esoteric.saudade: Do FARKERS get a sense of pride or accomplishment for ridiculing and mocking another's beliefs? Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism? In the end, isn't it just hate going both ways?

The beginning of the thread was rather interesting, with FARKERS discussing the historically background of the Bible, then degenerated into religion-bashing.

Sad.

The reason why people pick on Christians is that it is the most repressive religion in the United States.

I am not saying that's a fault of "Christianity" it's the fault of the people who use Christianity as a tool for their political purposes.

Many Christians don't believe in forcing their religious beliefs on others, but the problems is many Christians in America do and the good ones get wrongly blamed for what the bad ones do.

Just like all Muslims get blamed for what a very tiny percentage of what bad Muslims do.

You only notice the a-holes.

Corvus: You only notice the a-holes.

Goes for everygroup, including the atheists, the Jews, although I've yet to meet an asshole Buddhist...

esoteric.saudade: Do FARKERS get a sense of pride or accomplishment for ridiculing and mocking another's beliefs? Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism? In the end, isn't it just hate going both ways?

The beginning of the thread was rather interesting, with FARKERS discussing the historically background of the Bible, then degenerated into religion-bashing.

Sad.

welcome to Fark

meat0918: although I've yet to meet an asshole Buddhist...

....trying to resist obvious joke....

/gere
//gerbil

esoteric.saudade: Why does it seem OK to belittle religion (mainly Christianity on FARK), but not so much Atheism?

Atheism is simple... it's a lack of belief in any sort of god/invisible man/woman/whatever that made the world. What could you belittle them for? Not believing that there is an invisible sky god thing that made all of us? Well... feel free. I really don't mind.

As to why some of us resent Christianity in particular, well here are a few of the reasons I don't like Christianity:

Christians have this nasty tendency to try and dictate to everyone what they can and can't do based on rules for their religion. At times in my life I have been both physically and verbally assaulted by Christians simply because I didn't believe what they believe. I also get sick and tired of their fear mongering...

Fear mongering? How can I say that? Well... Christianity operates under a system that promotes fear of punishment. If you do not follow their rules, you're told you will suffer and burn for eternity. If you do not follow their path, they believe you can not be a good person. Neither of which is true. One does not need rules dictated by religious men to be a good person (although Christians claim that their rules were passed down by a god, they actually wrote these rules themselves and continue to make up new ones as they go along). Individuals are plenty capable of being good people without any religious belief at all. Yet Christianity claims otherwise and is more than happy to point the finger at anyone who doesn't subscribe to their club and persecute them for it or at the very least try to instill a sense of fear in them ("You're going to burn in hell!")...

Also consider how many wars have been fought over religion and in particular Christianity. How many people disposed from their homes because some Christian decided that some particular chunk of land is "holy" and belongs to them? How many gay kids ostracized by their families because religion tells them there is something wrong with their sexual preference? How many young girls are ostracized by their family because they got pregnant out of wedlock? How many people tortured in the name of your religion? How many people killed in the name of your religion? Too many... that's how many.

We put up with their pushy billboards, their fear mongering, their wars, their murderers, their bullies, their attempts to dictate laws based on their religion, their condemnations, their bigotry, their hate speech, their racism, and all the other crap Christians pull. Yet somehow you think a bit of contempt for religion and Christianity in particular is unwarranted... THAT is truly sad.

Seriously... let me know when your invisible sky god friend is going to come down and personally apologize for all the shiat he has "told" and "allowed" his followers to do for the last couple thousand years. Of course, finding "Him" might be a bit difficult outside of your own imagination. And if that ever does happen I'll happily apologize for doubting your faith.

nunoyo: t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

The way my old pastor told it, the gate was the only night-time gate open, therefore extremely narrow and short, designed to allow only one person at a time through. SO the only way a camel could go through was by removing all of its burdens (possessions) and crawling on its knees (praying).

So a rich man would have to give up everything and become humble and THEN he could get to heaven.

meat0918: Goes for everygroup, including the atheists, the Jews, although I've yet to meet an asshole Buddhist..

One of the biggest assholes I've ever met was actually a (former) Buddhist monk.

nunoyo: I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

It's basically exactly what the text says, people just tend to try to rationalize it because it makes them uncomfortable. The whole "gate in Jerusalem" thing is utter bullshiat, there's no evidence a gate existed. The "mistranslation of the word for rope" is also crap. Passing a large animal (such as an elephant) through a needle is a Talmudic expression for "something that's really farking hard". So Jesus is most likely just appropriating an adage that existed at the time.

meat0918:
//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.
///Sorry for the threadjack...

