pickledbushman.com

Christian fundamentalism enters a new level of deception

08/07/07

Christian fundamentalism enters a new level of deception

11:09:19 am, Categories: Theory and Theosophical, Science and the Universe, Rant and Rave, 1619 words

I really wish Christian fundamentalists would try be more honest. The more I find out about these people, the more sick I get in my stomach at their just outright dishonesty and their method of using slimy dirty tactics to try push their point of view onto the unsuspecting.

Their latest form of deception involves buying Google ads on topics that they know nothing about. Let me give you an example. Go to http://www.google.com and start a search for the phrase, "evolution". Have a look at the sponsored links that pop up!

Clearly that tithe that God.. or more correctly... his "followers", tell you to pay (we all know how short on cash a God can be) ...is being terribly spent. Apparently paying out of Church coffers to push your own information dishonesty agenda is allowed in some circles in Christendom. How sick.

What is it with Christian fundamentalists and their lack of honesty? Surely such deception should also upset the intelligent and moderate Christians as much as it has upset me? One of the smartest people I know in the Christian world (also one of the smartest people I know all round) Francis Collins, said that people who push this type of information dishonesty... "make faith look foolish".(1)

It was people like these Christian fundamentalists that where the first to push me away from Christianity. I grew up with a pretty conservative background so I was dropped in the deep end, but being the person I am, I don't take "facts" at face value and usually end up researching things I am told. When I found out I was being lied to constantly by Christian fundamentalists I started loosing a lot of my faith. If they are lying about this simple concept to me.. what else are they lying to me about?

I could not accept that God wanted me to push a lie to make himself look better. It is also these Christian fundamentalists that are either by design or stupidity... upsetting a lot of intelligent people out there and forcing a schism between Christianity and secular society.

Since I am really annoyed at the moment by what these Christian fundamentalists are doing, I thought I would clear up a few things, so I would like to educate you on the most common lies and dirty tactics that Christian fundamentalists practice:

1) You cant believe in the theory of evolution and be a Christian.

Well that's a whopper of note but lets have a look at their reasoning to making a daft statement like that. Since they are absolutely convinced that the Bible is the infallible word of God, they believe that the theory of evolution contradicts the Moses books of Genesis, and step on Gods toes in the matter of Creation.

However to be more clear, Genesis conflicts with most modern science, including and not limited to; biology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, cosmology, astronomy and countless others. However, Genesis only conflicts with those areas of study if you have a literal interpretation of it. Yes, there are actually some people who believe that Genesis should be taken literally and not as the metaphorical explanation of Creation it is.

You can very much be a Christian and believe in evolution. As a matter of fact, more Christians believe in evolution than those who do not.

2) Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

When you hear this lie you should instantly know you are dealing with someone who has absolutely know idea on how science works and therefore should not pretend to debate it with any type of authority. As I have explained in previous posts, a theory does not become a fact. A theory explains a fact. Fact.. things fall, the theory of gravity explains how and why they fall. Fact.. life changes and is different, the theory of evolution tries to explain why life changes and why their is diversity.

Also, a theory in science is not used in the same way that the word theory is thrown around in normal day to day speak. So I have taken this bit of information straight out of wiki for you to digest:

"In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and general relativity." (2)

Christian fundamentalists love warping the English language to suite their needs so watch out for this.

3) The theory of evolution can not be proved

There are many proofs to the theory of evolution. Since this is a pretty silly lie, I will give you a couple of links to research the proofs behind the theory of evolution yourself:

- http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm (The short proof of evolution)
- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (29 evidences for evolution)

I would also like to counter this argument with the following statement. YOU CANT PROOVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WRONG. Yup, and if you know someone who says they can, be sure to drop me an email so I can get them nominated for a Nobel Prize. They would surely rock the academic world and would definitely deserve it.

4) Darwin said we evolved from monkeys and chimps

Darwin said no such thing. If anyone could show me a single peer reviewed scientific article that says such a thing I will personally print out an apology on this side. The truth of the matter is Darwin did not say we evolved from monkeys. He said monkeys and humans evolved from the same ancestral primate. I believe our genetic lines split around seven million years ago.

