Free will - the God way

I knew it... c.c

Your morality is 0% in line with that of the bible.

 

Damn you heathen! Your book learnin' has done warped your mind. You shall not be invited next time I sacrifice a goat.

Do You Have Biblical Morals?
Take More Quizzes

Darwin Art and Craft

I thought I'd show you guys (silly me, I think people actually read this thing XD) some of my Darwin stuff. See, proof I am an artist, really XD









The top ones a bookmark for the Darwin Day Bookmark Swap on Swapbot - the photo of Darwin himself was cut from a leaflet about various events - the rest if pretty papers I have and a lovely glittery butterfly stamp. I also added some detailing to the larger plant-swirls with a glittery gold pen.

The second one's an ATC for a private swap I'm doing with a friend on SwapBot. Her theme was Steam Punk (I got my bookmark and ATC in the post yesterday) my theme for her is obviously Darwin again. I've got to make a bookmark as well, and I'll add that to this post once I'm done.

The scan doesn't show it very well, but the ATC has a silver stamped Victorian global map on the base paper. I hand drew the Tree (copied from Darwin's original) and hand wrote the quote: 'There is grandeur in this view of life' - I also aged the yellow-card.

The third one is the matching bookmark for the Darwin ATC andBookmark private swap. Same materials as the ATC - with the addition of an eyelet and gold/red/purple thread and instead of drawing something, I cut out what I think is a chimp skeleton and aged it.

The quote I hand wrote is: 'Man is descended from a hairy, tailed, quadraped, probably arboreal in its habit.' C.Darwin.


I'm damn proud of these, and have been enjoying the Darwin craft going on ^^ I'll likely do a lot more.

Micro vs Macro

This is brilliant and is being linked to anti-evolutionists from now on, whenever they get on my nerves >>

Rated 'R'

This amuses me to no end XD

Scientologist's blame Psychiatry for 9/11

Scientologists Try to Explain how Psychiatrists caused 9/11 and the Holocaust from Chris Doyle on Vimeo.

Scientologist's.

Love to hate 'em.

Also - al-Zawahiri is NOT a psychiatrist.

Picking Apart The Arguments Of Theists

1. God didn't know that adam and eve would eat the fruit. He knows the future only if he wants to. Why would god test Abraham if he already knew that he'd pass? Why put the tree in the first place if he knew they'd fail?

2. Don't blame God for what satan did. Satan, as the serpent, was sitting on the tree. He ate the fruit. What did eve expect to happen? The snake to die, right? Well he didn't, he started talking. Eve, with her inexperience with talking animals, probably had a lot of questions to ask this creature, and the rest, as they say is history.

By doing this, satan called into question god's authority. This is not a Monarchy, so God does not immediately kill whoever questions his authority. So now the choice is ours. Be faithful to god, or be destroyed with the rebels.

3. The fruit did not actually make them like God, they only knew sin, which they would be better off not knowing.

4.Hell does not exist. This is a church teaching, not the bible's teaching

OrangeWIZARD

This seriously makes me want to head-desk >>


God didn't know that adam and eve would eat the fruit.
If God didn't know that Adam and Eve were going to eat that fruit - it proves He's not Omniscient. To be Omniscient is to 'have all knowledge' and God obviously doesn't 'have all knowledge' if He didn't know Adam and Eve were going to 'fall'.

He knows the future only if he wants to.
Apparently this guy knows how God works. Does he have a direct link, d'you think? Anyway, you either 'have all knowledge' or you don't. There's no turning it on and off like a light-switch.

Why would god test Abraham if he already knew that he'd pass?
This is an illogical question, because he already asserted that God didn't know Abraham would pass. Anyway, even if He did, if He didn't do the testing, then He would have false knowledge of the future - thus proving He's not Omniscient once again. And also, not God.

Oh - and the story of Abraham and his son is very telling by the way. God apparently was well known for asking for Blood Sacrifices - otherwise, Abraham would have said 'No - you are a False God, MY God wouldn't ask for a blood sacrifice'.

But Abraham didn't see anything wrong with his God asking him to kill his own child - so obviously, God must have done it a few times before (and in point of fact, Cain and Abel prove it - Genesis 4:4 And Abel, he also brought the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof. And The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering. God liked the animal sacrifice Abel gave him.)

Why put the tree in the first place if he knew they'd fail?
Why indeed? But then, if He knew they would eat the fruit and he DIDN'T put the tree there, He would negate the future He's supposed to know. It's all a bit circular really. That's only one of the problems with knowing the future. But again, this guy already asserted He's not Omniscient, so it's a silly question.

Don't blame God for what satan did.
Why not? God made Satan, didn't He? Satan used to be an angel - and presumably still is. Anyway, it's back to that Omniscient thing again - if God is Omniscient, (and this guy already asserted that He's not...) then He knew Satan/Lucifer would defy Him and that He would throw him from His presence. If God didn't throw Satan/Lucifer from His presence, then we'd obviously have no Satan/Lucifer/Devil to blame all the ills of the world on. Then where would we be?

Satan, as the serpent, was sitting on the tree. He ate the fruit. What did eve expect to happen? The snake to die, right? Well he didn't, he started talking.
I just checked my Bible and it doesn't say anything about the Serpent eating the fruit first and then talking. Maybe this guy has a different version - I mean, the thing's certainly been edited, re-written and edited some more, enough times that no-one really knows what the original said anyway.

