfect" because I know some theist dipshit will shout "AH HA!"
Life from a biological sense does not seek perfection, it does not seek to get better, although that can happen. Life merely seeks to survive and avantages are not a garuntee, environment and luck play a factor as well.
For example.
If I am in a dark ally, and I weigh 90 pounds soaking wet. And I am approached by a 250 mucle ripped guy with a knife who demands my wallet,.......if evolution were about perfection, the bigger guy would win always.....but what if I pull a gun on him and shoot him before he robs me? I have adapted. But it can also be that he slits my throat before I shoot him, in that case, he adapted.
Now, it is not about the strongest or the smartist, in terms of evolution. It is about the ability to adapt, and not always is it the strongest or the smartest, it can also be luck.
Evolution is a combo of genetics, envornment and luck and none of those hold a hierarcy over the other.
Evolution as a scientific study is not a claim of life seeking perfection, it is about how generations change adapt and die out or move on.
DNA is is the roadmap back in time that shows the overlap speceis have in common. Evolution explains why year after year we have to make new vaccines for the flew virus. It keeps adapting and changing.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
No give us a break ~ no this isn't hate mail
If you hold true that you can see no evidence for the above, I guess the next logical question has to be 'Have you ever seen your own brain? 'and if not, 'how do you know it exists?' Before you laugh too loudly , THINK .!
One does not need faith to know there is a God.
[email protected]
Actually, having had multiple MRIs, I have seen my own brain. Bet ya feel clever now, huh? Oh, and there was no time to do anything before I erupted into a hysterical fit of giggling at the stupidity of that comment.
Atheist Books
[email protected]
Deductive reasoning. We know through scientific and medical research that brains are needed to survive and that it is in our brains that all thoughts and bodily commands (both concious and unconcious) come from. Through that we can deduct that since we are living and (in some cases arguably) thinking, our brains must exist.
It requires no faith at all.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Now we get to it
Kellym has pointed out that given "millions of years and thousands of minute changes" a single celled organism will turn into a jellyfish. This is the leap of faith (and the fairytale) of the Evolutionist.
They admit that they have never observed the formation of a new species - yet they insist that animals are capable of such?
As I have constantly pointed out the theory that macro-evolution arises from micro-evolution has never been proven scientifically. It is a fairytale. They can draw pretty pictures and charts, but such is not proof of the position.
Kelly can make all the statements about this fairytale she likes, but such is not proof.
I am fully convinced of the scientific validity of micro-evolution: a finch remains a finch, a dog a dog, a fish a fish. Where is the evidence that a fish "over milliions of years" will become an iguana?
The Magic Wand of the Evolutionary Fairytale, as explained by Kelly above, is "millions of years." Hiding behind this phrase they claim they don't need evidence! And they claim that Creationists are "unscientific"?
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Yeah, there's no evidence at
Yeah, there's no evidence at all. Just fossils and red shift and a 98.9% of shared DNA between humans and chimps, but that's all nothing. What were the dinosaurs? The reptile kind? Why don't you go hang out at answers in genesis where your mental ineptitude isn't as obvious.
Atheist Books
Hm...
Hm, I always thought that human reproduction supports the theory of evolution. When the human male ejaculates into the female, complete humans aren't the product. Instead, the tadpole-like sperm have to merge with the egg in the female, which also, resembles nothing of a fully grown, or even newborn human. Only once the sperm and egg have merged do we start to see signs of a human being. Over time the organism starts to develop organs, limbs, etc. We are actually more like amphibians when we just start off. As a matter of fact, we even have gill-like slits for some time while in the womb called pharyngeal pouches.
Here is some info I pulled off a site about them:
The pharyngeal pouches that appear in embryos technically are not gill slits, but that is irrelevant. The reason they are evidence for evolution is that the same structure, whatever you call it, appears in all vertebrate embryos. Agassiz (not a Darwinist himself) said, "The higher Vertebrates, including man himself, breathe through gill-like organs in the early part of their life. These gills disappear and give place to lungs only in a later phase of their existence" (Agassiz 1874).
Darwinian evolution predicts, among other things, similar (not identical) structures in related organisms. That pharyngeal pouches in humans are similar to pharyngeal pouches (or whatever you call them) in fish is one piece of evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor.
That pretty much sums up what I am trying to convey. I'm not really good with words and all the technical shit, but I hope I was clear enough. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.