5) Darwin recanted on his death bed (yes Rudy.. you told me this one.. I wont forget)

I'm going to quote directly from a source for this one as it deals with this lie pretty nicely;

"This is completely fabricated and has no foundation in truth whatsoever. A woman named “Lady Hope” spoke to a church group shortly after the death of Charles Darwin. She claimed that she was at Darwin’s bedside on the day of his death. She also claimed that Darwin recanted on evolution and accepted Jesus on his deathbed. Her claims are not only unsupported, but are directly opposed by Darwin’s daughter, Henrietta. Henrietta stated “I was present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. My father never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. I am upset that the U.S. Christians have fabricated this conversion nonsense. The whole story has no foundation whatever.” February 23, 1922."

6) Evolution is about the origins of life and the universe

This is about the biggest whopper of a misconception in the theory of evolution. Its also one of the favorite lies used by fundamentalists, because the whole "primordial ooze" concept is pretty hard for a lot of people to understand and get their heads around.. but this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with either the origin of life.. or the creation of the universe.

The origin of life is covered by a hypothesis called abiogenesis. Evolution simply assumes that there was a life form, and from there it takes over. It does not cover the origin of life on any level.

I will stop at those for now, there are a real lot more, but those are by far the most common Christian fundamentalist lies I have come across while researching and talking about the theory of evolution. Before I leave the topic of Darwin and evolution though I thought I would just share this bit of trivia with you. Darwin did not use the word, "evolution" once in his book on natural selection called, "Origin of the species". The theory had being around long before Darwin got onto the scene and was even being discussed back in the days of ancient Greece. Darwin was able to identify and document the important process of natural selection.

To the Christian fundamentalists who read this I would like to close off with the ninth commandment:

Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Now I am sure that if you are a Christian fundamentalist, and have a literal interpretation of the Bible (I really hope you truly do follow ALL the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy), that at the very least.. you can obey God and those all important commandments. Otherwise you are simply just your every day bigot and hypocrite.

1 - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1553986-1,00.html
2- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

18 comments

Comments:

Comment from: Beenz [Visitor]

I like Ghandi's response when asked why he regularly quoted JC but wouldn't become a Christian: "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Aint that the truth?

I guess the same can be said about all religions.

08/07/07 @ 15:47

Comment from: Cameron [Visitor]

Good point, well made.

08/13/07 @ 20:03

Comment from: His [Visitor]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

It's "proven" that people tend to read only what supports their view point. Take a chance and check these out. I'm a scientist. I'm a Creationist. I'm legit. Let me know what you think.

11/16/07 @ 05:02

Comment from: pb [Member]

I would think that you are a bad scientist who is not a scientist in any of the major biological, geographical or genetic based branches. Hows that?

11/16/07 @ 07:47

Comment from: truth [Visitor]

What you don't realize is that all theories have to start with assumptions. Creationists take the Bible as the ultimate source of information to start off with. We believe that God inspired this book and that it is truth. When you start with that, there is no proof that the world wasn't created the way it is stated in the Bible. There are many instances of scientists not telling all of the facts. Evolution is based on assumptions that the world spontaneously came into being millions and millions of years ago. The assumptions that we start with dictate what the science tells us. It is not like there is evidence that proves creation or evidence that proves evolution. Tell me this...How do you explain the first animals having sex to reproduce? If it is just mutation, something mutated into a male and something mutated into a female at the same time, same place and they decided to have sex and procreate? There are so many more mysteries regarding this that it doesn't seem possible, but if you take the Bible version of creation literally, it says that God created animals and everything else. It does take faith, but beliefs in science also take faith. Just think about it

11/16/07 @ 08:23

Comment from: pb [Member]

What you don't realize is that all theories have to start with assumptions.

Since you dont seem to understand the basic concepts of scientific theory I have decided to post what a scientific theory really is. Rather than what you pretend it to be:

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

Evolution is based on assumptions that the world spontaneously came into being millions and millions of years ago.

Its not really an assumption. Look around me... does the world exist? yes. Evolutions only assumption in that area is that every animal has a parent. It does not deal with the origins of life.

It is not like there is evidence that proves creation or evidence that proves evolution.

Um... the are hundreds of millions of pieces of evidence for evolution. I take it you dont know what you are talking about?

Tell me this...How do you explain the first animals having sex to reproduce?

Um... they didnt? the first animals would have being single celled organisms that divide like your normal cells *cough*

If it is just mutation, something mutated into a male and something mutated into a female at the same time, same place and they decided to have sex and procreate?