Nelson KJV: Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

This is not a Monarchy, so God does not immediately kill whoever questions his authority.
I'll gladly dispute this one - Lot's wife, anyone? All she did was look over her shoulder and He turned her into a pillar of salt.

Nelson KJV: Genesis 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

Very nice of Him, if you ask me.

So now the choice is ours.
The whole 'Free Will' thing again negates God's Omniscience.

If He '[has] all knowledge', then He obviously knows exactly what we're all going to do when, how and why. Which means it's all already set in stone - because you can't 'have all knowledge' and then change your mind later - and we have no choice but to do precisely what He already knows we are going to do.

So, if we have Free will, He isn't Omniscient - if He's Omniscient, we don't have Free Will. You can't both have your cake AND eat it - in cases like this, it's one or the other, not both.

However, this guy already asserted that He isn't Omniscient - and not being Omniscient means He ain't no God. Or certainly, not the God that the Bible describes. Bit contradictory, that.

The fruit did not actually make them like God, they only knew sin, which they would be better off not knowing.
Ooh, fun interpretation time! Everyone has a different one, and this guy's no exception. Let's see what the actual text says.

Nelson KJV: Genesis 3:5 ...your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

That doesn't say anything about knowing 'sin'. All it says is that they will lose their innocence. My personal interpretation (and I'm allowed, because, y'know, EVERYONE has their own interpretations) is that they'll grow up if they eat the fruit.

Now, why they'd have been 'better off not knowing' the difference between 'good' and 'evil' I don't quite understand. Surely if Eve had known beforehand, she wouldn't have taken the Serpent's word at face value? Hm, but then, it's back to the circular reasoning.

Hell does not exist. This is a church teaching, not the bible's teaching
Oh now, this one amuses me to no end.

There's actually something like 160 odd references to Hell in the New Testament - 70 or so of them are by Jesus himself. So the assertions that 'Hell does not exist' (while in accordance with Atheist views!) and 'not the Bible's teaching' is false.

Hell is mentioned in the books of Mark, Matthew, Malachi, Luke, Acts and Revelation.

Hell is also mentioned in the Old Testament. In the books Deuteronomy, Samuel, Job and Psalms.

Want proof? Go to the Bible Gateway. So, yeah, actually the Bible does teach about Hell.

I've seen a few more posts by this guy - and all of them serve to make me face-palm and head-desk. Especially his wonderful posts about Noah and the Flood. If nothing else, he's good for a laugh, because as another poster in that forum said, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

The stupid - it burns!

I know this was reported in early 2008 - but I JUST saw it >>

Four Horsemen

This is a brilliant one page comic about the Four Horsemen bringing an Atheist Apocolypse XD

Subnormality: Atheist Apocolypse

Enjoy - I did XD

UK got as much woo as US

('Bliss Ninny' from 'Flame Warriors' by Mike Reed)


Found this lovely little site through Psychodiva and Pharyngula.

The Faith Of Britain

As I've said in my Twitter. Click. Read. Laugh. And then blog about it in a desparaging tone.

These women (and why is it nearly always middle aged, middle class, white women? I'm sure it must be something to do with them having too much time on thier hands, someone should look into that) actually believe that if they can convince the population of Britain to 'think' the world a better place, it will happen.

I laughed. Loudly and a lot.

Then I actually paid attention to what had been written.

(I'll gloss over the awful grammar for now - though it was a horror to behold.)

Numerologically this date is symbolic because the 3rd month, the 6th day and the 9th year are all multiples of 3 which is about balance - which is what we strive to achieve as humans. The time, 11.00am is a master number, or a powerful 2 (1 + 1) which is the duality of the inner and outer self, encouraging us to look within to find solutions.

What? Quite apart from the fact that the times are arbitrarily placed by whomever decides such things (I mean, we all know there's a reason we have a Leap Year, I assume?) I want to know who decided these numbes all mean anything and why.

Why is 3 about balance? Why is 2 about duality? And how the bloody hell does it encourage someone to find solutions? And what solutions? To what problems?

Why did they choose 11:00, when they could have chosen, oh I dunno... 12:00? Then the time would be about balance (1 + 2 = 3 = balance) - right? Or how about the 3rd day of the 6th month in the year 2009?

How about the 9th, 12th or 15th? Or the 18th? 21st? 24th? 27th? They're all multiples of 3. Why not one of them? They could even have done it in September, or December if they wanted. Why March specifically?

All comes to the same thing, right? Or is there something I'm missing here?

With over 80 million people concentrating their mental energies at the same time on the same day, we will unleash an irresistible psychic force that will, quite literally, make our dreams come true.

Not only is this a terribly presumptuous statement on their part, it's also demonstrably wrong.

For a start - 80 million people? In the UK? Where did they get that number from?

I did just a 30 second google search and found that, actually, they're about 20 million out. The population of UK is somewhere around '60,975,000' according to the National Statistics. Of course, that was around two years ago - but I sicerely doubt we've gained 20 million people since then.

And I'd like to see some peer reviewed papers on this 'irresistable psychic force' - because from all the reading I've done, nobody, anywhere, at any time, has EVER showed anything even slightly psychic to be real.

So. Proof please?

And the presumption? Do they seriously think they'll get every single person in the UK to follow this little show of time-wasting?

Have they thought that, perhaps, quite a proportion of the UK is either too young to comprehend what the hell they're going on about or too ill to comprehend what the hell they're going on about?