You might want to look into that, sparky. What the requirements are for marriage officiants vary from state to state. In NY a judge can officiate and there is nothing that would preclude an atheist from being a judge.

roadmarks: meat0918:
//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.
///Sorry for the threadjack...

You might want to look into that, sparky. What the requirements are for marriage officiants vary from state to state. In NY a judge can officiate and there is nothing that would preclude an atheist from being a judge.

He's wrong. Judges, County Clerks, and Justices of the Peace can all perform weddings in Oregon.

attackingpencil: meat0918: Goes for everygroup, including the atheists, the Jews, although I've yet to meet an asshole Buddhist..

One of the biggest assholes I've ever met was actually a (former) Buddhist monk.

Yeah, I've met some asshole Buddhist nuns.

t3knomanser: attackingpencil: meat0918: Goes for everygroup, including the atheists, the Jews, although I've yet to meet an asshole Buddhist..

One of the biggest assholes I've ever met was actually a (former) Buddhist monk.

Yeah, I've met some asshole Buddhist nuns.

Wouldn't that be b*tchy? Men are assholes, women are b*tches and all?

/or is asshole a gender-neutral term, despite the way it's usually used?

meat0918: Son of Thunder: Wow.

Careful, Fark atheists. Masturbation this intense could cause your wangs to catch fire.

I'd think anything that could give Christians a more accurate and complete representation of their God would be welcomed. This is what, one of the earliest known copies of the Bible?

//What do you mean parts of the life of Jesus were sacrificed to the gods of ecumenical politics?

It is welcomed. I'm married to a pastor who is also working on her MA in theology, and her reaction to this news was enthusiastically positive. My comments were a reaction to the tone of this thread. Every religion thread at Fark brings out the haters, but this one seems a bit above and beyond to me. We're talking about an advancement in scholarly attention to a 1,600-year-old manuscript (as PC LOAL LETTER pointed out, a significantly good thing no matter what one's religious persuasion or lack thereof), but the early comments in this thread were disproportionately populated with Farkers going to great lengths to tell the world that all Christians are their intellectual and moral inferiors. At what point does one remove the stick from one's rectum and acknowledge the goodness of advancing historical research without using it as an excuse for posturing?

attackingpencil: roadmarks: meat0918:
//Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.
///Sorry for the threadjack...

You might want to look into that, sparky. What the requirements are for marriage officiants vary from state to state. In NY a judge can officiate and there is nothing that would preclude an atheist from being a judge.

He's wrong. Judges, County Clerks, and Justices of the Peace can all perform weddings in Oregon.

Right, and nothing wrong with that. My point is all a religious person has to do is claim to be a minister. No election to go through, no interview process, just pop by the county office and get your legal ability to marry someone. I'd like to see an openly atheist person be elected to one of these positions to start.

It's a farce is what it is, given that all it takes to be ordained a minister is 5 minutes of your time online, regardless of what you believe.

eqtworld 2009-07-06 02:47:58 AM
I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

You lack of knowledge is apparent; there aren't many serious Christians that are NOT 'well aware' of the rather minor inconsistancies you want to trumpet.

What you gloss over are the consistancies - about 97% if I remember correctly.

Haters are everywhere; why don't you talk about Mohammed taking a nine year girl for a 'bride'?

meat0918: //Did you know atheists cannot become marriage officiants? You have to be a minister, even if your intent is to marry others (atheists or otherwise) that want a little more than the trip to the courthouse, but not the full shebang religious ceremonies entwined with marriage.

That depends on the state. In AK anyone can officiate a marriage as long as they notify the courthouse of the intent and get the little piece of paper that says, "You are a marriage commissioner."

mfaby: What you gloss over are the consistancies - about 97% if I remember correctly.

For the biblical literalists (there are a few around here) they deny (or more probably are ignorant of) that 3% of inconsistencies exist. To that subset of Christians, the Bible is infallible; even the contradictory parts. That is what we ridicule.

Corvus: And don't understand the "don't have gay sex" books also say things like you can't eat shell fish, or that you should stone women who marry who are not virgins.

