For those of you with HBO, they just released a brand new documentary by Alexandra Pelosi called Friends of God. Pelosi takes the audience on an unbelievable journey throughout the magical red-states of America where reality ceases to exist and unicorns roam free.
In this jaw-dropping clip, you bare witness to the insanity that is Buddy Davis and his Answers in Genesis Children’s Workshop. It is here that children are taught the facts of life. Children are taught that Jesus roamed the earth with dinosaurs and the Grand Canyon was created in a flash flood.
Now most of us have heard this all before. But what I find interesting here is the clear indoctrination of these children into a world where you don’t trust what you can see, hear, and touch. They are taught to trust the supposed word of God because the Bible is the history book of the universe.
Watch how clever Buddy Davis is in making evolution sound ridiculous. He uses goofy pictures and catchy songs to get these kids on board. Not once does he use reason, logic, or evidence to make his point. He is what all successful evangelists are. They are simply suave individuals with the gift of gab. They remind me in many ways of car salesmen.
I’ll be honest when I say that this video angered me. These parents are raising a generation of idiots and that troubles me. Look at the mother about two minutes into the video. Oh my God! I love her reasoning of why she believes in creationism. What a damn fool.
Related posts:
- Creation Science Cartoon
- Westboro Baptist Church: The Musical!
- Happy “Tree Friends” Easter Everyone!
- Happy Gai Jatra My Fine Hindu Friends!
- In God We Trust
February 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
My personal favorite part is when the women tries to explain why she it teaching her children creation over evolution, she says “it’s easier to explain to your children”. Yeah, THAT should be the criteria for truth. She basically said “I don’t understand it, so it must not be true!”.
Good luck to that kid who’s going to become a Biochemist/Creationist. I guarantee that if he completes his PhD in Biochemistry, he will have at least converted away from a ‘young world’ creationist.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Delusional and religious. I don’t see any contradiction or oxymoron there. Just morons, con artists, and victims of mind worms… It is the greatest con of all that these people have special tax breaks and privileges. Sometimes I think religions should be treated like lotteries and nationalized, so that the money of the reality-impaired could fund the state. Then the idea of a theocracy scares me.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I’m glad I watched “Inherit the Wind” last night, I feel like I was vaccinated from becoming infected by Ignorance and Bigotry.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I think the first guy was just bitter because he looks like the missing link.
I guess was pisses me off it that the mother says that Christians are persecuted my the “mainstream.” I’m sure that the same day someone else spouted off (perhaps on CNN) something about how this is a “Christian” nation.
Perhaps I am missing something. If I ask the question, “Why should us atheists shut up?” to me the answers “Because it’s bad that the mainstream persecutes Christians” and “Because this is a Christian nation” seem mutually exlusive.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I like the part where the kids were parroting answers about what they believed. Just keep saying the same thing over and over again, and you’ll get kids to believe it. Do kids actually know why? Not really. But once that idea is with them for fifteen years it won’t matter so much (for most, anyway).
Also, I always like to point out that the most biased groups are almost universally the ones to shout “Bias!” first. Just a thought.
And regarding the woman who said that Creation was “easier”: I think that sums up the entire reason religion comes into existence. It provides an answer when we have none. It’s simple, it’s easy, and it makes us feel good. Evolution isn’t perfect, and I’m sure some of the points in that “Refuting Evolution” book (one I’d certainly like to get my hands on) are valid. So if evolution doesn’t seem airtight, what do I do? Why, it’s God!
February 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Hallelujah! I am converted! It is all make sense now after I saw the picture of Chesses and Dinosaur. Creationism makes all the sense.
…runs outside… takes his pants off… falls into snow and makes but naked snow angels…
February 8th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
@Andrew
Still very early in the morning so I can’t remember if this is a dupe for here, but just in case not…
http://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/index.php?id=19
@I Are
Hmmm… Believe in Cheeses - I am sure there is a pastafarian joke in there somewhere :-)
RAmen!
February 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Hey Gasmonso! Long time reader, 1st time commenter here.
First, a little background. I, like you, was raised Catholic. They kept me convinced until I was confirmed, which means that my current belief system of agnostic (leaning towards atheism) will most definitely end me up in hell. :)
Anyway, the reason I’m posting is because of your observation here:
“He is what all successful evangelists are. They are simply suave individuals with the gift of gab. They remind me in many ways of car salesmen.”
Have you ever seen the documentary called, IIRC, “American Pimp”? It’s about pimps telling their stories, their past, about their lifestyle, etc. One thing I noticed in the documentary was the number of pimps who, after they became too old to convince women to work for them, became pastors! I’m not kidding. And if you think about it, it’s the same style of sweet talk, just with a different goal. Pimping the pews, haha.
Anyway, glad I could finally contribute. Keep up the good work, I really enjoy your site.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
That’s great, Gauge. I’m going to start referring to evangelists as spiritual pimps!
That makes Haggard both a pimp and a john…
February 8th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
“I like the part where the kids were parroting answers about what they believed.”
Kids parrot answers in school just the same way. Most people, even those uninfluenced by religion, who have an average US education probably don’t understand evolution and how it works. I have a solid idea that much of what we currently believe about evolution will be scoffed at in fifty years, much like what we believed about dinosaurs/early man fifty years ago is today.
I don’t believe that we have a good understanding of how we got here, not because of my religious leanings (I’m an Old Earth Creationist), but because the science is still so incredibly young. Believe what you want I think you’re probably about as far off as these folks (okay maybe you aren’t quite that far off).
February 8th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
True. I once read an essay about re-defining education as problem-solving exercises that would challenge kids with problems instead of giving them answers. That might be better. Unfortunately it should also be remembered that much of our early learning is done by simple repetition and memorization. It just really bothers me that it’s done in this way. I think teaching something like this is bad because it doesn’t evolve (so to speak). Science does, or at least good science does. To teach a value system such as a religion as the absolute truth, when different views are often in open conflict and have such major consequences, worries me. Science isn’t meant to be a value system, and the claims aren’t held as absolutes, so I think it’s more appropriate to teach. I’m not meaning to go against you here, but my own answer from before did need some refinement, which you pointed out.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
“I’m going to start referring to evangelists as spiritual pimps!”
I can see the Religious freaks slang allready
Yo, this spiritual pimp is passing out the mind worms to the kids here.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
forgot to add an actual comment……
I loved the sign “Darwin is dead, jezus is alive” the first thing i thought was “Yeah, he’s playing poker with Elvis, JFK and bigfoot.”
I learned that there are about 250million Americans who aren’t retarded.
The lady’s comments “It all makes sense” she probably means it makes sense in the same way the little babies are brought by storks.
Loved the girls remark “You probably didn’t study all the facts” oh please, there so much wrong with this statement, I don’t know where to start.
oh, where the hell does it say in Genesis men lived with dinosaurs? I wonder how he explain the simple fact that dinosaur bones are so much deeper down…
February 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Why not - from what you see in the news headlines, it sure seems like the clients and the congregation are usually one and the same people.
Same vendor, same customer, just a different product - but you’re just as screwed and come away with ‘worms either way :)
February 8th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Man, there just isn’t much to say about this video. It pretty much speaks for itself. I have to wonder how those people manage to survive from day to day with natural selection… Oh yea, we are no longer susceptible to that mechanic. Too bad I guess.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I love how that young woman toward the end criticized public schools for only showing “one side of the story”.