What about the significant proportion that thinks it's a load of old hooey? Or the proportion that's too busy doing real work towards helping the world (instead of sitting on their arses 'thinking' about it)? Or the proportion that's of a significantly different faith to their's?

Didn't really think that paragraph through, did they?

It is a proven scientific fact that thinking about something often causes it to happen. Some call this quantum physics. Others simply call it "faith." We ask that you open your mind to joining in with a unique psychic force that will change our lives through the power of thought.

This is the killer paragraph. This is the one even Pharyngula posted in his blog. Seriously. Read it. Laugh. Read it again and then try to make sense of it.

Again I'm stuck on the lack of peer reviewed papers. Who proved it? Where and when? And how did they do it? Why haven't they claimed the Nobel Prize yet? For surely proving something like this would merrit one? Right?

Also - I simply adore the way these people try to use quantum physics to back up their silly little theories. It's amusing because they quite evidently don't understand anything about the subject - and because they don't, they trip themselves up with it ALL THE TIME.


And then we come to the women behind the idea:

Amanda contracted Meningococcal Septicaemia and although she was only given an hour to live, she not only turned herself round in the hospital, she vowed she would dedicate her work to understanding this power she found and since then has been helping people to transform their lives.

So. What about the Paramedics, Doctors and Nurses who all worked tirelessly to save her life? Do they get no mention here? Or is she seriously trying to make us beleive that she sat at home, on her own, without any medication or care and 'cured herself' through some form of 'healing power'?

Hmmmm. Besides the fact that this is purely Anecdotal, it also smacks of outright lying.

Angelica is from North London. She was raised in a very harsh environment, however always knew that from a young age, she was being looked after by angels.

Again with the Anecdotal. Also - she always knew she was being looked after by angels? Makes me wonder what religion she was brought up under. I'm guessing some version of Christianity.

Angelica's powerful healing and psychic abilities came through naturally as she discovered that the power of the mind is key to changing one's life and therefore has transformed her own, as she does with others.

Nobody has yet explained what these psychic powers are or how they work. Seriously - don't the Nobel Prize winners get some sort of monetray prize as well? If they don't want to keep the money, why not give it to a charity or two? There's no excuse to not claim the prize, y'know.

Marlene knew of her deep psychic awareness as a child and her understanding of the Indigenous cultures have moved her to become more aware of her roots and her calling this year is to return to her homeland and then to build a retreat centre in neighbouring New Zealand.

'Indigenous cultures' of where? Essex (where she lives)? Australia (her home country)? Or New Zealand (where she plans to build a retreat)? I'm more than a little confused by the particular wording of this one.

Isabelle a 40 year old Scientist from South London had a fascination as a child with discovering and unearthing evidence, which propelled her into the work she does today.

'Scientist'? Of what? Evolutionary Biology? Cosmology? Particle Physics? Phrenology perhaps? I want to know what exactly it is she does as a 'scientist' and how doing that work lead her to believe in all this woo.

Likewise, her childhood intrigue into understanding her psychic experiences is what drives her passion today, to improve health and wellbeing within humanity, which is the basis of the work she's involved in.

Oh my goodness, whatever 'science' she works in, it's related to health. I fear for the lives of the people she's 'involved' with. Maybe she's actually a Homeopath?

She was driven to find ways to overcome her agonising daily migraine headaches; she'd suffered with for years.

OMG ARGH GRAMMAR *clutches throat and falls down dead*

Ahem. Sorry.

For much of her adult life, [Lisa] worked as a Scientist until she discovered there was too much evidence to show there was far more going on in the Universe than she realised. Her spiritual and psychic senses awoken, Lisa was guided to go through self development to find her path.

Oh snap. There's another 'Scientist' in the group! And once again, they don't tell us which field she actually works in. Or which particular 'spiritual and psychic senses' she apparently awoke.

Lisa now works successfully helping others to heal themselves and uses a combination of her psychic and spiritual awareness with her down to earth evidence based understanding of the consequences of our thought processes.

'Evidence based'? 'EVIDENCE BASED'? Seriously?

Marjo has become increasingly aware of the power behind the 'law of attraction' as her own world has transformed.

Pardon, what? 'Law of attraction'? May I ask specifically what the bloody hell she means by that? I have a feeling her answer would delve into the realm of quantum physics and her total lack of understanding of the subject.

Marjo, 39 from London has been honouring premonitions she has had since she was a student. ... honouring the dreams she had many years ago.

This woman has prophetic dreams! And yet again, no Nobel Prize claim? (Makes me want to go check out that Prophecies R Us website again!)





I'm looking forward to seeing these people's reactions on the 7th. I'm sure they'll come up with some excuses. What do you reckon?

1. The results will be visible over the next few years
2. We didn't get as many people as expected, but smaller results should be visible over the next decade
3. There were too many sceptics and their negative energy interfered with the positive
4. *pointing out some random good news* this is only the beginning - more results will be seen over the next few years

Or some combination of the above. Think of any that I missed? Either way, I'm goingto sit back and laugh about it.

Books Meme

Got tagged by Psychodiva, for simply reading it c.c

"Apparently the BBC reckons most people will have only read 6 of the 100 books here."

Instructions:
1) Look at the list and put an ‘x’ after those you have read ENTIRELY
2) Add a ‘+’ to the ones you LOVE.
3) Star (*) those you plan on reading.
4) Tally your total at the bottom.