Why are you even talking about evolution? your assumptions and understanding of the subject are so poor you are coming across as rather silly now. First of all, mutation is but ONE mechanic in evolution, you are forgetting other mechanics like natural selection, gene drift and gene flow.... but of course you would not know this... because you really do not know what you are talking about.

but if you take the Bible version of creation literally, it says that God created animals and everything else

You mean the story where God creates light on the first day but doesnt create the light producing objects like stars and suns till much later? Or how God created plants before he created the sun? Faith is the absence of reason or skepticism. My God requires more outta me than brainless belief.

Why did you post in here? You dont know what you are talking about and clearly dont either understand the basics of evolution, how scientific theory works... or basically any relevant information pertaining to the subject.

Information dishonesty is evil, and I am sure your God does not want you lying for him.

11/16/07 @ 08:43

Comment from: Beatrix Coetsee [Visitor]

Geez just because you have a differing argument to christian belief why does that have to be lying or evil, what is truth if not that which you belief, everything is a theory, I'm guessing but your (very good argument) is laced with animosity and stereotyping, you cannot speak for all 'fundamental christians' as far as I know mainstream christians also do not believe in evolution. Most christians believe that God made all animals and humans to a specific design without any change to them. Not all christians have had the priviledge of studying academically, I think you are being unreasonable with your accusations. When Charles Darwin produced his first book 'The Origin of the Species' no one had a problem, it was his second book that raised concern. The idea of a missing link caused much speculation in the Victorian era, since there was a belief of a struggle good/evil present in man,(think Dr Jeckle Mr Hyde)the discovery of the black man in africa caused consternation as people believed they where savage and uncivilised and perhaps the missing link. I believe Darwinism was the start and carried much blame for racism, which influenced the okaying of slavery and later on a pure white race which influenced WW11 and apartheid. Anyone who believes in evolution embraces racism.

11/16/07 @ 23:46

Comment from: truth [Visitor]

first of all, to PB, I have taken evolution classes as well as biology classes through genetics, cell biology, biochemistry , organic and bioinorganic chemistry. I have read many books on creation and evolution. You on the other hand are just spitting out definitions in order to prove your point which you are not even doing. Yes, mutation is only one mechanism of evolution, but it is the only mechanism that can explain how new novel organisms arise. Drift just changes the alleles that are present in a population and natural selection just kills out organisms that do not have ideal genes for that environment. I think that you are hiding behind your lack of education. The reason I am talking about the origins of life is because that is exactly what creation vs evolution argues about. What you said about single celled organisms that divide can only go as far as single celled organisms. How were they able to mutate into a multicellular organism or a sexual reproducing organism. That was my point. You just don't seem to understand where I am coming from. Please read it for what I said and not what you are trying to make it.

11/17/07 @ 01:13

Comment from: His [Visitor]

Did you actually read any of that? It's by educated scientists. I'm educated., just check it out.

11/17/07 @ 01:16

Comment from: pb [Member]

In response to Beatrix:

Geez just because you have a differing argument to christian belief why does that have to be lying or evil, what is truth if not that which you belief,

Right off from the start I was onto your insidious method of debating. First you use the term "belief" to describe both his understanding on creationism, and mine on evolution. Before we even get past the first sentence you get things wrong, and try set a premise that is incorrect for the rest of your point. To explain what I mean, lets have a closer look at the word "belief"

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (argument) to be true without necessarily being able to adequately prove their main contention to other people who may or may not agree."

Yes, creationism is a belief. No, the theory of evolution is not a belief. The theory of evolution has many different ways to prove it. There are many testable constant experiments you can do, which by using the theory of evolution you will be able to conclude a predictable outcome.

But what you did right there was try make the theory of evolution a "belief" so that you could then clump evolution with creationism as both unsupported guesses deserving equal opportunity. Creationism is supported by a fringe group of scientists in the academic world. Less than 1% of the worlds scientists. Of that less than 1% of those will be scientists who's specialised fields are those involved in the study of the genome and evolution. The theory of evolution has more evidence to support it than the germ theory of disease... literally millions of pieces of supporting evidence, and not one confirmed piece of evidence against it. Seriously.. that's all it would take... say.. A mammal bone in older rock layers where invertebrates had not evolved yet for instance. There is also not a single scientist that will not try prove the theory of evolution false if he or she was able to.

everything is a theory

Okay, you are going to have to clarify this because it looks like you are twisting the use of the word, "theory" for your argument. Are you saying everything is a scientific theory (like the theory of evolution), or are you using the word theory in the more common usage in which is understood to be a "guess". When I use the word, I use it in the scientific context, but I think use it in the more common context to try confuse people who are not clear on the broad difference between the two different types of theories. Insidious.

