May 17, 2010

Evolution, Smoking Gun?


Reynold said: >>Oh yeah, Dan. I'm still waiting for your evidence that the "false claims" on that site I gave earlier are actually "false".

Well the Bible, my authority, claims something entirely different so I am going with that. I don't claim to know all things and I cannot explain half of the finding but you must admit, in intellectual honesty, that the data we have available to us can be interpreted into two different worldviews. That is why we are able to have thriving organizations like the Creation Museum, AIG, IRC, Bio-Complexity, ISCID, Origins.org, People of the likes of Pvblivs, Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design Network, Access Research Network and a plethora of others, flourishing and continuing to make headway in science, even if they have to go it alone without the governments backing them, like the secular scientists have.

IF, big IF, you all were doing your jobs correctly, evolution would have shut us all up years ago. We are still waiting.

Where is the smoking gun?

Really? After all these years you cannot even come close to really showing evidence for evolution that shuts us all down and closes our doors? Are you ALL really that inept?

For example, we all see a fossil of a leaf, or a fish eating another fish.

Evolutionists "interpret" it as sedimentary layers slowly laid down over a period of millions of years while simultaneously preventing the decay of rotting flesh or plants in some miraculous way to form a fossil.

Creationists see a rapid burial through some event that just so happens to be pointed out in a myriad of nations legends, archeological finds (Ahora Covenant Inscription), and books of antiquity (Ogygian deluge, Plato in his Laws, Book III), including the Bible. We only have to go into our back yard to see leaves that decay in a few short days.

Let me know and I will make you a fossil in my backyard with a little concrete.

We all see the bias displayed with headlines like "70 million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels"

O'rly? Is that your smoking gun? I can go on and on but you get the point. There is zero evidence that knocks us on the ground to the point we cannot get up. Archeology and Science are both showing strong evidence for the Biblical claims daily. We are no going anywhere, but you are. We have patience.

I need to add the survey of failed evolutionary predictions.

84 comments:

  1. We're human. Perhaps we haven't explained it well enough. More to the point, perhaps we don't care if creationists are convinced. There are plenty of people who actually want to learn the truth to educate first.

    But what about the flip side? Why haven't you shut us up? After all, you apparently have an omnipotent creator on your side..... talk about inept.....

    Oh, and I'm not sure if Pvblivs will be too happy with that comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wem,

    You mean comprising liberal Christians accept TOE.

    Want to see the dangers in that?

    This is a quote from exchrisitans.net (oxymoron) but it could also be from Dan Barker, John Loftus, or a plethora of others.

    "Let me start off by saying that I was a liberal Christian. I had gone through fundamentalist phases earlier in my 30 years as a Christian, but I moved to a somewhat liberal belief system before I ended up pitching the whole thing."

    Get it? Compromises of beliefs, and trusting in mankind, is the road that leads to destruction. IMHO

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Get it? Compromises of beliefs, and trusting in mankind, is the road that leads to destruction. "

    In other words -"even if you show me evidence, I won't believe it anyway"

    Why should we care what you believe then?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rhiggs wrote the following to Dan: In other words -"even if you show me evidence, I won't believe it anyway"

    Precisely. Dan spends time asking for a smoking gun, and then explains that it would be dangerous to accept one if it existed.

    "it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn"

    - St Augustine

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nice picture by the way. Great example of a transitional fossil (of course, technically, all fossils are transitional)

    "Tiktaalik generally had the characteristics of a lobe-finned fish, but with front fins featuring arm-like skeletal structures more akin to a crocodile, including a shoulder, elbow, and wrist. The fossil discovered in 2004 did not include the rear fins and tail. It had rows of sharp teeth of a predator fish, and its neck was able to move independently of its body, which is not possible in other fish. The animal also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's; eyes on top of its head, suggesting it spent a lot of time looking up; a neck and ribs similar to those of tetrapods, with the latter being used to support its body and aid in breathing via lungs; well developed jaws suitable for catching prey; and a small gill slit called a spiracle that, in more derived animals, became an ear."

    ReplyDelete
  6. PS. it seems like Dan's debunked himself in very short order here...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wem et al,

    >>Precisely. Dan spends time asking for a smoking gun, and then explains that it would be dangerous to accept one if it existed.

    If it is indeed a smoking gun then it has to be loaded first for me to feel the effects. So far there is not one smoking gun that has surfaced. All the guns have no bullets and I am still standing on my feet. If, big IF, there is indeed a smoking gun then it would put me down to the point of not getting up. i.e. Loaded!

    Where is the smoking gun?

    Are you inserting that the Tiktaalik is your smoking gun and cannot possibly be understood by any other worldview? If so a pee shooter does not knock me down. I am a big man (strong belief) show up with a .44 or a 50 cal and I will fall down hard.

    Happy hunting!

    ReplyDelete
  8. For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. It has been placed by evolutionists alongside Archaeopteryx, but they fail to see that neither animal was a transitional form; archaeopteryx was a full bird, tiktaalik was a full fish. (Creation wiki)

    Yawn, spit balls don't hurt a big guy like myself.

    Again happy hunting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dan,

    Is there any fossils of animals that still exsist today?

    Why are fossils from various dates? wouldn't all fossils be about 4000 (flood) to 10,000(creation event) yrs old.

    YEC suggest that the universe or is it earth is 6000yrs old. Where does the figure 6000yrs come from?

    Is there a link to a time line chart from creation to present that best reperents YEC that you could show me?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "tiktaalik was a full fish"

    Sure. A full fish with a neck, a horizontally flat head, teeth and wrists....!!

    You dismiss real science (unless you agree with it - hypocrite) and yet believe in magic apples and talking snakes. Why would anyone bother explaining evolution to a person like you? It's a waste of time since you have already admitted that you wouldn't accept any evidence. Then you act all smug as if our inability to convince you is somehow proof that we are wrong!