And your wife and daughter should go sit in the menstruation tent and not touch/prepare food while they're bleeding.

And that whole easily identifiable part about not coveting things your neighbor has.

mfaby: You lack of knowledge is apparent; there aren't many serious Christians that are NOT 'well aware' of the rather minor inconsistancies you want to trumpet.

Actually, since close to 50% of the American population seems to believe in a 6000 year old divinely created earth, I am curious to know how many "serious" Christians you happen to know.

The reason why I point this out is that there are 2 different creation stories right on the first two pages of the bible, which means that 50% of the American population seems to be unaware of this fact.

What you gloss over are the consistancies - about 97% if I remember correctly.

Consistencies regarding...? Creation? The Flood? The 10 commandments? Jesus's Birth? Jesus's Death? Resurrection? All of those are very inconsistent between books, or sometimes within books.

Haters are everywhere; why don't you talk about Mohammed taking a nine year girl for a 'bride'?

When religion is criticized by atheists, the atheists usually criticize the religion they are most familiar with. Skeptics in India are being attacked because they go after Hinduism, when the Hindus think the skeptics should be attacking Christianity. Do you see how that works?

And please, most of us aren't haters. After all, we don't hate Santa, the Easter Bunny, pookas, leprechauns and God, all for the same reason.

maddogdelta: When religion is criticized by atheists, the atheists usually criticize the religion they are most familiar with

Uh, maybe in your stilted world. But in mine, we criticize the very IDEA of religion. It just so happens that most of the stupid shiat in this world is perpetrated by induhviduals closely associate with the major religious movements, but from my perspective, all religious movements suck and should just go away forever.

meat0918: Goes for everygroup, including the atheists, the Jews, although I've yet to meet an asshole Buddhist...

...though there are any number who claim to splash a little Buddhism into their Create-Your-Own-Philosophies...

Apparently they don't splash much of the contemplative, introspective sort. ;-)


t3knomanser: Yeah, I've met some asshole Buddhist nuns.

Are their nuns hot, too?


maddogdelta: And please, most of us aren't haters. After all, we don't hate Santa, the Easter Bunny, pookas, leprechauns and God, all for the same reason.

Speak for yourself. Leprechauns are annoying little pissants!

Close2TheEdge: maddogdelta: When religion is criticized by atheists, the atheists usually criticize the religion they are most familiar with

Uh, maybe in your stilted world. But in mine, we criticize the very IDEA of religion. It just so happens that most of the stupid shiat in this world is perpetrated by induhviduals closely associate with the major religious movements, but from my perspective, all religious movements suck and should just go away forever.

So, when someone challenges you on your stance, and asks you to name just 1 silly story that comes out of religion, you pick one of thousands from your incredibly encyclopedic memory? Or to you automatically grab, for example, the zombie who was his own dad story? My point is that if you read the previous statement, it was obviously a butt hurt Christian telling the atheists to go pick on someone else. My Hindu example actually comes from the December 2008 issue of the Austin Atheist ^{(^)}.

So, no, it's not just in my "stilted world". It's called human nature and reality. Get familiar with it.

Son of Thunder: At what point does one remove the stick from one's rectum and acknowledge the goodness of advancing historical research without using it as an excuse for posturing?

NEVAR! Don't you know all religions are evil and must the extinguished because it makes people dumb and stuff? And like... Less beer for Money or something something.

\Super Egoism Rocks!

PC LOAD LETTER: nunoyo: t3knomanser: FlashHarry: "the eye of the needle" was actually a large mountain pass in the holy land

The version I heard was that it was a gate into Jerusalem, and it was a very narrow one, so you couldn't go through it with a camel unless you got off and really pulled on the reins.

Stupid either way. Besides, aren't we supposed to be taking the literal interpretation?

I had been told before that to get your camel through this supposed gate, you had to take off any burden it was carrying, the idea of that interpretation being that in order to get into heaven you had to lose the material things. Any of you linguistically-gifted farkers want to look at that verse real quick and talk about needles or gates or whatever is/isn't there?

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

It's pretty literal in Greek: It is easier for a camel to come through the aperture of a needle than a rich person (male) to go into the kindgom of God.