This clip should probably terrify me, but I’m actually kinda looking forward to the collapse of civilization that Christians are probably unwittingly catalyzing. Let’s see the meek inherit the Earth then.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
This kind of crap makes me physically ill. I am simply at a loss for words on how people swallow this shit with a big smile on their faces and then ask for seconds. I truly fear for humanity.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I think there is a lot of hysteria here. SO they have their beliefs and we have ours. No need to be so damn rude about it. I think if you are secure in your beliefs…whatever they are…you feel confident in allowing others to practice what they feel.
All I see on here is self-righteous bigotry. That will definitely not win the argument for us. Wise up some of you. You talk about intelligence and half of you can’t even spell! No wonder they have a following.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:29 am
yes greg, they have all came to this site and witnessed our foolish misspelling ways… The reason why we have a problem with it is because it teaches LIES. I really dont care if someone thinks when it come to religion, but when you start making statements like “dinosaurs and humans lived together” something has to be done.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:15 am
I am a “spiritual pimp.” I prefer to think of it differently, of course, but I do, for a living, help people find ways to live their lives with purpose and meaning - and it so happens that LIBERAL PROTESTANT Christianity is the path on which I am journeying and inviting people to walk.
Which means that I, too, find this video highly disturbing, perhaps more so than many of you who discount the Bible entirely. Fundamentalists who take the Bible to the absurd literal extreme and try to make it into the authoritative science, history, and English (because we all know that it came inerrant from God in the original King James Version…)textbook do violence to the contents that isn’t much different from the violence done to Jesus during his trial and crucifixion.
Jesus didn’t take Scripture literally. He saw it as metaphor, like generations of his ancestors before him. That’s why he used parables to teach important concepts - because metaphor begets metaphor. He also made no bones about setting aside portions of the Scripture that made no sense in his time, such as the Sabbath regulations. But he had reasons for doing so, unlike many of the worst literalists, who seem to think that “it is an abomination before the Lord and they shall be killed” means one thing with regard to a bacon double cheeseburger or adultery and another thing with regard to two men who love each other.
Anyone who is interested in a reasoned, faith-based approach to the Bible should read “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time” by Marcus Borg.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:11 am
What strikes me as odd, is the fact that no one here really defends evolution at all. Not only that, but you are so selective and vicious with your attacks. So time for some education:
1. Macro evolution, which is what you are all referring to is not really a science since it requires “faith” due to the fact that no one has ever seen one species change into another (does not science work on the premise of metaphysical properties that can be demonstrated and repeated). Neither can any scientist demonstrate one, just one, intermediate being, therefore to believe in evolution must take “faith.”
2. Natural Selection, the very evolutionary mechanism for change falls down at a molecular level. Since Natural Selection requires self replicating organisms for the mechanism to work. The problem is, one of the properties of a basic cell is DNA, which is information and not a self replicating organism (in other words evolutionists require DNA for Natural Selection to work–but DNA the blue print for life points to a intelligent designer). All order in our universe is evidence of a designer. For example, take a tall sky scraper or the statue of Liberty. You would never say that they just appeared out of refuse metals deep inside the earth would you? Or that they formed over long periods of time? They are evidence that an intelligent being(s) have been at work. This is what you see in the basic cell, with all it’s intricate parts and systems. Darwin himself said in Origin of Species that if his theories fell down at a molecular level than you should disregard all of his theories regarding evolution (read it yourself in Origin of Species - I have, so maybe you should research the other side too?)
By the way I am a proponent for micro evolution because it can be scientifically backed up with metaphysical evidence. Macro evolution is simply false, and requires a blind leap of faith into a “THEORY” that was never meant to be taken as fact. That is why it is called the “THEORY OF EVOLUTION”
Maybe you should all spend a little more time researching the “facts” in an unbiased way instead of bashing evangelical conservatives who have the right to worship the God whom they believe created the universe. By the way, what makes your source any more credible than a 2,000 year ancient text recording the beginning of time? This is probably what disgusts me the most, conservative evangelicals also have the right to bring up their kids how they want to in America. Do I tell you how to bring up your kids? That is what makes America so great, you can have different views and still live at peace with one another. So maybe conservative evangelicals aren’t as ignorant and uninformed as you might think.
Why don’t you all read a book debating both sides of the issue such as “The Battle of Beginnings,” by Del Ratzsch?
Then watch the DVD: “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life”
Could the real reason be for your disdain with the 2,000 year old Bible’s view of creation be the fact God says you are a sinner (Rom. 3:23)? That maybe you would have to live by His rules instead of your own if He is truly God? What about the fact you have to repent from your sin in order to come back into a right relationship with God (John 3:16)? The Bible says, “There is a way that seems right unto man but it leads to destruction…”
I suggest seeking wisdom from multiple sources, instead of your narrow minded bigoted responses I see above.
Food for thought huh…
February 9th, 2007 at 2:41 am
Fucking subhuman cultists.
“Nice job dude.”
February 9th, 2007 at 2:43 am
The biochemist would be useless.
Hopefully he fails his exams at any real accredited scientific institutions.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:15 am
Steady on dude, what next, “fucking subhuman down-syndromes?”
A lot of these people are not well. Some are plain stupid, some are schizotypal and hear the voice of god fifty times a day, and some (the Ted Haggard types) have Personality Disorders they probably acquired from childhood PTSD on encountering jesus camp.
Sure, a lot of them are con artists or are just being pig headed and obtuse. But post #21 above? It has the faintest tang of BPD about it. Probably not, but if it was, your comment would be way harsh and not fair at all.
Love the sinner and hate the sin, and all that…
February 9th, 2007 at 3:29 am
I am not concerned about the comments made, I kind of expected that sort of narrow minded reply without addressing the issues at hand. I am more concerned over the lack of consideration for the other view. That maybe, just maybe intellectuals out there like myself can believe in Creation with an ounce of intelligence. I would like to know who has an answer to the Natural Selection argument I made above? Rather than show your ignorance, I am merely asking for someone to tell me why I should believe what you stand for today? What scientific “fact” can you provide that proves the existence of macro evolution occurring and reoccurring in real time? Secondly, can solve the problem of simple complexity that requires every part of a cell to work and exist, including DNA, for it to work? Lastly, explain the existence of DNA using evolution and Natural Selection?
That is all I ask, from one intellectual to another…
February 9th, 2007 at 3:41 am
G’day there.
I think you missed the point genesis man. I don’t believe you understand evolution correctly. I will try to explain using your example of a skyscraper.
The skyscraper didn’t just appear, or grow and change over time. If you take a look at the history of construction, you will see that the techniques meterials and designs of buildings like these HAVE evolved over time. 1000’s, or even 100’s of years ago, people were not capable of designing or building skyscrapers. Materials like steel were not available so ancient bulidings were made from natural materials like mud-brick and wood. Over time the plans evolved, we learned how to make glass and metals like bronze and steel. We used these new materials in our designs and generation after generation of new buildings used newer designs as new materials and techniques evolved. After using new materials and designs, evaluatying what worked and didn’t work, we could evolve buildings through our own selection. As you can see, no single building has evolved, but over time, and over many different buildings, we have developed new techniques and materials that allow us to design skyscrapers. This is evolution.
We KNOW evolution is true because we CAN demonstrate that evolution takes place. Take, for example, the case of the hospital superbugs. Basicly, antibacterials antibiotics and other chemicals used in hospitals kill bacteria, virus’s and other bad stuff. Over time, some organisms mutate and can no longer be killed so new drugs must be developed to kill it. In the meantime it continues to grow rapidly and may infect many people. This is a simple form of natural selection that is demonstratable (even on the molecular level).
February 9th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Correction, that is an example of micro-evolution, you only use the resources God has given us to make similar things. I do not see any building materials turning into living matter like flesh do you?