    What a joke.

    Believe whatever you want Dan. No one cares. Really.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ant,

    >>Is there any fossils of animals that still exsist today?

    How about a hat or a hammer?

    >>Why are fossils from various dates?

    You do mean assumed various dates, right?

    >>YEC suggest that the universe or is it earth is 6000yrs old. Where does the figure 6000yrs come from?

    Yes, both earth and universe, and that claim is in the Ten Commandments and the Bible. (Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11)

    >>Is there a link to a time line chart from creation to present that best reperents YEC that you could show me?

    Good question. There is always the atheists view of it. I believe the exact 6000 years claim originated from a monk counting the years of genealogy of people in the Bible. It would be a good starting point but would have to have a large +/- variance. Personally, I will stick with the less then 10,000 years safely though.

    You can read about some good points like "Evidence for a Young World" and Six Evidences of a Young Earth. If you are actually interested that is.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rhiggs,

    "tiktaalik was a full fish"

    >>Sure. A full fish with a neck, a horizontally flat head, teeth and wrists....!!

    >>You dismiss real science (unless you agree with it - hypocrite) and yet believe in magic apples and talking snakes.

    Try to explain the platypus in evolutionary terms, it's amphibious that lives in a river, lays eggs(monotremes), feeds it young with milk like a mammal, it has a bill like a duck that also, like a shark, senses electromagnetic signals put out by muscles of other animals, tail like a beaver, claws like a reptile, fur like a polar bear (it's waterproof fur keeps it from getting "waterlogged."), poison like a snake, it stores the food in small pouches within its cheeks (Squirrel?), webbed front feet propel it through the water (it "rows" through the water with its front legs).

    "What a grand design, it does what it does and it does do fine.
    (chorus) It's designed to do what it does do. What it does do, it does do well. Doesn't it? Yes it does. I think it does. Do you? I do. Hope you do too. Do you?" (Song by Buddy Davis)

    ReplyDelete
  13. BTW Rhiggs,

    Did you notice your hypocrisy?

    To my: "Get it? Compromises of beliefs, and trusting in mankind, is the road that leads to destruction."

    You said, as a rejection.

    >>In other words -"even if you show me evidence, I won't believe it anyway"

    Then you said,

    >>Why should we care what you believe then?...Believe whatever you want Dan. No one cares. Really.

    So you do not like what you do then? Conflicted is a hard way to live my friend. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  14. ".....the data we have available to us can be interpreted into two different worldviews."

    That's not the way it happens. AIG IGNORES most of the evidence. It only interprets what it wants to interpret.

    "Evolutionists "interpret" it as sedimentary layers slowly laid down over a period of millions of years while simultaneously preventing the decay of rotting flesh or plants in some miraculous way to form a fossil."

    BS- Geologists and paleo guys know very well that most fissils were created by catastophic events such as volcanoes. mudlides, tarpits, floods and sinking into the bottom of a lakes and shallow seas.
    No scientist thinks a body fell on the ground and laid there millions of years waiting to be covered up
    You're not using your head- you are merely parroting AIG.


    Ahora Covenant Inscription- Totally refuted

    Ogygian deluge, Plato in his Laws, Book III)- Plato also said this flood would have been 9000 years befor ehis time and there is evidence of a large flood in that area due to the end of the last ice age and the subsequent meltwater pulse.

    We see signs of catastophic floods in many places all over the earth- all at different time frames. Evidence of catastophic floods are easy to detect and see in the geologic record- very easy. There is no evidence for a world wide flood. If it would have happened the evidence would be obvious for anyone to see.

    You're not even trying, Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  15. How about a hat or a hammer?
    Both are examples of calcification, which is a very different process to fossilisation and can (and does) happen rapidly. The felt in the hat, for example, has not turned to stone (as it would in an example of fossilisation): it has merely been "cemented" by calcium carbonate. This is a far cry from actual fossilisation.

    Answers in Genesis knows this. The single-quote emphasis around words such as 'fossil' and 'stone' indicates they are using disputable definitions of both. Despite this, they claim "This quick-forming 'stone' hat adds weight to the claims that creation scientists are correct when they say that thousands or millions of years are not needed to form rocks and fossilize animals and plants."

    This is a blatent lie, and I confess myself surprised. Previous experience with AiG had lead me to believe they were more adept then this at concealing dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I posted before, Dan, the oaths that your creationist organizations have their members affirm before they're allowed to join. In each case, no evidence is allowed to persuade them from what they already want to believe.

    That's why we haven't been able to shut you people up. Ultimately, you don't care about evidence. This is also shown by what you said when you say that you'll rely on the bible, no matter what.

    Archaeopteryx. Please look at the section where it details the reptilian traits and the bird traits that it had.

    As for what the creationists had to say about Tiktalik?

    Here's an analysis of what Menton said in a later article (now apparently taken down by AIG) than the article posted in the "CreationWiki".

    Another smack down.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Try to explain the platypus in evolutionary terms, Dan?

    Ok

    Try doing some work yourself instead of having us do it all for you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Whoops. Forgot to post a bit from that last link:

    Huse may believe that the platypus is thought to be a link between mammals and birds because of its "duckbill". In fact, scientists have always known that the bill has nothing in common with that of a duck except for the shape. The bill of a duck is a hard keratin structure, while that of the platypus is a soft flexible organ packed with electrical and touch sensors. While underwater, the bill is used to explore the environment and find food. (Thus Huse also gets it wrong when he says the the platypus "uses echo location like dolphins"; it does not.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, since Dan and Quasar have brought up hats...

    ReplyDelete
  20. What in hell, Dan? I've looked at that Evidences for a young earth page, and what do I find?

    Already refuted crap like:

    Recession of the moon

    Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dan,

    What hypocrisy?