The idea of a missing link caused much speculation in the Victorian era, since there was a belief of a struggle good/evil present in man,(think Dr Jeckle Mr Hyde)the discovery of the black man in africa caused consternation as people believed they where savage and uncivilised and perhaps the missing link.

You do know that black people ... or Nubians as they were known... were slave to ancient egyptians since ancient egyptian days? Before Judaism and Christianity? They were slaves to europeans before and after Darwin

I believe Darwinism was the start and carried much blame for racism, which influenced the okaying of slavery and later on a pure white race which influenced WW11 and apartheid.

And you wonder why I get so angry with people like you. Arg! You have no idea how dumb your comment is. Sooo... Slavery which had being around for 1000`s of years before Darwin is now Darwins fault? Racism which is old as man... Is now Darwins fault? You must be kidding? What kinda hill billy logic is that? Actually scientifically speaking... racism is a cultural issue and not a race issue as you only get on race in humanity now. Homo sapien sapien. You can find more genetic variance between two white people, than you may find between a black man and a white man.

I would also like to point out to the readers the hypocrisy of your statement. You claim that it was Darwins book that condoned this? Nope, lets go back further... lets see what the Bible has to say on the subject?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

I am really hoping at this point you understand how silly your argument is... and how hypocritical it is.

If you are unable to understand reason and logic then this statement goes out to the rest of the readers: Did you notice how this fundamentalist used common tactics of deception? First he tries to clump evolution as a belief. Then he tries to twist the use of the word "theory". He then tries to make it appear as if most Christians support Creationism... which is false. The majority of the worlds Christians are Catholics... and even the Vatican and the Pope have come to accept the theory of evolution. So the largest denomination of christians, are informed by their leader, that evolution is acceptable. You also make completely false statements on race and slavery, and try paint a picture that if someone believes in evolution... they support racism. Low man... low.

People like this chap who posted here prey on the ignorance and lack of education of people. They twist and lie and try deceive people exploiting their lack of knowledge on the subject to try indoctrinate that person. The problem with people like this is they come under the banner of, "Christianity"... so people for some reason instantly think that that person shares their christian beliefs and surely would not lie. A person like the one that posted here knows this, and even though he has being told many times that his information is incorrect... will still try push the lie to con someone not to knowledgeable on the subject.

I don't understand the reasoning of people like that. Either that person is so completely delusional, that they are unable to understand reality, or they are pathological, and feel the need to lie to themselves and those around them. Clearly both are bad for society.

I hope after dissecting this post, people will take more care in what they believe, and to watch out for the insidious evil of these people. What they are doing is preaching their ignorance onto small children which to me is the same as child abuse. Its not the fault of that child that the parent is so dysfunctional.

Now saying that, I know most Christians are not like this person. I know most Christians to be good people with a good moral code, and a good sense of judgement... but then most of the Christians I know are pretty intelligent people, who would not stoop to this type of siff deception. They accept the truth and believe in evolution and are not guilty of making faith look foolish.

11/20/07 @ 10:22

Comment from: pb [Member]

Hello "his" and "truth"

I notice you are trying to post deceptively. Perhaps you should post as one person, instead of trying to pretend as if you are several people.

I have taken evolution classes as well as biology classes through genetics, cell biology, biochemistry , organic and bioinorganic chemistry.

Why dont I believe you? This is a statement you could be making up and since you have a habbit of being deceptive I can not accept it at face value.

You on the other hand are just spitting out definitions in order to prove your point which you are not even doing.

Unlike your world, my world requires clear definitions. Unlike you, I cant take a word and pervert it with lies like you do. A dog is a dog, a duck is a duck, and a cow is not a the lesser spotted warble. Words have clear and definite meanings to protect us from cons like you.

Try keep it honest mate. I know this is hard for you but give it a try.

Now your only point... silly as it may be :

. What you said about single celled organisms that divide can only go as far as single celled organisms. How were they able to mutate into a multicellular organism or a sexual reproducing organism. That was my point. You just don't seem to understand where I am coming from.

I would suggest you go back to UNITRA and ask for your money back. You say you did courses in evolutionary biology but were not shown an example that is a living specimen of what you are wanting to see?

Just the other day I was explaining to my brother of Dictyostelida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictyostelium) (Bryce's naming system) and just 5 minutes ago I was reading about this similar theory.