Remember, I accept micro-evolution but you have not proven marcro-evolution on any level.
By the way, if you understand mutations properly, then you would be aware that there is no new information, it is in fact a lack of information that leads to the mutations.
Lastly, the bacteria flagellum for example has never turned into another type of bacteria. So where is your point my friend? By the way growing has nothing to do with MACRO evolution, make your point please.
Good try but insufficient
February 9th, 2007 at 4:04 am
I must say good night at this point… But the discussion has at least evolved somewhat ;o). night to all
February 9th, 2007 at 5:23 am
Genesis Man, please do not confuse the issues. Your question about “building materials turning into living matter like flesh” does not relate to evolution, but to the origin of life. The theory of evolution does not claim to answer that question, at least not in the form it was presented by Darwin. (Hence the name “The Origin of Species”, not “The Origin of Life”.)
Macro-evolution may not be “proven” in having been directly observed (it takes too long to happen), but I would love to hear an explanation of why species “appear out of nowhere” throughout the eons, if macro-evolution does not happen. Are you saying that whatever god you believe in occasionally decides to create a new species and add to the mix, just to see how it works out? One that just happens to share most of its genes and physical characteristics with a similar creature already in existence?
Your claim that macro-evolution is not a science also happens to be incorrect.
1. It deals with observable facts (fossilized remains of organisms).
2. It is testable, to an extent. (Example: Claim that species A evolved into species B through some intermediate species C that has not been found when the theory is formulated. Later, species C is found and is verified through carbon dating to be of the expected age, putting it after the earliest known fossil of A and before the earliest known fossil of B.)
3. In terms of falsifiability, it does present some problems, but since all alternative theories that I’ve seen presented require species to somehow appear “out of nowhere”, and fossil evidence suggests that new species appear fairly frequently, we simply have to wait and observe until this happens. If it does, evolution is proven wrong.
BTW, you should probably look up “metaphysical” in a dictionary some time. It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. :-)
February 9th, 2007 at 6:33 am
sigh, and yet another argument of wether evolution is true or not.
well, there’s nothing I can say that will chance your (false) view of the world, if you refuse to actaully read up on evolution itself, instead of adhering to what you _think_ evolution is about.
well as stated before your ‘evidence’ is just plain wrong, unfounded and not really thought about.
February 9th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Ken Ham (the man with the ghastly mutton-chops) is one of the most ignorant and deluded people on the face of the planet, cherry-picking and misinterpreting an extreme minority of data to support the literal biblical account of creation while overlooking the extreme (99.99 (keep going for many more ‘9’s)) amount of evidence that contradicts him.
He’s also the one building that multi-million dollar (I think 20?) creationist ‘museum’.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Really, it’s not our jobs to defend evolution. That’s the job of the experts on the topic. I think all of us who trust people to adhere to the scientific method instead of a carelessly tossed together compendium of ancient stories should stop trying.
We need to remember that criticism of evolution is NOT the same thing as a defense or support of ID or creationism. Let the creationist criticize all they’d like. If any of their arguments were credible, the evolutionary biologists would definitely work to fix or replace the theory. In fact, they ARE fixing it constantly already based on criticisms of other evolutionary biologists. That is the scientific method’s strength.
Genesis Man offers no rational defense of, nor evidence for creationism (I may have missed it as I did skim some parts of his posts). Until he does, let him criticize evolution. If any of his critiques are credible, I am certain that they are being investigated by the professionals.
To thefunrev:
Hello and welcome to the site! It is always great to hear from someone who is trying to claim Christianity back for the liberals. The focus of the religion in this country used to be about helping the poor, caring for family and neighbor, and creating a sense of community at the local level. I’d like to see the religion return to those roots and abandon the ‘holier than thou’ interpretation championed by the conservative evangelicals.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I think sidfaiwu said everything I was going to. And besides, we’ve done this debate before, at long wind. That debate can be seen elsewhere on the site. But to sum up my entire argument for why disproving evolution has nothing to do with proving creation,
“positive evidence”
I say no more on the topic.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Lets see if I can’t take up your challenge GenisisMan. I’m a computer scientist and logician by trade but I do have some biology knowledge from my collegiate days.
Macro- and Micro-evolution are not terms I have ever heard presented by biologists in their works as explanitory mechanisms. The only time I hear them brought up is when they have to address them.
Macro-evolution as you call it, you define as the change from one species to another. Micro-evolution however is given as the change in genetic materials, as presented by you. The whole of evolution however makes no bones about species and our human taxonomic devices. Evolution is simply the change in gene-frequencies over time by the mechanism of natural selection resulting in the removal of organisms not capable of coping with their environment and the proliferation of those creatures that are.
Now you say that Evolution would break down on the Micro-level as it requires a Self-replicating organism. This is however a misunderstanding of the genetic theory, and I don’t fault you for not knowing, since Evolution and gene theory are pretty complex subjects (heck, I’m referencing things to address this). The genetic level of evolution is not a break down since while it requires a replicating organism, the organism requires that there be a method of inheritence.
This is where the DNA and RNA comes in. And it doesn’t even need a desinger to achieve its complexity. Why is that? Not all order is achieved by design, just look at any crystal (diamond, ruby, calcite, ice), the simple ordering of molecules around a standard molecular pattern. DNA and RNA are themselves crystals, though they never really form into large structures. They don’t so much replicate as they play off of each other’s templates to reproduce themselves. Laboratory experiments have been performed showing that crystal formations, especially RNA (the one that does the copying), will tend towards the formations that will increase the efficiency of their replication. The arival of the Nucleic Acids may simply be the end result of crystaline structures undergoing this same process. This however is not a matter of evolution as the inheritor device is one of the requirements before evolution can begin. The arrival at RNA and DNA is actually part of the field of Abiogenisis, a field that main stream creationists have tried to link into the field of evolution.
You also speak of the “information” within DNA. DNA doesn’t really contain information as we would know it. It is a template by which protien structures can be formed. We are still researching exactly how the D-RNA pair facilitates the formation of the massive structures surrounding them. You then tie this to Mutation claiming that no mutations result in new informations. I suggest you look at Klinefelter’s syndrome, XYY syndrome, Triple X syndrome, and Polyploidy all mutations occurant that include the addition of chromosomes to the gene pool of the child.
Finally you bring up the bacterial flagellum, though I think you may be confused because your wording seems to take it as a kind of bacterial that could become a new kind of bacteria. The flagellum is a microcelular structure that consists of a rotary motor system turning the screw-like flagellum burrowing the bacteria through the water (I feel like I quoting Dawkins chapter and verse for this one). Similar structures have been found on other bacteria that are used to push out large protien structures from the bacteria’s walls, its not a large leap from twisting a convoluted protien crystal out of a body to simply twisting a protien around in a spiral using it for propulsion.
Well, I think I managed to address all your points Genisis Man. I welcome commentary.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Oh, and to thefunrev: thank you.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
heaven forbid someone teach there children something different from what you beleive *Gasps!
February 9th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Sure. It’s okay to teach your children that robbery is an acceptable way of life! What’s that fanu? You don’t believe that robbery is an acceptable way of life? hmmm.
Ok, lets teach our kids that quarters are more valuable than dollars! What? You don’t believe that either? hmmm.
How about this. People can teach their kids that Allah wants them to wage Jihad against all infidels. Not believing that one either?
Well Heaven forbid someone teach their children something different from what you believe.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Wow this opened my eyes! ^.~
I think I will go toke’n’smoke and go watch the Flintstones…so I can see how Jeebus lived.