    You're a strange fellow.


    This post is basically saying....

    "Show me the evidence. If you can't you're inept and evolution is wrong!!!!!!!"

    Then you say:

    "I won't believe the evidence anyway"

    So what's the point?


    Then you act smug as if the fact that you are not convinced means something. It doesn't. Convincing ignorant people like you is not a priority. No one that actually works in science gives a shit what you or your fundy friends believe, unless you try and force it on us. Then, prepare to be humiliated in the public sphere as history shows again and again...think Dover most recently...

    As I mentioned earlier, what about the flip side? Why haven't you shut us up? After all, you apparently have an omnipotent creator on your side..... talk about inept.....

    Is my disbelief in your God is somehow proof that he doesn't exist? If not, then I call hypocrite on you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan, I'm not even going to bother to read the predictable, lame comments you're going to get insulting both your integrity and intelligence. As a matter of fact, you stated things that I have been baffled by as well.

    Evolutionists have no proof, only conjecture and a huge, huge pile of excuses for all the flaws and failings of evolution. If evolution was a fact and a law (it's only called a theory when the flaws are pointed out, or when it suits some other purpose), you would think that not only are conclusive proofs found, but that the "experts" themselves would agree on it.

    I'm not sure what the squirm is to get out of the problem of the existence of soft tissue fossils. The presentation used to be that something dies, sinks to the bottom of the river or lake, gets gradually covered, etc. Of course, anyone who thinks that through can easily see the problems with that, but it's been presented for a long time. Fact is, something has to be buried quickly — a fish can be inconvenienced in the act of eating another fish.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dan quoting me:

    Reynold said: >>Oh yeah, Dan. I'm still waiting for your evidence that the "false claims" on that site I gave earlier are actually "false".


    The site that I was talking about when I said that was this site, not talk origins.

    So in other words, you've totally changed the topic from biblical "accuracy" to evolution!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Stormbringer, quote excepted from, where he's talking about fossil evidence:

    ...you would think that not only are conclusive proofs found, but that the "experts" themselves would agree on it.

    Odd that you should mention that, Stormy...take a gander at how creationists can't agree on hominid skulls.

    Have a look at the chart near the middle of the page.

    If they are either "full man" or "full ape/monkey/etc" then it should be easy for them to tell which is human and which isn't.

    But they can't get their stories straight. This comes as no surpise to honest scientists, since that kind of confusion is exactly what one would expect of transitional forms.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan, I'm not even going to bother to read the predictable, lame comments you're going to get insulting both your integrity and intelligence.

    Of course you don’t bother to read comments. Why bother when you can just post whatever you want them to say on your own little ghost town blog, like you did the other day. I notice you don’t feel the need to answer for your blatant bearing of false witness. Did it make you feel better to lie about me? Did you feel a sense of purpose in your desperate, empty life?

    As a matter of fact, you stated things that I have been baffled by as well.
    I think you’re baffled by your own reflection. I don’t know about Dan’s integrity, but I’m certain you left yours at the door a long time ago.

    Evolutionists have no proof, only conjecture and a huge, huge pile of excuses for all the flaws and failings of evolution.

    Once again you whine and bitch without offering anything. When called out about your dishonesty and asked to prove your point, you make another excuse about how you won’t bother to show your truth to the atheists/evolutionists, because they won’t believe you. Or, like many of your cowardly brethren in Christ, you simply ignore them and run away to whine another day.

    If evolution was a fact and a law (it's only called a theory when the flaws are pointed out, or when it suits some other purpose), you would think that not only are conclusive proofs found, but that the "experts" themselves would agree on it.

    The “experts” do agree on it. Your idea of an expert is the big flaw. You have no understanding of scientific theories or laws. And you just whine and bitch, but make no contribution to any argument. The fact that you have been exposed as a deceiver and lying little bitch, makes you a liability to the creationist cause.

    Are you an atheist/evolutionist mole? Or just a disturbed, angry middle aged virgin in desperate need of some tale?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't think I've ever heard someone claim that Evolution is a law, StygiaBound.

    Could you at least TRY to be honest?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Could you at least TRY to be honest?

    Now you know that would be like asking Terry Burton to change his underwear. There is absolutely no way he'd oblige you. Bob the drizzle-kid has posted comments under your name on his blog.

    He's not going to change his spots although he certainly tries to hide them.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Storm,

    >>As a matter of fact, you stated things that I have been baffled by as well.

    Like what? Good/bad? Do share.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Reynold,

    Try to explain the platypus in evolutionary terms, Dan?

    >>Ok

    Imagine a world without talk origins. You'd be lost.

    >>Try doing some work yourself instead of having us do it all for you.

    Said talk origins to Reynold.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Reynold,

    >>What in hell, Dan? I've looked at that Evidences for a young earth page, and what do I find? Already refuted crap like:

    >>Recession of the moon

    >>Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field

    You do understand that 2 out of 6 is a failure in school don't you. Also, that is even giving the two "OPINION" that you presented.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Rhiggs,

    >>Then you act smug as if the fact that you are not convinced means something.

    Said that Christian to the Atheist.

    >>Convincing ignorant people like you is not a priority.

    Said that Christian to the Atheist.

    >>Is my disbelief in your God is somehow proof that he doesn't exist? If not, then I call hypocrite on you.

    I get your point, but its not valid at all. I am not here to say that if I don't believe it it doesn't exist, like the Atheists do about God. I am here to say that if there is no smoking gun evidence, then I refuse to give you a very liberal interpretation of said evidence. I am daring you to knock me down and take my breath away enough that I am forced to face and examine my own worldview, that I cannot and will not get up again. I refuse to give you the "benefit of doubt" for my own beliefs, believe in the exact opposite of you. Why should I turn into a liberal Christian and erode my beliefs just to help you make your case. That is what I refuse to do. You have no evidence that is concrete enough to change opinions, that is my point.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Reynold,

    >>The site that I was talking about when I said that was this site, not talk origins.