Here’s my response:

1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen X++
2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien X+
3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte X
4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling X++
5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee X
6 The Bible X
7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte X
8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell X
9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman X++
10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
11 Little Women - Louisa M Alcott
12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy
13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller *
14 Complete Works of Shakespeare X
15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier
16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien X+
17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulks
18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger *
19 The Time Traveller’s Wife - Audrey Niffenegger X++
20 Middlemarch - George Eliot *
21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell *
22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald X+
23 Bleak House - Charles Dickens
24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams X+
26 Brideshead Revisited - Evelyn Waugh
27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck
29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll X+
30 The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame *
31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy
32 David Copperfield - Charles Dickens
33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis X
34 Emma - Jane Austen X++
35 Persuasion - Jane Austen X++
36 The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - CS Lewis X
37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini
38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres
39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden *
40 Winnie the Pooh - AA Milne X+
41 Animal Farm - George Orwell X
42 The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown (I got three pages in and threw it across the room)
43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving
45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins
46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery
47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy *
48 The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood
49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding X
50 Atonement - Ian McEwan
51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel X+
52 Dune - Frank Herbert X
53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons
54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen X++
55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth
56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens
58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon *
60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck X
62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov *
63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt
64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold *
65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas X
66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac
67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy
68 Bridget Jones’s Diary - Helen Fielding X
69 Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie
70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville *
71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens
72 Dracula - Bram Stoker X
73 The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett X+
74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson (Reading this at the moment)
75 Ulysses - James Joyce *
76 The Bell Jar - Sylvia Plath
77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome
78 Germinal - Emile Zola
79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray *
80 Possession - AS Byatt
81 A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens
82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell
83 The Color Purple - Alice Walker *
84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro
85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert
86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry
87 Charlotte’s Web - EB White X
88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Alborn *
89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle *
90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton X
91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad
92 The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery
93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks *
94 Watership Down - Richard Adams X++
95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole
96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute
97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas
98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare X
99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl X
100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

Something like 35 actually read. That's a bit more than '6' c.c I've TRIED to read at least another 10. Neh, I read all the time, and pretty much anything - but I've TRIED to read Dickens and Holmes, but they're so boring >>

More discussions with Theists

I think this one's a Deist or Pan-Theist rather than some dogmatic religion though.

Oh - and if my science is wrong - please let me know and I will correct myself.

Original discussion can be found here.

Oh and a good list of articles disproving the 'argument from design'.

Them:

As I understand it creationism holds a sect of thought that after Adam & Eve were kicked out of the garden of eden, evil took the form of dinasaurs... hehe, but Inteligent design is simply the idea that since we can't explain the origin of life on earth & according to all science there is no explaining its spontanious appearance (except crystal formations & lightning striking mud incalculably unlikely scenarios) some sentient greater force or beings caused it.

Just thought I'd bring to light the difference.

Of course evolution happened but an orderly universe only further proves God. This should only disturb biblical literalists who's silly assumptions as to the age of the world is based upon incomplete geneologies.

ME:

Actually, ID is simply Creationism dressed up and with the word 'God' removed. Literally. The ID Institute refused to go to court to defend the Intelligent Design Hypothesis, because documents had been found showing that they simply removed the word 'God' from what had formally been Creationist papers.

From this quote: crystal formations & lightning striking mud I'm guessing you've either seen the entire 'Expelled' or clips of it. (I've sat through the whole thing myself, it is the worst excuse for a documentary I have ever seen.)

Sorry, but the lightning-striking-mud thing is a complete fallacy and the only people ever to talk about it are Creationists, and usually in an Argument From Ridicule situtation. And Stein deliberately missunderstood and deliberately misrepresented the Crystals hypothesis (which is actually only one of many.) Look up Abiogenesis if you want to gain an understanding of the origins of life.

an orderly universe only further proves God - I'm sorry, but it doesn't. What it proves is that the fundamental laws that have been observed are working as they should.

Them:

As with any ideology it is defined differently by adherents/inquisitors, Stein defined it with the stark accurate simplicity necessary for non-theological discussion. Calling the belief that Adam & eve lived with dinosaurs THE SAME AS the Idea that there is a Creator of the Universe, is blind ignorance. There are supposedly confused dim wit creationists out there espousing the name ID, but backing it up with Creationism; Its like I calling myself Hindu & backing it up with the bible, the problem is your listening to these "Hindus" tell you about "Hinduism", the actual simple idea is not dressed up (when its actually it).

Biblical Literalists/Creatonists if they spoke to a theology expert of the proper stripe would find out their logic is flawed. Incomplete genealogies interpreted as complete is one example.

An orderly universe only further proves God, you disagree but lack any compelling argument on this point. Too often ppl condemn an idea without even understanding it, I've never been to church but developed belief through reason alone.

In my experience atheists are very unscientific, they solidify their disbelief as accurate & set out to discredit there being a God Because they CAN'T disprove it.

Einstein said The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible. & also the more he learned about the universe the more he saw God's hand in it.

The Origin of life, is only one of Many Miracles you've blinded yourself to & just because it Can be finitely explained doesn't mean its not a miracle.

ME:

As with any ideology it is defined differently by adherents/inquisitors,
I'm sorry, but no. ID postulates an 'Intelligent Designer' in place of 'God' - and that's pretty much it. An 'Intelligent Designer' that either

A: started absolutely everything and left it to it or
B: started everything and has been tinkering with it ever since.