I have nothing to say to this. These people are not even worth fighting with.
Darwin is my hero!
February 9th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
What a great debate. I was very entertained.
I am disturbed and mildly amused by the film.
Thankfully in England the Creationist movement is restricted to church and the occasional faith school.
In regards the origin of the species, life, etc,etc, I am still not clear why any religion is invited to the table to discuss their views.
The ’science’ of creationim appears to be very well written if someone wants to believe it.
Obviously its all rubbish, but these folks have had a lot of practice in convincing the masses.
Personally I can’t really be bothered to point out the floors in biblical beliefs, its so bloody obvious its beyond discussion.
What concerns me is that such ideas are inflicted upon young children in such a forceful way.
I wonder if their parents tell them the truth about Santa….
February 9th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
fanu:
Teaching children that evolution is wrong…or less harmfully, that creationism is on equal footing with evolution in terms of science…handicaps the child when they grow up. At a very young age you are already closing doors of opportunity that would otherwise be available to them such as biology, anthropology, etc.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Well…..what a bunch of ancient wisdom here from the skeptics. You willingly unbelieving scholars will have all of eternity to debate the existence of a real and literal hellfire also. Then you will not only finally prove its existence - you will realize it as your permanent residence. Who is the fool who will weep and wail forever at the foolishness of bathing in his bitterness against God?
February 9th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Thanks brad, but your not the first person to tell most of us we were going to hell. So what exactly is it thats sending us to hell? is it not believing in your god? cause every other religion could say the same thing about you. By the way, you cant be bitter at someone/something that doesn’t exist.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Hi Irish,
I believe that my cars engine is made of popcorn - but the lab test just came back and PROVED me WRONG. Should I dig in my heels?
I know the terms right and wrong tend to threaten those who are hiding in the gray - so forgive me for using such “black and white” terminology here.
Your statement of God’s non existence makes it no more a fact than the this statement ” All squares are circles that came from triangles”……The test of Truth and Error isn’t your belief or non belief it is based on what IS a proven FACT.
The Lab tests are in and you are infected with an virus called unbelief. Its cause in your case has been PROVEN to be from your continual mistake of ignoring the magnificence of God’s Creation set before your eyes.
Cheer up and stop being so religious about your evolutionary dogma. Put away your false prophet called Darwin and his bible that has been scientifically disproven.
We have a fossil record that shows no transitional forms - your done, roasted, and cooked.
Look up at the endless universe you do not understand and ask for some real wisdom.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I have a hard time believing that any god could make creatures with the potential for such intelligence and then punish them for using it. Although I am personally agnostic, I should imagine the Brads of this world are more deserving of hellfire in His eyes than the atheists of this world.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
So tell me brad, do you actually believe the bible has been proven right? and your statement about transitional fossils is laughable, you’ll listen to anything your christian buddies tell you, wont you? we are understanding more and more about the universe we live in each day, it doesnt matter if YOU are paying attention to the research being done.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Brad, I normally don’t criticize people for their comments, but what on God’s green Earth are you talking about? Seriously, you are talking nonsense.
Please consider volunteering for the Just Ask! section so you can take your time to answer questions from everyone in an intelligible manner.
Please contact me if you’re interested because you are not doing your faith justice here. I look forward to hearing from you!
gasmonso
February 9th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
I thought the billboards from the town were quite humorous. It reminded me of the Paula Poundstone joke about a billboard she had seen that said “the wages of sin are death” in which she added “but after taxes it’s really just a tired feeling.”
February 9th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
HALT !!!
Pilomotor is such a well spoken and polished intellectual that I just changed my beliefs in the supreme creator of the universe and have chosen to follow him.
I am sorry God - this man is just too inspiring and gifted for me to ignore any longer.
The conviction he has birthed in my soul to renounce you and follow him is too strong to not be real.
I just wish Pilomotor showed himself to me before all of this Creationism took over my soul,,,, HAHAHHAA !!!!!!!!
Ok I have to go now because I have this gorgeous wife calling me and 3 awesome kids who I love and I love to see walk and talk with God.
Life is great here at my place and God’s blessing is evident.
Thank God I am no longer walking in darkness and stumbling around attempting to disprove the truth as I once did.
Enjoy it guys - I sure as hell didnt !!!
February 9th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
brad, wev been trying to engage you in thoughtful discussion and you acting like a 5 year old.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Then lighten up and relax - man your religion makes you miserable !! I thought the truth was supposed to set us free !!
February 9th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
brad, im pretty relaxed, but your wasting time when you start posting comments like that. to be honest your making your religion look even worse.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Hi,
How am I making a religion you mock and despise look worse? Could it be any worse in your perspective? Be honest.
I am calling you on your BS? C’mon. You aren’t out to see the pretty Christians play by being involved on a religious HATE site.
I thought the Christain’s were the ones you guys said were hypocritical.
This is the very thing you label us for doing.
You are no better.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Alright I see I spelled Christian wrong : )
February 10th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Hey Brad, please don’t label my site as a “religious HATE site”. I was a former Catholic myself and have respect for most religions. I started this site to challenge religious beliefs and approach the topic with meaningful discussion.
While we do joke about religion often, we do have some fantastic discussions about it. Many of the readers here are former Christians who became Atheist/Agnostic. There are even some Atheists/Agnostics here who became religious.
Either way, this is a relatively peaceful site where the focus is on learning and not badgering people.
I hope you can respect that and stick around because we’d love to have you!
gasmonso
February 10th, 2007 at 12:41 am
im fine with religious people, in fact i do volunteer work with a methodist church close to my home. Most christians are great people, the ones i have a problem with are the ones that use their religion to lie to children about facts. and this isn’t a “religious HATE site” its for both groups to gain a better understanding of each other.
February 10th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Hey All,
I am a Christian and I am not “ok” with religious people at all. I guess that is a different topic, lol.
I feel the same way as you do about people who lie to children or anyone else for that matter about the facts as well.
I also happen to dislike Christians for the most part, but I do believe in Christ and Creationism based on the facts of history, science, and archeology.
If I was waiting for a Church group to “whooo” me with their powerful intellectualism or supernatural abilities to love me - I would still be waiting.
I just looked at the facts and made a decision based on those facts.
So back to the issue what is the truth and what is a lie? How is that established? What criteria is used? Are we talking about Creationism and Evolution here in an open minded format? or are we talking about a group of people who have a website titled religiousfreaks.com to mock Christianity and misuse the extremism in Christendom to springboard their dislike towards the Biblical account of Creationism and God etc?
If I posted a website called “Atheism is a Mental Illness” what would be your first thought on that?
Is not this websites’ name a bit of a bash on the “faith”, at least be honest please - Your now pretending to be open minded and looking for a mutually edifying dialogue on the subject?
I’m just being objective here - this is a far from neutral website on the issue.
Look at what was posted on the top page:
“Oh my God! I love her reasoning of why she believes in creationism. What a damn fool”.
This seems almost as hateful and mean as the religious freaks I have met : )
Is that sort of thing welcomed, but me being a bit sarcastic is unacceptable now and making my “religion look bad”. Irish You are making this entire conversation not acceptable due to your not admitting the truth.
For someone who is fine with religious people and hates lieing your not holding your own to well here.
How in the world can you be so double minded as to spend your days here on this site posing as an intellectual skeptic?
Does anyone who has the guts to admit the truth want to engage here? Admit you hate Christians already people!!
As for our discussion Irish - sorry I need someone who can be honest and come right across the table and put their chips down.
Come to the table or go volunteer in the community with the “pretty religious people”.