Proof not facts
Why the hostility? I ask for some observed evidence that Evolution is truth, and you climb down from the tree and make statements about my intelligence? Hmmmm And I am supposed to be convinced by you?
The problem with your statement is that you are attaching the "fairytale" to some random facts. Arguing in your fashion one could say that there are green men living on Mars. When asked for proof of her assertion she will point to Mars in the night sky and say "Look! There's Mars!"
Just because Mars exists does not mean there are green men living on it. Just because there are a few fossils in the ground does not mean that Evolution is true.
Fossils are evidence of flooding and rapid burial. An animal carcass left out in the open is quickly devoured and destroyed. This is as factual as micro-evolution. A carcass left out in the open for "millions of years" will not be preserved. The bones will dry and disintegrate long before the Evolutionist has time to read her fairytale into them.
Universal flooding is evidenced by the fossils, because we see the same plants and animals "fossilized" in Europe, America, Asia, and Africa. The evidence of the frozen Mammoths, whose numbers stretch from Alaska to Siberia, show instantaeous freezing in standing positions, and some with food still in their mouths does not argue for "millions of years" in the snow.
I am not interested in arguing about dead bones with you, because you will place your "fairytale" of macro-evolution on them in the same fashion as the "green men from Mars" argument. Such is not profitable.
97% sounds great! But given the complexity of human DNA we have a difference of 90,000,000. In other words, Ninety million changes must occur in a Chimp DNA in order to turn it into a human. No wonder mathematicians call evolution impossible.
You get your information from DNA hybridization, but this method is faulty in and of itself:
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/Dnahyb2.html
Also, Ape DNA has not been fully mapped. To make a "scientific" statement based on incomplete data is not rational.
But, then, according to your own views about "faith" I would not expect you to be rational concerning your religious views of evolution.
Recapitulation
Hey Kevin:
Thanks for the kind reply.
I think you are referring to Haeckel's recapitulation theory developed in the 1800's. The idea that the human birth process mimics human evolution has been discredited, and is not a valid scientific argument for evolution. Wikipedia has an interesting article on this subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
Only the most extreme evolutionists still "believe" that Recapitualtion is valid. Stay clear of these people, because they will lead you - like they did to Kellym - into fanaticism.
Projection and certainty without the supernatural
Kelly's article is a great rebuttal to a pedestrian – bordering on feeble – effort by Peter Bowden to sustain the inanity of the human need for divinity. In my view, after twice reading Bowden's, God, Atheism, and Human Needs, I found more than a hint of "self-projectionism" from Bowden's own words. His pathetic argument can be parsed into the loathsome mindset that the human condition is too weak to endure and too fragile to progress without certainty in the supernatural.
Bowden further presents the tedious and blunted proposition that without a system of conviction in inerrant deities, humans would simply be unable to tolerate life, much less press forward, flourish, or act in a benevolent way.
A careful reading of his own missive on why mysticism is requisite gives credence to his own and obvious doubts of religion and a monotheistic god who, as Sam Harris aptly states, "If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil."
A sampling of Bowden's own assertions adds proof to the posit that he is in denial of his personal doubt in a celestial, all-powerful being. Take careful note as Bowden proclaims, "That over history the greater part of mankind has sought comfort against the fear of the unknown is an acknowledged fact. That we also seek comfort in difficult times is human. These needs may well be the root cause of religious beliefs...We need to have a reason for being, even though we may be no more than an accidental emergence from the primordial slime."
Perhaps accidentally, yet blatantly, Mr. Bowden exposes his own paranoia of a life without meaning; a view that plants the looking glass firmly in the uncomfortable path of his own insipid search for a mythological deity in order to assuage his own consternation. "The need for meaning, for purpose, is a base to our identity," Bowden declares, before nakedly insisting that this alone justifies man's demand to believe in the inscrutable notion of an imposing deity and thereby broadcasting folklore as fact, superstition as superlative to everyone else who shares his strife. "Insanity by consensus" is a suitable description of this type of collective psychosis.
However, man has created many gods that befitted him and then destroyed those same gods; casting these once inerrant deities onto the scrap heap of history when "God" no longer proved useful or sustainable. History clearly metes this out – and Bowden authenticates this by virtue of his exhaustive lists of past and forgotten gods – but is repeated, failed attempts to ascribe an imaginary, paranormal force to the "meaning of life" prudent or even rational?
The answer can be found in another passage by Sam Harris, "The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors."