And the biggest problem with this? 'Who designed the 'Designer'?' It's exactly the same problem with having a 'God' that created everything. The answer 'God is eternal' or 'the Designer is eternal' does not further our knowledge of.. well, ANYthing. It simply leads to more questions.

Stein defined it with the stark accurate simplicity necessary for non-theological discussion.
And then he proceeded to fill the 'documentary' with nothing but incredibly fellacious 'arguments', appeals to sympathy, straw-men and appeals to ridicule! There was no actual scientific discussion anywhere to be found in the entire thing. I own a copy of this documentary and have watched it at least twice - in no viewing did I see any actual real discussion going on. But again, the problem with his 'non-theological - accurate simplicity' is that there is NO non-theological evidence for ID. So the only arguemnts that carry any wieght for the idea, are theological. And we all know those are crap.

Calling the belief that Adam & eve lived with dinosaurs THE SAME AS the Idea that there is a Creator of the Universe, is blind ignorance.
And this has what to do with what? Nobody was talking about Adam and Eve and co-existence with dinosaurs. Though it must be pointed out that there are an awful lot of xtians out there who DO think Adam and Eve did just that.

There are supposedly confused dim wit creationists out there espousing the name ID, but backing it up with Creationism;
That's because it IS Creationism - they get it confused, because there is little to no difference. The idea itself was first *ahem* created, by a group of Creationists, specificaly to get around the red-tape involved when trying to teach Creationism in science classes. Pretty much all the 'authorative figures' that back the idea, are members or supporters of the Discovery Institute - a conservative christian organisation, that - funilly enough - BACKED OUT of defending ID in court.

Biblical Literalists/Creatonists if they spoke to a theology expert of the proper stripe would find out their logic is flawed.
What 'stripe'? Though I'm not disagreeing with you, there are plenty of theologians who accept evolution and understand that the Creationist/Id idea is a load of old hooey.

An orderly universe only further proves God,
Wrong.

you disagree but lack any compelling argument on this point.
No - wrong again - I simply didn't state my arguments. There is a difference.

Please keep in mind that I'm an Artist by trade, not a Scientist - but you appear to be labouring under the impression that if any of the 26 'dimensionless fundamental physical constants' were changed, then the universe would either no longer be 'fine tuned' for life or that it would be 'chaotic' - both of which then negating the theory of 'God', and that, because we are here, and the universe is not 'chaotic', this proves 'God'. Yes?

(I think this is called 'Subjective Anthopomorphism' and is basically 'God of the Gaps')

Well - unfortunately, that's kind of ass-backwards. The universe is not fine-tuned for life in any way shape or form - life is fine-tuned to the universe. The universe as a whole is a damned inhospitable place, it's cold for a start, as there's no atmosphere except on the few almost-spheres of gas or dirt that are floating around here and there.

When life started, it had to work with what was there, so over the billions of years life has been on this particular almost-sphere of dirt and water, it has addapted to what's here. We're carbon based, because it's predoinantly carbon here. We're water-based, because there's a lot of water. And so on. In another universe, perhaps life could have been silocon based. We'll never know, because we're the ones that are here, not them.

The problem with a 'fine-tuned' universe argument, is that it only talks about life as we know it - there is nothing to say that a different universe, with some of the constants changed, could not support it's own life. Indeed - a lot of the '26 constants' are such that they can be changed quite a lot, and there would be no effect on our universe anyway. In fact, changing the 'weak force' significantly, is shown to produce little to no change at all.

It is the way these constants interact that gives the illusion of order and design, but it simple. Certain forces have certain effects - and because of those effects, certain other effects are inevitable. Such as objects - even on the molecular scale - being attracted to one another. Eventually, given enough time (and the univers has had a lot of it) enough elements will come together in just the right way.

Watch the animated explanations available on this website to better understand what I'm talking about: A Trip Through The Big Bang (I KNOW it's about string theory and the big bang - but the basics are the same thing)

Too often ppl condemn an idea without even understanding it,
I'm sure they do - but unlike your assumption, I'm not one of them.

I've never been to church but developed belief through reason alone.
If it works for you, then *shrugs* though it seems like awfully flawed 'reason' to me.

In my experience atheists are very unscientific,
Really? In MY experience, atheists are very scientific. Every atheist I know either has a background in the sciences or is a hobbyist in the area, like myself. It also needs to be pointed out that in the sciences, the majority are atheist - only a very small proportion of real scientists are actually believers of some sort. In fact, the better educated a person is, the less likely they are to be religious.

they solidify their disbelief as accurate & set out to discredit there being a God Because they CAN'T disprove it.
Neh. You're one of those types. Hokay. Atheists are actually some of the most open-minded people around, but as we're all fond of miss-quoting 'our minds are open, just not so open that they risk falling out'.

And actually, you've completely missed the point of what it means to be an atheist. No athiest has 'solid' disbelief - we actually all know for a fact that, outside of mathematics, nothing can be 'proven'. So far, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to PROVE any form of 'God' - and because the religious are the ones postulating an extraordinary being, they are the ones who need to provide the evidence. Which they haven't been able to do. Repeatedly. Add to that the fact that there are numerous different 'Gods', 'Goddesses' and 'Deities' out there - they'd also have to PROVE THEIR OWN VERSION of said 'God'. And again - no one has. Ever.

also the more he learned about the universe the more he saw God's hand in it.
Ah, the trusty quote mine. He also said:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

The Origin of life, is only one of Many Miracles you've blinded yourself to & just because it Can be finitely explained doesn't mean its not a miracle.
I wonder - which definition do you use?

