151. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166608 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 10:40 am

To All the Ignorant Evolutionists,

Eiseley, Loren C., The Immense Journey (New York: Random House, 1957), p. 199

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after a long effort, could not be proved to take place todayhad, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

TTID, why are you on here? is it to insult? to annoy? to spread some gospel or other? to throw meaningless quotes around?

why is it that 90% of the christians who come on here come across as being absolute arseholes?????

again, why are you on here. if you are a christian are you behaving like one, what would jesus think of you??

152. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166594 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 10:24 am

not some atheist called gr8hands on an internet bulletin board.

you sound so charitable, such a nice christian.

you came here, remember.

153. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166590 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 10:20 am

I hope this doesn't hurt your ego and pride too much.

why are you on here???

154. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166586 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 10:17 am

I am just spreading the Good News that I am certain is truth. You are doing the same thing when you try to create disbelief in God in others so it is ironic that you would mock those that are relaying a different message.

no, you came here, you are the one who needs to show any proofs, you have not yet done so, if you cant then you maight as well go away and persuade those on some islamist website that yours is the true god, they already have the god thing in place, you just got to change the name of the god, easy huh?

im not sure why you are here, i dont start babbling on about evolution on christian forums, its just not in my nature, why as a christian should you arrive late and start pushing around unsubstantiated claims and saying stuff about judgement etc.

heres a question you you.

why are you on here???

155. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166577 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 10:08 am

geo

Just because some of the descendants of an organism become a different species doesn't mean that the other descendants have to change. If the organism does well in its environment, it is fairly well adapted. If there is an environmental pressure on a population of that organism that selects for change, that does not influence the organisms that are getting along OK in the previously stated environment.

I could probably reword this to be more clear, but the idea is that because one line of descendants diverges, that doesn't mean that the other has to.

the type of thinking that creationists just cannot understand, well they mustn't be able to as ive yet to meet one who has an actual understanding of evolution even if they disagree with it. acrtually thats interesting, not one creationist gets even close, as soon as they say something plainly ridiculous like'well wheres all the fossils' or 'wheres the half amoeba half horse'. yup, they missed school, or were homeschooled.

156. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166565 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 9:58 am

5. the origin of the language of DNA and the intelligence it requires

assertion, no evidence, you are talking shit.

6. the implausibility of one species evolving into another, macroevolution, which never been observed

argument from personal incredulity, what about Spartina as a known living example. you need to remember that unless there is some major chromosomal event like in spartina speciation is not something that can really be observed, there is no cut of point between one species and another, only in hindsight can we see lineages change, you never heard of ring species where two different species occur at the same time but different locations that are joined by a continous chain of smoothy changing animals acorss the geographic range.

7. the circular reasoning of homology, which has never been observed

er, explain that, im not sure what you are talking about.

8. the absence of transitional life forms both today and in the fossil record

go to a friggin museum and ask the palaentology dept if they have any fossils with obvious intermediate features. Then tell the man or woman that it doesnt exist, and try not to feel too silly. once again, just because something isnt a half bird half dinosaur (so its appeals to the unsophisticated mind) doesnt mean its not transitionsal, look at the transitional sequence between the pre mammalian jaw where the posterior jaw elements have becomethe ear bones, maybe you dont have any as you obviously arent listening.

remnant, you know nothing of biology. go away, read up on the topics and then once you can put together a coherent argument instead of assertions and bible quotes come back and expalain how we can be shown that ID is a better explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

oh and stop cut and pasting nonsense, we can all do that.

oh and did you finally get the idea that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim?? that alone shows your general lack of reasoning.

157. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166317 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 6:07 am

winston talks a lot of wool.

pascals wager.....why???

he says dennet says cathedrals are a waste of money, maybe he did, maybe they are, not really important.

dennet is like an evangelical preacher, yes, those silly evangelical preachers, we all know that they (the christan evangelists) are just 'the crazies' so they dont count, but dennet as an evangelical preacher does.

jewish and muslim practices, hmm, which ones, is this significant?

which acts are extremist? well we can all figure that one out, those which we would not like to be on the receiving end of. violence is condemned by every responsible person religious or not.