Personally, I could never be involved with someone I thought was lying to little children - how sad is your hypocrisy.
How do you like those apples Irish?
February 10th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Ps) Lets not pretend we love eachother just yet ok? Thats Gods job - he loves you all - I like most of us “Christians” am a maga hypocrite and fail to live up to Christs demands to love and pray for my enemies. Personally I dislike you all right now.
: )
February 10th, 2007 at 2:08 am
I’ve got chips to throw down on the table for ya. Yes I know I’m feeding the trolls and adding fuel to the flame bait, but if you’ve got a reasonable question to ask, go ahead. I toss you an answer back.
February 10th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Cool Jones - Please comment on this. “The Uncaused Cause”
Unacceptable Model of Origins. The Big Bang Theory is the accepted source of Origins among the majority of Evolutionists, and is taught in our public schools. However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in “voids” and “clumps,” or the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, “where did everything come from?” Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?
Help me - I’m lacking the faith in believing something came from nothing and exploded.
February 10th, 2007 at 2:21 am
Hi Freebooter,
I agree, I think the word “empirical” would be the correct insertion in the place of “metaphysical”
Basic definition: originating in or based on observation or experience
Now on to the discussion…
First, I did not bring up the analogy regarding building materials, I merely responded to John Smith’s comments which poorly defend the theory of macro evolution. I used the terms macro in relation to one species or organism having the ability to evolve into another. Consequently, I use micro evolution to refer to small changes and adaptions within a species or organism but not beyond their category.
Second, my comments relating to, “building materials turning into living matter,” were not aimed at dealing with the origin of life, but rather that we do not observe one designation entity becoming another on an empirical level. This is what evolution claims, that one type of organism can become another through Natural Selection and mutations over a long period of time. This is where we run into the main problem, you even admit that macro-evolution can,
“…not be ‘proven’ in having being observed (it takes too long to happen)”
So it fails the qualifications of being scientific and requires “faith” to believe in this doctrine without current observable evidence from existing organisms.
Third, why is it that the so-called evidence for human macro-evolution always turns out to be a hoax?
1. Piltdown skull - Dawson the amateur turned out to be a fraud! http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/featur_piltskull_delibfake.html
2. Java man - “In 1890 Dubois found a skull cap (of a giant gibbon) and a human leg bone 45 ft. away” and then later put them together and claimed that he found a walking ape. He later admitted that he lied!
3. Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - One tooth was used as evidence of this fallacy, which later turned out to be an extinct pig’s tooth!
4. Neanderthal - Found in pretty early strata
5. Pekin Man - Very fragmented and later one found along side modern skulls in 1934.
6. Australopithecenes - These fossils have been proven to be mere Apes and are not human.
http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/ape.htm
THEY HAVE EVEN BEEN DISCREDITED IN THE NEWS BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA! This is clearly a scam that should be rejected by all intellectuals.
So I do not find one ounce of credibility in even fossil that clearly reveal tampering and deception to support the false presuppositions of those who hold to macro-evolution.
This is the kicker: If evolutionists hold themselves to the standards of science, which require empirical evidence that can be observed and repeated in the present–evolution fails miserably. Why? Even if one argues that macro-evolution happens over millions or years, one must still be able to observe in the present some organisms that are half one species and half another. But the problem is that there is no observable evidence to support macro-evolution in the observable present. Anyone can take bone fossils from one animal and mix it with the bones from another, which by the way is what many paleontologists have been accused of time and time again as I have just demonstrated.
Science CAN NOT demonstrate macro-evolution in the observable present, if there are fossil remains from millions of years ago showing evolutionary variations (which I have demonstrated to be falsified time and time again), then why can we not observe them in animals and other organisms living today? What about the current fossil record? They provide no credible evidence what-so-ever of new species evolving. What we see are extinct animals in the fossil record, but no new credible specimens evolving in the present.
4. Carbon dating is scientifically inaccurate beyond about ten half-lives, because there’s very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can’t be dated at all. That is why carbon dating up in the millions of years is a bit of a joke to be honest.
6. What new species have evolved that have not been debunked? NONE
Another day I will address Humanistic Jones and his interesting but problematic comments in posting #34
I want to extend my thanks to those who wish to discuss this issue from an intellectual standpoint
By the way, Brad, please keep your unhelpful comments to yourself. God loves these people even if we believe them to be deceived. I found Jesus to be true first through the love and of others, then personally through my own experience, then through the evidence I have discovered over time and continue to do so. I do not see any hope for life after death or purpose in evolution, but I do see people who need to place their hope in something.
over and out…
February 10th, 2007 at 2:50 am
Hey Good Post Genesis Man.
Sorry Its just been my experience and a valid one.
These comments of mine as bitter as they sound have also been a real observable science in my life and I would be lying if I didn’t come to the table and own our not so holy conduct my friend.
They could prove to be a real help rather then unhelpful to those who have been burned by the Church and concluded that this simply can not be real based on the religious hypocrisy they have seen - Ive been there. Have you?
These people seem tough - they can handle the truth about how we suck at relationships sometimes lol.
Its quite a gong show at times that causes people to stumble and re-look things, Been there as well.
Best stick to the “other” scientific facts though - if we get into people and how they conduct themeselves then Im moving back to the aethistic camp because they are nicer as a whole. : )
Just keeping it real.
Again - Great post Man.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:08 am
I didn’t catch where it was claimed that Jesus walked with dinosaurs. Where did that picture at the top of the page come from?
February 10th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Ps) Hey Genesis Man, Did you see the article on the Remnant Church !!- this is what happens if you are a Deer in the Headlights in not calling Churches and the people in them on their BullSHite.
I go to Church and do it all the time. You may not be in the front pew - but you will sleep well at night.
Believing in Christ and going to Church doesnt mean we love and accept without questioning the devils in our midst bro.
That lady is a little scronny she- devil fer sure : )
Cheers.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Hello Genesis Man, brilliant post. This is what keeps me coming here - the honest debate.
You’re right that carbon-dating is only accurate to about 60,000 years, and beyond that the error in the measurement becomes quite large. However, it can say with certainty that some fossils are significantly older than 60,000 years - which is enough to rule out young-earth creationism.
You are also correct that the fossil record is incredibly difficult to work with. Very few animals become fossils at all, so the number of fossils in good condition is small. That overhyped pieces of evidence from that period has been debunked - both transitionary fossils and creationist evidence such as the human and dinosaur footprints - should not cause any alarm. It should just be discounted. Although I thought the whole point of Australopithecenes was that it was “just” an ape which showed some human features.
The main reason I think evolution is true is because it is observed on the small scale. It has not been observed for the large scale, but I see no reason why it would not be true for large scales too. After all, where would you draw the line? Dogs if dogs can evolve into different breeds of dog, at what point do they stop having a common ancestor? For the wolf? For the jackal? For the fox? Do you include cats? Or all mammals? For whatever point you put a common ancestor on, you’d have to explain why there is similarity with other nearby species - why they have the same number of toes, for example? Why they all have teeth, and fur, and so on. If I was designing a new animal, I’d make it have ears on its feet and have ten arms - why was God so restrained? If they were made for us, why were some extinct before we came along?
The second problem with creationism is that is isn’t testable. Scientific theories make predictions, which are then tested to see if the theory remains acceptable or if it is wrong. Creationism does not allow this - whatever set of results you get, it will never be disproven. That doesn’t make it wrong, but in my view it does make it a bit useless.
February 12th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Hi All,
Us Christians would love to prove you all into believing in God and I have just realized how wrong this was of me and I apologize.
Would anyone walk into 7-11 and tell the guys holding up the place to stop being so violent?