Frank J. Ranelli
CalvinandHodge
Have you ever actually witnessed watched a sperm fo an entire 9 months transform into an actual person? This is the leap of faith of the doctor, who expects a baby to be there at the end of the 9 months even though he didn't see the whole thing. Haha... stupid doctors. Doctors have faith, hahaha, I feel better now that I can insult people smarter than me by calling them names. The names I choose to call them are "faithful" and "religious" I use these names as insults because I recognize how insulting they are theat I embrace them. Haha evolutionists and doctors are full of faith! Losers.
GET TO READING IDIOT...
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common ...
Macroevolution: The Evidence
Evidence of Evolution: Fossil Evidence of Macroevolution
HERE IS A COMPILATION OF A FEW HUMAN ANCESTOR FOSSILS:
On Observed Speciation and Speciation Models:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Salamanders and Songbirds
More details on the salamanders, with additional links
London mosquitos
Another article on Himalayan song birds
Speciation by reinforcement
Lots of examples here
More examples
Speciation models
Links on examples and models
More on the London mosquitos
Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links
In Drosophila (fruit flies)
On Behavior, Reciprocal Altruism and the Evolution of Behavior:
Behavior models (registration required)
The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
Chimps show sense of fair play
Genes, altruism and evolution (with more links)
Reciprocal altruism
Kin selection and reciprocal altruism
On the Evolution of Complexity
Biochemistry
Evolution of human intellect and diet
Evolution of language
Music and the relation to language (registration required)
Evolution of religious memes
Bacteria flagella
Avida Digital evolution
More on the evolution of religion
Complex evolution in the laboratory
The eye
The brain
Your worried about stones hitting our roof? We're worried about the stones you're supposed to be throwing at our heads if you were a good christian.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Presuppositionalist
Looks like it worked on you. I mean c'min presuppositionalism? Seriously it's for the dumbest of the dumb. Worse off is your form comes with a pathetically overdriven sense of arrogance as you bolster around some of the most retarded and insane opinions the world has ever known. I'd love to hear you defend presupping, have you done so anywhere on the site. Have you read the articles by Todangst on the problems with it?
- An easy argument to refute: Van Tillian/Calvinist presuppositionalism.
- Ontological and Epistemological blunders: TAG
Fideism is for cons. They're cons to their parishes but worse off, cons to themselves.Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
CalvinandHodge
Why the hostility? (answered)
More proofs to shove in your dumb arrogant throat.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common ...
Macroevolution: The Evidence
Evidence of Evolution: Fossil Evidence of Macroevolution
HERE IS A COMPILATION OF A FEW HUMAN ANCESTOR FOSSILS:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
On Observed Speciation and Speciation Models:
Salamanders and Songbirds
More details on the salamanders, with additional links
London mosquitos
Another article on Himalayan song birds
Speciation by reinforcement
Lots of examples here
More examples
Speciation models
Links on examples and models
More on the London mosquitos
Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links
In Drosophila (fruit flies)
On Behavior, Reciprocal Altruism and the Evolution of Behavior:
Behavior models (registration required)
The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
Chimps show sense of fair play
Genes, altruism and evolution (with more links)
Reciprocal altruism
Kin selection and reciprocal altruism
On the Evolution of Complexity
Biochemistry
Evolution of human intellect and diet
Evolution of language
Music and the relation to language (registration required)
Evolution of religious memes
Bacteria flagella
Avida Digital evolution
More on the evolution of religion
Complex evolution in the laboratory
The eye
The brain
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
A rational response? Hmmm
Hi Sapient:
I thought that this was a "rational" website? Yet, Sapient breaks many of the rules of logic to make a point that is unclear. Where should I begin but at the beginning.
False Analogy: Sapient apparently wants to link the very real and empirical experience of childbirth with his fantasy of macro-evolution. A doctor can observe the mother, do ultrasounds, touch her bloating stomach, and do many other things that "prove" the baby in the womb. Is this the same with evolutionists? No. They cannot do any of these "tests" to prove their "theory." They have no observed evidence that proves their "theory" concerning dead bones (I will deal with Talk Origins later on.) A pregnant mother is a living feeling human being - a fossil is a dead bone that must be "interpreted" by the evolutionist. The two are not compatible.
I have constantly asked for evidence for macro-evolution. It is not my position to defend, but the evolutionists. Yet, I am verbally assaulted by an obvious ad hominen argument:
Sapient claims that he wants to "help people" in his profile. One questions this desire in light of shockingly bad behavior. The words are all caps that generally indicates he is shouting. Hmmmm Would a rationial man resort to shouting when asked for simple evidence for his position? Hysteria does not denote reason ... but ... ah ... hysteria?
