February 4, 2007

The Atheist Jew Does The Blasphemy Challenge


I only did one take. I didn't want to get addicted to pepper. It wouldn't be an expensive habit, but I can't see it being that healthy.

In case you've never heard about it. The Rational Responders put on The Blasphemy Challenge a little while ago. They've had over 800 video responses so far.

Part of the promotion is a giveaway of a DVD of Brian Flemming's The God Who Wasn't There.

Brian Flemming gets attacked on Fox's The Heartland:

Who was the angry one? The Christian host or the Atheist guest? Did this Fox talking head realize that most of those who have participated are Atheists already. How is doing this challenge preventing anyone from believing in God? It will hopefully make teenagers and even young adults and maybe even older adults take a step back and ask a few questions, maybe many questions.
45% of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that evolution is bull crap. It is about time that questions are asked. Religion is a form of mental torchure, and it promotes ignorance which turns into wilful ignorance.

Here is the Night Line piece of the Rational Response Squad:



Here is an example of wilful ignorance amongst Jews, check out the comment thread here about evolution. The regulars over at Mad Zionist's blog are a bunch of imbeciles. I just shudder to think of these people using their "logic" and "tactics" on their children. Most Jews are smarter than these dolts. Thank science.

Speaking of Jews. I had an email request to link a survey. I started doing it but didn't finish because most of the answers take for granted that the respondent believes in God, at least a little. The survey is here at JewishSurveys.org

154 comments:

  1. Nice Blasphemy Challenge video. I like the choice of music

    ReplyDelete
  2. That may just be the most informative blasphemy challenge video I have ever seen.

    John Kasich sits in for O'Reilly too once and awhile. In my opinion he is way too combative, and Flemming came off much better in my opinion. On the other hand, even though O'Reilly can be the same way, for some reason I find him much more tolerable and even entertaining.

    And I didn't think the rational responders looked too good in their interview with Nightline...but some of that could have been due to editing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why? Oh, why? Did you decide to do the blapshemy challene? You of all people. Do you know who the Rational Response Squad really are?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very good BEAJ, LMAO. You sure you learned that move w/the dollar bill off a movie? Looked pretty professional to me (kiddin').
    That's a good point, BTW: will Flemming parse out an equivalent for Muslims & Jews too? (Probably not the former - it'd probably be fatwas all round).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, & I see St. Frances the talking mule is back, BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't do videos, but this has been kicking around in my mind for a couple of days, and guarantees me a non-refundable ticket to Hell:

    "And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him." (John 1:32)

    "Maybe that's why we always wear our hats!" (Fiddler on the Roof)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Frank said: Why? Oh, why? Did you decide to do the blapshemy challene? You of all people. Do you know who the Rational Response Squad really are?

    I think that what Frank and other Christians seem to misunderstand is that the Blasphemy Challenge isn't about the Rational Responder Squad. What it is, is an opportunity for people who do not believe in the Christian god to express themselves. And we have every right. Christians have for centuries had the luxury that atheists usually kept silent, while they (Christians) inundated the our species with their "ideas" about the universe based on one book.

    Christians who are concerned with damaging public relations between their philosophy, and the general public should look elsewhere than atheists. A good place to start would be Christians, like Ted Haggard, "Rev" AL Sharpton, Mark Foley, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, Kent Hovind, Benny Hinn, Paul and Jan Crouch, Robert Tilton, Peter Popoff, I could go on and on.

    Or in the words of the Bible:

    "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also"

    And you, Frank, and others of your ilk definitely need to clean up your act.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One more addition. Austin Cline has written a terrific column that illustrates my earlier post.

    Austin Cline, Christians have already lost

    "Atheists today aren't sticking to the scripts or roles so graciously assigned to them by religious authorities. We aren't limiting themselves to the tired old expectations which religious believers have of atheists: that we'll simply go along to get along, that we'll refrain from pointing out what seems obvious to us in order to avoid giving offense, and that we'll "respect" religion, religious beliefs, and theism simply because they are common or traditional. Atheists are refusing to privilege religion generally or Christianity in particular, applying the same methods of criticism and skepticism which everyone applies to most beliefs they don't already agree with.