Some photos of the cute lil buggers
1 - Aggregation (http://www.visualsunlimited.com/browse/vu311/vu311639.html)
2 - Slug (http://www.visualsunlimited.com/browse/vu311/vu311637.html)
3.1 - sporangium formation (http://www.visualsunlimited.com/browse/vu311/vu311327.html)
3.2 (http://www.visualsunlimited.com/browse/vu311/vu311251.html)
4 - Sporangium up close (http://www.visualsunlimited.com/browse/vu311/vu311176.html)
4stages of life cycle (http://www.visualsunlimited.com/browse/vu311/vu311648.html)

So basically, you have amoebas (unicellular) which feed etc. then under certain conditions they aggregate into a slug-shape (multicellular) followed by sporangium formation (differentiation) and spore proliferation.

Website with updated new discoveries made about Dictyostelida (http://dictybase.org/)
Videos (http://dictybase.org/Multimedia/index.html)

Now "truth", I would advise going back to your educator and asking for your money back.

11/20/07 @ 10:30

Comment from: Cameron [Visitor]

"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve" - Karl Popper

11/20/07 @ 18:14

Comment from: His [Visitor]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am actually a separate person from "truth". You never answered my question. I can see your obvious hostility toward creationism, but ultimately, I would love if you could read some of the thoughts/theories/beliefs/reasonings on the site I previously posted and articulate specific arguments against it. I would also like to throw out some points about your previous posts. You often argue that evolution has been "proven", (do not shut me out just yet, please just listen first), and I know that for you there are "proofs" for evolution but I don't think that any scientist would say that evolution is "proven", or it would be a called a "law", as you know. This isn't my main point. My real point is that science itself cannot test evolution by the normal scientific method. Science tests things by doing experiments in the present that yield results in the present to help us determine things about the present. To test evolution, scientists make observations and design experiments in the present in order to determine things in the presupposed ancient past. Their experiments and observation are often based on presuppositions they have made about the past. Though evolution is not fully a "belief" from your point of view, scientist do believe that evolution occured when making observations. For example, in a bioinformatics lab that I was in, we made the presupposition that a benefical or maintainable mutation occured in a genome every million years. From that we calculated the time gap between the evolution from a common ancestor between ape and man, to the evolution of man, based on the genome differences between men and apes. Please read one paper on the previously posted webpage and let me know what you think if you have time. Also, if you don't want to read any of that, you previously stated that there are many proofs of evolution, I would love to hear five solidly reasoned ones that you support to discuss. I know that you think fundamentalist Christians are trying to be deceptive and are lying. At no point am I ever trying to decieve or lie to you or anyone, whether you believe that or not. Also, it's true that there is a small percentage of creation scientists but those scientists did not all start out with a creation viewpoint and all of the legit creation scientists have researched evolution thoroughly. But, I don't know if that can be said about scientists that believe in evolution. In my experience with scientists, most take evolution at face value, those that challenge it may find conflicts. Just some thoughts. My hopes is that you consider or at least respect some of the things I say without writing me off because I am not writing you off.

11/28/07 @ 06:24

Comment from: pb [Member]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am actually a separate person from "truth"

Forgive me for making this mistake. My systems recorded "his" and "truth" responding on this blog from the same internet address. So it was either you, or someone else on your local area network. What a coincidence hey?

I can see your obvious hostility toward creationism, but ultimately, I would love if you could read some of the thoughts/theories/beliefs/reasonings on the site I previously posted and articulate specific arguments against it.

I have read and answered every single logical argument that has being presented to me. If I have missed out on one please clarify for me so that I may better respond. My obvious hostility towards Creationism simply comes from having to daily deal with their sneaky deceptiveness. All the lies get to you after a while. Give me a single credible argument for Creationism that does not include the Bible, and I will gladly listen and respond.

You often argue that evolution has been "proven", (do not shut me out just yet, please just listen first), and I know that for you there are "proofs" for evolution but I don't think that any scientist would say that evolution is "proven", or it would be a called a "law", as you know.

First off all, you say I said I said the theory of evolution was "proven". Thats incorrect. I have never said that the theory of evolution is proven, I have said it has lots of proofs. Once again you are getting dodgy on your words. Dont try put words like that into my mouth.. it makes you look like you are lying again.

My real point is that science itself cannot test evolution by the normal scientific method.

Yes it can. If I let X mate with Y, I should get Z. Lets not forget genetic research and markers and such. There are a helleva lot of ways I can test evolution using scientific method mate.