Except that the argument I'd heard was that the word used means 'camel', but was also a slang term for a boating line, a thick hempen rope. (remember he was hanging around with a lot of sailors at the time) In order to get it through a needle, you'd have to unravel it quite a bit - thus it conveys the same meaning as the other analogies, but (at least in my mind), much more elegantly. It's far easier to imagine unraveling a thick hemp rope down to a thread in order to get it through a needle than any of the other tortured camel analogies. I don't think it really matters which analogy you're using, though, as long as the correct message is conveyed (don't focus on earthly wealth).

Magorn: eyehate: Mithra Christ smiles on your foolishness.

Actually its really more Manichiest-Christ, unless you really want to blow your mind and read up on Mandeanism, which was a middle eastern mystery religion that very closely matched the practices that we ascribed to the Essene sect of Judaism and called their highest level initiates Nasoreans (enlightened teacher more or less). In their tradition both John the Baptist and Jesus were Nasoreans, but, here's the fun twist: John the Baptist was their most revered teacher and Jesus was reviled as basically their version of a Sith Lord who betrayed the order and turned to the dark side.

Eyehate and Magorn: Enclosed is 0 dollars, no SASE, and a request to be subscribed to your newsletters.

untaken_name: I don't think it really matters which analogy you're using, though, as long as the correct message is conveyed (don't focus on earthly wealth).

The only people I've heard these kinds of arguments from are well off people. Rev's Dollar and Tilton, the guys who try to tell you that god will make you rich, use it all the time. It sounds like the standard mealy mouthed way to use the bible to give you justification to do whatever you want (Calling Fred Phelps to the thread!) that all "people of faith" tend to do.

After all, if they really took their book seriously, they would sell all their possessions and beg for their dinners. ^{(^)}

t3knomanser: Because atheism doesn't make indefensible claims about the world?

such as:
-abiogenesis
-chemical evolution
-the big bang (self caused)
-common ancestry
-there is no God {----- you might wanna think about this one

t3knomanser: whereas believing something because you're supposed to without direct evidence is called "gullibility" faith?

FTFY

Also if you think you don't use faith, you shoulld review the previous comment...

t3knomanser: Because atheists weren't and aren't using their beliefs to justify slavery, racism, and all sorts of other forms of bigotry?

Atheists are such honorable and noble people who only contribute to the true Eutopian creation of society. Perhaps we should review some history to support your claim?

t3knomanser: People bash religion because religion stands up, asking to get bashed of their guilty conscience.

/and because strawmen are so easily defeated

FTFY

t3knomanser: The reality is people mock religion things they do not understand

FTFY

cthellis: Speak for yourself. Leprechauns are annoying little pissants!

That's why you need to hang out with pookas. They are much more pleasant.

I drunk what: t3knomanser: Because atheism doesn't make indefensible claims about the world?

such as:
-abiogenesis
-chemical evolution
-the big bang (self caused)
-common ancestry
-there is no God {----- you might wanna think about this one

You're so cute when you lie. Do you know that telling falsehoods will get you sent to hell? At least according to the book you claim to follow....

What's that? Oh, right, that is one of the icky parts you ignore. You have been shown documented, peer reviewed evidence which has been challenged and met the challenge of over 150 years of research for the first 4 points above. The fifth, you have been asked to present evidence for, and you have advanced absolutely none.

So, I would like you to answer this question. Why do creationists have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth?

maddogdelta: So, I would like you to answer this question. Why do creationists have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth?

"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'" - Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." - Phillip E. Johnson, Discovery Institute

They want a theocracy. They know it, we know it, so they are forced to lie about it in order to get the general population behind them.

maddogdelta: You're so cute when you lie.

do i look this cute :{ ?

/:{
//:{

maddogdelta: So, I would like you to answer this question. Why do creationists have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth?

what do ya mean "still" beat my wife?

maddogdelta: You have been shown documented, peer reviewed evidence which has been challenged and met the challenge of over 150 years of research for the first 4 points above.

should I just take your word for this statement or should I get a 2nd opinion?

maddogdelta: The fifth, you have been asked to present evidence for, and you have advanced absolutely none.

Link (new window)

And now some fun with out of context quotes by Mr. Johnson

"..fear freedom of thought because... that sets people free" - Phillip E. Johnson

maddogdelta: What's that? Oh, right, that is one of the icky parts you ignore. You have been shown documented, peer reviewed evidence which has been challenged and met the challenge of over 150 years of research for the first 4 points above. The fifth, you have been asked to present evidence for, and you have advanced absolutely none.