    Christian critics of atheism consider this forthrightness a sign of "panic," but in reality it's a sign that we're just not interested in having our roles dictated to us by them and their insecurities. We're going to be direct, critical, and unapologetic — even if that sounds rude to people who have become far too comfortable with and accustomed to their stations of privilege or rank. If anyone is "panicked," or merely just getting worried, it's the religious theists who are suddenly faced with strong criticisms which their religious leaders have not prepared them to address, much less rebut."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pig eater,

    You keep calling me a JEW. Is that supposed to make my arguments better or worse??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You bigoted ignorant rube, are you also a self hater?? Embarrased that your race is still part of the most powerful religious movement on earth? Ashamed that some MORONS accuse Jews of Killing Jesus?? Freudian Slip??

    Sorry, as much as I respect SOME Jews, I am not now, nor have I ever been Jewish. I can't swear that I don't have a Jew in the wood pile, but, I was definitely raised RED NECK if anything!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kuhn, I didn't realize you were just an ignorant Christian Fundy. My mistake. I knew there couldn't be that many idiotic Jews on MZ's board.
    Jews are generally smarter than imbeciles like you.

    Jews are not a race. Ethnicity, yes. Religion, yes. But not a race.

    It bothers me that people still think Jews killed the mythological Jesus...


    I thought you were a Fundy Jew. My mistake. I make them, and I have no problem admitting I'm wrong...which is rare, but it happens.

    I am right that you are wilfully ignorant though.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Pig eater, what do you know of science?? You still think theories and postulates are FACTS!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Your childish videos and pronouncements are behind the times. Even taking into account the POSSIBILITY that independent, multiple, systems could possibly evolve starting off as something else, the problem still goes back to the FACT that every time Scientists make a new discovery of FACT about biology, the COMPLEXITY of the entire organism INCREASES. 100 years after Darwins theory took the LEFTARD world by storm, it was questionable whether there was TIME in the EVOLUTION of the EARTH for the level of complexity they understood for that many MUTATIONS to have created current LIFE!!!

    Now, with our understanding extended much further in the COMPLEXITY of the systems in all upper animals, the theory is looking for new mechanisms to explain the development.

    When I mentioned the Cambrian period, you should have come back with the statement that the LIFE left from the previous die off or kill off had a GENETIC TOOL KIT to give it a leg up on developing into the practically empty biosphere.

    Of course, if that is true, I have to ask you what NEW mechanism has STOPPED the continuing development during the LAST 5-10MILLION YEARS?!?!?!?!

    Why didn't this theory put all kinds of new animals and changes to current animals into the biosphere as we left the last ice age??

    Where is the explosion?? Was there something MAGIC about the Cambrian?? Unfortunately for you and your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS serious scientists have no real THEORY about what happened then or now!!!

    They have a lot of IDEAS and POSSIBILITIES, but, no testable THEORIES that you claim to depend upon!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are behind the times. Every stupid conclusion you just made has been answered already 100's of times over.
    I doubt you are interested in the answers. Tell me you are and I will answer them one by one.

    You obviously don't have a clue about evolution or common ancestry outside of Fundie sites.

    You refuse to even attempt to understand science. It is apparent.

    Are you calling the Miller video juvenile? I'll bet you didn't watch it.

    How come there is not one piece of scientific evidence or scientific study that refutes evolution?

    You take any of the many Fundy bs questions you asked, and show me the science behind it.

    You can't. That is why you are a wilful ignoramous.

    The answers to all your questions have been answered and are available with quick Google searches btw. If you are interested in the truth, you'll go to secular sites.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bacon, you need to stick to audio. BTW, you seemed very nervous - I guess even the Bacon eater has a shred of doubt buried deep someplace under those jowels!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm highstrung. Always have been. Nothing to do with the fact that I'm 100% God is a man made concept and doesn't exist.
    I was especially nervous because it was the first time filming myself with my new camera and it was unscripted and I didn't want to do another take and snort some more pepper.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I like hearing Spirit In The Sky in the backghround.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bacon, first you were an atheist and now you claim to be 100% God? Dude, you should at least believe in yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. MZ, I don't claim to be non existant.
    Not yet. Give me time.

    Mike, I figure it was appropriate because Norman Greenbaum is a Jew.
    I was trying to decide between Spirit or Dust in the Wind.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I still say the video would have been way better (and more blasphemous) if you'd snorted that line of pepper off of the surgically-enchanced bosom of a stripper. :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. kuhnkat:
    Hey, that's a good picture of you. I didn't know they gave out a trophy for Fleeing Reality at the Special Olympics.