How would that intervention technique go over?
What should I have expected?
If people are searching for God and have questions and doubts which we all do - then that is one thing, but having a website titled religiousfreaks.com?
I mean it is obvious here there is one motive.
The problem I am having is that God thinks people who do not believe in him for whatever reason are fools.
He said it not me:
Consider the following:
In Psalm 14:1 we read, “The fool says in his heart, ”There is no God.’”
That’s a pretty blunt accusation - that a person who says there is no God, is a fool isn’t it?
Our modern overly-sensitive ears are startled when language like this is used. However, when the Bible speaks of “fools” and “foolishness” it isn’t engaging in adolescent name calling. Instead, the word “fool” is used to describe a person who is in a state of moral and intellectual dullness.
Also in the words of Jesus himself:
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and trample you.
So I am going to be a good little Christian boy now and refuse to go any further with ya all. It looks as though nobody is here searching for the Gospel of God’s Love are they?
Gods desire is for you to believe in him and not die in your sins- but at the end of the day it is a choice for you to make right?
I mean if all the evidence was in and we proved over and over again that Jesus was God in the flesh and created the universe that would be enough right? Wrong - look at Judas, this guy walked with Christ and witnessed all his miracles with his own eyes - but still he didn’t believe. This was not an intellectual unbelief - as a matter of fact no unbelief related to God is intellectual, it is moral.
Judas’ problem was not his education, neither was it so called evidence of another form of our origins, it was his wicked heart that hated Jesus and betrayed him. Period.
In every age there have been skeptics. People who hide from the truth behind so called intellectual systems that claim to be “Greater than God”.
Hide behind any dogma you wish, be it Darwin’s, Huxley’s, Freud’s, Marx’s, Humanism, Intellectualism, Secularism, Paganism, or any other “ism” and the end result is still going to be the same.
You will get to meet one day and get a chance to take on the great Scientist himself face to face.
Right in his own Lab.
I hope I am not there to hear the results when the tests are in regarding the ones who knowingly rejected him. One look from him on that day and you will already be in hell - he wont even have to send you there.
And I hope that nobody in this room faces the horror of the reality of God’s perfect and just wrath which he storing up for his enemies on that day.
I will hide in him - not in my unbelieving pride which I once walked in. Suggest the same for you all.
Does that seem too simple and not intellectual enough to accept?
Well guess what, it is that simple. Make the journey as complicated as you want but I do hope you all reach the desired destination being the salvation of your souls through Christ.
Cheers Gentleman. Brad out.
February 12th, 2007 at 3:47 am
@Brad (post 59)
There is NO link between BB theory and evolution. That many evolutionists believe in BBT do not mean anything, it only proves that scientists builds their views on the most common knowledge when they are asked about stuff not within their branch of science. Among the scientists who actually devote their life to astrophysics you will find many who do not believe in a the BBT but rather string theorists and multiverse theorists. Undoubtfully most of these will also believe in evolution, but there is no link between these to scientific branches.
You ask a few questions which I personally think you do not understand yourself. If you had understood them you would know that these questions cant be answered by writing a few lines. Please visit http://arxiv.org/ for information on your questions (be advised that these papers involves advanced math and are not written for anyone to understand) but you will find papers commenting your question. Please sit down do some reading, write down your questions (refer to paper) and submit them to the author. You will find that most of the authors here will answer you if you have done your homework and actually submitted a sound question.
As a final note I would like to say something about proving a scientific theory.
A scientific theory can NOT be proven. One builds a theory on the basis of what is known. One then go out and try to falsify that theory by measuring reality and see if reality fits the values the theory predicted, if the values match then your theory still holds (for now), if not, it is either modified or thrown out as bad science. This process newer stops, a theory is NEVER proven per se, every time new data is gathered it is used to test the present theories, if any data deviate from the predicted values the theory must me adjusted or thrown out.
Let us look at Newtons law of gravitation. It was believed to be correct, but falsified when the general theory of relativity was able to predict Mercury’s perihelion orbit where Newtons laws were not. We still use Newtons law because it is much simpler than Einsteins models, and it gives almost the correct answers, but it still not “trueâ€, the general theory of relativity is the only model that has held true all the way, but is still not “proven to be trueâ€
So rest assured, if anything can disproof evolution the scientific community will do so. But up until today no scientific data has ever disproved evolution, one can argue that we have not proven evolution since we have not (and will never be able to because of the way science works on theories), but more important all the predictions have been found to hold, and thereby strengthening evolution as a theory.
February 12th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Thanks for beating me to that one NewOne, I am still working out my response. String Theory and Cosmology are nowhere near my fields of expertice and finding the right info to answer Brad’s questions is posing a time consumer. I do plan to get back with my researched responses however.
February 12th, 2007 at 5:11 am
Thanks for the reply, Genesis Man.
You’re right about the inaccuracy of carbon-dating, of course. *extracts foot from mouth*
The other points you raised were addressed quite eloquently in h2g2bob’s post (#64).
And to Brad, and every other hellfire-preaching Christian:
If there exists a god, and he/she/it decided to torture me, or anyone else, for eternity for a finite “sin”, it is my firm conviction that it is the moral duty of every thinking being to do everything in their power to bring about the demise of that god.
Any being that metes out infinite punishment for a finite transgression has done an infinite evil, and is therefore infinitely evil itself, and should be fought at every turn.
I am, however, firmly convinced of the non-existence of the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so threatening me with the fires of Hell just brings a smile to my face. :-) I don’t entirely rule out the possibility of some kind of creator of the universe, but if there is such a being, it is highly unlikely to care if I worship it or not. Such a being demanding my worship would be akin to a microbiologist demanding that all the bacteria on a petri dish worship her, because she is more powerful than they are, and they exist because of her. (Not a perfect analogy, but it will do.)
February 12th, 2007 at 5:21 am
@Brad
The Big Bang Theory is the accepted source of Origins among the majority of Evolutionists, and is taught in our public schools. However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including
-Techincally the Big Bang is not an Origin theory, I will get to that in a bit, but I will address the concerns as they arose.
1)the uneven distribution of matter that results in “voids†and “clumps,â€
-This is not as much of a problem as it may seem. Cohesive forces do tend towards even spread, but even on a small scale we can observe the formation of uneven structures by way of cohessive force.
Take for instance a shallow circular pool of water on a table, enclosed by a barrier of some kind. If the barrier is removed, we should expect by a naturally even force like molecular cohesion, that the water would expand in an even circle, across the table. If the cohession would break down at a certain distance, we would expect a geometric break down, producing the same pattern on all sides in all directions. However, if one actually does this, the water begins to spread in random directions, beads breaking away in different sizes at different lengths as the threads of expanding water travel out, resulting in a mess of voids and clumps. The factor here is that despite the even nature of the force, nature tends towards the simplest answer to a problem. In attempting to maintain the cohesion of as much matter as possible, the mass of water will pull apart unevenly, resulting in what we end up seeing.
Gravity is quite a bit different, but I feel the example should suffice. Logically if all the matter in the universe were compressed to the same area and then evenly expanded out, the question arises as to why we have clumps and voids. To say it simply, some area of matter had to clump up first because of gravity. Even with even gravitational force keeping all particles at equilibrium with each other, all the free energy working on the early matter would have created vibrations forcing particles together. These resultant clumps would then attract more and more matter forming the clumps so stated. The areas between would quickly (relative to cosmological scales of time) be swept free of their matter, preventing more massive forms from occuring as the few remaining particles would have such weak gravitation towards each other relative to the new galaxies.
2)the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.
