If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[JayDee]

I believe in that hindu god with like 20 arms

She would be awesome in porn

[fugazi]

Believe is the idea that one day reality will bow to your desires and demands, human stubborness in its most primal form, showcasing our refusal to accept our unavoidable faith - death. The simple idea that life is a game you can only win by avoiding death in whatever way, be that an afterlife or reincarnation, lays at the core of believe. Altering that idea takes away the entire base of religion and would in the end, greatly benefit mankind.

Also, religion is culture, faith is a personal process. Mixing these two into the parental process of raising small children means you are not giving your children any chance at true personal growth, instead you're railroading their lives and minds. This is why religion is so universally spread, it gives aging people power over the next generation and the idea that they'll live on after they die.

So, personal profit through deception and lies lays at the heart of it all. It makes the knowledge that Wall Street scammed you all 'with your best interests at hearts' a whole lot easier to bear huh, knowing parents all over the world have been doing it for milennia?

Sorry, had to drop my two cents on this one in here. One last point, history. Grab a real history book, read where a specific religion comes from and tada, mystery solved, mysticism gone.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Fugazi your post clearly shows that you did not read posts 32, 45-50, 110, 112, 140, 222, 275(which is nearly identical to yours, though rendered through an elegant "Smurf" metaphor), 300, 322, 360, 579 (posts 390-527 sidetracked into a debate on the relevance of post-alternative synth driven indi goth/kraut rock in the early 21st century thus far), 612-18, 700, 745 (a post which had you bothered to read it would have made you not only think twice about your woefully unthoughtout post, but perhaps thrice), 735, 790-805, 820 (fuck man, you didnt read post 820??? gtfo.), 840 - 72 (the swan song of the thread, where the meat really falls off the bone, as it were) and even the "postgame analysis" and general reconciliation that comprises the 900s. Please take the time to read an entire post before "throwing in your two cents", its only polite, and prevents people from wasting their valuable time.

[Japan]

^^^^
:cool::cool::cool:

[fugazi]

Fugazi your post clearly shows that you did not read posts 32, 45-50, 110, 112, 140, 222, 275(which is nearly identical to yours, though rendered through an elegant "Smurf" metaphor), 300, 322, 360, 579 (posts 390-527 sidetracked into a debate on the relevance of post-alternative synth driven indi goth/kraut rock in the early 21st century thus far), 612-18, 700, 745 (a post which had you bothered to read it would have made you not only think twice about your woefully unthoughtout post, but perhaps thrice), 735, 790-805, 820 (fuck man, you didnt read post 820??? gtfo.), 840 - 72 (the swan song of the thread, where the meat really falls off the bone, as it were) and even the "postgame analysis" and general reconciliation that comprises the 900s. Please take the time to read an entire post before "throwing in your two cents", its only polite, and prevents people from wasting their valuable time.

Hahaha, good one <3

[SUSUGAM]

i bet this thread is retarded, and chtulu is a closet christian.

[bizzum]

I believe in that hindu god with like 20 arms

She would be awesome in porn

What if there was one with 20 breasts!


i bet this thread is retarded, and chtulu is a closet christian.


Scientologists are the ones in the closet! Come out Tom Cruise!

[Thetruth]

The truth is,

You are are lying to yourselfs. The truth to this question lies from within. All secondary thoughts and nature have a balance. Light and dark. Man and Woman. Testicles and oreo's. The truth shall set you free.

[Mindementia]

the Devil gets em thinkin

[chtulu]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/180906_181808335189790_154436364593654_352781_1670 928_n.jpg


We are told to accept that Jesus existed based upon the Gospels of the Bible, yet the Gospels are so poorly written that a logical person is at best left to ponder if Jesus even existed. The Gospels are consistently contradictive, filled with mathematic errors and don’t compliment each other on very important details. This page shall serve as an example for just how unreliable the Gospels are.



Gospel Contradictions:

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.

9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.

10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.

12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21

13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.

14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.

15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24

18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."

19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.

20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.

22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."

23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.

25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.

27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7

28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.

29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.

30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5

31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.

32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22

33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17

34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.

37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.

38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14

39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16

40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31

41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13

42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.


http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/181785_181808391856451_154436364593654_352782_1968 187_n.jpg

[spok]

I just love this post.

No, I have no contribution. I just agree. You are idiots if you believe in "god"

[Harrison]

HERE IS MORE PLAGIARISM AND ME BEING UTTERLY RETARDED LOL ME AM COPY/PASTE STUFF AND NOT THINK FOR SELF BECUZ ME SO DUM

[Abacab "The REAL truth"]

RANDROIDS!1!!

[bakkily]

funy as fuck

[captainspauldin]

i like to make out with my dog

[chtulu]

Everyone ready for judgement day, May 21st?

[Daldolma]

Pay attention to meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Massive Marc]

It's back !

[bman8810]

Actually, considering the probability of life evolving on Earth, I really think that believing in God or nothing at all are both quite acceptable. What is concerning is the constant affirmation that both sides seek from each other.

Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck what you believe.

[Flavor]

Everyone ready for judgement day, May 21st?

Post necromancy is cool bro.

[brglcanan24]

very nice share thanks...

[deezy]

Chtulu is among the smartest of all the doorknobs I've met or seen. He is at least sentient, more than you can say about most doorknobs.

[Polixenes]

Actually, considering the probability of life evolving on Earth, I really think that believing in God or nothing at all are both quite acceptable. What is concerning is the constant affirmation that both sides seek from each other.

Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck what you believe.

P(Life evolving on Earth) = 1
P(Omniscient deity created life on Earth) = 0

[bman8810]

P(Life evolving on Earth) = 1
P(Omniscient deity created life on Earth) = 0

Going to refer to the first one as P(1) and second as P(2).

P(1) is only true de facto. However, I can see how you would think that P(1) = 1 when in fact P(1) = 1 (with how you described it) is actually P(1|Life did evolve on Earth) = 1.

Also, seeing as how you can neither prove or disprove the existence of a higher power creating life on Earth the probability of the second is actually unknown. Therefore, P(2) = x where x is an unknown dependent (primarily) on two things; does a higher power exist and would the higher power create life on Earth.

Seriously though, go talk to anyone with basic knowledge relative to life spontaneously generating. Next, whip up some probability calculations (granted, you have to assume a few things with one of the most important ones being rate of mutation.) What you will find is that the probability of it occurring is incredibly small.

Point being, just because religion X doesn't have beliefs that correctly align with scientific evidence doesn't mean that a higher power doesn't exist.

[bman8810]

P.S. Still waiting on the Skynet to do its thang.

[Polixenes]

Going to refer to the first one as P(1) and second as P(2).

P(1) is only true de facto. However, I can see how you would think that P(1) = 1 when in fact P(1) = 1 (with how you described it) is actually P(1|Life did evolve on Earth) = 1.

Also, seeing as how you can neither prove or disprove the existence of a higher power creating life on Earth the probability of the second is actually unknown. Therefore, P(2) = x where x is an unknown dependent (primarily) on two things; does a higher power exist and would the higher power create life on Earth.

Seriously though, go talk to anyone with basic knowledge relative to life spontaneously generating. Next, whip up some probability calculations (granted, you have to assume a few things with one of the most important ones being rate of mutation.) What you will find is that the probability of it occurring is incredibly small.

Point being, just because religion X doesn't have beliefs that correctly align with scientific evidence doesn't mean that a higher power doesn't exist.

Oh drat, you've gone all serious on me.

I used "P(Life evolving on Earth) = 1" because I'm using present tense. It happened and it's still happening. I'm not sure if you were disagreeing with me or not.

I'm aware someone concocted a formula involving P(planet being in the right location at the right time) etc., if that's what you are referring to, but that's just made up and so full of estimates the resulting answer is still unknown. For all we know, the spontaneous development of life, given certain common chemistry/environmental conditions, is inevitable.

[bman8810]

Oh drat, you've gone all serious on me.

I used "P(Life evolving on Earth) = 1" because I'm using present tense. It happened and it's still happening. I'm not sure if you were disagreeing with me or not.

I'm aware someone concocted a formula involving P(planet being in the right location at the right time) etc., if that's what you are referring to, but that's just made up and so full of estimates the resulting answer is still unknown. For all we know, the spontaneous development of life, given certain common chemistry/environmental conditions, is inevitable.

But the problem with your logic is that "P(Life evolving on Earth) = 1" is only correct if a higher power didn't create life on Earth (I'm not arguing against evolution here btw, just the spontaneous generation of life.) As such, seeing as how we can't know the second part for sure we can't be certain about the first one, can we?

As far as knowing whether the development of life is inevitable... I'm pretty sure you are serious and the answer is no. Life is not inevitable, at least not so far as life forms such as ourselves. It takes a very specific set of conditions (far from "common chemistry/environmental conditions") in order for life to occur. Is it possible? Surely. Is it the way things happened? Who knows, I certainly don't know for sure.

I feel like the "life is not inevitable" thing is slightly misleading. It's kind of like the monkeys writing Shakespeare thing; i.e. given enough time anything is possible.

As far as agreeing/disagreeing? I'm just trying to point out the futility in arguing for one side or the other.

[Nug]

Pretending you believe in God has some merit. There's a lot of power in it, for sure.

Actually believing in it? Yeah, you have to be pretty stupid. Then again, a lot of people are conservative as opposed to liberal. I guess it's just expected that people will make dumb decisions in life.

[bman8810]

Pretending you believe in God has some merit. There's a lot of power in it, for sure.

Actually believing in it? Yeah, you have to be pretty stupid. Then again, a lot of people are conservative as opposed to liberal. I guess it's just expected that people will make dumb decisions in life.

Because being liberal is so clearly better than being conservative.

Those of us that aren't dumb don't choose a political side. We vote based on opinion and not by party lines.

[Beauregard]

Because being liberal is so clearly better than being conservative.

Those of us that are dumb don't choose a political side.

Fixed.

The sides are not equal and not choosing a side doesn't put you at some intellectual high-ground over the rest of us. Moderates are the hipsters of politics.

[Turtles]

Anyone that espouses liberalism or conservatism as "better" is a moron.

Anyone that believes they know with even a shred of certainty whether or not God exists is a moron.

If you're going to express a belief along those lines, save yourself time and get back to telling your co-workers at Pizza Hut about why you should run for President.

[Nug]

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,2687256.story

"Better" isn't as subjective as you'd like to think.

[mirragerdo12]

thanks for share very good.

[Turtles]

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,2687256.story

"Better" isn't as subjective as you'd like to think.

Yes, it is. First of all, that experiment is trash. It proves correlation, not causation -- and the wide-ranging conclusions drawn from an over-simplified experiment are absurd. You might as well conclude that liberals, on average, are more literate; or have more agile and dexterous fingers.

The irony is that the attempt at identifying implications from the experiment proves why it's worthless. The experiment could provide scientific explanation for Bush's single-mindedness and Kerry being a flip-flopper? There's the problem. Is being single-minded a bad thing? Is being a flip-flopper a bad thing? It's entirely circumstantial. Single-mindedness is referred to as dedication and determination under the right circumstances. But if you're the Red Baron, it's referred to as "target fixation". That'd be the wrong circumstance. Flip-flopping can be open-mindedness. It can also be whimsicality and lack of conviction.

Everything is fluid. Liberal isn't better. Conservative isn't better. They're two overarching belief systems that each have proven to be correct and incorrect time and time again.

[Nug]

Yes, it is. First of all, that experiment is trash. It proves correlation, not causation -- and the wide-ranging conclusions drawn from an over-simplified experiment are absurd. You might as well conclude that liberals, on average, are more literate; or have more agile and dexterous fingers.

Wouldn't be that far fetched, but we're not here to make up correlations based on the study.

The irony is that the attempt at identifying implications from the experiment proves why it's worthless. The experiment could provide scientific explanation for Bush's single-mindedness and Kerry being a flip-flopper? There's the problem. Is being single-minded a bad thing? Is being a flip-flopper a bad thing? It's entirely circumstantial. Single-mindedness is referred to as dedication and determination under the right circumstances. But if you're the Red Baron, it's referred to as "target fixation". That'd be the wrong circumstance. Flip-flopping can be open-mindedness. It can also be whimsicality and lack of conviction.

That's exactly a point the study itself brought up. I don't see why you're reiterating it.

Everything is fluid. Liberal isn't better. Conservative isn't better. They're two overarching belief systems that each have proven to be correct and incorrect time and time again.

"Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy."

Better. More testing is needed. For science!

[JayDee]

You better stay low, Fore you get a Halo

[Turtles]

Better. More testing is needed. For science!

Better at what? Performing the experiment, which consisted of seeing a letter and clicking a button? You have to understand how badly you'd have to misinterpret this data in order to claim that liberal > conservative when it comes to political validity.

[Nug]

Better at what? Performing the experiment, which consisted of seeing a letter and clicking a button? You have to understand how badly you'd have to misinterpret this data in order to claim that liberal > conservative when it comes to political validity.