    ReplyDelete
  20. kuhnkat:

    After reading your profile and the properties on your photo [http://pix2.hotornot.com/pics/HR/HQ/HE/KE/BQAQAYBHCRVK.JPG]you must be a SF "hoto".

    ReplyDelete
  21. Leviticus 18:22

    is for kuhnkat:

    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I wasn't going to comment on this, but since so many other people have, I may as well add my two cents.
    As outlined by the Rational Response Squad (link provided above) denying the Holy Spirit is not the unforgivable sin. Attributing the works of the Holy Spirit either to Satan or a demon is.
    I have to say, the Blasphemy Challenge doesn't make any sense to me. If you don't believe in the existence of God or the Holy Spirit, why would you go out of your way to "blaspheme?" Even the idea of being able to blaspheme something which isn't supposed to exist doesn't make any sense. Why insult something that is non-existent?
    Also, why go out of your way to insult the Christian God? Why not insult Allah, Shiva or the Mother Goddess?
    Allison Browne, random quotes that you think are from the Bible do not help your cause if you cannot provide either a Scriptural reference or the context in which the quote was made. You, like MANY, demonstrate that you do not know what the sin of the Pharisees was. The sin of the Pharisees was *NOT* that they judged others. Tons of people think this, including some Christians who are flaky and can't be bothered to read the Bible for themselves. The sin of the Pharisees was that they held the public to a higher standard than they held themselves. They committed the same sins they told others not to. They believed themselves to be the people of God looking for the Messiah but when the Messiah actually showed up, they plotted to kill Him (oh by the way, murder was still against the Law). They had created an extra set of rules that sometimes contradicted the Laws God had actually laid down. If you need proof, read the book of John. John does an excellent job of laying out exactly what the problems of the Pharisees were.

    ReplyDelete
  23. With regards to your clip, you state that the Exodus didn't happen and that Jesus, as a person, didn't exist. In light of this, I have to ask how much history have you studied?
    There are loads of people who deny the supernatural events surrounding the Exodus (ie: the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea) or who deny the Divinity of Christ. However, to deny them as historical facts is almost impossible to do. There is lots of archeological evidence for both. The Bible has more supporting archeological evidence than any other historical document on earth. How do you support your belief that these things are entirely myth, without any basis in reality at all?
    You also make a bizarre statement about Christians inventing Christ and making up stories about the Jews to get on side with the Romans. This is almost a totally unsupportable opinion, unless you can point me to a history book that shows otherwise. The first Christians were Jews. In fact, the term "Christian" did not come around till well after all the apostles were dead. For a long time it was viewed as a sect of Judaism. Furthermore, the Romans viewed them as a cult and thought they were dangerous (communion was actually believed to be a cannibalistic ritual). The Roman Empire did not become "Christian" per se until well into the time of Constantine (and it's a matter of opinion as to whether that empire was truly Christian or not). Not long after that (for unrelated reasons) the Roman Empire crumbled and became the Byzantine Empire and then morphed into the Holy Roman Empire which also no longer exists in its original format. What remains is currently known as the Roman Catholic Church.

    ReplyDelete
  24. snorted that line of pepper off of the surgically-enchanced bosom of a stripper.

    Hear, hear!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nice video. No critiques here, Allison Browne gets it-it isn 't about who ran this campaign or even about blasphemy. It's about non-believers being able to express themselves openly in a public forum. Screw fundies.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ruth:
    With regards to your clip, you state that the Exodus didn't happen and that Jesus, as a person, didn't exist. In light of this, I have to ask how much history have you studied?
    I've done a LOT of studying. There is NO archaeological evidence for either jay-sus or the Exodus.
    Closest anyone's got to Jews even BEING in Egypt are the Hyksos, who ran the place for a century, & then were forcibly evicted.
    & there's a distinct LACK of evidence in re: JC.
    You should really ask for proof 1st, before you start accusing the claimant of being uninformed.
    BEAJ's not alone, nor are any of these 'fringe theories'.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ruth is saying there are extra-biblical accounts of the plagues?
    Sounds like she's been listening to too much Kent Hovind.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hey Allison! it seems they've fixed Ted Haggard! he's not attracted to the cock any longer!
    And I'll bet Mrs. Haggard is as proud of Ted as a schoolgirl winning the easter pageant.
    And it only took three weeks!
    Isn't Jesus great!