'religion is built into human conciousness', yes quite likely but thats not good to know if some guy is chanting 'god is great' as he starts to slice through your neck with a big knife.

im not sure of the relevance of evas view on memes, science is provisional, surely winston gets that doesnt he?? am i missing the point here??

the paragraph about the book of job, im not sure why thats mentioned, is this just to jolly along religious readers??

last paragraph, science cant explain everything so religion isnt dangerous????

back to

spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.

so those who werent 'spiritual' died in a corner crying or were simply shot?? thats simply an appeal to emotion, i can see all the oprah heads nodding sincerely to that one.

158. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166312 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 5:50 am

The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society.

ah, so its the atheist daring to actually speak that causes the problems.

right.

the only people i know who are absolutely certain are those who accept god.

159. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166307 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 5:42 am

The thing that is supposed to be Eryops just cracks me up.

id say it was closer to Canis.

160. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166302 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 5:31 am

the ark thing.

i challenge any ark believer to do the following thing:

run out to a meadow (a midwest one for arguments sake, thats where i am now) and see how long it takes you (actually they arent even hatched yet so august is a good time, you could find newly hatched in a few weeks if you look VERY carefully) to gather a male Neoconocephalus insiger, a very noisy katydid, you should be able to locate a male by sound quite easily, finding it is a bit trickier. anyway, once hes in the box run around and try to find a female, shes quiet but there should be one or two within a hundered yard circle, then put them together and then find various foods for them, a few flower heads, some seed heads, some smaller insects, get them some water (get ready to clean out their poo every few days), provide the female with an oviposition site (soil or hollow stems, im not sure), get the temp right also. then move onto finding a beetle, thats quite simple, beetles are very easy to find, when you find any given beetle the tricky part is finding another of the same species of the opposite sex and then trying to find its specific foodplant, some species are more picky than others, anyway, repeat this process until you have collected the several 1000 species of insect from a given midwest meadow. You can then start on the nematode worms, oh and the spiders next. Oh, did i need to explain the point i was making?????

yes, it is all rather silly isnt it. id go so far as to say that anybody who argues for the ark is almost a pervert, its a grotesque self indulgence.

161. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166293 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 5:13 am

Believe in Zolar. That's called free will. See how far that gets you at judgement day.

that might work with 4 and 5 year old, but not here, pass.

anyway, you came here initially trying to knock evolution, cant you stick to that one? you've gone through the classic whacko sequence of evo>god>scripture>threats of judgement as your position fails.

162. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166290 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2008 at 5:08 am

You are claiming god does not exist, so prove it.

Simple isn't it.

remnant, you are not realising just how flawed your logic is right now.

I go into a lottery kiosk and say 'hey i got some winning numbers, i won $100'.

the guy says 'ok, lets see the ticket'.

I say 'what! im saying i won $100, i want it'

guy says 'you need the ticket as proof'

I say 'pha, prove that i dont have the ticket!!!'

remnant, does this make things a bit clearer??

whith your logic i should rightly be able to accuse somebody of a crime and unless they can prove they didnt do it then they are guilty, it just doesnt work like that.

163. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166065 by phasmagigas on April 22, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Sorry, but you are in the minority. For centuries the overwhelming majority of the people that have lived have believed in a Creator God. God's revelation in life, in the universe in the anthropic principle of fine tuning, His special revelation in the Bible, etc. provide far more evidence for His existence that your position. The vast majority of mankind have believed in a Creator God and now a small minority of people don't. The burden of proof is on you, the small minority.

That's the way it works friend. You don't make the rules for the debate or the majority

news to me. the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.

by your 'new' rules if you went to a european country where say 70% of the population accepted evolution would you feel happy if they said 'you prove evolution is not true as you are in the minority' in the event that one of them made a claim for its truth. besides, most people on this plaent DONT accept the christian god, but some other/others or non at all!!

sounds like a school yard bully, very charitable.

164. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166048 by phasmagigas on April 22, 2008 at 5:24 pm

remember that twilight zone?? ep

on omnipotent being says it can do anything, the mortal tells him to 'get lost' the omnipotent being is defeated and shrivels away to dust, or something gooey, i cant remember.

165. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166042 by phasmagigas on April 22, 2008 at 5:21 pm

That is an untrue statement and not a contradiction at all. You are making another common mistake. You are attempting to limit God who is outside of the natural world to the laws of the natural world. The laws of nature did not exist until God created them. He is not subject to them. God is eternal. God is not limited by time. At the creation event, space, time, matter, and energy were created. God created time, He caused time. He is outside of time.

tee hee hee hee hee and god gave you special priveleges unknown to all other mortals, impressive.

166. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166038 by phasmagigas on April 22, 2008 at 5:18 pm

I claim it was Zoltar the Magnificent who created the universe. Prove he didn't.

any relation to sosai X???

167. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166031 by phasmagigas on April 22, 2008 at 5:13 pm

The God of the Bible, the only God. Now you prove He didn't.

i wont bother to explain why this is a silly comment but instead you prove that its not Allah.

My islamic friends (and even most who arent my friends!!)in the UK (i dont know any muslims here in the USA) are very sure its Allah, more sure than anyting else they 'know'.

168. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166022 by phasmagigas on April 22, 2008 at 5:06 pm

You reveal how little you know about God.
God is outside of our natural world. He is eternal. He is the first cause. He created space, time, matter, and energy. He is no subject to the laws of the natural world. He created them.

then by definition how can you know anything about god either way, you are simply making stuff up.

i dont know anything about gods either way either, i just dont believe that there are any gods, not even Sosai X.

169. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166012 by phasmagigas on April 22, 2008 at 4:59 pm

im always suprised that there arent more creationists on these boards, youd think they be here in flocks to try and convince us of heaven and all that, maybe many do read a bit and then realise they know jack all about biol and just click back to AIG or their favourite 'the church of reformed god, jesus, bapist, new dawn bible life churchy churchy' they always have silly made up names.

170. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166002 by phasmagigas on April 22, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Macro-evolution refers to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species.

so what does that actually mean?? you mean its a change that turns one species into another? OK, so you are saying changes up to this point can happen but then suddenly any further changes are suddenly not allowed bacause the present organism if it went back in time couldnt have fertile offspring with its long dead ancestor!!!!

If you accept any evolution but just not this macro evo youd better come up with some explanation that seems to stop it just as creatures get too different from their ancestors, what is this proposed mechanism???

171. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165963 by phasmagigas on April 22, 2008 at 4:19 pm

A little reading material regarding genetics, mutations,and the implausibility of macro-evolution.
It is never too late to pry open volitionally closed minds...

closed minds, our minds will be closed the day we retort to scripture quotes with cut and pasted bits of 'the origin'.

macroevolution, so just what is that??? im still confused as to if this is a real term or not, ie one that is actually used in the ACTIVE scientific community.

once again, instead of bitchin about evo, present the notion of ID, just what is it? how can it be demonstrated (excluding arguments from personal incredulity)?

172. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165951 by phasmagigas on April 22, 2008 at 4:06 pm

It is also odd that you mention my apparent "pretty" face as a sign that God exists and that he/she/it loves me.

I seem to remember one well publicised victim of a drink driving? accident, a very pretty girl by most mens (and womens standards), i cant remember her name but anyway, she now lives with massive body burns and a face that is difficult to even look at never mind have to live with, seems there is a down side as such to increased burns survival capability from modern medicine, either way god wasnt particularly taken with that one but im sure a theist can come up with oh about 126 different explanations, i can invent a few too!

173. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165931 by phasmagigas on April 22, 2008 at 3:42 pm

I find it funny that Dawkins, when caught off guard, admitted to ID in the movie "Expelled".

i guess TTID has ran off by now but here goes anyway.

As far as i know RD had mentioned the notion of life being created by an alien intelligence, thats all fine and dandy, what dawkins would follow with is that the alien (or whatever alien created that alien etc) would have come about by a process of natural selection initially on some planet. TTID if you somehow think that dawkins agreeing to ID in its mined version (as i guess it is) is somehow representative of dawkins hidden views then you are utterly naive.

174. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165567 by phasmagigas on April 21, 2008 at 5:04 pm

steveZ,

so the notions of micro/macro arent in proper usage then? i kind of assumed they were until i realised that how the hell could they be disinguished! hence my post to TTID.

175. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165560 by phasmagigas on April 21, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Your question of the Bird Flu. I agree, I want the scientists to use their ideas of MICRO-evolution to try and trace the origin of the infection, not Macro-evolution. I assume you know the difference?

as micro evo is easily seen in living species the creationist simply moves and narrrows the goal posts and says 'ah but what about macro' as i said. if you accept micro, by default you should be able to imagine macroscopic changes more easily. it always happens, once macroscopic changes become reasonable to a creationst (if ever) then they will say, 'ah but you know nought about the origin of life so goddidt' same old........ oh.

so by asking steve if he knows the difference between macro and micro you are saying that macro is somethng thats actually there??? remember lots of IDists can still accept macroevo, they just say godididt, behe is that type of IDist if im not mistaken.

176. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165557 by phasmagigas on April 21, 2008 at 4:47 pm

You ask, what does ID predict? How has MACRO-evolution predictions been tested and whether it can be falsified and misrepresented? I want to know what tests were cunducted and what the results were. I challenge you to show me one shred of scientific evidence that proves MACRO-evolution?

you have to define the difference between macro and micro evolution, in nature there is no distinction only a continuous range of possible changes. Micro evo could (if you want to use those words, steveZ, thats for pointing it out that these words arent even in real usage) describe a point mutation whereas macro might describe the increase in bill length of some bird by 50% brought about by many, many more mutations, unfortunately creationists always show a reluctence to understand how biology is studied. as soon as you accept micromutation you only have to add them up cumulatively to get what you could call macro, its really quite simple.

you could test macro sized changes by looking at an elephant and saying 'i predict that in rock layers x in area y there could be fossils very similar to elephants of today but with shorter trunks' they have been found.

177. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165555 by phasmagigas on April 21, 2008 at 4:41 pm

TTID

I would love to see how evolution is recorded in the fossil record?

museums are a good start (not that one in kentucky though), also i'd recommend Donald Protheros 'evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters' lots of photos/drawings of transitions, all fully checkable at many museums.

178. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165553 by phasmagigas on April 21, 2008 at 4:37 pm

TTID

How can you begin to explain evolution when you can't even begin to explain where life came from in the first place?

thats a bit like asking 'how can you explain to a person how to do origami when you dont know its exact origins in ancient Japan or you dont know how paper is made'.

Evolution is happening now on this planet as we speak, it simply has got to be easier to understand it than events from over 3 billion years ago for which there might be no usable evidence.

edit. and as Billsands says in a later post evo says nothing about lifes origins only its subsequent changes, i forgot to mention that.

179. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164678 by phasmagigas on April 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm

I'd say that Emus and Crocodiles are pretty large :)

id agree, they do form rather small populations though???

180. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164639 by phasmagigas on April 20, 2008 at 1:35 pm

On a side not I think Richards article about God-like aliens posted recently completely misses the point. Complexity is only ruled out as an ultimate first cause but this universe could very plausibly have a 'God' in the theistic sense. I childishly picture the Simpson's episode where Lisa creates life, I forget the exact circumstances. Or the fact that given the correct topology a universe could be 'designed' to be a ultimate Turing machine.

like many on this forum im sure we dont have an issue with a complex being starting everything (although we'd still like that explained) but rather we have an issue with a being that started the universe AND doesnt like the fact that some people use latex sheaths on their intromittent organs during copulation.

well thats what i dont 'get' anyway.

181. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164628 by phasmagigas on April 20, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Also, there is little doubt that mammals are the most successful large animal group on the planet today

steve, i suppose that as they are the only large animals around then they must be, is that what you mean?

Although in terms of numbers i wonder if sharks actually are more successful?? they are probably the only other animals with similar potential large mass (well, sharks can get big for sure ) that form a significant population, im not sure what the average mammal size is, probably quite small, im guessing rather cat sized.

182. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164589 by phasmagigas on April 20, 2008 at 12:32 pm

as this is a big thread i just have to post the most nauseating thing ive read in a long time, re popes visit (im not saying 'the' pope).