Better at performing the experiment, yes. I was never arguing political validity. I was arguing, quite simply, the superiority of clicking buttons. More tests need to be done, but maybe we'll see about the manual dexterity and literacy differences we could infer from the findings at a later point.

[JayDee]

TTT to torture more people

[wehrmacht]

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,2687256.story

"Better" isn't as subjective as you'd like to think.

Useless study with lots of ambiguous terminology all over the place just like the words conservative and liberal themselves.

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

[Nug]

Useless study with lots of ambiguous terminology all over the place just like the words conservative and liberal themselves.

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

wehrmacht - so much fail, so little time.

[Akim]

You are very limited in your thought process.
Perhaps you shouldn't be chugging fluoride day and night.

[Smedy]

I approve of the topic in this thread, there is only one god. That is smedy, jesus of the heavens that is smiling down upon ya'll bluebies

[danus]

Ironic you call me a bigot for wanting to see religion. Ironic in the sense that Religion creates, condones, and encourages intolerance in so far as to call for genocides and oppression.

This guy is blaspheming, and using large, complicated words that obviously mean witchcraft. Let's lynch the fucker

[nalkin]

bump

[Doors]

God exists, and even though you're probably a dumpster baby he luvs u Cthulu <3

[marke]

God exists, and even though you're probably a dumpster baby he luvs u Cthulu <3

lol'd

holy ghost = catholic casper

[Japan]

For science!

This is really, really played out jsyk

[Knuckle]

i wonder if this troll would of been even bigger if the title had been, 'if you don't believe in god, you're an idiot.'

[Skope]

I don't believe in Nalkin.

I think he's made-up just like the Easter Bunny and the continent of Australia.

[loopholbrook]

I don't believe in Nalkin.

I think he's made-up just like the Easter Bunny and the continent of Australia.
Don't forget Cap'n crunch and Slash.

[escortum34]

dating women

[chtulu]

I'm pretty sure this thread is still relevant and I am right.

[Ostros]

I'm pretty sure this thread is still relevant and I am right.

Shut the fuck up no one cares. Go smug about nothing somewhere else.

[Koota]

Shut the fuck up no one cares. Go smug about nothing somewhere else.

[MelGibsonIsGod]

I'm pretty sure this thread is still relevant and I am right.

Being atheist does not make you automatically smart. This is clearly evident from your other posts!

[Akim]

Stop spouting cult BULL OP you make us athiest sound bad as you tie in evolution - please research and RESPOND you clown


Evolution Is Not Happening Now

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6
Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8
Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13
Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14
Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15

There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20
The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24
It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28
A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29
Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30
Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

References

Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.
Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89.
Ibid.
Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271, October 1994), p. 78.
Ibid., p. 83.
Massimo Pigliucci, "Where Do We Come From?" Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23, September/October 1999), p. 24.
Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life," chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9.
J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30.
Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157.
Neil Shubin, "Evolutionary Cut and Paste," Nature (vol. 349, July 2, 1998), p.12.
Colin Tudge, "Human Origins Revisited," New Scientist (vol. 146, May 20, 1995), p. 24.
Roger Lewin, "Family Feud," New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39.
N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.
Lewin, op. cit., p. 36.
Rachel Nowak, "Mining Treasures from `Junk DNA'," Science (vol. 263, February 4, 1994), p. 608.
Ibid.
E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32.
Norman A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/June 2000), p. 274.
Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named, The National Center for Science Education.
Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.
Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.

[Tiggles]

Stop spouting cult BULL OP you make us athiest sound bad as you tie in evolution - please research and RESPOND you clown


Evolution Is Not Happening Now

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6
Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8
Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13
Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14
Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15

There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20
The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24
It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28
A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29
Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30
Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

References

Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.
Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89.
Ibid.
Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271, October 1994), p. 78.
Ibid., p. 83.
Massimo Pigliucci, "Where Do We Come From?" Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23, September/October 1999), p. 24.
Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life," chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9.
J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30.
Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157.
Neil Shubin, "Evolutionary Cut and Paste," Nature (vol. 349, July 2, 1998), p.12.
Colin Tudge, "Human Origins Revisited," New Scientist (vol. 146, May 20, 1995), p. 24.
Roger Lewin, "Family Feud," New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39.
N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.
Lewin, op. cit., p. 36.
Rachel Nowak, "Mining Treasures from `Junk DNA'," Science (vol. 263, February 4, 1994), p. 608.
Ibid.
E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32.
Norman A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/June 2000), p. 274.
Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named, The National Center for Science Education.
Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.
Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.


Woah woah woah woah

I'm not even going to pretend i read that.

[Tumdumm]

hahaha this shit sticks around to be necro'ed forever

perfectly relevant taco talks vanish

[chtulu]

5pp says he ripped that off a leading "intelligent design" website.

[Ostros]

5pp says he ripped that off a leading "intelligent design" website.

I see you're still not shutting the fuck up. Why are you militant atheists always the loudest most annoying people in the world. You are literally the WBC's counterpart.

Why is it that those who don't believe in a god always talk about them the most? Seriously: this isn't even worthy of a shitposter's haven like RnF.

[chtulu]

Comparing people with my thoughts and beliefs to a group that pickets soldier funerals with signs that say " god hates fags" and telling people that they are inferior and deserve to burn and be tortured for eternity is quite amazing. I would have loved to be on your debate team.

[Polixenes]

baloney

I got as far as "there are no fossils in existence which are transitional forms of other species" and realise the "scientist" he is quoting apparently never heard of the archaeopteryx, a clear link between birds and reptiles.

And also this scientist doesn't realise that the intermediate forms are there in plentitude. Any time you see a giraffe with a neck marginally longer than the average, there is your transitional creature.

[chtulu]

I got as far as "there are no fossils in existence which are transitional forms of other species" and realise the "scientist" he is quoting apparently never heard of the archaeopteryx, a clear link between birds and reptiles.

And also this scientist doesn't realise that the intermediate forms are there in plentitude. Any time you see a giraffe with a neck marginally longer than the average, there is your transitional creature.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cO1a1Ek-HD0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Oh whats up God? You intended to make efficient anatomy to "confuse" us with your awesome power?

[chtulu]

Inefficient*

[jarshale]

Everyone knows the scientists carve fossils out of rock to try and test our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Tumdumm]

Everyone knows the scientists carve fossils out of rock to try and test our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

ahhhhh it seemed so plausible!


enjoy the lake of fire fucker!

[Calabee]

Silly Fagatron Chtulu. -_-

[Slathar]

don't worry. michelle bachmann will set this country straight when she imposes some sort of fucked up fundamental christofacism in the name of ranch dressing and gun totting high school drop outs

[Ostros]

Comparing people with my thoughts and beliefs to a group that pickets soldier funerals with signs that say " god hates fags" and telling people that they are inferior and deserve to burn and be tortured for eternity is quite amazing. I would have loved to be on your debate team.

Your kind are pretty much one step from picketing religious funerals with "believers are idiots".

This is founded in fact. You know why? Cause I see signs on county and courthouse property saying essentially the same thing every Christmas. Shit like "Jesus is NOT coming back!"

Seriously why the fuck bother? You associate harmless simple people with radicals like they should all be lumped together and are a lethal danger to humanity. I have never heard more black and white arguments than I have from atheist "debaters". No one cares. No one of sound mind or decent worth cares enough to constantly run their fucking mouth about such a useless and semantics-driven topic.

Seriously, one well-spoken and educated biologist writes a book and all you fuckers come out of the blue and start your little not-religion. Please go away and let people enjoy their lives.

[Ostros]

don't worry. michelle bachmann will set this country straight when she imposes some sort of fucked up fundamental christofacism in the name of ranch dressing and gun totting high school drop outs

Bachmann is a false flag operation.

Reps: "Look at this insane hooker! Please vote for this less-insane-but-still-terrible-candidate"

[Aadill]

Bachmann is a false flag operation.

Reps: "Look at this insane hooker! Please vote for this less-insane-but-still-terrible-candidate"

It's Palin all over again!

[chtulu]

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JA-P6m1pnT8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is why I am against any and all religions and people of faith.

[SUSUGAM]

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JA-P6m1pnT8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is why I am against any and all religions and people of faith.

You are a hypocrite, imo. You hate people for being ignorant and stupid, yet you allow yourself to live? Ridiculous.

[hotstud]

sage

[Hasbinbad]

chtulu comin all retro an' shit

[johnnytheshaman]

why are you even posting such garbage? its a personal decision...leave it there

[eastadam55]

hf in hell lawl.

[Goobles]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWyFlhaK0L79b7oGbEWj3E54IP3yOmN MMGBb-lsMW1zD1EGfL94MFSzDgV

[chtulu]

<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/cthulhu%20meme" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l627/gobun/1302426305594.png" border="0" alt="cthulhu meme Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>

[nalkin]

But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every thread has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige".

[Hasbinbad]

http://i.imgur.com/QlUOz.jpg

[El Culo]

i talk to god every day he say yall dum as fuck

[liveitup1216]

I'll believe in a religion when someone proves even the smallest bit of it.

Til then, have fun with your chicken bones, jesus candles, fairy dust, and old books written by a bunch of crazy fanatics.

[Alex]

Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe with so much that is evil?

They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?

[El Culo]

free will

[chtulu]

free will

idiot

[vaylorie]

+1
Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.

[Hasbinbad]

idiot
Why am I agreeing with chtulu? Am I on drugs?

[chtulu]

+1

I c wut u did thur

[El Culo]

idiot

i talk to god every day he say yall dum as fuck

[chtulu]

More people bitching about what their own bible teaches them, ahaha.

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/PA-Legislative-Black-Caucus-Chair-condemns-Lamar/6slXfsgmhkWi1S0Ma1D2qw.cspx

[Lulz Sect]

http://lolreligion.com/sites/default/files/republican-jesus.jpg?1305433300

[Flunklesnarkin]

Rabid atheists are as bad as fundamentalist christians


just sayin'



live and let live


(unless their beliefs include harm to you.. then game on)

[Within99]

Religion is personal, spiritual, to try our best to be better people. Not be better then other people just try to have wisdom and understanding to the best of our abilities. If you are offended from religion, try to learn the truth behind it all.

I have a question for you..
Did you live 6,000+ years ago?
In order to have 100% proof, you would have been there, and we all know you weren't. Why would you rely on science or logic, or even other people opinions about the "Theories" of the creation of earth, or mankind.

Bottom line is, you don't know.

[George Harrison]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/h_i7vpGNlLc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[IronLikeALionInZion]

Rabid atheists are as bad as fundamentalist christians


just sayin'



live and let live


(unless their beliefs include harm to you.. then game on)


Couldn't agree more. Too much divide and conquer in our society.

Zealous atheists and Christians are both some of the most bigoted and ignorant people i ever met.

On one hand we have people who believe devoutly in an Ala carte of European paganism, ancient Israelite customs, and Roman Emperor worship. These people seem to act righteous one day a week yet are champions of some of the most anti-christian activity on the planet. The war in Iraq and the strong support for it by Red state voters is an example. Somehow also thumping and enforcing a few rules from your various texts will balance society and usher in a golden age.

On the other hand we have a group of individuals who are just as blind.
The moral fabric of the society we live in is literally completely torn apart yet the liberals / atheists claim that because in a few conservative states that gays cant marry and marijuana and abortion arent promoted that there is some Great Right Wing Christian Conspiracy. Not surprised athiesm is popular with whites, who mostly view themselves as god to those who are darker skin then them. (historically speaking)

Not much to choose between except for a docuhe and a tird sandwich.

Where are the uninhibited free thinkers and mystic gurus of our time?

http://i42.tinypic.com/9tia2r.jpg

[IronLikeALionInZion]

Religion is personal, spiritual, to try our best to be better people. Not be better then other people just try to have wisdom and understanding to the best of our abilities. If you are offended from religion, try to learn the truth behind it all.

I have a question for you..
Did you live 6,000+ years ago?
In order to have 100% proof, you would have been there, and we all know you weren't. Why would you rely on science or logic, or even other people opinions about the "Theories" of the creation of earth, or mankind.

Bottom line is, you don't know.

Job 38:4 -Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if you have understanding.

“Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief.” (The Holy Qur’aan, Chapter 52, Verses 35-36)

[chtulu]

Religion is personal, spiritual, to try our best to be better people. Not be better then other people just try to have wisdom and understanding to the best of our abilities. If you are offended from religion, try to learn the truth behind it all.

I have a question for you..
Did you live 6,000+ years ago?
In order to have 100% proof, you would have been there, and we all know you weren't. Why would you rely on science or logic, or even other people opinions about the "Theories" of the creation of earth, or mankind.

Bottom line is, you don't know.



Worst troll ever

[Diggles]

Worst troll ever

[Within99]

I'm tired of hearing people say, most/all Christians I ever met have been ignorant.

Thing is you might be right to a degree, but those reasons are non-religious.

It's not the christian beliefs its the person, maybe they don't know.

A pastor told me this once,"Most people who come to Christ had wished they met Jesus before they met a christian" and I think that's what you mean, realistically.

See what God does, is he converts your soul to perfection, meaning we all aren't perfect, but are converted to perfection, Might be fast might be slow.