    Haggard is all better!(CNN) Praise Jesus!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ruth, I used to assume Jesus existed and the Exodus occurred up until fairly recently. I just never looked into from a secular standpoint.
    The bible was written way after "the fact" There is no way you can even consider it historical. I put it on the same playing field now as James Frey's novel. Except James Frey's novel is more real.
    I have quite a few sites on my sidebar under "Jesus Never Existed" if you are interested in seeing my point of view.
    Here is a good article for starters on history and the bible.
    I've written many posts on why I've concluded Jesus never existed or why the Exodus never happened.

    Before you start mentioning Josephus, I am not denying Christianity sprung up by the time of Josephus, and the people following actually believed in Jesus, however, I am pretty sure Paul made the whole thing up, or someone like Paul. Between 0-40AD there was not one word written about Jesus, or even an archaeologcal artifact to confirm his existence...nothing....and I think there should be lots....there is lots of "evidence" he existed around 200-250 AD....but that doesn't count.

    Israeli archaeologists can't prove the Exodus. The best they can do is agree that around the mid 1500's BC the Hyksos dispersed from Egypt. Some of the Hyksos could have been early Jews.
    And there is no historical evidence that Judaism existed prior to 800 BC, and most like 650 BC. In fact Judaism may not have been formalized until around 300 BC.

    I know what you've assumed, but if you do a secular investigation and throw your faith to the side while doing it....you'll come to the same conclusions as me.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I have taken secular courses. It's not a good idea to assume I am approaching this from strictly a religious viewpoint (although I am a very religious person).
    It would be more accurate to say that the Bible was "put together" way after the fact, as opposed to "written." The process of putting the Bible together was by no means simple (hence the existence of the Apocrypha, the Gnostic Gospels and others).
    The four Gospels themselves were written between 80-90AD. I agree, this is after Jesus lived. However, given the enormous amount of division about who He was, there is no reason to assume anything would be written during the time of His life. Also, there is ongoing research involving the Church of The Holy Sepulchre, so I would dispute your claim that there is no evidence of Christ's existence. The Church is built on what is believed to be the tomb of Christ. It certainly rests on first century tombs, of that there can be no doubt. The key is to prove conclusively that one belonged to Christ. My suspicion is that this will be difficult since you will never find DNA evidence.
    You would have a hard time proving that Paul made everything up. Although he is responsible for most of the NT, he certainly is not responsible for all of it.
    By your own admission regarding the dispersion, the Exodus also cannot be disproven.
    Do you have any opinions on the Dead Sea Scrolls? I would be interested in hearing them.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ruth is saying there are extra-biblical accounts of the plagues?
    Nope.
    In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that I will not try and prove scientifically any miracle in the Bible at all. It can't be done. That's why we call them miracles.
    However, the Bible does contain historical fact. To simply discount all events as being mythological is a pretty untenable position. What are you going to argue? That Babylon never invaded? That the the Medes/Persians and then the Greeks never invaded? That there was no Diaspora?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ruth. You are speculating about the bible being written that early. I'm just saying that Paul got the whole thing going by taking a bunch of myths that were out there, having a dream, a making up a then believable story.
    We can argue all day, but the bible is not a historical document....it is a story from around that time, but no different than a Dr. Seuss novel.
    Read the Bidstrup article I linked for you and pretend you don't have an opinion about God or Jesus, if possible.
    On the Dead Sea Scrolls, since they relate to the OT and the longest dating goes back to 2nd Century BC, they are way after the fact.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Poor Ruth hasn't a clue. Seems she's good at pumping out kids though. Praise the l-d.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anon, personal insults from an Anon source won't be tolerated here anymore.
    Ruth is intelligent, just blinded by faith. If you are told by everyone else around you, your entire life, that the bible has loads of proof to back it up, there is a good chance you won't investigate it further.
    I know there is nothing that Ruth or anyone else today can show me that will constitute proof of the Exodus or a historical Jesus.
    I'm not saying it is impossible. Maybe there was someone very Jesus like who roamed the earth around 33 AD, but there is no contemporary evidence today to back it up. The Exodus seems like a real big longshot, and the more I think about it, the more it is approaching Noah's Ark believability.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anon, personal insults from an Anon source won't be tolerated here anymore.