New York deputy fire chief James Riches, father of a fallen Sept. 11 firefighter, said the pope's visit gave him consolation.

"We said 'Where was God?' on 9/11, but he's come back here today and they've restored our faith," Riches said.

i understand the fathers anguish but i think im gonna be sick.

183. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164542 by phasmagigas on April 20, 2008 at 11:55 am

Eeewww. Bukkake Christ!

i actually feel somewhat ashamed to read this and not think 'what does that mean?'

184. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164537 by phasmagigas on April 20, 2008 at 11:49 am

oh my god, i must be psychic, did i not predict the following: evo refutation>god>scripture>i'll pray for you.

here its is, its shown my prediction, call it a propechy, is real.

My suggestion for you is to repent and come to Christ. I will be praying for you

i always wondered why i has a string of spaghetti growing out the back of my head, now all is clear.

185. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164245 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 8:19 pm

phew, anyway im glad remnants discussion has gone 'bible' as im no good at that , i prefer the evo stuff, its easier.

oh BTW, remnanat you are a young earther yes? so if that business were true then just what would the fossil record be like if your world view were true, lets just say it would be nothing like it actually is, nothing atall. a few gaps? thered be one huge gap and then hey presto, we have trilobites, t rex, chimps and ferns and daffodil fossils all together in the same rocks, oh and people fossils, but guess what? that just isnt the way it is.

if you love jesus, thats fine but keep your jesus fondling hands away from me, thanks.

186. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164244 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 8:10 pm

once again the creationist trolls go through the sequence: poor arguments against evo that fail, throw some scripture, nobody is listening, then comes the final fling, variations on a theme of 'see i am right, you'll go to hell'

Wait till you face the truth face to face. There's no turning back then

yawn. oh and as for the self portrait, yes well im looking rather well these days, my horns are shaping nicely, the velvet dropped of a few weeks ago.

come on, keep those anti evo arguments going, you managed a handful of points and already you switched to threats of hellfire, meeting the maker, all that.

you are an ignorant asshole, you come to this forum to supposedly set a fox amongst the chickens and meet resistance. call yourself a christian? Then bloody well act like one, whatever that means. And dont expect niceties after your supernatural threats, remember we are atheists, you came here first, remember that.

187. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164170 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Comment #164135 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 3:45 pm

You, "remnant, you dare to call something a FALSE religion, may cthulhu forgive you."

You, "evo is not a religion but to suggest that there are 'false' religions anyway really is quite silly."

You comment reveal that you know little about science and even less about faith and Christianity.

Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

oh dear, im getting scared now, ramen.

i dont know what you mean, my post mentioned nothing of science, you are telling me there are false religions, name some, which one/ones is/are true??

i suggest we dont feed the troll much more, time to feed the conspiracy theories and flagf as a troll?

188. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164167 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Most honest evolutionary scientists will admit that the fossil record provides weak evidence of transition between species. There have been over 200 million fossils found. These have been grouped into around 250 thousand different species. The fossil record better reflects the sudden extinction of species and the sudden appearance of new, entirely different species rather than transition between species. In spite of over 200 million fossil finds, there are less than 100 fossils that scientists even can SPECULATE that MIGHT be evidence of POTENTIAL transition between species. That represents a mere .000001 % of all know fossil discoveries that scientists can even use for their SPECULATIONS to support their FAITH in their RELIGION of evolution. Oh if there were just any evidence that just 1% of the 200 million fossils that could be open to SPECULATION, then they could INVENT scenarios and fairy tales about 2,000,000 fossils. No, they are stuck with a mere 100 FOSSILS out of 200,000,000 fossils to support their FAITH. You have to give them credit though, for they sure do have a tremendous amount of BLIND FAITH.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

oh dear, i pre empted or honestly predicted (magic)this in a previous post, the hurling of scripture, we have a full fledged NUTTER on board.....AGAIN!!


ok, the fossils, a small number show transitional features, so what???

what you are saying is that you (not me) see only obvious tansitional forms, every fossilised animal that left descendents is transitional, just because its not a bloody 'half whale' or 'half bird' doesnt mean it doesnt count. ( so just how would you expalin those orgs that have a nice set of intermediate features between say dinos and birds, just another 'kind' perhaps) all that capitalised nonsense and supposed faith on our part is something that weve seen before, go away, troll an islamist site or go and do something less boring instead (Brits, remember 'why dont you'on summer mornings).

remnanat, i'm telling you now, the combined minds on this board will annihilate each and every argument you make, I predict now that you will move from evo (something you know nothing about) to god, something that none of us can say anything about, thats how it works, then you will vanish after throwing a bit of the bible out here, ending with a 'i'll be praying for you' same old..........

189. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164139 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 3:50 pm

However if you dont produce one, it does not confirm Behe position - you almost certainly will die before acheiving it, or you may not apply the correct selective pressures, or use bacteria that have "usable pre-adaptations". We can show that ID fails and is worthy of note as the geocentric theory. No one has shown it succeeds

its a non starter eitherway. behes 'test' is pathetic, 'his' flagellum as somehow being THE flagship of biology that hes somehow determined is the evidence for god, what a self centered prick. I could well as suggest that by waiting for a new coat colour in rabbits to occur in selective breeding ive somehow disproved god, thats how silly it all is.

190. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164135 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 3:45 pm

remnant, you dare to call something a FALSE religion, may cthulhu forgive you.

evo is not a religion but to suggest that there are 'false' religions anyway really is quite silly.

191. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164129 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Irreducible complexity, the language of DNA, something from nothing (Big Bang), abiogenesis, the dozens and dozens of finely tuned anthropic principles,the origin of morality, of consciousness, of the mind, fulfilled prophecy, changed lives, the list goes on and on. The evidence for God is overwhelming, you are just too blind to see it.

wow, behes flagellum and changed lives, thats it, im converted!!

behe cant even back up his own ideas without putting his foot in it. im right in saying he said that ID is testable by getting a bacteria and if you can select for a flagellum over time then it would falsify it? anyway, thats bloody idiocy as we know, even if you did get a flagellum any old creationist could say 'godidit' but just in the lab.

192. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164110 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Rather that discuss you adult fairy tales which are nothing more than speculations, why don't you show me just one living transitional creature

it never ceases to amaze just how badly educated are these trolls, they are also a pain in the butt, im not sure i ever thought 'oh, i'll go on to some christain website and tell 'em all how it is', they of course appear for a few days and then realise that each and every claim is sliced and diced.

oh, back to the transitional forms. well for your ignorant info every creature that leaves descendents is transitional. You are transitional between your parents and your kids (if you have any)so to speak. peripatus can be called a living transitional form although this assumes that it was related to other inverts that at the time have become (or became) arthropods of some description. peripatus howerver will certainly have undergone much evolutionary change internally re its biochemistry as it deals with now parasites etc.

remnant you are showing yourself as a total idiot by suggesting that the lack of the mention of a transitional form regarding the peripatus in the link is somehow indicative of the totality of info on these animals. actually it isnt necessarily transitional atall, its similar cousins may never have become arthropods of any kind, its just that its shows the 'type' of characters that a transition between annelids and arthropods might have had, its more an illustration.

biology is never the creations strongpoint, once again shown here.

193. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164095 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 2:02 pm

there are other examples - a favourite example among moral philosophers are head-hunter tribes, or the maja who had a lottery for the honor of being sacrificed, showing that even the "most basic" moral value of life isn't universally shared throughout human cultures.

i was thinking yesterday that its amazing just how we are influenced by our surroundings, even an intelligent 5 year old who is told that 'goldfish are evil fish' or that foreigners 'take our jobs' just isnt in a position to question that, i mean, just what the hell does a 5 year old know, i realised that you can take a child and mould them into just about anything you want, you could get a child to run on all fours if it thought it was the only option or commit suicide at age 12 if primed well enough. I rememeber sticking to my parents opinions well into my teens before i started to assimitlate other options and decide what i felt was true/right or whatever. i suppose some minds remain more flexible through time and can take on new ideas, others simply set like concrete, we know who they are.

194. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164081 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 1:47 pm

moral relativism, i wonder what the most 'extreme' versions are, ie that which is totally immoral to one would be acceptable to another.