[chtulu]

Or no such thing, which is simpler, more logical, and down right better for humans if there was no deity.

[Within99]

Or no such thing, which is simpler, more logical, and down right better for humans if there was no deity.

okay...

[Within99]

Thing is, If you don't believe you have weaknesses, and are already damned.
If you do believe you have no weaknesses, because you have everlasting life.
You let go of fear, death, weakness of flesh.
Gain freedom, and truth.
Gain understanding and wisdom.
Gain brothers and sisters.
Funny thing is, you wont remember this, even after you are reborn in the spirit.
If you do, then we were always brothers.

[Kingofqueens123]

Thing is, If you don't believe you have weaknesses, and are already damned.
If you do believe you have no weaknesses, because you have everlasting life.
You let go of fear, death, weakness of flesh.
Gain freedom, and truth.
Gain understanding and wisdom.
Gain brothers and sisters.
Funny thing is, you wont remember this, even after you are reborn in the spirit.
If you do, then we were always brothers.

like this.

chtulu, your a faggot.

[Glorindale]

Go occupy something

[chtulu]

like this.

chtulu, your a faggot.

thats not very christian.

[Diggles]

O

[Within99]

I like to rub myself down with Vaseline and pretend I'm a slug.

[Hasbinbad]

I have a question for you..
Did you live 6,000+ years ago?
In order to have 100% proof, you would have been there, and we all know you weren't. Why would you rely on science or logic..
http://i.imgur.com/aMyvs.jpg

[Diggles]

I like to rub myself down with Vaseline and pretend I'm a slug.

my fursona is a slug, sleonwahwohp

[bman8810]

I have a question for you..
Did you live 6,000+ years ago?
In order to have 100% proof, you would have been there, and we all know you weren't. Why would you rely on science or logic, or even other people opinions about the "Theories" of the creation of earth, or mankind.


There are soooo many different ways to come at you here. Let's start with this one:

You want me to believe in something with absolutely zero factual backing rather than something that, while not 100% conclusive, is founded in fact.

[Within99]

There are soooo many different ways to come at you here. Let's start with this one:

You want me to believe in something with absolutely zero factual backing rather than something that, while not 100% conclusive, is founded in fact.

No I don't want you to believe, I want you to want to believe.
Once again its not based off fact and logic, blah blah, easy way out, blah blah, Scapegoat is fact, blah easy, blah..
You all say the same thing, Fact this, Fact that, Science this, logic that.
Listen.. What bad would it do for your life.. Really, what bad would it do...
You obviously haven't read the bible. I've been reading it for years and I might have finished 1/3rd of it. I read things over and get a new message from it.
You know what a Hater is?
Stop the hate.

[Hasbinbad]

Religion is personal, spiritual, to try our best to be better people. Not be better then other people just try to have wisdom and understanding to the best of our abilities. If you are offended from religion, try to learn the truth behind it all.

I have a question for you..
Did you live 6,000+ years ago?
In order to have 100% proof, you would have been there, and we all know you weren't. Why would you rely on science or logic, or even other people opinions about the "Theories" of the creation of earth, or mankind.

Bottom line is, you don't know.

Worst troll ever

..and diggles quotes this, echoing the statement.

BUT GENTLEMEN, look at the lulz that has been produced:

Couldn't agree more. Too much divide and conquer in our society.

Zealous atheists and Christians are both some of the most bigoted and ignorant people i ever met.

On one hand we have people who believe devoutly in an Ala carte of European paganism, ancient Israelite customs, and Roman Emperor worship. These people seem to act righteous one day a week yet are champions of some of the most anti-christian activity on the planet. The war in Iraq and the strong support for it by Red state voters is an example. Somehow also thumping and enforcing a few rules from your various texts will balance society and usher in a golden age.

On the other hand we have a group of individuals who are just as blind.
The moral fabric of the society we live in is literally completely torn apart yet the liberals / atheists claim that because in a few conservative states that gays cant marry and marijuana and abortion arent promoted that there is some Great Right Wing Christian Conspiracy. Not surprised athiesm is popular with whites, who mostly view themselves as god to those who are darker skin then them. (historically speaking)

Not much to choose between except for a docuhe and a tird sandwich.

Where are the uninhibited free thinkers and mystic gurus of our time?

http://i42.tinypic.com/9tia2r.jpg

Job 38:4 -Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if you have understanding.

“Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief.” (The Holy Qur’aan, Chapter 52, Verses 35-36)

Worst troll ever

Or no such thing, which is simpler, more logical, and down right better for humans if there was no deity.

I like to rub myself down with Vaseline and pretend I'm a slug.

There are soooo many different ways to come at you here. Let's start with this one:

You want me to believe in something with absolutely zero factual backing rather than something that, while not 100% conclusive, is founded in fact.

So verily, I do say ye, that Within99 is a most sophisticated of trolls, with a veritable collection of monocles!

[Within99]

I thought I was Tauren?

[chtulu]

Within. Is the bible literal? Do you believe the bible, verbatim, is God's word? What about old and new testament?

[bman8810]

No I don't want you to believe, I want you to want to believe.
Once again its not based off fact and logic, blah blah, easy way out, blah blah, Scapegoat is fact, blah easy, blah..
You all say the same thing, Fact this, Fact that, Science this, logic that.
Listen.. What bad would it do for your life.. Really, what bad would it do...
You obviously haven't read the bible. I've been reading it for years and I might have finished 1/3rd of it. I read things over and get a new message from it.
You know what a Hater is?
Stop the hate.

I grew up in a household with two ordained ministers and have read the Bible from front to back. Also, whether science or religion is the "easy way out" is entirely perception. Personally, I see religion as the "easy way out" because it is far easier to not worry about the why or how of something.

Also, could religion do me harm? Absolutely. Religion is a crutch that calls on you to put your faith in a higher being to bring about desired changes in your life, or for that higher being to bring about the changes in his mystical plan. Personally, I've done it and I've always ended up disappointed. A far more effective approach is to actively assess your desires and act upon them.

Religion is merely a social construct brought about to teach morals and help strengthen communities. We no longer need this and it is causing more problems than good.

[bman8810]

Also, God damned me for eternity. No, Satan did it you say? Well, God is omniscient. That means he knows everything that can, and will, happen. As such, God created Satan knowing full well what he was going to do. In addition to this, it means that God created every single one of us knowing our choices. If you say that this was to determine those of us that truly love you then I say that an omniscient god with the power to create or destroy anything he wishes would know how to create beings that truly loved him without having to subject a large percentage of those beings to an eternity of hell.

Also, Christianity says that we are created in His image. This doesn't mean his physical image but his spiritual image. I can tell you that I was not created in his image because I would never dream of subjecting any of my children to eons of torment for their choices. Any parent out there would do everything in their power to give their children a life of happiness. As such, either God is not omnipotent, not benign, not real, or a dick. You decide, I already made my choice.

[Diggles]

i want to be reincarnated into a sea turtle

[Knuckle]

i want to be reincarnated into a sea turtle

too late

[Knuckle]

I grew up in a household with two ordained ministers and have read the Bible from front to back. Also, whether science or religion is the "easy way out" is entirely perception. Personally, I see religion as the "easy way out" because it is far easier to not worry about the why or how of something.

Also, could religion do me harm? Absolutely. Religion is a crutch that calls on you to put your faith in a higher being to bring about desired changes in your life, or for that higher being to bring about the changes in his mystical plan. Personally, I've done it and I've always ended up disappointed. A far more effective approach is to actively assess your desires and act upon them.

Religion is merely a social construct brought about to teach morals and help strengthen communities. We no longer need this and it is causing more problems than good.



what if religion was merely a way to label the way you live your life based on your personal code and principles and gave you an external way to express that belief?

[teekanc]

Usually people who are afraid to die argue religion. Both sides.
Why did you target Christianity specifically? It's not the largest religion in the world, and by your claiming your an atheist, you aren't just anti-christian, but anti-faith completely. Why not target islamic beliefs? Simple.. you knew this would make the most fuss, and you're just a damn loser wanting to fire up an argument and make a name for yourself.

So, now that you've made your point.. what's changed? You haven't outrun death, fatty. It's still comin'.

[Haul]

So being atheist is a bad thing?

Yes you fucking homo.

[chtulu]

what if religion was merely a way to label the way you live your life based on your personal code and principles and gave you an external way to express that belief?
http://thumbs2.modthesims.info/img/3/1/6/9/9/6/3/MTS2_EsmeraldaF_1020230_pic_morpheus.jpg

[Heavydrop]

You also believe the world is only 6,000 years old and think evolution is a conspiracy theory against Jesus.

Wrong on both counts

[IronLikeALionInZion]

I dont believe i can have a discussion on something as expansive as God and religion with people who play ever quest heavily.

The fact that your blind to the hamster wheel that this game is is also a deep reflection of your genuine character.

Bet you know a ton about raid mobs, how to farm items and plat, what retarded movies are in the theaters, where to find free pornography, and the dollar menu at mc donalds all off hand.

Why not take an afternoon off to read The the bhagavad gita, the Qur'an, the gnostic gospels of christ Study Kabbalah, vedic science, yoga and eastern mysticism. Educate yourself on the things you hate so much. Enlighten yourself to the fact despite you being a privileged middle class white European your not the God of this planet, and there may be something Greater then what you know.

Major Religion and Atheism = Mindless lifestyle choices for Plebeians brought to you buy the same people brought you Bread and Circus, AKA - Caesar.

[Diggles]

http://www.quiterly.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/pope-Custom-Builds-Armored-Vehicle-To-Avoid-Heaven-As-Long-As-Possible.png

[chtulu]

I dont believe i can have a discussion on something as expansive as God and religion with people who play ever quest heavily.

The fact that your blind to the hamster wheel that this game is is also a deep reflection of your genuine character.

Bet you know a ton about raid mobs, how to farm items and plat, what retarded movies are in the theaters, where to find free pornography, and the dollar menu at mc donalds all off hand.

Why not take an afternoon off to read The the bhagavad gita, the Qur'an, the gnostic gospels of christ Study Kabbalah, vedic science, yoga and eastern mysticism. Educate yourself on the things you hate so much. Enlighten yourself to the fact despite you being a privileged middle class white European your not the God of this planet, and there may be something Greater then what you know.

Major Religion and Atheism = Mindless lifestyle choices for Plebeians brought to you buy the same people brought you Bread and Circus, AKA - Caesar.

You ignorant, racist fuck. I'm not white. I have educated myself. How is Atheism a "mindless lifestyle choice"? The epitome of "mindless" would be to have complete, blind faith that some magical being will save us from eternal damnation(which he created) by having us worship him and thank him for killing his son(jesus) that was actually god him self. You're right, that seems like the more intellectual way to go.

[Barkingturtle]

It really doesn't matter if you believe in God because He believes in you. <3

[Danyelle]

I believe in letting everyone make their own choices, believe what they want to believe, and form their own opinions. I also believe in respecting those people's decisions no matter what just as I would expect them to respect mine. Unless that decision is either harmful to others or outright blatant stupidity. In my experience it is the radicals on both the religious and aethist sides that fall under these categories. Be it by blindly following an ideal to the point of making idiotic arguments as to why they are right and others are wrong, all the way down to harming others by forcing their opinions down each others throats, taking away or trying to take away people's freedoms due to different beliefs or even simply killing others for different beliefs. Generally people who are not radical do not do any of these things, however, and people should learn to just let them live their damn lives.

[IronLikeALionInZion]

again your arguing the validity of a belief system that takes ideas from hebrew, roman pagan, and babylonian sources.

You see things as black and white you see an ignorant belief (like modern Christianity) and you think that because of its obvious flaws that you have liberated yourself from something that has shackled you. You also seem very pious in thinking that not only are you above that trick, but above any others that you may perceive.

Its also apparent from your summary of "the epitome of mindless" that your only aware of Catholic "christian" doctrine. My guess is you have never read ANY of the texts I posted names of, or immersed yourself in any of the concepts I spoke of. Speaking about something without knowledge is to me the epitome of mindlessness.
However thats just an opinion.

So i challenge you. Log off Eq. Quit Raiding for a weekend. READ ***** READ!

[Flunklesnarkin]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSBaSzt6rhCtpQeYpboXJufpSUnte0AP qd8K4y96uYwjpG8fIyzP00a9g6krw

[Pico]

i try my best everyday to live this life as has been set out for me by the gospel of our lord and savior ron paul

let us proclaim the mystery of faith

[Within99]

I grew up in a household with two ordained ministers and have read the Bible from front to back. Also, whether science or religion is the "easy way out" is entirely perception. Personally, I see religion as the "easy way out" because it is far easier to not worry about the why or how of something.

Also, could religion do me harm? Absolutely. Religion is a crutch that calls on you to put your faith in a higher being to bring about desired changes in your life, or for that higher being to bring about the changes in his mystical plan. Personally, I've done it and I've always ended up disappointed. A far more effective approach is to actively assess your desires and act upon them.

Religion is merely a social construct brought about to teach morals and help strengthen communities. We no longer need this and it is causing more problems than good.