What partially "redeems" him (if I can use theistic language) in my sight is that at least he provides links that attempt to defend macro-evolution.
Citing Talk Origins is like asking a Yankee fan, "who is going to win the world series?" I have shown in other links that evolutionists are less than honest about the "facts," "evidence," and presentations. Talk Origins is a prime example of such.
But it seems that Mr. Sapient must do some reading on his own. Because the articles in Talk Origins have been ably answered elsewhere:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
The reply by Mr. Theobald was less than expected. Instead of responding to the article, Mr. Theobald created a Straw Man, and attacked it. I would hope that the "rational" people on this site will be reasonable enough to condemn such a practice: Though my knowledge of human depravity does not give me much confidence in this direction - Especially seeing the poor manners of Mr. Sapient.
The old tired attempts by evolutionists to connect micro-evolution with macro-evolution have never resulted in any evidence that proves their attempts. They spin a fairytale around a few facts, and then ask you to disprove the facts. I will deal with one presented by kellym before.
If we are to assume that the claims of Evolutionists are true concerning the idea that Apes and Humans share 97% of their DNA structure, then what does this prove?
In order to prove his theory correct: the evolutionist would have to show how the Ninety Million (90,000,000) differences between Ape and Man happened gradually in exactly the right sequences over millions of years in order to differentiate the Ape from the Human.
Geneticists, however, have shown that those genes which are mutable do not affect the supposed "transition" between species - creating a jellyfish out of a single-celled organism, for example. Dr. John McDonald wrote:
What is he saying? That those genes which are changeable like hair color, eye color, and skin color "do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes." And, those genes that are argued as grounds for major adaptive changes, like turing the fin of a fish into the leg of an iguana, "apparently are not variable within natural populations."
In other words: Those Ninety Million differences between Ape and Man are of genes that cannot be genetically changed. I could fill this blog with countless statements from scientists that contradict evolution from all the academic disciplines. Yet, even the most stubborn evolutionists will not relent to the facts.
Because the evidence is soooo overwhelming - especially in the fossils - the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould had to think up another fairytale to explain evolution - Neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium. What he did was take a large step toward Creationism: The formation of species over a relatively short time is closer to the Creation accout than it is to original Darwinism.
I take it that Mr. Sapient is a "heavy-hitter" here, but if this is the best he can do, then I am not surprised that Atheism is intellectually bankrupt. At the end of his post he "screams" about the Bible. Yet, I have consistently said that I am not trying to "prove God" here.
Because you have to distort and deny facts - it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.
Using words like "reason" and "ignorance" and "idiots" does not make you yourself "reasonable."
CalvinandHodge wrote:
And your thinly-veiled insults were/are more appropriate ? And how does rudeness affect the validity of an argument? The hostility comes from the fact that having a conversation with people like you is about as productive as bashing my head repeatedly into a brick wall, but I do it as a public service. You can thank me later after your brain function returns.
Hey dumbass- a fossil isn't just made up of bones and carcasses - an impression left after the carcass has rotted is also a fossil. And depending on the climate and particular situation, a body can be preserved for quite some time.
" Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock. As the encased bones decay, minerals seep in replacing the organic material cell by cell in a process called "petrification." Alternatively the bones may completely decay leaving a cast of the organism. The void left behind may then fill with minerals making a stone replica of the organism.
Fossils can form in unusual ways. Small bugs or insects can become trapped in tree sap. Eventually the sap hardens and forms the semiprecious material called amber. In some pieces of amber the entombed remains of organisms can be found. Volcanic eruptions can form fossils when animals get trapped in the hot ash flows. In this case, the fossil is a hole in the shape of the animal."
http://www.scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html
Have you ever heard of this thing called "plate tectonics"? Some fossils are found over wider ranges--perhaps from Alaska to Siberia--because they used to be attached. If you are really this uninformed an/or stupid, I'm wasting my time trying to help you.
Atheist Books
CalvinandHodge
Yes but is the doctor watching the whole time? No. This is because he has faith, haha, faithynanypoopoo. Doctors have faith, so do atheists, and we're all just as dumb as you. Feel better about your weak minded self now?
Now if you weren't so fucking stupid you'd realize that most doctors don't get to watch their patients over the course of the entire 9 months, and that empirical experience you referenced are abundant in evolution.