1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
3. a wonder; marvel.
4. a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality: a miracle of modern acoustics.

I go with 3 and 4, personally. I find the conception, carryting to term and birth of a child miraculous - especially considering we are one of the least fertile creatures on the planet. I find the very idea of the universe as a whole to be miraculous. I find art miraculous. I find music, dance, laughter all miraculous. I love our planet and I love the mysteries the universe provides. I love to learn about it.

I find the idea of some 'God' or 'Deity' to be useless. I find it boring and devoid of wonder. I find it arrogant to assume that the universe was put here for our use. I find it arrogant to assume that we have mastery over everything.

I do not 'blind' myself to the true miracles of our world, our universe. I love them. What I 'blind' myself to are the man-made, anthropomorphic and rather arrogant reliougs beliefs. I find my life is not lacking for this disbelief.

Find me on Twitter

Yupp - I joined Twitter c.c

Whisperelmwood on Twitter

Yeah. So I joined because people kept talking about it - I'm now following a handful of celebs, news and atheists.

I've found that I Tweet whenever something in the news spurs me to - so if you want on the spot updates about how pissed off I am about something in the news? Yeah - follow my Twitter XD

If nothing else, it's amusing XD

Jeni Barnett on the MMR

I just sat and listen to her whole verbal-dioreah on the subject of the MMR Jab and I can't help feeling like giving the woman a good slapping. She obviously has NO IDEA what she is talking about and when people call in to give her the facts, she acted smug, superior and condecending.

I mean, seriously. She lauded a Homeopath loving mother who called in, but a doctor and a Health Worker were both shouted down, laughed at and played with.

Now, I heard about all this from the Bad Science blog, where Dr. Ben Goldacre has gotten into some trouble for reproducing her outburt on his blog.

As far as I understand it all, he was using Fair Use to criticise her un-informed opinion, but the company her radio show is owned by, LBC, thinks he is infringeing on their copyright.

Load of bollocks if you ask me, they simply don't like the idea of people hearing her narrow-minded non-scientific ramblings, or having people correct her.

To hear her entire diatribe, follow this link to Wikileaks.

Give Dr.Goldacre any help that you can, because this MMR scare needs to be put to rest, for once and for all. I'm writing in a complaint to Ofcom.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/

Good ranting.

Don't you just love Creationists?

there is no proof of evolution...
Yes there is. Google is your friend.

Or, I dunno, maybe pick up a book?

I prefer to believe Bible instead of google... and I studied evolution for myself... there is no proof for it... I advice you to do the same... but be careful results and truth is never easy to accept :)

I can tell you prefer to 'believe Bible' - it's written all over every single thing you say/write.

The problem is that the Bible is a simple book of mythology, written by mysoginistic, chauvanistic, uneducated, barbaric, slave-loving, incest-loving, baby-killing, child-killing, rape-loving, war mongering, bronze age shepherds.

It's also been translated, mistranslated, re-translated and editted out of any relevance many thousands of times. In the middle ages, they even removed books they didn't want in it any more - even though parts they kept REFERENCE THE BOOKS REMOVED.

You obviously did not study evolution very well - despite your anecdotal claims of being 'best in class' - because there is COUNTLESS evidence for evolution. In the fossil record, in the DNA/RNA records, in the geological records and so on. That you refuse to accept this is utterly ridiculous! That you still claim to have studied this is even more so!

yeah sure atheism is great no?
Hitler and Stalin, Nazism and communism showed that a lot last century... yeah, of course dear all-people loving atheist... what the crap do you know about it?! Was your country left been under communist Russia?! as my country was? NO
So you don't know a thing about it but you pretend to be smart... yeah very smart... you convinced me with your own Big Bang theory :giggle:
And if you're not willing to listen the Bible if you're so smart that your having a different theory than scientist about Big Bang...just go find someone else to talk with...

Hitler and Stalin, Nazism and communism showed that a lot last century
Hitler was a Roman Catholic, read his own words, listen to his speaches, listen to the oaths his soldiers had to take. Stalin created his own version of a dogmatic system - he may have been an atheist, but his system of rule was based on dogmatic/religious systems.

Also - this is an Argument from Authority - trying to make all of atheism look bad by citing two horrible points in history? I can do the same thing by talking about the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Witch Hunters and so on and on. I can even cite things from the Bible itself, which will show very easily how disgusting it can be.

what the crap do you know about it?! Was your country left been under communist Russia?! as my country was? NO
No, but my fiance is from Jewish stock, his family had to run here from Poland, after they had already run from Russia. And this also has no bearing on anything. Also, Appeal to Sympathy.

So you don't know a thing about it but you pretend to be smart... yeah very smart... you convinced me with your own Big Bang theory
Hmm. Another Argument from Ridicule.

And if you're not willing to listen the Bible if you're so smart that your having a different theory than scientist about Big Bang...just go find someone else to talk with...
StrawMan, Ridicule and Incredulity.

This is the same guy from the previous post.

Arguing with a Creationist. Again.

Scientific fact?
Yes. Funnily enough, evolution has an awful lot of evidence.

You're a Christian?! boy that was really funny...
I detect a 'No True Scotsman' here.