I don't get it? you are Anti-God?
Anyway, you are wrong.
God can only do good, you need to attend church.
No matter what you think, you can never do it with your own strength, you need God, we all do.

Ill try to leave this thread with this.
When Jesus comes back, and God judges the people of the earth, will you rely on the "things of the world" or the promise of Christ Jesus.
Satan is the ruler of earth.

[Within99]

I believe in letting everyone make their own choices, believe what they want to believe, and form their own opinions. I also believe in respecting those people's decisions no matter what just as I would expect them to respect mine. Unless that decision is either harmful to others or outright blatant stupidity. In my experience it is the radicals on both the religious and aethist sides that fall under these categories. Be it by blindly following an ideal to the point of making idiotic arguments as to why they are right and others are wrong, all the way down to harming others by forcing their opinions down each others throats, taking away or trying to take away people's freedoms due to different beliefs or even simply killing others for different beliefs. Generally people who are not radical do not do any of these things, however, and people should learn to just let them live their damn lives.

Narrow is the path to heaven.
Broad is the path to eternal damnation.
To me you sound Broad, as what I see with most of these people.
There is 1 way to the kingdom, and that is through Jesus.
I don't want to be a thief and steal your heart with force, I am not forcing anyone, I am sharing the gospel, in hope that you pray, and you have faith, and you become like minded in Christ.
A brotherhood and sisterhood.
Jesus gave his life, to heal, and teach the goodness of the Lord, its up to you to open the door and let Jesus in.
No other religion is like Christianity, God will never take your will, or force you, he lets you make decisions, and he will let you fall to.
But he loves you all, it is not his will that people will perish in the lake of fire where the worms do not die and the fire is never quenched.
His will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.

[chtulu]

God has killed more people than satan, 100x fold actually. I don't see how god does good when he threatens our "eternal souls" by casting it into a lake of fire if we don't have 100% obedience.

[Within99]

Death? lol are you scared of death?
I know when I die I meet my maker in Heaven.
I fear not what man can do to me, death was overcome by Jesus.
He was resurrected, as all the righteous and unrighteous will also be resurrected for the judgements of God.
You are wrong about God killing more people then Satan, Thou shall not kill, is a commandment your statement is invalid. Satan is the one who brings murder into the hearts of men.
You should want to obey, but you rely on the things of the earth for power, you rely on the flesh, which is weakness. there will always be someone bigger, faster, smarter, better. Flesh is weak.

[Slave]

Bet you know... what retarded movies are in the theaters, where to find free pornography, and the dollar menu at mc donalds all off hand.

Well yeah, because I'm not retarded.

Why not take an afternoon off to read The the bhagavad gita, the Qur'an, the gnostic gospels of christ Study Kabbalah, vedic science, yoga and eastern mysticism. Educate yourself on the things you hate so much. Enlighten yourself to the fact despite you being a privileged middle class white European your not the God of this planet, and there may be something Greater then what you know.

If I read all that, if I educated myself, if I was enlightened... would I finally know the difference between your and you're and then and than?

Major Religion and Atheism = Mindless lifestyle choices for Plebeians brought to you buy the same people brought you Bread and Circus, AKA - Caesar.
You hear this a lot in politics and religion, and it is the logical fallacy of Middle Ground. It is a lazy and derivative view espoused by those without enough intellectual curiosity to know better.

In conclusion, your arguments are infantile and self-humiliating. Do you have any formal secondary education at all? If you cannot even spell homonyms correctly, what makes you think you can debate metaphysical topics with any degree of legitimacy?

[chtulu]

I kill ... I wound ... I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. -- Deuteronomy 32:39-42
The table shows two numbers: the number given by the Bible, if any, and an estimate, when no biblical number is available.

Much more information about God's killings, with a chapter on each of the 135 killing events, can be found int the book:

Drunk With Blood: God's killings in the Bible
The grand totals are shown below and at the end of the table.

Biblical number 2,476,636
Estimate 25 million
DWB
Chapter Killing Event Scriptural Reference Biblical number Estimate
1 The Flood of Noah Gen 7:23 - 20,000,000
2 Abraham's war to rescue Lot Gen 14:17-19 - 1000
3 Sodom and Gomorrah Gen 19:24 - 2,000
4 Lot's wife Gen 19:26 1 1
5 Er for being wicked in the sight of the Lord Gen 38:7 1 1
6 Onan for spilling his seed Gen 38:10 1 1
7 God's seven year, world-wide famine Gen 41:25-54 - 70,000
8 The seventh plague of Egypt: Hail Ex 9:25 - 300,000
9 God killed all first born Egyptian children Ex 12:29-30 - 500,000
10 God drowned the Egyptian army Ex 14:8-26 600 5,000
11 Amalekites Ex 17:13 - 1,000
12 Who is on the Lord's side? Ex 32:27-28 3,000 3,000
13 God plagued the people because of Aaron's calf Ex 32:35 - 1,000
14 God burns Aaron's sons to death Lev 10:1-3 2 2
15 A blasphemer is stoned to death Lev 24:10-23 1 1
16 God burned people to death for complaining Num 11:1 - 100
17 God plagued the people for complaining about the food Num 11:33 - 10,000
18 Ten scouts are killed for their honest report Num 14:35-36 10 10
19 A man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day Num 15:32-35 1 1
20 The opposing party is buried alive (with their families) Num 16:27 3 9
21 250 burned to death for burning incense Num 16:35 250 250
22 For complaining about God's killings Num 16:49 14,700 14,700
23 The massacre of the Aradites Num 21:1-3 - 3,000
24 God sent snakes to bite people for complaining Num 21:6 - 100
25 Phinehas' double murder: A killing to end God's killings Num 25:1-11 24,002 24,002
26 The Midianite massacre: Have you saved the women alive? Num 31:1-35 6 200,000
27 God slowly kills the Israelite army Dt 2:14-16 - 500,000
28 God the giant killer Dt 2:21-22 - 5,000
29 God hardens King Sihon's heart so he can kill him and all his people Dt 2:33-34 1 5,000
30 Og and the men, women, and children of 60 cites Dt 3:3-6 1 60,000
31 The Jericho Massacre Jos 6:21 - 1,000
32 Achan and his family are stoned and burned to death Jos 7:10-12, 24-26 1 5
33 The Ai massacre Jos 8:1-25 12,000 12,000
34 God stops the sun so Joshua can kill in the daylight Jos 10:10-11 - 5,000
35 Five kings killed and hung on trees Jos 10:26 5 10,000
36 Joshua utterly destroys all that breathes as God commanded Jos 10:28-42 7 7,000
37 Jabin, Jobab, and all the people of 20 cities Jos 11:8-12 2 20,000
38 The Anakim: More giant killing Jos 11:20-21 - 5,000
39 The Lord delivered the Canaanites and Perizzites Jg 1:4 10,000 10,000
40 The Jerusalem Massacre Jg 1:8 - 1,000
41 Five massacres, a wedding, and some God-proof iron chariots Jg 1:9-25 - 5,000
42 The Lord delivered Chushanrishathaim Jg 3:7-10 1 1,000
43 Ehud delivers a message from God Jg 3:15-22 1 1
44 God delivers 10,000 lusty Moabites Jg 3:28-29 10,000 10,000
45 Shamgar killed 600 Philistines with an ox goad Jg 3.31 600 600
46 Barak and God massacre the Canaanites Jg 4:15-16 - 1,000
47 Jael pounds a tent stake through a sleeping man's skull Jg 4:18-22 1 1
48 Gideon's story: The Lord set every man's sword against his fellow Jg 7:22 120,000 120,000
49 A city is massacred and 1000 burn to death because of God's evil spirit Jg 9:23-57 1,001 2,000
50 The Ammonite Massacre Jg 11:32-33 - 20,000
51 Jephthah's Daughter Jg 11:39 1 1
52 42,000 killed for failing the "shibboleth" test Jg 12.4-7, Heb 11.32 42,000 42,000
53 Samson murders 30 men for their clothes Jg 14:19 30 30
54 Samson kills 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass Jg 15:14-15 1,000 1,000
55 Samson kills 3000 in a suicide terrorist attack Jg 16:27-30 3,000 3,000
56 A holy civil war (called by rotting concubine body part messages) Jg 20:35-37 65,100 65,100
57 The End of Judges: Two genocides and 200 stolen virgins Jg 21.10-14 - 4,000
58 God kills Eli's sons along with 34,000 Israelite soldiers 1Sam 2:25, 1Sam 4:11 34,002 34,002
59 God smote them with hemorrhoids in their secret parts 1Sam 5:1-12 - 3,000
60 God killed 50,070 for looking into the ark of the Lord 1Sam 6:19 50,070 50,070
61 The Lord thundered great thunder upon the Philistines 1Sam 7:10-11 - 1,000
62 Another Ammonite Massacre (and another God-inspired body-part message) 1Sam 11:6-13 - 1,000
63 Jonathan's very fist slaughter (not counting the one before) 1Sam 14:12-14 20 20
64 God forces the Philistines to kill each other 1Sam 14:20 - 1,000
65 The Amalekite genocide 1Sam 15:2-3 - 10,000
66 Samuel hacks Agag to death before the Lord 1Sam 15:32-33 1 1
67 David or Elhanan killed Goliath 1Sam 17.51, 2Sam 21.19 1 1
68 David killed 200 Philistines for their foreskins (to buy his first wife) 1Sam 18.27 200 200
69 The Lord said to David, Go and smite the Philistines 1Sam 23:2-5 - 10,000
70 God killed Nabal (and David got his wife and other stuff) 1Sam 25:38 1 1
71 David committed genocides for the Philistines 1Sam 27.8-11 - 60,000
72 David spends the day killing Amalekites 1Sam 30:17 - 1,000
73 God kills Saul, his sons, and his men because Saul didn't kill all the Amalekites 1Sam 31:2, 1Chr 10:6 4 100
74 David killed the messenger 2Sam 1.15 1 1
75 David killed Rechab and Baanah, cut off their hands and feet, and hung up their dead bodies 2Sam 4.12 2 2
76 God helps David smite Philistines from the front and the rear 2Sam 5:19-25 - 2,000
77 God killed Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling 2Sam 6:6-7, 1Chr 13:9-10 1 1
78 David killed 2/3 Moabite POWs and enslaved the rest 2Sam 8.2 - 667
79 The Lord gave David victory wherever he went 2Sam 8.5, 10.18 65,850 66,850
80 David killed every male in Edom 2Sam 8.13, 1Kg 11.15-16, 1Chr 18.12, Psalm 60:1 15,000 65,000
81 Thus did David unto all the children of Ammon 2Sam 11.1, 1Chr 20.1 - 1,000
82 God slowly kills a baby 2Sam 12:14-18 1 1
83 Famine and human sacrfice: Seven sons of Saul are hung up before the Lord 2Sam 21:1-9 7 3,000
84 David's mighty men and their amazing killings 2Sam 23, 1Chr 11 1,403 3,400
85 A couple hundred thousand die because David had a census 2Sam 24:15, 1Chr 21:14 70,000 200,000
86 Solomon carried out the deathbed wish of David by having Joab and Shimei murdered 1Kg 2:29-34, 2:44-46 2 2
87 A tale of two prophets 1Kg 13:11-24 1 1
88 Jeroboam's son: God kills another child 1Kg 14:17 1 1
89 Jeroboam's family 1Kg 15:29 - 10
90 Baasha's family and friends 1Kg 16:11-12 - 20
91 Zimri burns to death 1Kg 16.18-19 1 1
92 The drought of Elijah 1Kg 17.1, Lk 4.25, James 5.17-18 - 3,000
93 Elijah kills 450 religious leaders in a prayer contest 1Kg 18.22-40 450 450
94 The first God-assisted slaughter of the Syrians 1Kg 20:20-21 - 10,000
95 God killed 100,000 Syrians for calling him a god of the hills 1Kg 20:28-29 100,000 100,000
96 God killed 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them 1Kg 20:30 27,000 27,000
97 God sent a lion to kill a man for not smiting a prophet 1Kg 20:35-36 1 1
98 God kills Ahab for not killing a captured king 1Kg 20:42, 22:35 1 1
99 God burned to death 102 men for asking Elijah to come down from his hill 2Kg 1:10-12 102 102
100 God killed King Ahaziah for asking the wrong God 2Kg 1:16-17; 2Chr 22:7-9 1 1
101 God sent two bears to rip apart 42 boys for making fun of a prophet's bald head 2Kg 2:23-24 42 42
102 The Lord delivered the Moabites 2Kg 3:18-25 - 5,000
103 A skeptic is trampled to death 2Kg 7.2-20 1 1
104 Another seven year famine 2Kg 8:1 - 7,000
105 Jehoram of Israel 2Kg 9:24 1 1
106 Jezebel 2Kg 9:33-37 1 1
107 Ahab's sons: Seventy heads in two heaps 2Kg 10:6-10 70 70
108 Ahab's hometown family, friends, and priests 2Kg 10:11 - 20
109 Jehu killed Ahaziah's family 2Kg 10.12-13, 2Chr 22.7-9 42 42
110 Jehu and his partner kill the rest of Ahab's family 2Kg 10:17 - 20
111 Jehu assembles the followers of Baal and then slaughters them all 2Kg 10.18-25 - 1,000
112 Mattan the priest of Baal and Queen Athaliah 2Kg 11.17-20 2 2
113 God sends lions to eat those that don't fear him enough 2Kg 17:25-26 - 10
114 An angel killed 185,000 sleeping soldiers 2Kg 19:34, Is 37:36 185,000 185,000
115 God caused Sennacherib to be killed by his sons 2Kg 19:37 1 1
116 Josiah killed all the priests of the high places 2Kg 23.20 - 100
117 Another holy war 1Chr 5:18-22 - 50,000
118 God killed a half million Israelite soldiers 2Chr 13:17-18 500,000 500,000
119 Jeroboam 2Chr 13:20 1 1
120 God killed a million Ethiopians 2Chr 14:9-14 1,000,000 1,000,000
121 Friendly Fire: God forced "a great multitude" to kill each other 2Chr 20:22-25 - 30,000
122 God made Jehoram's bowels fall out 2Chr 21:14-19 1 1
123 God killed Jehoram's sons 2Chr 22:1 - 3
124 Ahaziah (of Judah) 2Chr 22.7-9 1 1
125 Joash, the princes, and army of Judah 2Chr 24:20-25 1 10,000
126 God destroyed Amaziah 2Chr 25:15-27 1 1000
127 God smote Ahaz with the king of Syria 2Chr 28:1-5 - 10,000
128 God killed 120,000 valiant men for forsaking him 2Chr 28:6 120,000 120,000
129 The fall of Jerusalem 2Chr 36:16-17 - 10,000
130 God and Satan kill Job's children and slaves Job 1:18-19 10 60
131 Hananiah Jeremiah 28:15-16 1 1
132 Ezekiel's wife Ezek 24:15-18 1 1
133 Annanias and Sapphira Acts 5:1-10 2 2
134 Herod Acts 12:23 1 1
135 Jesus Rom 8:32, 1Pet 1.18-20 1 1
Total 2,476,636 24,634,205