    Good for you, BEAJ! Ruth has the guts to come into this forum and make a good faith argument for what she believes -- without condescension or anger -- and the last thing she deserves is Anonymous snarking.

    I tend not to agree with Ruth's side of this debate, but NOTHING she said deserves obnoxious bullshit like what Anon dumped into the comments thread. Man, that shit pisses me off.

    I sincerely hope Ruth isn't discouraged by that nonsense. I was enjoying the debate!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Between 0-40AD there was not one word written about Jesus, or even an archaeologcal artifact to confirm his existence...nothing....and I think there should be lots....

    Jesus was crucified in 33 AD.

    ReplyDelete
  37. ruth:
    However, the Bible does contain historical fact. To simply discount all events as being mythological is a pretty untenable position.
    It contains a little historical fact, here & there. However, in observation of most history, there needs to be more external multiple attestations. There are very few, which allude to the existence of xtianity, not to its founder. There is a distinct silence from Philo Judeaus as well as approx. 40 Roman historians in that specific timeline.
    There is also the issue that the Romans of that time severely punished tomb robbers: the report of an 'empty tomb' would've brought the Romans running, regardless of whose tomb it was.
    Not a peep. De nada.
    The Romans were extremely strict about many things: JC should've been arrested for his temper tantrum in the temple.
    Nobody can find said empty tomb, either, which is mysterious, since time immemorial, people have sacred places they visit on pilgrimages regularly: this was supposed to be the Big One - where is it?
    That the the Medes/Persians and then the Greeks never invaded?
    Interesting you bring that up, since the book of Daniel completely fabricated Darius the Mede.
    The Greeks? You mean the Macedonians, don't you?
    Anyways, it's pretty clear that Daniel was written 2nd CE, not the 10th, as tradition has it, since the author (pseudepigrapha) got so many, many details wrong.
    & not 1 prophecy was fulfilled in the bible. Not a 1.

    ReplyDelete
  38. ...fabricated Darius the Mede...
    Um... Okaaaay. This is hands down the dumbest and most historically ignorant comment made so far. I swore I wouldn't resort to ad hominem, but if you honestly think Darius is a fabrication then maybe you need to go back to school and take an Ancient History course.
    Or pick up a history book.
    The Greeks? You mean the Macedonians, don't you?
    Do you understand how Greek society worked at the time? The Macedonian state began roughly around 7th century BC (or BCE, whatever), but was not unified until about 380-ish BC. Under Philip II, the Macedonians dominated Greece, and were (strictly speaking) viewed as Greeks (Hence Plutarch's inclusion of Alexander in his Parallel Lives). However, it would appear that other Greeks (Athenians in particular) did look down on them as "lesser."
    I just wanted to make two comments. Regarding the assertion that the Hyskos were the ancient Israelites, this is a matter of significant debate among scholars. They appear to have been pretty much destroyed by 1500BC after many years of war with the Egyptians. It is more likely that the Hyksos are a different group of people altogether.
    I also wanted to ask you BEAJ why you mention a date of 200-250AD. Josephus lived between 37-104(ish) AD, so I wasn't quite sure what you were referring to.
    Before I go, with regards to the statement that "not one prophecy was fulfilled in the Bible," this is one of those things that would be a matter of religious opinion. It's sort of obvious that Christians and Jews differ on opinion as to whether or not Jesus fits any of the Messianic prophecies. Other prophecies, such as those involving the captivity of Israel by Babylon (and others) could also be a matter of interpretation. I mean, I could line up the events of history for you and show you how they match various prophecies, but I can't convince you that these events are what those prophecies are referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading what you had to say on MZ's board. Keep up the good work and good science.

    All the best,

    Red Tulips

    ReplyDelete
  40. Ruth, I brought up Josephus, because the first proof any theist comes up with about Jesus in his wrtiings. They were done at around 80 AD, and just an observation that Christians existed and they believed Paul's story.

    That said, the actual bible may have been started around this time,but there is very little evidence that the Gospels actually were written until 150 to 250 years after "the fact."

    Beamish, some say 37 AD. The bottom line is there is no proof this happened at all as everything written about Jesus didn't come along until many years "after the fact."