    >>So in other words, you've totally changed the topic from biblical "accuracy" to evolution!

    Really? Hmm my fault. I sure thought you were talking about Talk Origins like you have done the thousands of other times.

    Forgive me for thinking you were talking about the website that you live in, and have referenced thousands of times, verses the one site that you mentioned in passing.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Benway,

    >>The “experts” do agree on it. Your idea of an expert is the big flaw.

    Ouch, that was cold. So let me ask you straight forward. Can someone be a scientists and believe in a Creator, or not? If so then what Storm said was true. Even if you take the whole Cristian factor out of the equation, not all scientists agree on the data. There is nothing concrete again. Plus, I hope you are not saying that science is a consensus

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dan,

    I said >> Then you act smug as if the fact that you are not convinced means something.

    You replied: "Said that Christian to the Atheist."

    What?! I indicated the exact opposite, that my disbelief in your God was NOT proof of anything. My point being that your refusal to accept evidence for evolution is also NOT proof of anything. Is your arsenal really so vacuous that you have been reduced to stupid soundbytes that have no relevance on what was actually said to you.

    Pathetic.


    I said >> Convincing ignorant people like you is not a priority.

    You replied: "Said that Christian to the Atheist."

    Are you now indicating that you don't want to convince us of your position? If so, then you don't want to save us after all, despite all that burning house talk. So, are you a liar or was that just another pathetic soundbyte that means nothing?


    "I am not here to say that if I don't believe it it doesn't exist, like the Atheists do about God."

    I challenge you to link to an atheist who says exactly that... "if I don't believe it, then it doesn't exist". If you can, they're a moron. I am an atheist. I don't say that God doesn't exist. I just say I don't believe in God. Big difference.


    "I am here to say that if there is no smoking gun evidence, then I refuse to give you a very liberal interpretation of said evidence. I am daring you to knock me down and take my breath away enough that I am forced to face and examine my own worldview, that I cannot and will not get up again. I refuse to give you the "benefit of doubt" for my own beliefs, believe in the exact opposite of you."

    As I said, why should we bother explaining the evidence for evolution to someone who has already admitted that they will not accept it? It's a waste of time. There are many intellectually honest people in the world, the education of whom is far more important than wasting time on you.


    "Why should I turn into a liberal Christian and erode my beliefs just to help you make your case. That is what I refuse to do. You have no evidence that is concrete enough to change opinions, that is my point."

    I don't want you to become a liberal Christian. As I keep saying, I'm happy for you to believe what you want as long as you don't force it on me. Your deluded view of the world is of no consequence to me or to the validity of evolution. I hang around here mainly for cheap entertainment, and occasionally interesting dialogue (mostly from the commenters of course). I'm certainly not here because I want to change your mind.

    What would be the point of convincing you? You're so far down the fundy road, you can't even remember the countless times you've been debunked, as evidenced by the fact that you continually link back to previous posts to make a point, despite the fact that your point was already obliterated in the accompanying comment section.

    That's why I only spend a few months at a time here. It's amusing for a while, but then quickly spirals into agonising repetition and pathetic soundbytes...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Rhiggs,

    >>I am an atheist. I don't say that God doesn't exist. I just say I don't believe in God. Big difference.

    You are playing semantics now, I agree there is a big difference, then by definition alone, you are agnostic. If you were intellectually honest that is. You have faith that there is no God. If you were unsure then you would be agnostic. You are sure there is no God.

    >>As I said, why should we bother explaining the evidence for evolution to someone who has already admitted that they will not accept it?

    Again you are misunderstanding or willingly being difficult. Its not that I don't accept it, I REJECT it, based on the presented evidence. Can I say then the same to you about God? Why should we bother explaining the evidence for God to someone who has already admitted that they will not accept it? See?

    ReplyDelete
  36. No semantics Dan. I am sure that I don't believe in God so I'm an atheist (albeit a weak atheist). I base this on the complete lack of evidence, among other philosophical reasons. I wouldn't go as far as saying there is definitely no God (strong atheism) because I think that's an unscientific view.

    LOOK IT UP!!!!

    Agnosticism is being unsure either way.


    "I REJECT it, based on the presented evidence."

    No you don't. You reject it based on your presuppositions and simply pretend that it is based on the evidence. You have admitted your presuppositions before so don't try and deny it. Also, remember this:

    "Compromises of beliefs, and trusting in mankind, is the road that leads to destruction. "

    Hardly the statement of an open-minded individual...



    "Why should we bother explaining the evidence for God to someone who has already admitted that they will not accept it? "

    You shouldn't. So don't bother.... Please.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dan,

    When I said that you stated things I have been baffled by, I was intending to imply what you stated in your article. It baffles me that if their claims are even remotely true, they'd have it nailed down by now instead of making more excuses and theories.

    A fact is a fact. It's the *interpretations* of facts that bring all the fuss. After all, as one Creationist said, "It's the science of one religion vs the science of another religion".

    Cry as they might, atheists do have faith. I might venture to call it anti-faith.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ah yes, the "if the idea hasn't solved all problems, it's a bad idea" argument.

    Take note of the fact that theists who make this argument refuse to apply it to their own religion. Christianity struggles to conquer evil and abortion and crime and suicide - yet these things still exist.

    Therefore, Christianity is false.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Seems to me Sewerbound is as adept at debunking his own arguments as is the owner of this not so humble blog...

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dan

    Imagine a world without talk origins. You'd be lost.

    That'd be a world were real scientists never cared enough to fight the bullshit you people spew out; no thanks.

    Now, have you got anything to actually refute what they say?


    Dan quoting me:
    Try doing some work yourself instead of having us do it all for you.