yes the lay out sucks so here is the link to a compiled list of all the verses that show god ordering people to be killed or killing them himself. This doesn't account for sodom and gomorra and the flood with noah's ark.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

[Within99]

New to me, lol.
I lurned something tewday.

[Within99]

Only thing is, most of those are all Old Testament.
I'd have to study more, so idk.

[Slave]

Only thing is, most of those are all Old Testament.
I'd have to study more, so idk.

Ya think? heh

[Within99]

I try to think, but smoke starts coming out of my ears, so I just faceroll.

anyone else get the urge to smell your fingers after you've held some change for a while.

[chtulu]

i like how all the apologists try to act like the old testament doesn't count. so the deaths of millions is ok before jesus? Also, if god was so perfect and all knowing, why did he have the needless old testament in the first place?

[Within99]

Hey...stop that.

[Within99]

I think me and Slave weren't on the same page back there. I wasn't saying I need to study those.... nvm whatever.
No, Old testament does, but old testament was more directed to Jews, because the Laws of God are in the old testament.
That is why God sent his only son, he knew we couldn't live by the law so strictly, he sent us a savior.

[IronLikeALionInZion]

keep coming at me with christian stuff. im not even a christian.

i dont care to spell shit properly because like this conversation its a waste of time.

White devils like you are going to perish when Louis Farrakhan's spaceship comes from the heavens and removes you and your tyranny from earth.

[Hasbinbad]

desert sun deity cult lulz

[IronLikeALionInZion]

hasbinbad acting intellectual when he didnt know who Haile Selassie was.

[Slave]

White devils like you are going to perish when Louis Farrakhan's spaceship comes from the heavens and removes you and your tyranny from earth.

This is more like it!! :D

[bman8810]

what if religion was merely a way to label the way you live your life based on your personal code and principles and gave you an external way to express that belief?

I believe that is basically what I said when I labeled religion a social construct. I don't need religion as an external way to express my belief. I am perfectly capable of being kind and helpful to others without religion. Also, I don't need to label my personal code and principles as "religion". Once again, I'm perfectly fine just having them by my personal code and principles. Does that make sense? Basically, there was a time when religion was essential to the human race and helped bind us together into communities. However, at this stage we don't need it anymore and it really just acts to drive us apart.

I don't get it? you are Anti-God?
Anyway, you are wrong.
God can only do good, you need to attend church.
No matter what you think, you can never do it with your own strength, you need God, we all do.

Ill try to leave this thread with this.
When Jesus comes back, and God judges the people of the earth, will you rely on the "things of the world" or the promise of Christ Jesus.
Satan is the ruler of earth.

I'm anti-God? No, I'm anti-religion and believe that if there is a God he made me self-sufficient enough to provide for myself and try to live a morally sound life without holding eternal damnation over me. Also, "God can only do good"? Did you read my second post? In Christianity God is omnipotent and omniscient. As such, he takes full responsibility for any action one of his creations takes. Therefore, God created Satan who did evil; e.g. God did evil.

As far as Satan being the ruler of the earth... Guess who's fault that is.


Usually people who are afraid to die argue religion. Both sides.
Why did you target Christianity specifically? It's not the largest religion in the world, and by your claiming your an atheist, you aren't just anti-christian, but anti-faith completely. Why not target islamic beliefs? Simple.. you knew this would make the most fuss, and you're just a damn loser wanting to fire up an argument and make a name for yourself.

So, now that you've made your point.. what's changed? You haven't outrun death, fatty. It's still comin'.

Not sure if this was directed at me or not. I targeted Christianity specifically because I know Christianity intimately. I know Christian beliefs and I know how Christians rationalize those beliefs.

I'm not anti-faith. I have faith in many things, one such example being science. However, I don't have faith in a God (or at least any such God portrayed by earthly religions) because I don't see a benefit in it for me.

As far as "firing up an argument"? We are in RnF and posing your beliefs and thought son a matter is hardly trying to fire up an argument. As far as making a name for myself? I could care less what you or others think of me.

[Truth]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8_q3QlIQvA4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[bman8810]

P.S. My entire family is Christian and I respect them greatly for it. However, the reason I respect them for it is they don't sit on their hands and pray to God to fix things. They don't pray for God to heal them and then not go see the doctor. My family has always had a very pragmatic view when it comes to religion.

[Hasbinbad]

hasbinbad acting intellectual when he didnt know who Haile Selassie was.
Yes, knowledge of jamaican/jewish mysticism is the key to intellectualism.

[Diggles]

Well duh

[Harrison]

IronLikeALionInZion is offline
Banned
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/16126102.jpg

[Lulz Sect]

http://i46.tinypic.com/2mzmtg0.jpg

[burkemi5]

ultimate troll thread, over 100 pages. i agree with your point; however, i do not agree with your method for conveying it

[chtulu]

ultimate troll thread, over 100 pages. i agree with your point; however, i do not agree with your method for conveying it


The most honest and reasonable retort in this thread.

[Hasbinlulz]

http://i.imgur.com/IOaFh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/w3UDp.jpg

[Hasbinlulz]

This video is really good. I don't usually like Dawkins outside of his work in biology, but he is straight up in this debate. Furthermore, C. Pell has the most astute arguments and public conception of "god" that I have ever seen. If you like Dawkins, you've probably seen this, but here you go.

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g4oMfY7q-Uo?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g4oMfY7q-Uo?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[dragonfists]

everyones got an opinion

mine is that if you do not believe there is something more intelligent than us out in the universe you are close minded.. we are still very primitive, on the cusp of understanding how little we really know

[hiphobbit]

i think you are all great!

[Tarathiel]

You also believe the world is only 6,000 years old and think evolution is a conspiracy theory against Jesus.

i think the OP is on to something

[SyanideGas]

Negative. Being a biggoting atheist is a bad thing. )
truf

[jpeute]

allah wagba

[dredge]

.

[Diggles]

looking @ post dates is hard

[Hasbinlulz]

you can believe in God without believing in Jesus, in fact the majority of people in the world do
the chick in ur avatar is making me believe in jesus

[Reptak]

This video is really good. I don't usually like Dawkins outside of his work in biology, but he is straight up in this debate. Furthermore, C. Pell has the most astute arguments and public conception of "god" that I have ever seen. If you like Dawkins, you've probably seen this, but here you go.

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g4oMfY7q-Uo?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g4oMfY7q-Uo?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Great video. Dawkins needs some work on his interpersonal skills, though. I found it awkward when he kept asking why the audience was laughing. Also, while I understood what he meant when he said something to the effect that asking "why" (I believe he was thinking purpose) is "not a valid question" (I think he meant not scientifically relevant), I thought he could have stated this better. "Why" is obviously a pretty important question to most people.

I also found some of C. Pell's responses to be a bit insincere to appear more moderate (at least not representing the Catholic church's core values). He basically said atheists can get to heaven, we evolved from lower primates (thus allowing for an older earth and acceptance of evolutionary principles), and that much of the old testament isn't necessary litteral. He did, however, say that the wafer/wine at communion DOES transform to the blood and body of Christ, although he admits that physically there is no change. He was almost unintelligible when he described this as metaphysical and refused to say it was symbolic.

Anyway, thanks for the view.

[Alarti0001]

everyones got an opinion

mine is that if you do not believe there is something more intelligent than us out in the universe you are close minded.. we are still very primitive, on the cusp of understanding how little we really know

You need to look at the evolution of technology and the exponential curve that technological evolution progresses on.

Why do you think someone is close-minded when you obviously don't understand all(or even some) of the factors of technological evolution.

Intelligence evolves exponentially. If you know anything about how an exponential curve works you would realize once you get past the knee of the curve, from say a chart that starts with time 0, then those exponents start adding up very, very, very quickly. You basically reach near infinite progression of near to nothing on the timeline. If there was other intelligence out there. It would be made apparent rather quickly.
There is a good chance we are the most intelligent beings out there.

[Hasbinlulz]

You need to look at the evolution of technology and the exponential curve that technological evolution progresses on.

Why do you think someone is close-minded when you obviously don't understand all(or even some) of the factors of technological evolution.

Intelligence evolves exponentially. If you know anything about how an exponential curve works you would realize once you get past the knee of the curve, from say a chart that starts with time 0, then those exponents start adding up very, very, very quickly. You basically reach near infinite progression of near to nothing on the timeline. If there was other intelligence out there. It would be made apparent rather quickly.
There is a good chance we are the most intelligent beings out there.
That a "god of the unknowns" argument Alarti, and you should feel ashamed of yourself for making it.

[Hasbinlulz]

There is a good chance we are the most intelligent beings out there.
Specifically this statement is something you should feel ashamed of.

[Reptak]

Bill Mauher can be a pompous jerk. Well he usually is. But Religulous is one of my favorite movies. Not because it bashes religions in all forms (it does), but he at least allows some insight into different perspectives. One of my favorite parts was the interview with the Vatican scientist. The Vatican scientist eloquently explained that there is no science in Christianity. Modern science, as we know it, came into being centuries after the Bible. He stated that the fundamentalist approach to religion is doing a diservice to Christianity and that religion and science seek to answer different questions and are not mutually exclusive.

Make no mistake, I understand it was a completely biased movie that was edited (and made entertaining) with the sole goal of supporting his point. I just felt it opened my eyes a bit more and gave me more of a voice.

[Alarti0001]

Specifically this statement is something you should feel ashamed of.

Why? Because you belief differently?

[Diggles]

Why? Because you belief differently?

DO YOU BELIEF DIFFERENTLY?

[Alarti0001]

DO YOU BELIEF DIFFERENTLY?

I hypothesize differently !

[Alawen]

everyones got an opinion mine is that if you do not believe there is something more intelligent than us out in the universe you are close minded.. we are still very primitive, on the cusp of understanding how little we really know

This is a baseless argument and you are completely ignoring everything we know about epistemology. If you want to make an argument like "there is something more intelligent than us out in the universe," the philosophic burden of proof is on you to justify your position.

We are primitive compared to what? We are more intellectually advanced than any other organism we've discovered, and our current society is apparently more advanced than any other in history. These things support Alarti's hypothesis that we are the most advanced creatures in the universe. "Space is really big" is not a successful refutation of his hypothesis.

[Alawen]

That a "god of the unknowns" argument Alarti, and you should feel ashamed of yourself for making it.

Do you mean god of the gaps? That doesn't apply. His wording is a little awkward in that he attempts to vaguely quantify the likelihood of our being the most intelligent beings, but the basic argument that all available evidence points to us being the most intelligent beings is both sound and valid.

Unless you've had a visit from aliens you'd like to share with us..?

[HeallunRumblebelly]

Do you mean god of the gaps? That doesn't apply. His wording is a little awkward in that he attempts to vaguely quantify the likelihood of our being the most intelligent beings, but the basic argument that all available evidence points to us being the most intelligent beings is both sound and valid.