Evolution can not be demonstrated...
Wrong. It can and has, both in nature and in the lab. Do your research.

so it's no science it's belief
Wrong. Evolution is not a belief, it is scientific fact that one accepts or does not accept. You are apparently of the latter.

Being a belief makes it a religion...
Wrong. Evolution is a scientific fact. To be a religion, it would have to have things like 'holy days', 'scripture' , a ';punishment and reward' system, a 'God or Gods' as well as many other things, which it in fact DOES NOT HAVE.

Now the questions is... who's religion is this?
Because it's NOT a religion, this question makes no sense. First PROVE that it is a religion. As you cannot, you should stop this line of (non)reasoning.

It is obvious it isn't God's religion
You're right - it's not a religion at all. And which 'God' are we talking about here? If you mean the Abrahamic God, then prove he exists. As you cannot, you should stop this line of (non)reasoning. (And this little snippit has nothing to do with the fact of evolution anyway - plenty of religious people accept evolution, plenty of atheists don't.)

You'll be surprised to know how much I know about evolution... I studied it in college... and I was one of the best students there... come and ask the teachers
Annecdotal at best - and has nothing to do with anything.

But studying it really close discovered how stupid this theory is...
In your opinion - and I bet you didn't really. Or you studied it from a theist perspective, rather than an objective one. Again - your opinion holds no bearing as to whether evolution is fact or not.

because that is what it is: a theory, an opinion...
You appear to be under the missaprehension that 'theory' is the lowest common-demonenator in scientific literature, when actually it's damn near the highest. A 'theory' is NOT an opinion, it is what explains a group of data or information, makes predictions and masters phenomena. Do you think of the 'Theory of Gravity' as 'opinion'? Do you think of the 'Theory of Magnetism' as 'opinion'? Do you think of 'Atomic Theory' as 'opinion'? I could go on.

something that it can't be demonstrated...
Yes it can. And has been, multiple times, both in nature and in the lab. Do your research. It's not hard, I'm sure you know how to use Google.

my fear is that you won't listen and you're not willing to listen without bias.
Projection.

and be careful what you choose and who you choose to believe.
Hrm. Threats. Very nice.

For me is more plausible to believe all things were created by God,
Fine. But your incredulity has no baring whatsoever on the fact of evolution.

than to believe what evolutionism says that life appeared from what? (minerals and water)
Firstly, there is no such thing as 'evolutionism'. Secondly, the Theory of Evolution describes what happend to life AFTER it happened. You want Abiogenesis, if you want to know how life started - and even then, 'minerals and water' is a terrible StrawMan. Also -

Genesis 2, verse 7: 'And the LORD GOD formed man of the dust of the ground...'

Your God apparently made people out of 'dust of the ground' - which is what...? That's right, MINERALS. Abiogenesis, however, DOES NOT say life started from 'minerals and water'. Go and look it up.

For me is more likely to believe that I as a very ultra complex human organism and human being was created by God and not appeared from rock (minerals).
Again with both the 'Argument from Incredulity' and the 'Straw Man'.

It is more likely to believe that planets and the entire universe was created by God than to believe in that stupid Big Bang.
Again with both the 'Argument from Incredulity' and the Big Bang has nothing to do with Evolution. If you want to talk about the Big Bang, talk to Cosmologists and Theoretical Physicists.

I'll give you one simple argument for you to see that true science contradicts evolutionism.
No, I'm pretty sure you're going to give me some Creationist Drivel, because NO SCIENCE contradicts Evolution.

It is known that most of the planets and other celestial bodies spin clockwise.
Wrong. If you mean ALL the planetary bodies in the universe? Then you're so wrong you don't even know how wrong you are. If you mean within our solar-system, then you are a little bit right. What actually happens is that the planets spin in the same direction that they orbit the central star. But over-all, you're basically wrong. And I can now see where you're about to go with this Creationist Drivel.

It is said that the Big Bang micro-sphere (smaller than a dot and all that blah blah) was spinning clockwise too.
By whom? Cite resources and information please.

Now, true science says that everything that come off from a rotating thing keeps that rotating direction because of inertia force.
Oh dear, I DO know where you're going with this, and it really is just another Creationist missunderstanding. Complete Drivel. It's been tried before, by 'better' Creationists than you, and smacked down by better atheists than me.

"Big Bang point of mater" was rotating counter-clockwise and exploded so everything now in universe should rotate counter-clockwise.
It didn't 'explode' - it EXPANDED and is still EXPANDING. There is a difference, look it up.

But NO! Even in our own solar system there are 2 planets that don't rotate counter-clockwise being in contradiction with that physics PROVEN law. (those planets are Venus and Uranus)
You finally got to the point! Venus and Uranus were hit by large - planet sized - objects early in their development, which knocked them off axis. It's called 'Retrograde Rotation' and in fact, is very rare. (Pretty cool that we've got two in our system, then!) Simple enough for you? Anyway, each Solar System's planets will spin in the direction that they orbit the central star - NOT 'clockwise' or some arbitrary spin you want to set on the Big Bang. Each star, in each gallaxy, spins in whichever way it formed, not because of the Big Bang.

So, I don't prefer to choose to BELIEVE something that can't be demonstrated even if it comes in contradiction with something that can be demonstrated.
You have to believe it if you don't want too. But it's there for when you do feel like accepting it as fact.

I can't choose to believe in evolutionism.
You don't 'choose to believe', you 'accept', - and it's not 'evolutionism', it's 'evolution'.