So, I would like you to answer this question. Why do creationists have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth?

not to piss on your parade mdd, but you want to know what else was "peer reviewed".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories (pops)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsolete_scientific_theories (pops)

Personally, I think it's ridiculous for you and other atheists to compare various 2000+ yr old incomplete, translated, subsets of text intended in many cases to document history, or act as a parable to "science". But is that really all religion is to you? I know it is for "fundamentalists" But Seriously. Is that the farking best you've got?

And personally, I believe in evolution and science. But I understand that science doesn't disprove theism. And I accept that the concept of a transcendental "God" or "Diety" capable existing outside of physical reality and spacetime isn't a "threat" to rationality since we consistently show through science that we really don't have a complete understanding of "physical existence" much less reality.

My points are from a mathematical representation of existence and reality, and a cosmological perspective and the fact that I understand as recently self aware "talking meat", we're not at any kind of apex in terms of understanding reality, existence, the universe, or even causality. We just keep moving the bug questions or creating new ones.

If you've got issues with aspects of religion or religious dogma, fine knock your ass out. I probably have a lot of the same issues you do. But I also have issues with lame ass indoctrinated atheist rhetoric and dogma also and the similar types of bullshiat they play on the internet and elsewhere.

maddogdelta: Why do creationists have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth?

the same reason why atheists-"evolutionists" have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth...

They want an atheocracy. They know it, we know it, so they are forced to lie about it in order to get the general population behind them.

:{ :{ :{

I drunk what: should I just take your word for this statement or should I get a 2nd opinion?

You are really sounding like Ray Comfort. He gets told dozens of times with every blog post he makes, yet he still spouts the same crap daily.

You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the "My Fark" tab up there ^ and click on it. Go to almost every thread you have posted in, and you will find links to documentation, videos etc where people are trying to point out your misconceptions to you.

You will notice one common thread. You always seem to say "I'll check that out later" or something similar. And then, sometimes in the very next thread, you post your same misconception.

Which means that you are either lying about not having seen any evidence, or you are deliberately ignoring it and pretending it's not there.

I drunk what: maddogdelta: The fifth, you have been asked to present evidence for, and you have advanced absolutely none.

Link (new window)

Still waiting.

kerpal32: not to piss on your parade mdd, but you want to know what else was "peer reviewed".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories (pops)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsolete_scientific_theories (pops)

Behold! Science at work!

//I don't know and you don't either, now lets go grab a beer. I'm buying the first round.

I drunk what: the same reason why atheists-"evolutionists" have to lie to convince people that they are telling the truth...


Could you point out the lie then? For example, could you highlight the falsification in, say, the peer reviewed literature demonstrating through DNA evidence of common descent? Or, could you possibly point out the falsehood of the peer reviewed literature demonstrating natural selection?

Because there is something in it for you if you can. It's called the Nobel Prize. You show evolution is incorrect through repeatable experiment or observation and you get the prize, megabucks, fame, a prestigious university position, etc. It's there.

What is cool, is that plenty of biologists have gone for it. And they all failed. Since you are so sure that we are lying about any of the top four points you posted above, all you have to do is come up with the evidence, write your paper, and watch the prizes and the money roll in.

Are you up for it? We'll be watching.

kerpal32: I probably have a lot of the same issues you do.

such as? I'd really like to hear more of your religious views and less of why atheists are such willfully stupid hypocrites, I don't think there is really any more debate there

for example, are you a fan of ninjakirby's conspiracy theories? do you think most of his skepticism is justified?

perhaps none of us really have a clue and it would be better to play the "agnostic" card, and call it a day?

do you think any religion is even close? or that you just find little bits and pieces of this or that one that has any merit?'

would you care to share any constructive criticism in anything I've suggested or believe?

maddogdelta: You're so cute when you lie.

maddogdelta: Could you point out the lie then?

maddogdelta: Still waiting.

I drunk what: such as? I'd really like to hear more of your religious views and less of why atheists are such willfully stupid hypocrites, I don't think there is really any more debate there

for example, are you a fan of ninjakirby's conspiracy theories? do you think most of his skepticism is justified?

perhaps none of us really have a clue and it would be better to play the "agnostic" card, and call it a day?

do you think any religion is even close? or that you just find little bits and pieces of this or that one that has any merit?'

would you care to share any constructive criticism in anything I've suggested or believe?