Unless you've had a visit from aliens you'd like to share with us..?

Well, there's probability of life in the universe seems high, even if life requires conditions to life we already know of, but the distance to all of this life is so far and getting further with that expanding universe :P

[Alarti0001]

Do you mean god of the gaps? That doesn't apply. His wording is a little awkward in that he attempts to vaguely quantify the likelihood of our being the most intelligent beings, but the basic argument that all available evidence points to us being the most intelligent beings is both sound and valid.

Unless you've had a visit from aliens you'd like to share with us..?

Eh i was at work I didnt really feel like writing a full blow theory with source material. Its RnF afterall

[Alarti0001]

Well, there's probability of life in the universe seems high, even if life requires conditions to life we already know of, but the distance to all of this life is so far and getting further with that expanding universe :P

With further development of quantum theory and fun abstracts like quantum entanglement distance might prove to be a minor factor for the discovery of life. Which ties into the theory that if there is more advanced intelligence(life or not) that it would have discovered us or made itself known by now. No not but abducting us and anally probing us(maybe hasbinbad).

If the purpose of life is to create greater intelligence, which is what I think, then a greater intelligence would have no benefit of discovering us without making itself known and advancing us.

[Lexical]

With further development of quantum theory and fun abstracts like quantum entanglement distance might prove to be a minor factor for the discovery of life. Which ties into the theory that if there is more advanced intelligence(life or not) that it would have discovered us or made itself known by now. No not but abducting us and anally probing us(maybe hasbinbad).

I think you are getting a little too excited over the quantum entanglement theory. It doesn't imply teleportation at all. It really just suggests instant data transmission theoretically, but you would still have to have to travel the parsecs.

Worm holes on the other hand are an entirely different matter which could lead to faster than light travel. There was some crazy engineer who released some ridiculous blue prints that manipulate gravitational fluxs in their fields which would theoretically cause faster than light speeds by tearing a whole in space/time.

Anywho, the point of this post: Stop abusing the quantum entanglement theory >: (

[Lexical]

When I say faster than light travel, I mean in terms of displacement not velocity.

[Dirtnap]

Granted we are the most intelligent beings we know of, we just can't honestly say we are the most intelligent beings in the universe. We won't be able to say that until we have seen it all.

[Alarti0001]

I think you are getting a little too excited over the quantum entanglement theory. It doesn't imply teleportation at all. It really just suggests instant data transmission theoretically, but you would still have to have to travel the parsecs.

Worm holes on the other hand are an entirely different matter which could lead to faster than light travel. There was some crazy engineer who released some ridiculous blue prints that manipulate gravitational fluxs in their fields which would theoretically cause faster than light speeds by tearing a whole in space/time.

Anywho, the point of this post: Stop abusing the quantum entanglement theory >: (

..... Data is what exactly?

[Alarti0001]

Granted we are the most intelligent beings we know of, we just can't honestly say we are the most intelligent beings in the universe. We won't be able to say that until we have seen it all.

Did anyone say that. I said there is a high chance we are the most intelligent beings in existence.

[Lexical]

..... Data is what exactly?

values of qualitative or quantitative variables encoded in some format for transmission.

[Hasbinlulz]

Why? Because you belief differently?
No, because you have the gall to speculate on the likelihood of that about which you have zero evidence.

You can say what you believe, but you stated "there is a good chance of [blah blah being a valid state of events]" and that is ridiculous and you should be ashamed.

[Hasbinlulz]

I hypothesize differently !
a conclusion is different than a hypothesis, and you should look up hypothesis.

[Hasbinlulz]

Do you mean god of the gaps?
For the record, this is probably the most snobbish elitist correction I have ever fucking heard. Get the fuck over yourself. LMAO.
That doesn't apply. His wording is a little awkward in that he attempts to vaguely quantify the likelihood of our being the most intelligent beings, but the basic argument that all available evidence points to us being the most intelligent beings is both sound and valid.
I think it does, he invented probability out of thin air in an attempt to explain what he does not know. It's the exact same reasoning as god of the unknowns, you fucking prick, and it's ironic that he used it in that way in this argument. KMA lol

[Hasbinlulz]

Well, there's probability of life in the universe seems high, even if life requires conditions to life we already know of, but the distance to all of this life is so far and getting further with that expanding universe :P
That is a fairly accepted idea amongst astrophysicists whose youtube videos I have watched, especially as more is apparently learned about earthlikes in goldilocks zones and archaea life which can apparently live fucking anywhere.

[Hasbinlulz]

With further development of quantum theory and fun abstracts like quantum entanglement distance might prove to be a minor factor for the discovery of life. Which ties into the theory that if there is more advanced intelligence(life or not) that it would have discovered us or made itself known by now. No not but abducting us and anally probing us(maybe hasbinbad).

If the purpose of life is to create greater intelligence, which is what I think, then a greater intelligence would have no benefit of discovering us without making itself known and advancing us.
You're forgetting an energy source of unlimited energy. :)

[Hasbinlulz]

I think you are getting a little too excited over the quantum entanglement theory. It doesn't imply teleportation at all. It really just suggests instant data transmission theoretically, but you would still have to have to travel the parsecs.

Worm holes on the other hand are an entirely different matter which could lead to faster than light travel. There was some crazy engineer who released some ridiculous blue prints that manipulate gravitational fluxs in their fields which would theoretically cause faster than light speeds by tearing a whole in space/time.

Anywho, the point of this post: Stop abusing the quantum entanglement theory >: (
everyone always forgets the limitless energy part of that equation.

[Hasbinlulz]

Did anyone say that. I said there is a high chance we are the most intelligent beings in existence.
you can't say stupid shit like this alarti.

what are you? fucking Chance Random, deity of probability? get over yourself.

[Lexical]

http://www.jontanis.com/gallery/d/3734-1/combo-breaker-2.jpg

everyone always forgets the limitless energy part of that equation.

And no, infinite energy is not required. A metric fuck ton of energy is required, but not infinite. And one can postulate an infinite energy source by manipulating higgs fields since even when you draw all the energy out of that field, there is still a positive amount of energy.

[Lexical]

and with all this talk of alien life forms and rap videos going around RnF, this little rap seems necessary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x0w9TpI1xk&feature=relmfu

[Lexical]

And holy shit, how the fuck do you embed on this forum? Iframes are blocked and whenever I tried writing my own html code the shit just fucking exploded and failed to link.

PLZ HALP!

[Reiker000]

and with all this talk of alien life forms and rap videos going around RnF, this little rap seems necessary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x0w9TpI1xk&feature=relmfu

Fucc I knew what this video was going to be before I clicked it.

Believing in God is like arguing with people on the internet.

[Reiker000]

this is how you embed

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y0HMHQ3aX8A?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y0HMHQ3aX8A?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Hasbinlulz]

lexical, ur doing everything right except check the box that says use old embed code.

[Alawen]

For the record, this is probably the most snobbish elitist correction I have ever fucking heard. Get the fuck over yourself. LMAO.

I think it does, he invented probability out of thin air in an attempt to explain what he does not know. It's the exact same reasoning as god of the unknowns, you fucking prick, and it's ironic that he used it in that way in this argument. KMA lol

Dude.

The god of the gaps fallacy is basically this: science doesn't know everything, therefore god must exist. If anything, Alarti's error is exactly the opposite: we've never found a higher intelligence, therefore we probably won't find a higher intelligence. The most applicable fallacy is probably hasty generalization. A much stronger argument is to say that we don't have any evidence of any higher intelligence and that belief in a higher intelligence is wishful thinking.

You used a mangled phrase for something that doesn't apply. That doesn't make me an asshole; It makes you an ignorant blowhard, but we already knew that.

Btw, nice ad hominems and cursing. You mad bro?

[Hasbinlulz]

Alawen, you completely missed my point. Sry.

[Alarti0001]

values of qualitative or quantitative variables encoded in some format for transmission.

Its like you took the first line of the wiki and didn't read the rest.

[Alarti0001]

Dude.

The god of the gaps fallacy is basically this: science doesn't know everything, therefore god must exist. If anything, Alarti's error is exactly the opposite: we've never found a higher intelligence, therefore we probably won't find a higher intelligence. The most applicable fallacy is probably hasty generalization. A much stronger argument is to say that we don't have any evidence of any higher intelligence and that belief in a higher intelligence is wishful thinking.

You used a mangled phrase for something that doesn't apply. That doesn't make me an asshole; It makes you an ignorant blowhard, but we already knew that.

Btw, nice ad hominems and cursing. You mad bro?

Eh you are incorrect, If i was generalizing i would say we haven't found higher intelligence therefore we won't. I said we haven't found higher intelligence, and they haven't found us and according to the accelerating returns the chance that we will find them is low.

I never said there wasn't a higher intelligence out there, I said it wasnt very likely.

[Alarti0001]

For the record, this is probably the most snobbish elitist correction I have ever fucking heard. Get the fuck over yourself. LMAO.

I think it does, he invented probability out of thin air in an attempt to explain what he does not know. It's the exact same reasoning as god of the unknowns, you fucking prick, and it's ironic that he used it in that way in this argument. KMA lol

Hasbinbad, instead of offering snide insults to support your evidence try thought, and research. You might get farther.

[Alawen]

Alawen, you completely missed my point. Sry.

You don't have a point. Incidentally, there is nothing ironic about Alarti making speculations or you offering baseless hyperbole. Those are habitual behavior from each of you respectively. Outcomes that exactly match expectations are definitely not irony.

Keep trying to use that word correctly, though. Sooner or later, you're bound to get lucky.

[Hasbinlulz]

If there was other intelligence out there. It would be made apparent rather quickly.
There is a good chance we are the most intelligent beings out there.
quantum entanglement, lol, big words
If the purpose of life is to create greater intelligence, which is what I think, then a greater intelligence would have no benefit of discovering us without making itself known and advancing us.
I said there is a high chance we are the most intelligent beings in existence.
I never said there wasn't a higher intelligence out there, I said it wasnt very likely.
^actual level of discourse.
Hasbinbad, instead of offering snide insults to support your evidence try thought, and research. You might get farther.
^implied level of discourse.

Alarti, you're such an idiot, I'm inventing a new kind of irony to cover your dumbassedness.

Rhetorical Irony
When the actual level of discourse and the implied level of discourse are at odds.
ex. "Excuse me Harrison, could you please use smaller words and talk down to my level?"

[Hasbinlulz]

Bitch.

[Alarti0001]

^actual level of discourse.

^implied level of discourse.

Alarti, you're such an idiot, I'm inventing a new kind of irony to cover your dumbassedness.

Rhetorical Irony
When the actual level of discourse and the implied level of discourse are at odds.
ex. "Excuse me Harrison, could you please use smaller words and talk down to my level?"

Again all you can offer is insults, without a thought process. I might give a shit about your insults if you would offer a well thought out idea.

As Alawen said I am speculating as there isn't enough evidence to prove anything one way or another. If you don't like my opinion and think you have a stronger case... provide your thought process to this discourse.
Can you?

[Alarti0001]

Bitch.

If you think you are somehow going to make me mad with name calling you couldn't be farther from the truth, again I suggest you post some reasoned thought.

[Lexical]

Its like you took the first line of the wiki and didn't read the rest.

What is your point? It was a clear definition of what data is.

[Alarti0001]

What is your point? It was a clear definition of what data is.

Data is just baseline information. Everything is data or information.

[Lexical]

Data is just baseline information. Everything is data or information.

Everything can be represented by data or information, but not everything IS data or information.... but I still don't see your point.

[JerSar]

TL;DR

-I HATE JEZUS
-AEGGH WTF Y U HATE JEZUS?!
-CAUZ HES A JOO
-DKFKFKDK WTF DONT MAKE ME CALL U NECKBEARD
-WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE, WE GOT...
-SHUT UP, YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH RIGHT NOW!
-I YAH WELL UR A FHAGGET
-NO U
-XPLODE O YOUR JOO MOUTH!

BROUGHT TO YOU BY MR ROGERS

[Daldolma]

Dude.

The god of the gaps fallacy is basically this: science doesn't know everything, therefore god must exist. If anything, Alarti's error is exactly the opposite: we've never found a higher intelligence, therefore we probably won't find a higher intelligence. The most applicable fallacy is probably hasty generalization. A much stronger argument is to say that we don't have any evidence of any higher intelligence and that belief in a higher intelligence is wishful thinking.

You used a mangled phrase for something that doesn't apply. That doesn't make me an asshole; It makes you an ignorant blowhard, but we already knew that.

Btw, nice ad hominems and cursing. You mad bro?

Why is belief in a higher intelligence wishful thinking? Why do you feel the need to dismiss and trivialize that point of view while validating the converse? Is it also wishful thinking to believe there is no higher intelligence in the universe?

We have precious little evidence re: extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise. What we do know is that, given the extraordinarily high number of potentially habitable planets in the universe and the relative youth of life on Earth, unless Earth is highly, highly atypical, there should be intelligent life elsewhere. It's very possible that Earth is highly atypical, and that intelligent life is unique to our planet. It's also very possible that it's not. We are hundreds, if not thousands, of years away from really knowing.