A good example is that papuan tribe where manhood is only achieved by fellating and ingesting semen from the older tribes men, otherwise the 'boy' is destined to be a girl!! now thats fine for them but would be rather illegal and immoral in most other parts of the world, well, aside from hidden rooms in cartholic churches. all gods plan right. then again there are the 'foreskin remove by mouth' practices by some jewish believers.

195. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164050 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm

if feel that scripture is soon to be hurled.

196. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164046 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Pseudo- science, as defined today by the science academy, is the search for causes to support an atheistic worldview and only that worldview. Psuedo-science is defined to exclude supernatural causes, that is unless it is needed, as in the universe (something) originating from nothing, and lifer originating from non-life.

eh????? im not sure thats the definition of pseudoscience. pseudoscience if im not mistaken is bullshit trying to sound scientific when it isnt, like when i rub my soles and my chundraseismic nerves become energised and i feel all syergasmically refracted with my quartz crystals i have under my pillow.

197. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #164032 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 12:44 pm

1. Complexity and cohesiveness of life suggests a creator.
2. Intelligence suggests a creator. DNA, Language, logic and reason.
3. The universe is known to have a beginning and everything that has a beginning needs a cause.
4. We have no true knowledge of how life can be created from non living chemicals, suggesting a creator.
5. Jesus Christ is known to be an actual historical figure.
6. Nobody from that time period refuted his resurrection from the dead.

naive or what.

1 & 2 'suggests a creator' er, ok, thats rather an assumption at best. also theres a BIG jump from DNA to logic, language and reason, a string of DNA could be just a few base pairs long, thats a while away from a brain pondering itself. anyway i digress.

3. god could have created the universe, its says nought about evolution, evo doesnt need any god as far as we can tell.

4. evo says nought about abiogenesis, evo is the way life diversifies and changes through time. actually years ago in japan they had no true knowledge of what caused earthquakes so that meant the giant catfish underground that caused them was there right??

5. so is st nick, so lets keep or chimneys clean yes?

6. pass, thats pathetic, nobody has ever refuted that goldilocks ate the baby bears porridge therefore the wolf did blow down the piggies brick house. what on earth has the ressurection or not of a man from 2000 years ago got to do with evolutuion????? same for point 5.

198. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #164018 by phasmagigas on April 19, 2008 at 12:33 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080418/cm_uc_crbbox/op_235852

related patheticness.

199. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163331 by phasmagigas on April 18, 2008 at 7:53 am

Any children produced by heterosexual reproduction at the behest of or for the benefit of gay couples are still produced heterosexually.

Natural selection of any such children will not be affected by the ideology of their parents.

I bet a man who considers himself exclusievly homosexual could stil impregnate a woman, given enough coaxing and stimulation, drugs etc (sounds like a party) id be surpised if he couldnt maintain an erection to orgasm esp. with a very attractive woman(I am NOT suggesting that gay men can be made straight, its just that men seem very sexually charged and for known evolutionary reasons). Maybe im wrong but remember supposedly straight men will have homosexual encounters in differing situations, im guessing men more than women are more open to sex generally, with who ever.

200. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163322 by phasmagigas on April 18, 2008 at 7:42 am

Homosexuality does not prohibit mating with the opposite sex, just biases against choosing to do so.

If the genetic contributor in males also causes increased fertility in female offspring then there's a long term cancelling effect.

It would then become a trade off between decreased chance of replication in male generations versus an increased chance of replication in subsequent female ones.

its an interesting hypothesis or sure, as homosexuality (bisexuality?) seem to be goverened in part by the maternal hormonal conditions??????? and this is determined genetically and influences the mothers own fertility and that of her offspring subsequently.

its amazing that if the connection were true then homosexuality is merely a collateral condition as such, quite amazing, enough of that burn in hell choice nonsense. if true iit would be interesting to see if the most fertile women CAUSE homosexuality.

I must admit its an iteresting thing in its own right how members of one sex supposedly primed to be attracted to he opposite sex do not in the case of homosexuals, and indeed in talking to gay men they seem to be even more 'into' other men than are women, but thats probably just men generally. its almost fetishistic, where the guy will focus very heavily on a particular body trait, im not sure women do that, well not overtly anyway.