The fanaticism and fundamentalist intolerance it propagates, bigotry, the tendency of people to focus on ritual and dogma, "missing the point" as St. Ignatius of Loyola and many sociologists/psychologists/neurobiologists since noted.

All of the same things you see with some atheists too. And I could go into the specifics of why. It's more to do with human nature than religion.

Does that answer the rest of your questions about certain other "Farkers"?

maddogdelta: You always seem to say "I'll check that out later" or something similar.

something like:

maddogdelta: Still waiting.

/oh and a small psych. side note, a dead giveaway of bias is using always/never when you are describing another person
//unfortunately you always have a bad attitude and will never figure this out...
/// :{

maddogdelta: Which means that you are either lying about not having seen any evidence, or you are deliberately ignoring it and pretending it's not there.



maddogdelta: You show evolution is incorrect through repeatable experiment or observation and you get the prize

perhaps I could start by providing the correct definition?

or maybe you'd just prefer to engage in

maddogdelta: For example, could you highlight the falsification in, say, the peer reviewed literature demonstrating through DNA evidence of common descent?

just so we're clear, I'm very comfortable with the idea that all dogs came from a dog-like thing, i suppose it's even theoretically possible that cats and dogs came from some catdog-like thing...though I think this is where the "science" starts getting a bit fuzzy, but more to the point I presume your claim of common ancestry is more along the lines of saying that hummingbirds, whales, geckos, pineapples, mushrooms, virus, bacteria and humans all share the same ancestor? ...a rock.

could you please provide the peer reviewed science that has proven this? I'll even settle for 98% sure...

I may need some time to respond, once you provide this material, so I can get a 2nd (professional) opinion from someone who knows what they are talking about...

:{

I drunk what: /oh and a small psych. side note,

Did you have a PE in psychology, now? I thought all fields of study were based on guesswork except for engineering.

Apparently, you are unaware what a logical fallacy is, because you can't properly recognize a false dichotomy. By pointing out that you have been presented with evidence which you have either read, or not, I am merely pointing out a binary statement. You either read the items you were presented, or you did not.

How is that a false dichotomy?

I drunk what: perhaps I could start by providing the correct definition?

All right then. You can present to the world the correct definition of evolution. We anxiously await your pronouncement.

I drunk what: just so we're clear, I'm very comfortable with the idea that all dogs came from a dog-like thing, i suppose it's even theoretically possible that cats and dogs came from some catdog-like thing...though I think this is where the "science" starts getting a bit fuzzy, but more to the point I presume your claim of common ancestry is more along the lines of saying that hummingbirds, whales, geckos, pineapples, mushrooms, virus, bacteria and humans all share the same ancestor? ...a rock.

Would you care to give me the name of the scientist who has made the claim that all life has descended from a rock? Because that would be cool, because we could, you know, verify your statement.

Allow me to, again, present a couple of videos. These are much shorter than anything you need to read, and all of the statements they make, if you wish, can be tested for their veracity. Keep in mind, they are only presenting the results of over 150 years of scientific research. If you wish to verify every statement they make, you are free to do so. But that is time consuming.

But, if you are going to state that what they say is a lie, then be prepared to defend your statement, because any scientifically minded person in this thread can probably find the evidence based research they have based their statements on.

First, is a person who has a username of aaronra. He has a whole series of videos entitled "__ Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" (replace __ with 1st through 15th). In the "Sixth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" he actually discusses the definition of the word "evolution", what evolution is, and what it isn't. Feel free to watch the whole series. The 9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism actually discusses in more depth the fossil record and how we know what we know.

Here is potholer54, with his Theory of Evolution made easy. This one actually talks about other evidence, aside from the fossil record for evolution. You know, DNA, the stuff you will count on to prove your innocence if you are ever falsely accused of a crime.

I drunk what: I may need some time to respond, once you provide this material, so I can get a 2nd (professional) opinion from someone who knows what they are talking about...

Make sure you get a professional, not your preacher. Might I recommend a local college or university? Their biology department is very helpful.

I drunk what: ust so we're clear, I'm very comfortable with the idea that all dogs came from a dog-like thing, i suppose it's even theoretically possible that cats and dogs came from some catdog-like thing...though I think this is where the "science" starts getting a bit fuzzy, but more to the point I presume your claim of common ancestry is more along the lines of saying that hummingbirds, whales, geckos, pineapples, mushrooms, virus, bacteria and humans all share the same ancestor? ...a rock.

could you please provide the peer reviewed science that has proven this? I'll even settle for 98% sure...