Drawing any kind of conclusion based on the extraordinarily limited evidence we possess is absurd. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. And even assuming that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would adhere to some of the basic assumptions we've made (ie: that they would use similar technologies, that they would explore or colonize, that they would attempt to make contact), how reliable is the type of evidence you're talking about? How far back would you accept that type of testimony from? If I showed you a written account of a man from, say, the 1600s claiming to have seen a non-human in an unspecified craft arriving and leaving the planet, what would your response be? Would you say "Aha, they do exist"? Of course not. And that's still just 400 years ago. What if they visited half a billion years ago? What exactly do you expect? Neon advertisements across the Milky Way? Or perhaps a parked spaceship? Visits every 20 years? You're looking at a grain of sand for 15 seconds and saying "No signs of life -- this planet is entirely barren".

We've been around for a flicker of a tick on the universal scale. It's entirely possible intelligent, extraterrestrial life did visit Earth sometime in the last billion years. It's entirely possible intelligent, extraterrestrial life exists and simply isn't all that interested in us. It's entirely possible intelligent, extraterrestrial life and corresponding technologies would be so foreign to us that we wouldn't know them even if we saw them. And it's entirely possible that there is no intelligent life other than us -- that Earth is unique and we're either the only intelligent lifeforms in the universe, or at least the most advanced. But we just don't know. It's no more 'wishful' to believe one way than to believe the other.

[McMuffins]

Why is belief in a higher intelligence wishful thinking? Why do you feel the need to dismiss and trivialize that point of view while validating the converse? Is it also wishful thinking to believe there is no higher intelligence in the universe?

We have precious little evidence re: extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise. What we do know is that, given the extraordinarily high number of potentially habitable planets in the universe and the relative youth of life on Earth, unless Earth is highly, highly atypical, there should be intelligent life elsewhere. It's very possible that Earth is highly atypical, and that intelligent life is unique to our planet. It's also very possible that it's not. We are hundreds, if not thousands, of years away from really knowing.

Drawing any kind of conclusion based on the extraordinarily limited evidence we possess is absurd. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. And even assuming that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would adhere to some of the basic assumptions we've made (ie: that they would use similar technologies, that they would explore or colonize, that they would attempt to make contact), how reliable is the type of evidence you're talking about? How far back would you accept that type of testimony from? If I showed you a written account of a man from, say, the 1600s claiming to have seen a non-human in an unspecified craft arriving and leaving the planet, what would your response be? Would you say "Aha, they do exist"? Of course not. And that's still just 400 years ago. What if they visited half a billion years ago? What exactly do you expect? Neon advertisements across the Milky Way? Or perhaps a parked spaceship? Visits every 20 years? You're looking at a grain of sand for 15 seconds and saying "No signs of life -- this planet is entirely barren".

We've been around for a flicker of a tick on the universal scale. It's entirely possible intelligent, extraterrestrial life did visit Earth sometime in the last billion years. It's entirely possible intelligent, extraterrestrial life exists and simply isn't all that interested in us. It's entirely possible intelligent, extraterrestrial life and corresponding technologies would be so foreign to us that we wouldn't know them even if we saw them. And it's entirely possible that there is no intelligent life other than us -- that Earth is unique and we're either the only intelligent lifeforms in the universe, or at least the most advanced. But we just don't know. It's no more 'wishful' to believe one way than to believe the other.

Dude do you understand that TL;DR is important. TOO LONG DIDNT GIVE A SHIT

[McMuffins]

I ksed Jews on jesus. Also passion of the Christ was a great movie and very 100 percent how everything happened

[Alawen]

Why is belief in a higher intelligence wishful thinking? Why do you feel the need to dismiss and trivialize that point of view while validating the converse? Is it also wishful thinking to believe there is no higher intelligence in the universe?

We have precious little evidence re: extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise. What we do know is that, given the extraordinarily high number of potentially habitable planets in the universe and the relative youth of life on Earth, unless Earth is highly, highly atypical, there should be intelligent life elsewhere. It's very possible that Earth is highly atypical, and that intelligent life is unique to our planet. It's also very possible that it's not. We are hundreds, if not thousands, of years away from really knowing.

Drawing any kind of conclusion based on the extraordinarily limited evidence we possess is absurd. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. And even assuming that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would adhere to some of the basic assumptions we've made (ie: that they would use similar technologies, that they would explore or colonize, that they would attempt to make contact), how reliable is the type of evidence you're talking about? How far back would you accept that type of testimony from? If I showed you a written account of a man from, say, the 1600s claiming to have seen a non-human in an unspecified craft arriving and leaving the planet, what would your response be? Would you say "Aha, they do exist"? Of course not. And that's still just 400 years ago. What if they visited half a billion years ago? What exactly do you expect? Neon advertisements across the Milky Way? Or perhaps a parked spaceship? Visits every 20 years? You're looking at a grain of sand for 15 seconds and saying "No signs of life -- this planet is entirely barren".

We've been around for a flicker of a tick on the universal scale. It's entirely possible intelligent, extraterrestrial life did visit Earth sometime in the last billion years. It's entirely possible intelligent, extraterrestrial life exists and simply isn't all that interested in us. It's entirely possible intelligent, extraterrestrial life and corresponding technologies would be so foreign to us that we wouldn't know them even if we saw them. And it's entirely possible that there is no intelligent life other than us -- that Earth is unique and we're either the only intelligent lifeforms in the universe, or at least the most advanced. But we just don't know. It's no more 'wishful' to believe one way than to believe the other.

See your own discussion for why it's wishful thinking to believe in anything without evidence. The philosophic burden of proof is always on the advocate of theory to back it up. As I'm sure you already know, it's not possible to prove a negative. It certainly seems unlikely that we could scour the universe for intelligent life and definitely declare it to be found or not found within my lifetime. I am not taking the position that there is absolutely for sure no way can't be intelligent life out there. We have no evidence.

Here's a quote for you, Wikipedia boy:

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality.

[deneauth]

I consider religion a set or moral guidelines for the most part. It's all open to interpretation for a reason. I do not believe in god but I follow my own set of morals. Some coincide with the bible and some don't. Religion is what ever you make of it. some people create schools over it, some eradicate populations because of it and this has been going on for generations before we existed, and will continue on generations after we are all dead. I am suprised this arguement is still going on, we ll know that religious beliefs exist on an individual basis. This thread is like the Honey Boo Boo of religious debate, garbage.

[Daldolma]

See your own discussion for why it's wishful thinking to believe in anything without evidence. The philosophic burden of proof is always on the advocate of theory to back it up. As I'm sure you already know, it's not possible to prove a negative. It certainly seems unlikely that we could scour the universe for intelligent life and definitely declare it to be found or not found within my lifetime. I am not taking the position that there is absolutely for sure no way can't be intelligent life out there. We have no evidence.

Here's a quote for you, Wikipedia boy:

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality.



You've pigeon-holed evidence to include only definitive evidence. There is obviously no definitive evidence -- that doesn't make the discussion of intelligent extraterrestrial life pure guesswork. Our own existence is evidence of intelligent life in the universe. The vastness and age of the universe, and the widespread existence of Earth-like planets, suggests that intelligent life could have and should have occurred elsewhere, unless something about Earth is extremely atypical. We have no evidence to suggest that Earth is, or isn't, atypical in its ability to foster intelligent life. Our sample size is entirely too small. If years from now, we've explored thousands of Earth-like, habitable planets and found nothing, then we would agree -- there is a meaningful absence of evidence. As of now, the absence of evidence is simply a consequence of our ignorance.

And why do you suggest it is "pleasing to imagine" intelligent life elsewhere, for those who believe there is? I find it far more pleasing to believe Earth is entirely unique and humans -- and our descendants -- are the only intelligent life this unthinkably vast universe will ever know. I find it far more pleasing to believe we are special, rather than a natural and fairly unspectacular eventuality.

[Alawen]

You're free to believe in giant daddy in the sky, silver alien ask sperm, teleporting Jesus, Satan planted the fossils, or anything else that makes you happy, princess. You can even redefine evidence if you like. Have you met Hasbinbad? He likes to make up his own definitions,.too.

[HeallunRumblebelly]

You're free to believe in giant daddy in the sky, silver alien ask sperm, teleporting Jesus, Satan planted the fossils, or anything else that makes you happy, princess. You can even redefine evidence if you like. Have you met Hasbinbad? He likes to make up his own definitions,.too.

Believing what you want is fine, until democracy o_o.


“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” --Isaac Asimov

[JerSar]

I like how we all quote from books. Pics or gtfo.

[Daldolma]

You're free to believe in giant daddy in the sky, silver alien ask sperm, teleporting Jesus, Satan planted the fossils, or anything else that makes you happy, princess. You can even redefine evidence if you like. Have you met Hasbinbad? He likes to make up his own definitions,.too.

Your inability to respect opposing viewpoints is unbecoming. I wonder about your formal education.

But instead of meeting Hasbinbad, I'd love to meet Stephen Hawking. The following is a direct quote from Stephen Hawking:

"To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational," he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."

He even speculates.

"I imagine they might exist in massive ships ... having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach.”

Apparently Stephen Hawking is also a wishful thinker, conjuring up his own imagined definitions of evidence. Certainly there is no evidence at all for that line of thought. I wonder if he believes Satan planted the fossils, too, since you've drawn an equivalence between those beliefs.

Wait, wait -- I know. This is an appeal to authority that holds no weight with you. You've got a nice little pseudo intellect troll going. Dismiss all relevant evidence as nonsense, then dismiss expert support for that evidence as appeal to authority. Hurray, anything you don't accept is not only wrong but ludicrous.

[deneauth]

So what is your expert opinion?

[Tarathiel]

So what is your expert opinion?

god is an alien

[Daldolma]

So what is your expert opinion?

Do you mean me? I don't have an expert opinion, I'm not a fucking expert. Stephen Hawking is. I'm just a guy on P99's RnF boards capable of respecting a belief that intelligent extraterrestrial life does exist, as well as a belief that intelligent extraterrestrial life doesn't exist. I refuse to consider either belief ludicrous.

If you want my non-expert, guy on elf emulator forum opinion, I believe Earth isn't extraordinarily atypical. I don't believe life is so extraordinarily rare that Earth is the only place in the entire universe where it has developed into what we would consider 'intelligent life' in over 13 billion years and throughout 100 billion galaxies. I don't think the fact that we haven't tripped across extraterrestrial life within 50 years of first being able to exit our own atmosphere means much of anything at all. There are potentially sextillions of habitable planets. The universe is 13 billion years old. The sheer enormity of those numbers would suggest that Earth would have to be extraordinarily atypical to be the only planet that harbored life for long enough to produce intelligent life, and I see no reason to believe that.

[Hasbinlulz]

Again all you can offer is insults, without a thought process. I might give a shit about your insults if you would offer a well thought out idea.

As Alawen said I am speculating as there isn't enough evidence to prove anything one way or another. If you don't like my opinion and think you have a stronger case... provide your thought process to this discourse.
Can you?
It's almost as if you live in a fantasy world.

[deneauth]

Do you mean me? I don't have an expert opinion, I'm not a fucking expert. Stephen Hawking is. I'm just a guy on P99's RnF boards capable of respecting a belief that intelligent extraterrestrial life does exist, as well as a belief that intelligent extraterrestrial life doesn't exist. I refuse to consider either belief ludicrous.

If you want my non-expert, guy on elf emulator forum opinion, I believe Earth isn't extraordinarily atypical. I don't believe life is so extraordinarily rare that Earth is the only place in the entire universe where it has developed into what we would consider 'intelligent life' in over 13 billion years and throughout 100 billion galaxies. I don't think the fact that we haven't tripped across extraterrestrial life within 50 years of first being able to exit our own atmosphere means much of anything at all. There are potentially sextillions of habitable planets. The universe is 13 billion years old. The sheer enormity of those numbers would suggest that Earth would have to be extraordinarily atypical to be the only planet that harbored life for long enough to produce intelligent life, and I see no reason to believe that.


In regards to the thread title are people who believe in god stupid? I tend to agree with you. And yes this is a silly debate to have on this forum but consider us just a community of people sharing opinions right now.

[Alawen]

Your inability to respect opposing viewpoints is unbecoming. I wonder about your formal education.

But instead of meeting Hasbinbad, I'd love to meet Stephen Hawking. The following is a direct quote from Stephen Hawking:

"To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational," he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."

He even speculates.

"I imagine they might exist in massive ships ... having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach.”

Apparently Stephen Hawking is also a wishful thinker, conjuring up his own imagined definitions of evidence. Certainly there is no evidence at all for that line of thought. I wonder if he believes Satan planted the fossils, too, since you've drawn an equivalence between those beliefs.

Wait, wait -- I know. This is an appeal to authority that holds no weight with you. You've got a nice little pseudo intellect troll going. Dismiss all relevant evidence as nonsense, then dismiss expert support for that evidence as appeal to authority. Hurray, anything you don't accept is not only wrong but ludicrous.