    Said talk origins to Reynold.

    I guess not.

    It's more research than you've put into the matter, so you're stupid to snipe about it.


    Or are you going to ignore what the scientific consensus is, and just act like a brainless prat?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dan
    You do understand that 2 out of 6 is a failure in school don't you. Also, that is even giving the two "OPINION" that you presented.

    You do understand that those are just two of the examples of the wrong-headedness over there that I gave. Those were the most glaring examples of old, refuted arguments.

    I'd have thought that AIG would have those in their list of "arguments creationists shouldn't use anymore".

    But yeah, it's all crap over there. I thought I'd get my point across by giving just the two examples.


    And if you're stupid enough to call them "opinions", then you should realize that means your creationist sites are equally useless.

    At least honest scientists like to do experiments, research, and find corroborative evidence before they publish their "opinions".

    Odd that they've been able to find such a large degree of consensus about their "opinions" without having to resort to making sure that they stay loyal to any oaths beforehand, eh?


    Dan
    Really? Hmm my fault. I sure thought you were talking about Talk Origins like you have done the thousands of other times.


    Yes, Dan. Really. I said that it was a bible site that I found. You even commented on it.

    For some reason though, when I mention it again later, you somehow think I'm talking about Talk Origins?

    I don't know why I bother though, really.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Stormbringer wrote: "If evolution was a fact and a law"

    Stormbringer, given your comment, you have no idea what the word "law" means. Please look it up.

    Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  44. These atheists remind me of Jim Carrey's version of the Grinch: "Hate hate hate, hate hate hate, LOATHE ENTIRELY, hate hate hate..." It's not the intelligent discussion that attracts the little rodents, it's the hatred, the stalking, the taunting. Hey, how about the profiles that lists under interests, "Taunting Christians"? Is that a part of stalking, too?

    Unbalanced.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Reynold,

    >>Or are you going to ignore what the scientific consensus is, and just act like a brainless prat?

    Isn't the term "scientific consensus" an unscientific process? Besides we have had this conversation before. (bit.ly/cV9LPI)

    ReplyDelete
  46. Storm,

    >>Cry as they might, atheists do have faith. I might venture to call it anti-faith.

    Amen brother!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Dan, you may want to choose your friends more carefully. It seems that Stormer is not that honest.

    Read on from that point.



    As for your talk about scientific consensus, you got nailed a few times when you tried to talk about consensus. Of course you dismissed what she said anyway.

    Though, tell me: If you don't go for "scientific consensus", then how do you explain any of the advances in science humanity has made ever? That was basically CWC's point.

    What you fail to grasp is why any consensus exists in science.

    In creationism, it's because they've already made up their minds and they take oaths where they promise to never change their minds, no matter what.

    In science, it's the preponderance of evidence that eventually sways.

    Even so, scientists never take oaths like creationists do because some day, something may come along that may overthrow established theories.


    Then later in that post, you went on your anti-vaccine rants.

    Good grief. That ending comment about "If God wants a kid to catch something, even vaccines will not help".

    Wow, nice god you seem to believe in eh? Why would he want your kid to get sick anyway?

    What a fucker.

    So if your kid gets sick, you'll just assume that it's "gods will" and NOT take him to the hospital?


    By the way, you can't keep your kids isolaated and safe at home forever, Dan.

    They have to go out into the world sometime. That's where the diseases are.

    Now, to your comment about the vaccinated kid getting the disease anyway, go back to one of the links I had:

    4) Getting a vaccine does not guarantee not getting the disease. We don’t know how many babies were vaccinated, and how many weren’t that didn’t get the disease. But with 1 in 20 odds, I know which way I fall.

    Read the entire article. Vaccines to help.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I will say that I hope that you don't actually believe that your god would want some kid to get sick; that you were speaking in some hypothetical here.

    Still, if that is what you believe, that your god does at some point want a kid to get sick, then my comment stands.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Oh yeah, Dan. From that site of yours, it's all "confirmation bias" for every single successful prediction that evolution has fullfilled. Never mind the fact that originally, those people used to believe in a young earth and global flood like you.

    In fact, that problem carried over into modern times. YEC's would go out into the field, and get "deconverted".

    That's why Henry Morris first started that oath-taking procedure we talked about earlier.


    That character goes on in his conclusion about Darwins' predictions:

    Darwin’s theory of evolution led him to several expectations and predictions, regarding behavior in general, and altruism in particular. We now know those predictions to be false. Furthermore, in order to explain many of the behaviors we find in biology, evolutionists have had to add substantial serendipity to their theory. The list of events that must have occurred to explain how evolution produced what we observe is incredible and the theory has become profoundly complex.

    Guess what? Not all scientific theories are as simple as "Poof" Goddidit, you know.

    He should do some reading. Some mechanisms for evolution can be found here for instance.

    Of course there'd be changes to the theory since then: Darwin didn't even know about genetics yet.

    Many of the fossils we have weren't found yet.

    That was over a 150 years ago. What did you expect? No change in the theory at all?

    No scientific theory lasts unchanged over time that long. Even ones that are accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dan, Does it irritate you that a lowlife troll like Reynold will resort to ad hominem attacks AND tell you who to have as friends? He resorts to the "I am so freakin' smart" forum as "proof".

    Hey Reynoldwrap and Loserman and the rest of the lowlife trolls: If we're doing ad hominem attacks and not sticking to the topic at hand, I guess I should post (in their entirety) the comments from trolls that were left on my site. Wouldn't that be fun? Of course, since atheists have no moral compass and do whatever they feel like without a sense of right and wrong, it would be "fair", wouldn't it? Naturally, it wouldn't bother people who do not have consciences.

    Wow, what a bunch of intellectual and moral cowards. Of course, you're grousing because I shut off the comments button on my Weblog. After all, it's MY Weblog, and I can write about whatever I want and not allow comments.