Retrograde motion in no way violates the law of conservation of angular momentum. This law simply states that if a system has an angular momentum X, then if it splits apart the resultant pieces must retain a net angular momentum of X. If say the early universe had an angular momentum of 10 (just an arbitrary number) if split into two equal pieces, these pieces would have to have a net AM of 10 so 5 and 5 would work, or 9 and 1, or even 12 and -2. Given the 12 and -2 example, the second particle has angular momentum in the opposite vector from the original system, but the first particle accounts for this by gaining angular momentum. This change becomes even easier if we split the system into more and more pieces.
Now having seen this argument used before, I bring in the example used most commonly, Venus’s rotation. The claim is made that Venus should not rotate backwards from the other planets because it must rotate the same direction by angular momentum. This is very much incorrect. Firstly, this example connects Venus’ rotation to the rotation of the early Bang mass. However, by the Big Bang, Venus was not thrown out of the early mass as a whole planet orbiting our sun. Venus would have gained its rotational energy from the activation of our sun’s planetary nebula. Even by this Venus is still capable of rotating “backwards”, simply because if it were rotating the other way, the other planets would simply be rotating slower to conserver the angular momentum of the system. This example also assumes a Kinematic system in which the angular momentum is the only force at work. Collisions by stelar bodies, gravity, explosive forces, etc. can all act on a planet to change its rotation (and still conserving angular momentum as force was added to the system to change the rotation without affecting the other planets).
3)Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, “where did everything come from?†Did nothing explode?
-The big bang theory does not at all presume to say where the matter and energy originated. The simplest, accurate statement I can give of the big bang is as follows from Wikipedia (a wonderfully simple statement of the theory lacking in the large equations typical of cosmology)
The Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity, as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle.
Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.
Naturally this does not deal with the origin of the matter, something that requires entirely different fields of study. To answer the question of “Did nothing explode?” the statement of the theory is saying that something existed at a very small point, that then expanded, not that there was nothing which then exploded.
4)How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?
-The typical progression of thermodynamics would account for this. Progressing towards more stable and lower energy formations, matter would have coaleced, reducing the amount of free kinetic energy into more complex chemical forms. Since the theory is not a statement of an explosion, but more a statement of a cosmological expansion, we aren’t dealing with the kinds of destructive energy in a bomb (though destructive is in itself a relative term on this scale). Gravity causes particles to attract forming into structures, chemical processes form the more complex molecules using the free energy in the early universe and later the radiative energy of stars. Order achieved.
Hope this helps, I may not be making alot of sense given that Cosmology and Astrophysics aren’t my fields in the least, I’m going off of alot of sources, and its 5am as I’m finishing this up. Hope this answers your question Brad.
February 12th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Great Post Humanistic Jones.
The matter at hand is very complex, far more complex than one is able to show by analogies (you did good though:). Just think of the problems we have when it comes to 4 dimension visualisation. We break up the system to 3+1 where time is the +1 dimension. But this is just a crude visualisation technique. When working with a 4 dimension world we map the system down to 3 dimensions to be able to grasp what we think is happening. This is why we struggle to get the any conclusive answers. Just as a 2D person would not be able to grasp why 3D objects mapped down to 2D behaves as they do. What then when we are working with 10+ dimensions?
Anyway, when it comes to questions as “where did everything come from†I must confess we have no knowledge of this, and further more it really does not matter. When inside a singularity all laws of physics breaks down. There is no conservation of information, force or matter. There is nothing within a singularity which says that 2+2=4, 2+900=4 is just as true. All dimensions are meaningless; length and time as we know them are of no consequence, since they can not exist within the singularity. Since no naked singularity have been and never will be found we can not say what is happening within it since the event horizon denies us this insight. Because of this anything happening before the BB is of no consequence since anything before this moment can not influence events after the BB.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Thanks for your input h2g2bob,
I too see small changes in living organisms that have been observed for centuries, which I refer to as micro-evolution (e.g. Darwin’s finches are a good example of this scientific fact). But, I would not go as far as saying that this is a good reason to believe one species can change into another (what I refer to as macro-evolution). That is a whole different ball game, and consequently where I draw the line. There is no evidence for this in the observable present, which is a stipulation required to qualify as being scientific.
Regarding where to draw the line, let’s use dog breeding as an example.
When a dog breeder breeds dogs via intelligent selection, many different types of dogs are produced. However, no cats ever result from this process no matter how many times certain dogs are bred with other dogs. Basically, this is clear evidence of micro-evolution (some dogs are brown, some are black, and some have short fur, while others have long etc), but macro-evolution (a dog becoming a cat) is never observed even after 100’s of years of breeding. From the beginning of time, dogs, wolves, jackals, and foxes have all been related. This has been proven by researchers who have discovered…
‘The origin of the domestic dog from wolves has been established … we examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation among 654 domestic dogs representing all major dog populations worldwide … suggesting a common origin from a single gene pool for all dog populations.’
Savolainen, P., Zhang, Y.P., Luo, J., Lundeberg, J. and Leitner, T., Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs, Science 298(5598):1610–1613, 22 November 2002.
This seems to be a pretty good place to draw the line don’t you think?
As for the similarities in other organisms, maybe they were just created that way in the first place? :o)
As for why some were extinct before we came along, I am sure God knows the answer to that question. However, I do know the answer to why there are so many difference species today that were not around during the time of Noah. They had simply not mutated to the extent they have today through cross breeding leading to different types of dogs.
By the way, Creationism is actually testable, it is just a matter of observing the evidence that we have in front of us. Does it lend more towards evolution (i.e. macro) or towards Creationism? Well, have you ever considered why Creationists say that DNA is evidence for a designer? This observable entity has a sequence that when unraveled contains the instructions for life. DNA can not be explained by evolution, it is needed for Natural Selection to work in the first place. Since DNA is information, which is basically the instructions needed for each cell to work (including self-replication), and Natural Selection requires DNA to exist so that the parts of the cell function to the extent of allowing self replication, then one must provide an alternative to evolution. We don’t see a watch on a beach and say that it must have evolved over long periods of time, no, we instead acknowledge that the intricate parts must have been assembled by an intelligent being. How much more then should we point to an intelligent designer when it comes to living organisms with all its machines and ordered functionality. Each machine is made with a purpose. I could use the bacteria flagellum if needed, since I am familiar with this organism. But I will leave this for a later post, should I need to elaborate further.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:29 am
Hi Humanistic Jones, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I definitely want to address your statement,
“The genetic level of evolution is not a break down since while it requires a replication organism, the organism requires that there be a method of inheritance.”
At this point you reference DNA as the genetic code that references itself off RNA which does the copying.
So what you are saying is that (to quote my father), “…the evolutionary creation of information requires an accidental device.” But all information as we know it is the product of intelligence as I mentioned in my last post. As a computer scientist you understand what software is and how it works, it is ordered information and can not be explained in terms of “…the random state of hardware.”
Even if the substance of life revolving around proteins and the primordial soup, just happened to evolve out of nothing (the hardware example, which I find hard to believe), then DNA, which is information (or as you say a “template,” which by the way is still information in my books), and RNA which is the mechanism for replication, like software must be acquired by intelligent design.
It would be ludicrous to expect computer hardware to provide ordered information with no software input from it’s designer (the computer programmer).
Don’t you see? DNA is evidence that a designer has provided order to our universe, it is the blue print left behind by our Creator as evidence of his handiwork.