I imagine that they have big spherical ships that look like a small moon; that's too big to be a space station. Wait, I imagine that they have cubes and they assimilate other cultures. Wait, I imagine that they took apart all the planets in their solar system and built a huge ring that revolves around the sun. Wait, I know, they come from another dimension AND THEY WILL TEAR YOUR SOUL APART!

Everyone should believe that there is other life more intelligent than humans because Daldolma says Stephen Hawking says so. And, after all, Stephen Hawking doesn't need degrees related to extra-terrestrial life corresponding to Daldolma's standard in his last series of RnF tantrums even though this is just an extension of those tantrums, because... well, just because.

No one is an expert on the existence of extra-terrestrial life because we have no evidence of extra-terrestrial life to study. Your appeals to authority are completely and utterly fallacious here.

You are blatantly and pathetically trying to make up for me handing you your ass for posting the first paragraph of a Wikipedia entry and trying to pretend you knew what historicity was. No one else will give a fuck if you manage to let it go, but I don't think you can. I think you'll stalk me in RnF for eternity hoping for a chance to be right.

[Alarti0001]

It's almost as if you live in a fantasy world.

Yes a fantasy world where you will have an intelligent discussion. It seems you are incapable.

[Alawen]

Do you mean me? I don't have an expert opinion, I'm not a fucking expert. Stephen Hawking is. I'm just a guy on P99's RnF boards capable of respecting a belief that intelligent extraterrestrial life does exist, as well as a belief that intelligent extraterrestrial life doesn't exist. I refuse to consider either belief ludicrous.

If you want my non-expert, guy on elf emulator forum opinion, I believe Earth isn't extraordinarily atypical. I don't believe life is so extraordinarily rare that Earth is the only place in the entire universe where it has developed into what we would consider 'intelligent life' in over 13 billion years and throughout 100 billion galaxies. I don't think the fact that we haven't tripped across extraterrestrial life within 50 years of first being able to exit our own atmosphere means much of anything at all. There are potentially sextillions of habitable planets. The universe is 13 billion years old. The sheer enormity of those numbers would suggest that Earth would have to be extraordinarily atypical to be the only planet that harbored life for long enough to produce intelligent life, and I see no reason to believe that.

You're right, Stephen Hawking is an expert. He's an expert on theoretical physics.

He also played poker with Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation, so he probably knows more than anyone about Klingons and Borg and stuff.

[Hasbinlulz]

Yes a fantasy world where you will have an intelligent discussion. It seems you are incapable.
You ignored all of the things I said and then said I didn't say them. One cannot have a decent discussion under these conditions.

[Daldolma]

I imagine that they have big spherical ships that look like a small moon; that's too big to be a space station. Wait, I imagine that they have cubes and they assimilate other cultures. Wait, I imagine that they took apart all the planets in their solar system and built a huge ring that revolves around the sun. Wait, I know, they come from another dimension AND THEY WILL TEAR YOUR SOUL APART!

Everyone should believe that there is other life more intelligent than humans because Daldolma says Stephen Hawking says so. And, after all, Stephen Hawking doesn't need degrees related to extra-terrestrial life corresponding to Daldolma's standard in his last series of RnF tantrums even though this is just an extension of those tantrums, because... well, just because.

No one is an expert on the existence of extra-terrestrial life because we have no evidence of extra-terrestrial life to study. Your appeals to authority are completely and utterly fallacious here.

You are blatantly and pathetically trying to make up for me handing you your ass for posting the first paragraph of a Wikipedia entry and trying to pretend you knew what historicity was. No one else will give a fuck if you manage to let it go, but I don't think you can. I think you'll stalk me in RnF for eternity hoping for a chance to be right.

The sad part is that I think you actually believe the above. Alawen, I have no interest in stalking you. No interest in continually proving you to be on the wrong side of every serious scholarly discussion of the things you profess so assuredly.

I just think you're a buffoon. I think you condescendingly dismiss anything you don't agree with. I think you're a frustrated child that believes his way is the right way, and all other ways are absurd. And I think your pseudo intellect needs to be exposed for what it is. When you attack Hasbinbad for being, well, reasonable -- he deserves a defense.

Your new argument is that believing intelligent extraterrestrial life exists is based on wishful thinking, not evidence. You mock those who disagree with accusations of illogic and magical thinking, equating such a belief with the belief that Satan implanted the fossil record. And yet, many disagree. It appeared HBB disagreed. I disagree. Stephen Hawking disagrees. Hawking says that a belief in extraterrestrials can be based on mathematics and reason. Not surprisingly, you think Stephen Hawking is ludicrous. Please: set him straight, Alawen.

For the record, the evidence is this: there are (estimated) sextillions of habitable planets comparable to Earth throughout the universe. We don't understand exactly how life began on Earth -- we have no idea whether or not the same process could have occurred elsewhere. We have no reason to believe that Earth is (or isn't) atypical in this regard. But if you believe that there is no intelligent extraterrestrial life, it requires a belief that Earth is unique. That within a solar system of 1 star, within a galaxy of 200-400 billion stars, within a universe of 100 billion galaxies, over the course of 13 billion years, Earth is the only planet that has ever sustained intelligent life.

Is that possible? Yes, certainly. Is it ludicrous to believe? Of course not. Is the converse possible? Yes, certainly. Is the converse ludicrous to believe? Of course not.

For some reason, you struggle with this. You like to create a false dichotomy, where something is either definitely true or there's absolutely no reason to believe it to be true, and if there's no reason to believe it to be true, anyone who does believe it to be true is ludicrous. The problem is nuance. There is reason to believe there is intelligent extraterrestrial life. There is also reason to believe there isn't. You don't seem capable of processing both strains of logic at the same time. I'm not sure I can think of a more damning shortcoming for a supposed intellect.

[Alarti0001]

You ignored all of the things I said and then said I didn't say them. One cannot have a decent discussion under these conditions.

What things did you say? All I have seen you say is that I can't say anything.

[Splorf22]

I don't understand why the burden of proof is on the people who believe in intelligent life. Since we cannot run experiments to test it's purely a matter of speculation and guessing based on the evidence we have. I don't see why either proposition should be favored. And considering the huge number of stars even in our own galaxy combined with the number of exoplanets we're finding I find it far more likely that life either did, does, or will exist out there somewhere. The Drake equation is pretty convincing to me despite our huge failure to estimate its parameters.

However there is an even more compelling argument for the existence of intelligent life. Most of the universes we know of are virtual: created on a computer. Aside from stuff like Norrath, there are thousands of simulations running all the time, Conway's game of life etc. If we extend that logic its far more likely that our universe is also virtual (especially since it appears quantized and computable). Which means there is something up the stack . . . if RnF is any guide, probably some zit-faced unemployed alien playing a computer game.

P.S. Hasbinbad, you really need to read 'Unskilled and Unaware of it'. You just don't understand what you are talking about, which is fine, but you are also unaware of it, which is poor.

P.P.S. I wonder why I'm always on the opposite side of Alarti on every position. I have a few theories: Alarti is wrong about everything; I'm wrong about everything; Alarti has a huge faith in the power of science while I am more Popperian; I don't believe in anything and can pick either side but I have a subconscious urge to just randomly pick the other side to taunt him. Probably the most likely is #3.

[Alarti0001]

P.P.S. I wonder why I'm always on the opposite side of Alarti on every position. I have a few theories: Alarti is wrong about everything; I'm wrong about everything; Alarti has a huge faith in the power of science while I am more Popperian; I don't believe in anything and can pick either side but I have a subconscious urge to just randomly pick the other side to taunt him. Probably the most likely is #3.

Here is where we differ. I don't have faith in science. Its a reasoned decision due to evidence that is presented and also the application of the scientific method. I don't operate on belief.

[Splorf22]

Here is where we differ. I don't have faith in science. Its a reasoned decision due to evidence that is presented and also the application of the scientific method. I don't operate on belief.

I'm not sure I understand this. If you don't have faith in science and you don't operate on belief, how do you make decisions?

[Hasbinlulz]

What things did you say? All I have seen you say is that I can't say anything.
This is my point exactly.

[Hasbinlulz]

P.S. Hasbinbad, you really need to read 'Unskilled and Unaware of it'. You just don't understand what you are talking about, which is fine, but you are also unaware of it, which is poor.
I would like to see you provide examples of that.

[Alarti0001]

I'm not sure I understand this. If you don't have faith in science and you don't operate on belief, how do you make decisions?

Are you serious? Science doesn't require faith or belief. It requires evidence.

[Splorf22]

I don't have faith in science. Its a reasoned decision due to evidence that is presented and also the application of the scientific method.

This sentence seems simply contradictory to me. Science is nothing but the repeated application of the scientific method. But maybe what you are trying to say is that you don't consider choosing the empirical answer an act of faith but instead reason.

In that case I submit that science clearly requires faith. Remember Popper: science is the set of theories that 1) are testable and 2) have not yet been proven false. So even when you make the 'logical' decision you are to some extent making a leap of faith, and those theories are falsified all the time: think grue/bleen or Newton's laws of motion or a turkey's estimate of a farmer's concern for his well-being. Even worse, you have to believe in the predictability of the universe - something you cannot by definition prove inductively.

[Hasbinlulz]

science is a belief system lmao, anyone who doesn't understand that is really silly.

[Hasbinlulz]

especially if that person purports to understand science!

[Alawen]

The sad part is that I think you actually believe the above. Alawen, I have no interest in stalking you. No interest in continually proving you to be on the wrong side of every serious scholarly discussion of the things you profess so assuredly.

I just think you're a buffoon. I think you condescendingly dismiss anything you don't agree with. I think you're a frustrated child that believes his way is the right way, and all other ways are absurd. And I think your pseudo intellect needs to be exposed for what it is. When you attack Hasbinbad for being, well, reasonable -- he deserves a defense.

Your new argument is that believing intelligent extraterrestrial life exists is based on wishful thinking, not evidence. You mock those who disagree with accusations of illogic and magical thinking, equating such a belief with the belief that Satan implanted the fossil record. And yet, many disagree. It appeared HBB disagreed. I disagree. Stephen Hawking disagrees. Hawking says that a belief in extraterrestrials can be based on mathematics and reason. Not surprisingly, you think Stephen Hawking is ludicrous. Please: set him straight, Alawen.

For the record, the evidence is this: there are (estimated) sextillions of habitable planets comparable to Earth throughout the universe. We don't understand exactly how life began on Earth -- we have no idea whether or not the same process could have occurred elsewhere. We have no reason to believe that Earth is (or isn't) atypical in this regard. But if you believe that there is no intelligent extraterrestrial life, it requires a belief that Earth is unique. That within a solar system of 1 star, within a galaxy of 200-400 billion stars, within a universe of 100 billion galaxies, over the course of 13 billion years, Earth is the only planet that has ever sustained intelligent life.

Is that possible? Yes, certainly. Is it ludicrous to believe? Of course not. Is the converse possible? Yes, certainly. Is the converse ludicrous to believe? Of course not.

For some reason, you struggle with this. You like to create a false dichotomy, where something is either definitely true or there's absolutely no reason to believe it to be true, and if there's no reason to believe it to be true, anyone who does believe it to be true is ludicrous. The problem is nuance. There is reason to believe there is intelligent extraterrestrial life. There is also reason to believe there isn't. You don't seem capable of processing both strains of logic at the same time. I'm not sure I can think of a more damning shortcoming for a supposed intellect.

Gosh, you're right. How could I have been so wrong about everything? Thank you for defending Hasbinbad and the other good people of Project 1999 forums rants and flames and showing me the error of my ways. I'll give this some careful thought and try to correct my shortcomings. Maybe I should just avoid serious scholarly discussion; my education is probably inadequate for responsible participation.

Don't give up on me, Daldolma.

Your friend,
Alawen Everywhere

[Black Jesus]

science is full of shit

[theaetatus]

The pitfall people have fallen into here is using the two words 'faith' and 'belief' interchangeably. Faith is essentially belief without any evidence. What religion requires is faith, faith that a magical man exists somewhere controlling everything, what science requires is belief, belief that the current model is as accurate an attempt as we can currently make.

Science adjusts itself as it comes closer to an accurate model of reality, religion remains where science was 3000 years ago, where the only explanation for phenomena was the aforementioned magical man.

[Hasbinlulz]

science is a faith based system. every scientist doesn't review every study. sometimes scientists take things based on faith, especially from other disciplines. for instance, someone needs not understand gravity to the level that some physicists argue that it's not actually a force, but rather a side effect of other universal properties, in order to conduct an experiment on the rate of a sphere rolling down a ramp. They take it on faith. They assume, based on faith in the scientific method, that other scientists will have reviewed and repeated this or that and come up with similar results, otherwise there would be a hubub. Scientists kind of go around trying to disprove each other, so when that doesn't happen, your faith can be placed with a reasonable level of certainty even tho you have not obtained the data empirically on every given aspect of the science you're doing.

[Hasbinlulz]

faith and belief are absolutely not synonymous, and science is a 100% faith-based system.