    ReplyDelete
  51. These atheists remind me of Jim Carrey's version of the Grinch: "Hate hate hate, hate hate hate, LOATHE ENTIRELY, hate hate hate..."

    Spoken like the true internet troll you are Drizzle Flake. You also have the maturity of a two year old.

    You still haven't responded to your posting false replies under other people's names. And then you deleted them and posted;

    "I get to leave comments. Hahahahaha!"

    Yes. You get to hold conversations with yourself, because everyone else knows you're an evil, flaky, false convert. You have the instincts of a dung beetle. You aren't happy unless you're wallowing in huge piles of shit, which is convenient since that's all that comes out of your mouth.

    It's not the intelligent discussion that attracts the little rodents, it's the hatred, the stalking, the taunting. Hey, how about the profiles that lists under interests, "Taunting Christians"? Is that a part of stalking, too?

    Your right there. People are attracted to your hatred and taunting nonsense. They can't believe that someone who claims to be a Christian, would write such insane, hate-filled bullshit. But the stalking is your own paranoia. You should get that checked.

    Unbalanced.

    That should be your middle name.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Dan, Does it irritate you that a lowlife troll like Reynold will resort to ad hominem attacks AND tell you who to have as friends? He resorts to the "I am so freakin' smart" forum as "proof".

    Drizzle Flake, Drizzle Flake… What is up with you? Why do you hate everyone? You realize that you’re going to die alone and bitter? You hate everything.

    But most of all you hate what a sniveling little coward you turned out to be. Have you always been a big mouthed pussy? Have you always made up comments about people you hate? Have you always had your head so far up your ass that your nose is burning from stomach acid? What’s your problem? I can see the spittle and snot spraying out of your face as you write about wearesmrt.com. You really hate that place. But you spend so much time there.
    Why is that? Lonely, I suppose.

    Hey Reynoldwrap and Loserman and the rest of the lowlife trolls: If we're doing ad hominem attacks and not sticking to the topic at hand, I guess I should post (in their entirety) the comments from trolls that were left on my site. Wouldn't that be fun?

    Do you mean the one’s that you made up? Because no one else posts at your pathetic little ghost town of a blog. Please do… You have no morals. You have no personality other than hate. Are you also going to post the comments you leave to yourself? You are one crazy little bitch.

    Are you going to post the ones where you threatened to come to PA to kick some butts? Come on and bring it…

    Of course, since atheists have no moral compass and do whatever they feel like without a sense of right and wrong, it would be "fair", wouldn't it? Naturally, it wouldn't bother people who do not have consciences.

    I don’t think you have a conscience or you’re just too crazy to listen to it. You talk about others not having a moral compass, but you find no problem in making up lies and posting them under other people’s names in order to make yourself look better. Do you think that if you ignore the fact that you’re a lying little prick that no one else will notice? You are living proof that there is no God, because you claim to be a Christian, yet don’t give a damn if you break every commandment and then ignore the consequences.

    Wow, what a bunch of intellectual and moral cowards. Of course, you're grousing because I shut off the comments button on my Weblog. After all, it's MY Weblog, and I can write about whatever I want and not allow comments.

    No douchebag. No one cares about posting on your stupid ghost town blog. No one cares if you shut off your comments and sit there talking to yourself. But I still wonder why you aren’t man enough to admit that you posted lies under the names of others? Are you above your god’s laws?

    I actually think you’re crying out for help and maybe your Christian brothers (any who will put up with you) should give you that. Because everything you post is a projection of the darkness in your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  53. This Stormbringer guy is hilarious.

    Dan, have you seen what he did posting comments under other people's names?

    I know us atheists are the scum of the earth and all, but surely what Stormbringer did is against your morals? And he claims to be a Christian. Are his actions Christian-like in your eyes?

    You would call him out on it if you had a backbone.

    But you don't. You just ignore it and encourage his dishonesty:

    Amen brother!

    Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Is it just me or has the dung beetle not made even one salient point in all of his infantile rantings?

    I am unable to actually parse out what it is that he is disputing.

    Storm, scamper off and play with your little dick some more- or suck your thumb as you are wont to do.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Storm,
    "Dan, Does it irritate you that a lowlife troll like Reynold will resort to ad hominem attacks AND tell you who to have as friends? He resorts to the "I am so freakin' smart" forum as "proof".

    Hey, shit-for-brains, Dan has more integrity in his eyelashes than you do in your whole pitiful existence.....Plus, Dan loves us and I am sure he will attest to that.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Is it just me or has the dung beetle not made even one salient point in all of his infantile rantings?

    You've got that right. He has this unique disability to run on and on and on and on and on and on, without ever really saying anything.

    I am unable to actually parse out what it is that he is disputing.

    I think he is ticked off because he thinks the legions of immoral atheist trolls from the abyss are going to infringe on his right to wallow in steaming mounds of fresh excrement. And he is projecting....

    ReplyDelete
  57. StygiaBound wrote the following to Dan: Hey Reynoldwrap and Loserman and the rest of the lowlife trolls: If we're doing ad hominem attacks and not sticking to the topic at hand, I guess I should post (in their entirety) the comments from trolls that were left on my site. Wouldn't that be fun?

    Considering that you deleted and edited the comments, maybe that would be a good idea. Here's the one I posted to his insipid blog:

    "I define manhood simply: men should be tough, fair, and courageous, never petty, never looking for a fight, but never backing down from one, either." — John Wayne

    You're so courageous & fair that you have to be deceptive to make your point, and then cover your tracks when it's discovered. How does it feel to find the very thing you claim to be fighting against online - staring back at you in the mirror?

    The standards of manhood you claim to value reveal you to have fallen far short of your goal.