There are a lot more evidence against evolutionism...
Wrong. There really isn't. There is only Creationist Drivel - all of which has been debunked repeatedly.

About skeletons well, they found lots of dinosaur tracks in same aged geological layers AMONG with HUMAN TRACKS. In the same aged layer
Wrong. This is a Creationist Myth. Some were dinosaur tracks with similarities to human footprints, some were outright hoaxes. Do your reasearch. Google is your friend.

People forget about the flood and about the destructive force that water can have...
Ugh. The Flood? Seriously? This myth has been debunked so many times, it's laughable.

I don't dictate nothing... Bible tells me... and yeah maybe I sound radical but we should come back to read the Bible and search our sols.
Ugh - and if the Bible told you to kill your children, would you do it? I actually have three copies of the Bible thanks - and two copies of the Mormon Bible and a copy of the Koran. None of them have told me anything interesting. And it's spelt 'soul' by the way.

Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution? I'm sorry to tell you but that's the most stupid affirmation I've ever read related to this subject.
You show your ignorance with this statement. Evolution is studied by biologists. The Big Bang is studied by Cosmologists and Physicists. No, it has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is a process that did not begin until life had already started, the Big Bang happened many billions of years before that took place. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the Big Bang.

Evolution is a straw theory, like it or not
Wrong. Evolution is a Biological Fact. If you don't believe me, stop taking any and all medication and rely on 'Faith Healers' for any illness. Medicine would be impossible without the underlying understanding given by the Theory of Evolution.

You and the other pro-evolution scientist will have to make up better lies to fool people.
Projection. I am not the one lying.

Evolution doesn't stand a chance.
Wrong. It stands every chance, for it has evidence, while your 'Creationist Hypothesis' does not.

About the universe you seem to know more than doctors in science, astronomy and geography that were my teachers that is hilarious...
I claim no such thing. I have simply read around the subjects an awful lot. I find Evolution and Astronomy to be facinating. Your contention that I claim to know more than your teachers is an Argument from Ridicule. I claimed no such thing, and you are making assertions based on anecdotal non-evidence.

You come with this stupid aberrations to whom?
????

if I were a driver maybe you could fool me but it's my field of study and I graduated that college being one of the best students
Anecdotal, and also impugning the intelligence of drivers.

So all the stuff related about bng bang what you said contradicts what scientists say
Wrong.

Evolutionism is the word in Romanian and my Romanian-English dictionary translates it that way... it's a spelling error in that dictionary... I hope you don't mind it.
Well then, correct yourself from now on.

Yeah sure...there were dinosaurs with human feet?
Not what I said. StrawMan.

so then I guess we evolved from dinosaurs - that's cool
We and dinosaurs share a common ancestor. If you studied evolution as well as you claim, you would know this.

Well the marine fossils on top of the mountains are just a simple and obvious proof for the flood.
Wrong. They are evidence of Tectonic Plate Activity. Look it up.

I know what the stupid evolution theory says about that I studied it and I know how weak it is
That's also NOT an evolutionary explanation - it's a geological explanation - finding fossils of sea creatures on mountain tops says nothing about how they evolved, but everything about how the Tectonic Plates work. Obviously, you have been reading the wrong things.

I see that your continuing to check the spelling errors... I'm sorry for them... Don't you have spelling errors?! what more languages do you know? How good do you know them...
It has nothing to do with how well one speaks a language, and everything to do with how well one uses that language to convey a message. You should go through your post before clicking 'send' to make sure it is clear, coherent, and not up for confusion. By not doing these things, you make yourself look ridiculous.

Let's do something interesting...let's chat in Romanian so I can see if your better in Romanian than I'm in English
I never said I could speak Romanian and I never said anything about your ability to speak English. Read my previous statement.

Yeah I guess you are that kind of person that claims never made a spelling mistake... Have a question for ya... Do you know to speak in Romanian at least 25% as I know to speak in English?! you are so ignorant and ridiculous whit all the other stuff you wrote... it doesn't deserve a reply...
It's the general idea of evolution that applies in all sciences but you choose to be a smart ass and pretend you didn't understood :)
so next comment in Romanian please.. if not, shut up! And prove that you're smart enough to learn another language other than your own. As the "ridiculous" I did ;)

Of course I make mistakes, every one does. This is why I suggested going back through your post before hitting 'send'.

I notice how you're not even attempting to rebut anything I've said. All you are doing is hiding behind your 'I learned another language, you should too!' thing.

If you want to talk about these subjects, on a website that is predominantly in English, you are the one who has to learn to accomodate.

I'm sure I'd love to learn Romanian, but I've limited myself to French, Japanese and British Sign Language - I'm still learning, though. My Fiance speaks some of both Russian and German. My parents both speak some German and French.

Of course, none of this has any bearing on the validity of my arguments.

You are the one with the extraordinary claims, you have to provide the extraordinary evidence. You have failed to do so. You have proven nothing. Now, because of this, you hide behind your hurt feelings.

'The Mirror Of Mankind'

Tree Of Life Illustrated

It appears I missed a facinating program. I'll have to see if I can find it. For now, I'm just awed by this snippit:



Saw this on Pahryngula, and I can't help but be awed by the simple beauty of it (even if it does, as Pharyngula said, seem animal-centric.)

Happy Birthday to Me XD

Where I am, it's now February the 1st! XD

I turn 26 today!

*dances around with a party hat on singing Happy Birthday to herself*

XD

H