Science tests things by doing experiments in the present that yield results in the present to help us determine things about the present.

Almost right! Yay!

o test evolution, scientists make observations and design experiments in the present in order to determine things in the presupposed ancient past. Their experiments and observation are often based on presuppositions they have made about the past.

Could you please give me an example of a "presupposition" that scientists have made about the past? Scientists tend to work in a different way to creationists. For instance, a scientist does an experiment then writes about the conclusion, a creationist has the conclusion then tries to find evidence to support it. Actually two completely different ways of doing things so I cant agree with you there.

Though evolution is not fully a "belief" from your point of view, scientist do believe that evolution occured when making observations.

There you are being sneaky with your choice of words again. tsk tsk.

For example, in a bioinformatics lab that I was in, we made the presupposition that a benefical or maintainable mutation occured in a genome every million years.

Okay, I nearly fell of my chair laughing at this one. Firstly... which "bioinformatics lab"? Who are "we"? Where is the peer reviewed article I can read on your "research", because honestly it sounds like you pulled this one outta your bum. Remember I told you that I dont accept anything at face value... well I most certainly dont accept this statement at all. Please provide lots of proof to this claim otherwise dont use it, as I honestly dont believe you.

You do know for instance, that the HIV/AIDS virus mutates a couple of million times a day? The reason it is so hard to beat with ARVs is that when it makes copies of itself, it often makes a mistake (mutation), so when you blast it with ARVs most of the virus dies, but a couple who have mutated and are immune to the ARV continue to reproduce and the virus lives on. Im still giggling a little at your response.

From that we calculated the time gap between the evolution from a common ancestor between ape and man, to the evolution of man, based on the genome differences between men and apes. Please read one paper on the previously posted webpage and let me know what you think if you have time.

Are you confusing sites? What weblink? What am I missing out on here?

Also, if you don't want to read any of that, you previously stated that there are many proofs of evolution, I would love to hear five solidly reasoned ones that you support to discuss.

Yay, now we can actually talk some sense, so let me give you the first five to work through. Firstly.. the fossil record. Basically... why are there no mouse fossils.. or for that fact, any mammal fossils in rock formed before the evolution of mammals? Why would you only find invertebrates in those layers of rock? Surely if they had all being formed at the same time all different animals would be spread out equally in all the different layers of rock? What is it with dinosaurs? Do you think God made them and went, "oops.. didnt mean to make those!" and *wham* he killed them all? God makes mistakes? anyways for a much better articulation of my first proof read THIS LINK:

Evidence #1 : http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm (please do not respond to this post unless you actually read my evidence or I wont bother responding to you.)

Evidence #2: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html This article deals with the chromosome evidence for evolution, and more specifically how humans and apes are related

Evidence #3: http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html DNA evidence for evolution (as well as a couple of other bits of evidence)

Evidence #4: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Specication (which is the birth of a new species.. for instance, how can new species evolve on this planet if new animals are created all the time)

Evidence #5: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html Our Phylogenetic tree. Basically why do some whales, reptiles and fish have legs? Why do some animals have redundant organs and limbs? This gets explained pretty well here

There are another 27 evidences for evolution at this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The most important pieces of evidence you need to pay attention to at the moment though is the fossil record and DNA evidence. They both support evolution ALL THE WAY! We also know that DNA evidence is conclusive enough for Americans to execute other Americans with, so it should be good enough for this debate.

I know that you think fundamentalist Christians are trying to be deceptive and are lying.

You betchya!

At no point am I ever trying to decieve or lie to you or anyone, whether you believe that or not.

I dont believe you. Nothing you have written here has indicated anything other than deceptive intent. Perhaps stop using dodgy word play and it might help?

Also, it's true that there is a small percentage of creation scientists but those scientists did not all start out with a creation viewpoint and all of the legit creation scientists have researched evolution thoroughly.

Legit scientists? You mean like nutritionists or something because only 0.15% of America`s (not the worlds.. just America`s) geologists and biologists support creationism. If 1% of America`s scientists agreed with creationism it would be considered the "nut fringe" on the edge. However there are not enough scientists supporting your point of view on creationism to even qualify for that title. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoCreationScientists.html

But, I don't know if that can be said about scientists that believe in evolution. In my experience with scientists, most take evolution at face value

You should stop hanging around those creationist scientists so much then. I dont know a single scientist that would accept anything at face value. Its in a REAL scientists nature to be a skeptik. So your point sounds very deceptive again.