    At first, I thought Dr. Benway was being a bit harsh, but I can now see that I was mistaken. You really are a sad, bitter little man, Sewerbound, exhibiting the very traits you claim are embodied by atheists, and failing utterly to live up to your own proclaimed values.

    As others have said, I have yet to see you make a single post on-topic. You're a bigger troll than D Mabus, who at least has the good sense to be entertaining... (language = R)

    ReplyDelete
  58. Wem,

    >>"I define manhood simply: men should be tough, fair, and courageous, never petty, never looking for a fight, but never backing down from one, either." — John Wayne

    I love that quote! You get, at the very least, 10 points for that one.

    While, like a good snowball fight, flinging poo can be entertaining it distracts from the issue we are discussing. In an academic debate, no one can do it better then Aykroyd and Curtin, they are extremely entertaining so don't even try to top them.

    Ask yourself if the points made were valid and strong arguments. Do we even care what the points were after that hysterical banter?

    Why are we here? I am here to Debunk Atheists, but I also believe we are here for something else. Do you know what that is? Do you know why we are here?

    ReplyDelete
  59. So Dan refuses to call out Stormbringer for blatant and documented dishonesty. Instead he continues to ignore it and has tried to deflect attention by creating a new post.

    What happened to absolute morality Dan?

    There is proof that Stormbringer has borne false witness? If an atheist had done this, you would be all over it like a fly on shit with your usual soundbytes:

    "O'rly?....Hypocrite much?....Lie much?....Bear false witness much?....Bad fruit much?"

    C'mon Dan. As deluded as you are, you're better than this. Have some balls and call out the liar. Be consistent with your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Rhiggs,

    >>Have some balls and call out the liar.

    He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at 'him'.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Do you respect the truth or don't you? What about that post you did about lying?

    We've just brought forth evidence that your newest friend is a liar, and when asked if you'll be consistent to your own morality and call him on it, you refuse.

    Care to explain your hypocrosy?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Dan has showed us how useful cherry-picking the bible is. When it comes to us "unsaved" sinning, he'll make a post about how bad sinning is in general and quote bible verses to support his position.

    When we've shown him an example of a "saved" person sinning and getting caught, Dan doesn't want to attack him, so he quotes a different bible verse about casting stones.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Reynold,

    >>We've just brought forth evidence that your newest friend is a liar, and when asked if you'll be consistent to your own morality and call him on it, you refuse.

    >>Care to explain your hypocrosy?

    Care to explain yours??????

    What part of your worldview thinks that lying is wrong at all? Why are you IMPOSING your beliefs on someone???? I thought you didn't want God to do such a thing. Isn't the thought of a God, that you have to answer to, sickens you? Will you like it when you are judged for your transgressions?

    If he has indeed lied, he already knows it and has to deal with God himself because of it.

    You cannot hound people into Christianity, they must approach God with a broken and contrite heart. When are you going to do that? Remember the whole mote eye thingy (Matthew 7:3) Heed!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dan quoting me:

    Care to explain your hypocrosy?


    Care to explain yours??????

    What part of your worldview thinks that lying is wrong at all? Why are you IMPOSING your beliefs on someone????


    Because unlike you religous phonies, we give a shit about reality and how it works. We just have to look at the consequences of actions to come up with a basic set of rules for how people in society get along.

    All atheism is, is a lack of a belief in gods. The rest is figured out on our own. We just don't get our morality from some bronze age book unlike you.

    That does not mean that atheists don't have a source or reason for morality. It's just not handed down from "on high".

    I thought you didn't want God to do such a thing.

    What? Have honest representatives for once?

    Think, Dan. I know it's hard for you, but try: If God hates liars, and considers it a "sin" then why are you not ashamed of your fellow xian lying?? Doesn't Paul or one of those NT clowns talk about members of a church helping other be accountable for their actions?

    As I said, it's you who are the hypocrite, not me.

    Pathetic that every time we catch one of you people "sinning", instead of admitting to it, and trying to do better by your own damned moral code you instead do a "Comfort" and ignore the xian sinning, and instead try and attack the atheists "world view".

    I'm getting sick of this song and dance.

    Isn't the thought of a God, that you have to answer to, sickens you? Will you like it when you are judged for your transgressions?

    You idiot, why are you assuming that I believe in your god?

    Are you really that stupid? Threats like that only work on those who already believe!

    You must be following Comfort's playbook: That's what that moron does with his "are you a good person" test?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Dan:

         I believe Reynold is asking why you apply a much lighter standard to a fellow-christian than you do to outsiders. When dealing with outsiders, you seem rather quick to cast that stone.
         Now, this is what your "morality" looks like to me. You place impossibly heavy burdens upon non-christians and are quick to condemn them for not meeting the burdens. But you give a free pass to your fellow-christians. A frame-up job? No problem.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Reynolds wrote to Dan: Care to explain your hypocrosy?

    Dan responded: Care to explain yours??????

    What part of your worldview thinks that lying is wrong at all? Why are you IMPOSING your beliefs on someone?


    I can't believe I actually have to type this. It should be obvious to a child, let alone someone responsible for fathering and raising one: Reynolds is trying to get Dan to impose Dan's world view onto Dan's blog. For some reason, the blog owner in question refuses to do so.

    Dan's world view = debunked.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Reynold,

    >> We just have to look at the consequences of actions to come up with a basic set of rules for how people in society get along.

    Come up with? Really? So you could be wrong about that then? It may be wrong to not lie, right? Someday it might be widely accepted that lying is in fact socially acceptable?

    Your just claiming that today you "feel" it as wrong?

    Who are you trying to convince now? Me or you?

    >>We just don't get our morality from some bronze age book unlike you

    Nice try but we get our morals from the same place you do...our consciences!!! Another gift of God's

    >>That does not mean that atheists don't have a source or reason for morality. It's just not handed down from "on high".