In the two hours since I posted the above data, you obviously didn't finish what took me over a year to decipher. I'm not gonna show you which links get you through to find your answers, your willfull ignorance is obvious.
You're presenting fossils as if their the only proofs of evolution. Go watch the aids virus evolve, and then tell me why it didn't exist at the time of Noah. Then tell me it's only micro, so I can shove this pen in your eye.
Shut the fuck up dipshit I just gave you 30 hours worth of reading and I specifically used scientists actually using your bullshit term "macro-evolution."
I can't help you, I can only help people that want help. You don't want help, you're here to preach the word of your invisible friend and his insane sidekicks Dino Hovind Kirk Comfort. The closest I can come to helping you is the harshest and most accurate verbal assault you've ever gotten. You're getting plenty of the kindness from the other folks around you who don't have as short of a fuse for stupidity. You need to be told just how fucking stupid you are. But further than being stupid you are willfully stupid. You are purposefully ignorant. You find creative ways to dodge when you were just handed plenty of links to exactly what you ask for.
Do you remember these links?
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common ...
Macroevolution: The Evidence
Evidence of Evolution: Fossil Evidence of Macroevolution
This is just for you retard...
Here's another 135 videos that will help you understand evolution. I expect another stupid post from you well before you've grasped these concepts because you are willfully ignorant.
"There is nothing more infuriating than willful ignorance, a principle that too many theists seem to embrace." - SapientFUCK YOU!
Here want me to tone it down? {*LOWER pitch*} Suck my fuckin dick, you faggot. You happy now? - Eminem
If the person asking for evidence was asking for evidence that the sun is orange and the sky is blue and that person is ruining the planet with his stupidity then yes the most rational people would not only scream, they would do much more.
Yeah, you're used to it, I know.
You're citing "true origin," hello mcfly? Mcfly? It's the yankees, who's gonna win the series?
Actually had you thought to ask, I've browsed that site quite a bit. Thanks for not asking... I've read enough of that site to know they have no fucking clue what they're talking about. How ironic... just like you.
Now had you thought to maybe actually I don't know READ A LITTLE!!! You would have possibly come across the rebuttal to the piece of shit you submitted. Douglas responds to the shit arguments of your conman friend.
I take it that CalvinandHodge is a "nobody" here, and if this is the best he can do, then I am not surprised that theism is intellectually bankrupt.
Fuck you, liar.
Ok, even that was too stupid for me to respond to. I'll leave my response up to the late Stephen Gould who has this to say you about evolution...
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." - Stephen Jay Gould
None of this matters you know, coming from a moron.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Truth vs Evolution
Hey:
Tut, tut, children, I can understand your heated responses, because your "faith" in evolution is being undermined. I have said that I could fill this blog with statements from real scientists who have come to realize that Evolution is untrue. I also said that I was trying to kick out the leg of evolution from the Atheist philosophy. Upon re-evaluating this statement I find I do not have to, because the leg is so weak and wobbly that it will fall on its own. Below are statements from non-Creation "real" scientists who have evaluated evolution from their respective disciplines:
The Fossil Record:
To note: kellym's presentation of fossilization is generally correct. What she fails to realize is that such fossilization as bugs covered in amber are done rapidly. The animals are not given a chance to decompose. In regards to the worldwide phenonmena of animal fossilization where we find fossils on the highest mountains, the lowest valleys, and on every continent suggests a global flood.
And an evolutionary killer observation:
An open minded reasonable person will see the facts for what they are, and not what they want them to be. I don't think that these statements will "convince" those who are personally and philosophically committed to Atheism. Your problem is with God on a very personal basis. You use "evolution" as a smoke screen to deny God. But no "random process" no "natural selection" can deny what you know to be true in your heart. All of your sins can be forgiven in Jesus Christ. He says to you:
Come to Jesus and find rest for your soul.
Hey there,
Hey there, hodgepodge.
Where did you find all of these quotes? From a Christian apologist site? Let's see what you've got here.
Michael Denton, huh? Didn't you say we were talking about real scientists and not creation scientists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton
Oops!
Talkorigins even has a critique of his work:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
For one, Paul Erbrich is apparently a priest, so I'm already highly suspicious.
Second, a search for his name reveals that he recently met with a group of other scientists to discuss evolution with the pope, where he failed to convince anyone (if he was even trying to convince anyone) that evolution was entirely false.