My hopes is that you consider or at least respect some of the things I say without writing me off because I am not writing you off.

I went through this whole post of yours and not once did you provide anything that supported creationism or disproved evolution. Most of it was word play and your opinion on the "science" (if that is to be believed) that you have being around. Now I have given you a lot of reading, and I hope you will get through that so at the end of the day you can face God and tell him you eventually did try look for the truth. I know God has not given up on you yet and its not to late to change your deception and learn where you are lying. I hope you will be able to grow into the honest good person God wants you to be.

11/29/07 @ 08:16

Comment from: His [Visitor]

Due to time constraints, I will read your proofs for evolution later and respond. Right now though, I just have one question for you on all of this. Really, what do you think happened? Do you think that God created the beginning material for evolution to occur? What do you think about the Bible? Do you think that its a load of crap? Do you think its a good book? Do you think that it accurately portrays God but not other occurances in it? At no point, though my word means nothing to you, am I trying to accuse or deceive you. I honestly just want to know what you think.

11/29/07 @ 18:39

Comment from: pb [Member]

Due to time constraints, I will read your proofs for evolution later and respond.

Cant wait!

Right now though, I just have one question for you on all of this.

Well almost ;)

Really, what do you think happened? Do you think that God created the beginning material for evolution to occur?

I believe that God created life. However I am not sure if I believe creation is finished. I am not a big fan of the books of Moses.

What do you think about the Bible?

Parts of it (mostly bits in the New Testament) are clearly englightened perspectives on what God is. The old testament... well I disagre on a bunch of things... and I would challenge under what authority it is considered the word of God. I share my opinion about the Bible here: http://www.pickledbushman.com/index.php/2007/06/22/is_the_bible_the_word_of_god so if you wish to respond please do so there so we can keep this thread on topic as much as possible.

Do you think that its a load of crap?

No

Do you think its a good book?

Some of it is, some of it is not.

Do you think that it accurately portrays God but not other occurances in it?

I think sometimes Jesus paints a good picture, I think a lot of the OT gets it wrong.

At no point, though my word means nothing to you, am I trying to accuse or deceive you. I honestly just want to know what you think.

Cool beans

11/29/07 @ 19:00

Comment from: Lourens [Visitor]

Where is love to our family in this?
I see anger and hatred amongst those whou should be fighting on the same side.
We should lay aside our own ideas and follow Christ. Good arguments have never won a single soul. A kind and loving brother or sister has won millions.

12/26/07 @ 19:36

Comment from: Clive [Visitor]

To recap the scientific method as applicable to creationism:

HYPOTHESIS
Life on earth in all its manifestations was created by a creator.

To transform this into a workable theory we need to know who the creator was, how did he create life and specifically what mechanisms he used in each specific case. Did he create each species in its final form or did he allow for some natural selection to tinker a bit? Did he create them all at once or consequentially through time? All at the same place or widely distributed through space? Why did he insert a broken vitamen c gene into the human form as well as into the chimpanzee? How/why did he create marsupials only in Australia and no mammals in Nieu Zeeland? Etc Etc (myriad of puzzles in the natural world).

So I need to be referred to the empirical studies where the evidence for these various contentions is documented and subjected to intense scrutiny and independent verification by experts. Please any creationist out there - oblige me.

Merely saying goddunit is not science. It is not theology either as it does not even pretend to tell us which god is being referred to and on what basis the particular god is to be preferred to any other.

Clive

01/17/08 @ 17:41

Contact Me

wtf is wrong with all you people?

<< <January 2009 > >>
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Search

Linkblog

leet software

Kubuntu
Leetest form of linux there is. The primary OS I now use. Kubuntu, Dapper Drake, 6.06 LTS. I really think people should use this as their default OS
Really cool open source game. Warsow
For those of you who dont know, I run Kubuntu OS as my desktop OS. With all the queerness of Microsofts Anti Piracy campaign, I have decided to completely leave the MicroSoft world. Sure, I loose windows media player and some gaming choices. However, you do get awsome games like warsow that are completely open source, and LOADS of fun to play. If you are in South Africa, there is a South African warsow server gracefully hosted by Web Africa. When in the game just type "connect warsow.webfafrica.co.za" And you will connect to the server to be able to jam with the rest of us.

leet sites

Acid Alex written by Al Lovejoy
I consider this a book that every South African should read to get perspective in their lives. Its honesty is most refreshing and Al Lovejoy`s ability to capture in words the essence of a culture and history of a generation of south Africans is amazing. Al Lovejoy has earned a lot of respect from a generation of youth who appretiate the truth. Thank you Al.