    Utter garbage logic you have there.

    >>You must be following Comfort's playbook: That's what that moron does with his "are you a good person" test?

    Actually I am doing the same as Comfort would do...sing with me...Law to the...

    ReplyDelete
  68. Pvb,

    >> Now, this is what your "morality" looks like to me. You place impossibly heavy burdens upon non-christians and are quick to condemn them for not meeting the burdens.

    Yes exactly!!! There is absolutely NOTHING you can do to fix it, nothing you can do to right your wrongs. Now you are getting it!!! Wahooo!!


    But you give a free pass to your fellow-christians. A frame-up job? No problem.

    Exactly!!! Jesus wipes away ALL sins past, present, and future!

    Christians are SAVED! They do get that, very undeserved, free pass! Why? Because we throw ourselves to the mercy of the court. God gives us grace.

    If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, and called the police, and I went to jail, that is justice. Justice is getting what you deserve. If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, but you did not call the police, and you let me go, that is mercy. Mercy is not getting what you deserve. If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, and you not only did not call the police, but you forgave me, and you gave me the bike, that is grace. Grace is getting what you do not deserve.

    The reason God is gracious to us, has nothing to do with what is in us. Instead, it has everything to do with what is in God: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) We receive grace because of God's goodness. It is not because we deserve it.

    Remember that acronym?

    God's Riches At Christ's Expense.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Pvblivs wrote to Dan: Now, this is what your "morality" looks like to me. You place impossibly heavy burdens upon non-christians and are quick to condemn them for not meeting the burdens.

    Dan responded: Yes exactly!!! There is absolutely NOTHING you can do to fix it, nothing you can do to right your wrongs. Now you are getting it!!! Wahooo!!

    Did anyone else here notice how quickly Dan equated his morality with God's?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Wem,

    >>Did anyone else here notice how quickly Dan equated his morality with God's?

    Didn't anyone tell you that I am a part of Christ? (Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 4:12)

    ReplyDelete
  71. And yet, there's nothing in Christ or the Bible which says "Lying is against the Christian world view and should be rebuked, except when the lies are committed by people who claim to be Christians".

    That little gem is all Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Wem,

    >>And yet, there's nothing in Christ or the Bible which says "Lying is against the Christian world view and should be rebuked, except when the lies are committed by people who claim to be Christians".

    Project much? I never said that lying is OK, or not bad. I just said that if Storm lied he is already rebuked in conscience because, being a Christian, the Holy Spirit is convicting him. When a Christian sins it is agonizing and we really feel it. It doesn't mean we do not sin but the fact that it tears us up is a sign we are indeed Christians. If Storm isn't concerned about lying, THEN I would be 'concerned' about his Salvation. I certainly know he is in good hands. Unlike the likes of y'all.

    ReplyDelete
  73. When a Christian sins it is agonizing and we really feel it. It doesn't mean we do not sin but the fact that it tears us up is a sign we are indeed Christians

    Where's the evidence that his lies are tearing him up inside?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Wem,

    >>Where's the evidence that his lies are tearing him up inside?

    I have no clue but he knows. We are not to judge motives either, BTW. How do you know what a man is thinking and planning?

    ReplyDelete
  75. YOU claimed to know, not me:

    I just said that if Storm lied he is already rebuked in conscience because, being a Christian, the Holy Spirit is convicting him. {...} the fact that it tears us up is a sign we are indeed Christians.

    Do you actually NOT read what you write?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Dan,
    Sorry for sterotyping you as a homophob.

    Could you do a post on your YEC timeline of history that include the following

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dan
    Nice try but we get our morals from the same place you do...our consciences!!! Another gift of God's

    Or an evolutionary development. Even some primates show some level of conscience and morality.

    That, and there's the fact that if "conscience" was a gift from your "god", why so many societies and people do stuff that your religion would abhor? Of course you'll say they "rejected God" or something...

    So, in other words, if anyone acts according to xian "morality" that's evidence FOR your view, but when people act against xian "morality", that's just them rejecting god, and thus you have an unfalsifiable assertion there.

    ME:

    That does not mean that atheists don't have a source or reason for morality. It's just not handed down from "on high".


    Utter garbage logic you have there.

    Explain. To me, the "utter garbage logic" is your bald and unsupported assertion that "conscience" is a "gift from god" when "god" is basically the main thing in dispute in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  78. So let's see: One ancient tablet means that the ENTIRE OT is true, while the several cases of historical inaccuracies found in the (sources of) this site are all "flawed".

    Dan never did get around to explaining why they're wrong, other than that they go against the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Reynold said to Dan:

    "So, in other words, if anyone acts according to xian "morality" that's evidence FOR your view, but when people act against xian "morality", that's just them rejecting god, and thus you have an unfalsifiable assertion there.
    "

    Spot on. Along with that Dan also uses a hefty helping of double standards....

    When atheists sin, Dan says:

    "O'rly?....Hypocrite much?....Lie much?....Bear false witness much?....Bad fruit much?"

    But when Christians sin, Dan says:

    "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at 'him'"

    Absolute morality seems to have gone out the window.



    Reynold said of Dan:

    "Dan never did get around to explaining why they're wrong, other than that they go against the bible."

    But you see, that is Dan's explanation. Are you not convinced by such impressive reasoning Reynold? Pffh! Typical elitist...

    ReplyDelete
  80. Evolution(Shameless imagination from 19th Century) DON'T have the fossils records!

    For Example:the Cambrian explosion in our true history,All those human footprints from over 40 million years ago around the whole world.

    Evolutionist = the just a gang of Shameless Craps(trashes of human race), who don't have face and kept spreading lies whereas they're desperately want to found anything that they can to hold one to, DESPERATELY :)

    Evolution = A faith/Lie/Cult that was Looong Debunked, Nothing more, Nothing less.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>