——————————————————–
Regarding your comment on Nucleic Acids, it is best said by the experts:
“The implausibility of prevital nucleic acid
If it is hard to imagine polypeptides or polysaccharides in primordial waters it is harder still to imagine polynucleotides. But so powerful has been the effect of Miller’s experiment on the scientific imagination that to read some of the literature on the origin of life (including many elementary texts) you might think that it had been well demonstrated that nucleotides were probable constituents of a primordial soup and hence that prevital nucleic acid replication was a plausible speculation based on the results of experiments.
There have indeed been many interesting and detailed experiments in this area. But the importance of this work lies, to my mind, not in demonstrating how nucleotides could have formed on the primitive Earth, but in precisely the opposite: these experiments allow us to see, in much greater detail than would otherwise have been possible, just why prevital nucleic acids are highly implausible.
Let us consider some of the difficulties:
1. First, as we have seen, it is not even clear that the primitive Earth would have generated and maintained organic molecules. All that we can say is that there might have been prevital organic chemistry going on, at least in special locations.
2. Second, high-energy precursors of purines and pyrimidines had to be produced in a sufficiently concentrated form (for example at least 0.01 M HCN).
3. Third, the conditions must now have been right for reactions to give perceptible yields of at least two bases that could pair with each other.
4. Fourth, these bases must then have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made, and the solutions must have been sufficiently concentrated.
5. Fifth, in some other location a formaldehyde concentration of above 0.01 M must have built up.
6. Sixth, this accumulated formaldehyde had to oligomerise to sugars.
7. Seventh, somehow the sugars must have been separated and resolved, so as to give a moderately good concentration of, for example, D-ribose.
8. Eighth, bases and sugars must now have come together.
9. Ninth, they must have been induced to react to make nucleosides. (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermodynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution: purine nucleosides have been made by dry-phase synthesis, but not even this method has been successful for condensing pyrimidine bases and ribose to give nucleosides (Orgel & Lohrmann, 1974).)
February 13th, 2007 at 2:30 am
10. Tenth, whatever the mode of joining base and sugar it had to be between the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar. This junction will fix the pentose sugar as either the alpha or beta-anomer of either the furanose or pyranose forms (see page 29). For nucleic acids it has to be the beta-furanose. (In the dry-phase purine nucleoside syntheses referred to above, all four of these isomers were present with never more than 8 % of the correct structure.)
11. Eleventh, phosphate must have been, or must now come to have been, present at reasonable concentrations. (The concentrations in the oceans would have been very low, so we must think about special situations—evaporating lagoons and such things (Ponnamperuma, 1978).)
12. Twelfth, the phosphate must be activated in some way—for example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphate—so that (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible.
13. Thirteenth, to make standard nucleotides only the 5′hydroxyl of the ribose should be phosphorylated. (In solid-state reactions with urea and inorganic phosphates as a phosphorylating agent, this was the dominant species to begin with (Lohrmann & Orgel, 1971). Longer heating gave the nucleoside cyclic 2′,3′-phosphate as the major product although various dinucleotide derivatives and nucleoside polyphosphates are also formed (Osterberg, Orgel & Lohrmann. 1973).)
14. Fourteenth, if not already activated—for example as the cyclic 2′,3′-phosphate—the nucleotides must now be activated (for example with polyphosphate; Lohrmann, 1976) and a reasonably pure solution of these species created of reasonable concentration. Alternatively, a suitable coupling agent must now have been fed into the system.
15. Fifteenth, the activated nucleotides (or the nucleotides with coupling agent) must now have polymerised. Initially this must have happened without a pre-existing polynucleotide template (this has proved very difficult to simulate (Orgel & Lohrmann. 1974)); but more important, it must have come to take place on pre-existing polynucleotides if the key function of transmitting information to daughter molecules was to be achieved by abiotic means. This has proved difficult too. Orgel & Lohrmann give three main classes of problem:
* While it has been shown that adenosine derivatives form stable helical structures with poly(U)—they are in fact triple helixes—and while this enhances the condensation of adenylic acid with either adenosine or another adenylic acid—mainly to di(A) stable helical structures were not formed when either poly (A) or poly(G) were used as templates.
* It was difficult to find a suitable means of making the internucleotide bonds. Specially designed water-soluble carbodiimides were used in the experiments described above, but the obvious pre-activated nucleotides—ATP or cyclic 2′,3′-phosphates—were unsatisfactory. Nucleoside 5′-phosphorimidazolides, for example were more successful, but these now involve further steps and a supply of imidazole, for their synthesis (Lohrmann & Orgel, 1978).
* Internucleotide bonds formed on a template are usually a mixture of 2′-5′ and the normal 3′-5′ types. Often the 2′-5′ bonds predominate although it has been found that Zn2+, as well as acting as an efficient catalyst for the template-directed oligomerisation of guanosine 5′-phosphorimidazolide also leads to a preference for the 3′-5′ bonds (Lohrmann, Bridson & Orgel, 1980).
16. Sixteenth, the physical and chemical environment must at all times have been suitable—for example the pH, the temperature, the M2+ concentrations.
17. Seventeenth, all reactions must have taken place well out of the ultraviolet sunlight; that is, not only away from its direct, highly destructive effects on nucleic acid-like molecules, but away too from the radicals produced by the sunlight, and from the various longer lived reactive species produced by these radicals.
18. Eighteenth, unlike polypeptides, where you can easily imagine functions for imprecisely made products (for capsules, ionexchange materials, etc.), a genetic material must work rather well to be any use at all—otherwise it will quickly let slip any information that it has managed to accumulate.
19. Nineteenth, what is required here is not some wild one-off freak of an event: it is not true to say ‘it only had to happen once’. A whole set-up had to be maintained for perhaps millions of years: a reliable means of production of activated nucleotides at the least.
Now you may say that there are alternative ways of building up nucleotides, and perhaps there was some geochemical way on the early Earth. But what we know of the experimental difficulties in nucleotide synthesis speaks strongly against any such supposition. However it is to be put together, a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis.
You might want to argue about the nineteen problems that I chose: and I agree that there is a certain arbitrariness in the sequence of operations chosen. But if in the compounding of improbabilities nineteen is wrong as a number that would be mainly because it is much too small a number. If you were to consider in more detail a process such as the purification of an intermediate you would find many subsidiary operations—washings, pH changes and so on. (Remember Merrifield’s machine: for one overall reaction, making one peptide bond, there were about 90 distinct operations required.)”
Reference
Cairns-Smith, A.G., Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life, Cambridge University Press, 1982 (list formatting added).
February 13th, 2007 at 2:59 am
However, your argument does not disprove evolution. Regardless of the method of the origination of the nucleotides, they are a necessary component to be existant BEFORE we arive at evolution. What happened before that is not for evolution to prove or disprove but for chemistry and such.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:17 am
@Genesis Man
“It would be ludicrous to expect computer hardware to provide ordered information with no software input from it’s designer (the computer programmer).â€
Since you brought it up, Please refer to the all knowing oracle google.com and its articles on “self evolving hardwareâ€.
Anyway what I want to say is that you, as expected, points out the improbability of the DNA evolving. This is standard argument from such as you, but then you completely ignore that you are not an third party observer, you are part of the system or rather a result of that exact improbable thing happening. This means that, yes it is an unlikely event if you pick one planet among hundreds of billions of planets and then expect a DNA to pop up in a few billion years. But if you take the entire population of planets, and then have the same expectation its no longer that unlikely.
Ok, lets make an analogy. Lets say give 6 billion people one number each from 0 to 6 billion, then let a computer pick a random number between 0-12 billion. The likelihood of you winning the lottery is infinite small, but the likelihood of any one single person winning is only 1:2. So as you