Third, this quote isn't talking about evolution as an entire theory. It's talking specifically about the spontaneous formation of protein chains, which is more related to studies in abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution.
Are you even reading your own quotes?
Here, I'll repost the really good part of that last quote:
It's not an argument against evolution. It's commentary on the same bullshit you're trying to pull. You obviously didn't read this very critically.
Actually, it only suggests that animals died in all of those places. You also have to consider things like glacial motion and plate tectonics.
Furthermore, a global flood would be impossible because there is only a finite amount of water in our water convection cycle. There is no place for that much water to come from and there is no place for that water to go to once the flood is over.
Furthermore, if that much water WAS in our atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure would rise to such intense levels that all life would have been crushed into pancakes (after our lungs exploded, of course). So a global flood wouldn't have gracefully peppered the planet with fossils, it would have destroyed them beyond recognition by grinding them into powder and mush.
Furthermore, a global flood could not have cleverly deposited fossils into an uncanny order of descending complexity BENEATH THE EARTH.
Furthermore, if there had been a global flood, geologists would be able to find a world-wide deposit of marine sediment, which has been looked for, and it doesn't exist. However, they did find an extremely large deposit of marine sediment (suggesting a very large--but far from global--flood) in the same area that mesopotamian tablets containing multiple versions of a story involving a man, a large boat, and an unusually large flood that kept him on open water for days, were also found.
Hmmm....
You should really be more worried about the evidence against your own beliefs rather than spending all your time cherry-picking quotes in an attempt to mislead others into thinking that evolution isn't true.
This quote is discussing the biogenetic law, which is a theory that is now discredited. It is not discussing evolution as a whole, which is a theory that has yet to be discredited, but very probably won't be.
Cherry-picker.
Nothing wrong with that quote. Too bad it hasn't been done.
Did you notice that part where he said "the successes of the theory"?
That was a good part.
Anyway, he's not saying that evolution is untrue. He's only commenting that there is less to say about how (speciation/abiogenesis) works. Again, this is much different than expressing reservations about the entire field of evolutionary biology itself.
The neo-Darwinian view.... of what?
This is why cherry-picking is misleading.
Orr doesn't argue against evolution, though he is very critical of some of the sub-theories put forth by others.
Here is some wiki info on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Allen_Orr
That you are a cherry-picker that probably copy-pasted these from other sites and that you like to hunt diligently for information that disproves the view of your opponent while failing to put your own views under the same critical light? I agree.
Atheism and evolution are not synonomous. There are plenty of arguments against Christianity that have nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. The hole you have to dig yourself out of is much deeper and hopeless than that.
It's hard to have a personal vendetta against a someone that you don't believe exists.
Again, evolution is not synonomous with atheism. This goes back to that thing I was saying about your failing to honestly look at the information on both sides.
A complete non-sequitur if there ever was one.
I prefer reality, thanks.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
CalvinandHodge writes
CalvinandHodge writes " Come to Jesus and find rest for your soul. "
but, I AM JESUS AIN'T YOU ?
Atheism Books.
CalvinandHodge wrote: Quot
CalvinandHodge wrote:
And until you let loose the rigid confines of your indoctrination and the chains of dogma that enslave you, you will never for even a single moment know how this feels.
Projection of this magnitude leaves one w/ nothing but very poor mental health.
"Philosophy is questions that cannot be answered. Religion is answers that cannot be questioned."
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Quoting the Bible?
You do realize that quoting the Bible to respond to an argument is in and of itself a logical fallacy?
You assume the Bible is true, and more importantly, you assume that the reader of your comment will assume it's God's word....
Hitting a brick wall
Thank you DuckPhup for an excellent explanation of evolution. The problem is that when such a well-put-together argument is presented, evolution deniers simply ignore it and continue on in their misguided argument, as CalvinandHodge did (I don't know how a theist can demand that you witness something in order for it to be real and not realize the blatant hypocrisy).
But the reply was not wasted. I'm copying+pasting it into a word document that I will refer to in the future (if you don't mind).
Yeah DuckPhup me too,
Yeah DuckPhup me too, and don't forget your silly side too. Getting drunk with Duck would have to fun.
,and hey, some fantasies are just too good to abandon,
"Kelly loves me,
I love Kelly
Oh Kelly , ..... "
( but that ain't no fantacy, I can feel the love! )
Atheism Books.
response "Prove to me that any of the..."
Jesus doesn't use magic. And how do you know what Jesus looks like? (by looking at your picture)