Other reviews:

‘Acid Alex is quite simply one of the most shocking autobiographies I have ever read. It is also well-written, addictive, excellent.’

– Sue Blaine, Business Day

‘Heartbreaking! Entertaining! Intelligent!’

– Erns Grundling, SL magazine

‘Nothing I have read has sketched the scorched social landscape of South Africa’s last half-century with such intensity and honesty. Read it.’

– Charles Thesen, Marie Claire

‘There are elements of Hunter S Thompson, Herman Charles Bosman, William Burroughs and William Wharton. But in the end it is an amazing story told in a unique voice. A voice moulded by pain, a voice honed by a government reformatory..., whetted by the SADF, and sharpened by Pretoria Central.

It is the story of a man who went to hell and came back, a morality tale, a Bildungsroman, the narrative of a f*ckup who found redemption, and the anthem of a lost generation.’

– Caspar Greeff, Sunday Times

‘Truly, as Koos Kombuis says, this is “an astonishingly breathless story” … Besides being a great read, Acid Alex is an invaluable record of a type of mania that gripped a certain type of South African in the last quarter of the 20th century. It’s a book that’s going to appeal to many young South Africans who currently have to turn to the United States for their myths of pointless excess, and it’s going to inspire them. Not necessarily in a particularly savoury way.’

– Chris Roper, Mail & Guardian

This book is more than just a suggested read.
British indie band offers their album online for free!
In what has to be a remarkable show of insight into the power of social networking, a British Indie band is offering their album free to download off their website. This is one band, that seems to have googled it. It looks like the older corporate models are failing and hopefully the world will not have to tolerate the insanity that is RIAA much longer.

I love artists with scope.
Calling South African Science Bloggers
South Africa needs science and South Africa needs prominent scientific voices. Unfortunately, like the media in much of the rest of the world, South Africa's media is not nearly welcoming enough to the skeptical and scientific views of the world. Luckily, we have great examples from the United States and elsewhere of how self-publication through blogs can affect public discourse, promoting science and acting as a counterweight to indifference, ignorance, and gullibility. However, unlike our comrades elsewhere, South African science bloggers are unconnected and not organized. I propose to change that...Read More
Its the end of the world as we know it... and I feel fine
Really funny flash video depicting the end of the world as the result of a nucleur fall out.
Learn to speak Safrikan
For those of you who dont know, I am South African. Im a born and bred white native african, and damb proud of it. However, I will often use words that you may not understand, local slag u wont pick up on. Click on this link to learn a little more about South African slang, aka, Safrikan!
MIT release their course work to the world
The entire catalogue of information from 1,800 courses at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) will be available free online by the end of the year. Once uploaded, it will represent one of the internet’s most important resources.
New Age search engine website
MsDewey.com

I never have never used a search engine this cheeky before :) Its great fun for about 10 minutes.
Seaward Real Estate
Seaward.co.za for South Africa`s best coastal real estate.
Snake bursts after gobbling gator
In what has to be classed as bizare, a clash between a 6-foot (1.8m) alligator and a 13-foot (3.9m) python has left two of the deadliest predators dead in Florida's swamps.
Stats to shame you. Causes of Poverty
I came across this site by Anup Shah that has a detailed look into the causes of poverty. I found some of the statistics he shows to be very embarrassing and a shameful reflection on humanity today.

* Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day.

* The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined.

* Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.

* Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.

* 1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (or roughly 29,000 children per day).

More facts and stats

Anup Shah shows us the institutions, policies and people behind many of today's causes of poverty.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp
Suicide Bunnys!
Haha, these poor lil bunnies. A bunch of pictures of bunnies trying to come up with imaginitive ways to kill themselves.
The Public Library of Science
The Public Library of Science is a nonprofit organization of scientists and physicians committed to making the world's scientific and medical literature a freely available public resource. A most excellent link for those of you wanting access to some amazing science.
Travian forum signature generator
A really nice Travian signature generator
World of meters
Ever wondered how many babies are being pushed out every day, or how many people are dying every minute? Well this is the place for you then! This meter currently records those tpes of things, and with a population of 6.5 billion, there are lots of interesting stats for you to check out.