And here is aaronra again, with his 10th foundational falsehood of creationism, going a little more in depth regarding classification of living things, and that dastardly atheist, Carl Linneaus, who first came up with the methods we use to classify living things.

I drunk what: could you please provide the peer reviewed science that has proven this? I'll even settle for 98% sure...

I may need some time to respond, once you provide this material, so I can get a 2nd (professional) opinion from someone who knows what they are talking about...

:{


And Arronra again, talking about speciation.

maddogdelta: Did you have a PE in psychology, now?

would a GED be sufficient? then again, does it really require one? this is middle-school stuff...

/did you have a PE in English, now?

maddogdelta: How is that a false dichotomy?

Look, I spelled it out for you. Either you are being willfully ignorant or you're lying about understanding it.

Here's what you actually said:

maddogdelta: You will notice one common thread. You always seem to say "I'll check that out later" or something similar. And then, sometimes in the very next thread, you post your same misconception.

Which means that you are either lying about not having seen any evidence, or you are deliberately ignoring it and pretending it's not there.

and here's the "clever" twist:

maddogdelta: You either read the items you were presented, or you did not.

/nk would be so proud
//keep practicing

Like I said, Either you understand it or you do not.

maddogdelta: All right then. You can present to the world the correct definition of evolution. We anxiously await your pronouncement.

Evolution - things change and can become different forms of things, but things cannot naturally become other things

now it's your turn

what is the definition of "thing" ?

/the burden is on you!!1!
//also what is "naturally"?...
///double burden on you11!1

maddogdelta: He has a whole series of videos entitled

I'll check that out later...since you know I can't watch vids (blocked by network) at work.

ZOMG!!1!11 ur a proffett

maddogdelta: You always seem to say "I'll check that out later" or something similar.

/*makes a note for next thread*
//*must post same misconception*

maddogdelta: You know, DNA, the stuff you will count on to prove your innocence if you are ever falsely accused of a crime.

You know, DNA, the same stuff that can be planted to frame you for a crime.

/Oh noess
//real life?!?
///i hope no humans are involved

I drunk what: Evolution - things change and can become different forms of things, but things cannot naturally become other things

now it's your turn

what is the definition of "thing" ?

1) You are the one who came up with the definition, you define your terms.

2) But if you insist on my definition:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Or...
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Both of these quotes were presented here ^{(^)}...

You see, here is the problem. When I want information on a specific topic, I usually look to someone who has a better chance of knowing about it than I do. That's why, when I have a question in biology, I ask a biologist, not a preacher.

You know, DNA, the same stuff that can be planted to frame you for a crime.

Which is why the supreme court just ruled that a defendant now can challenge the veracity of a lab report in court.

Although, planting DNA is a more difficult trick than, say, planting a firearm. Which is why your lawyer needs to be smart enough to attack the chain of evidence. However, if the chain of evidence is unassailable, then the DNA will be genuine, and the analysis of that DNA will demonstrate your innocence.

Isn't that good to know! All because evolution is real and works!

Unless, you want to tell the court that you don't believe in evolution.

/*makes a note for next thread*
//*must post same misconception*

**sigh**

Since I don't have every one of these threads bookmarked, I can't instantaneously point you to threads where you promised, cross your heart and hope to die, to look at evidence which was presented. I just don't have the link to them.

On the other hand there are farkers who have put you on ignore because you kept promising to look, then you didn't, then you kept posting the same ignorant twaddle. I made the assumption that perhaps you were a little more intelligent than they gave you credit for, if for no other reason that I have a certain amount of respect for people who can attain a Professional Engineering certification. I wish you wouldn't try so hard to prove me wrong.

On the other hand, I probably won't put you on ignore because creationist falsehoods must be countered, at every turn, simply so that people reading these threads don't get the wrong impression that creationists are somehow "right" if science doesn't reply.

happycatsigma: On the other hand, I probably won't put you on ignore because creationevolutionist falsehoods must be countered, at every turn, simply so that people reading these threads don't get the wrong impression that creationevolutionists are somehow "right" if science doesn't reply.

I see we have similar goals...