    Tulips, I'm done with MZ and his band of wilful idiots. There is no such thing as intelligent debate with those morons.

    But I guarantee I made an impact with a few of them though they will not admit it yet. Quoting Sam Harris (see sidebar):

    "You almost never get the pleasure of seeing that you won the argument in real time. People just don't like to publicly change their minds. They change their minds in private."

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ruth:

    You know not of what you speak.

    ReplyDelete
  42. DARIUS BACON


    http://www.accesscom.com/~darius/

    ReplyDelete
  43. ruth:
    Um... Okaaaay. This is hands down the dumbest and most historically ignorant comment made so far. I swore I wouldn't resort to ad hominem, but if you honestly think Darius is a fabrication then maybe you need to go back to school and take an Ancient History course.
    No, I don't really:
    "Darius the Mede, in the Bible, a king of the Medes who succeeded to the throne of Babylonia after Belshazzar. Otherwise unknown outside biblical tradition, it is likely that this Darius has been confused with Cyrus the Persian, who succeeded Belshazzar and decreed (539 B.C.) the return of exiled Jews. He is also mentioned by Herodotus and Josephus."
    http://www.answers.com/topic/darius-the-mede
    So lessee: no multiple external attestations on the same timeline, no archaeological evidence that points to anyone named Darius (I'm not buying the 'confusion' crap - that's an excuse), book of Daniel was wrong on so many points on the timeline it's ALLEGED to have been written at - I say it's fabricated.
    Are you going to get indignant every time someone says the bible lied about something? Because if you are - I'd suggest you go back to school & take a critical thinking course, that is, if they offer them at all.
    I mean, I could line up the events of history for you and show you how they match various prophecies, but I can't convince you that these events are what those prophecies are referring to.
    There's some major problems w/that approach. 1st off, I could (hypothetically) juggle out-of-context passages & show that the bible predicted JFK's assassination, Hitler's rise to power, etc. I've gone rounds on this in the past: more often than not, these alleged 'prophecies' are lifted from key passages, but when said passages are read in their proper context, it's glaringly obvious that that's not what they mean. It's called cherry-picking.
    I understand the concept of thinking symbolically, & while the concept of some invisible deity scattering scraps of clues over the ages is enticing, it's also fairly silly, some cosmic Hardy Boys mystery done in allegory.
    I realize that common consensus is that the bible is considered a historical work, but that's (slowly) being chipped away. The more that is investigated, the less proof is found.
    & before you protest: I realize that history is primarily guesswork based on indirect circumstantial evidence, but the approach over the centuries is a presupposition. It's presupposed that the bible is correct first, and THEN people look for evidence. But when no evidence arises?
    There's a distinct confirmation bias for most historians. Reinforced by centuries of presupposition. Only in the last few centuries has anyone been ALLOWED to question it's veracity.
    Regarding the assertion that the Hyskos were the ancient Israelites, this is a matter of significant debate among scholars.
    Well then, Josephus is the earliest source on this, isn't he?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Actually, Bacon, if you have "faith" that people will find the infintile rantings you left on my board convincing and pursuasive you really must believe in the supernatural, because there is no other way on earth anybody objective could look at your crude, childish comments and be compelled to convert to your religion.

    Sorry, you tried but found yourself overmatched by others who had better logic and better facts. I'm not an anti-evolutionist, so I can tell you from an honest, objective perspective that you did not fair well in the debate at all. Perhaps that's why you could only sling angry insults while dodging questions you couldn't answer?

    Look, I don't care either way if you decided to pick up your toys and go home crying, but usually that's not the side who can rightfully say they won.

    Actually, Bacon, to believe you won anybody over in that debate is as much of a myth as believing in the tooth fairy. God willing, you will recover and do a better job at representing atheism next time, as your fellow believers surely must be embarassed by the inept manner in which you represented their religion on my blog.

    All the best,
    -MZ

    ReplyDelete
  45. Actually, Bacon, if you have "faith" that people will find the infintile rantings you left on my board convincing and pursuasive you really must believe in the supernatural, because there is no other way on earth anybody objective could look at your crude, childish comments and be compelled to convert to your religion.
    **************************
    Anyone on your board, lurker or regular, who examined my answers and went to the links provided will most probably be enlightened.
    Childish rants or whatever you call them were due to "when in Rome..."
    Your regulars are wilful retards. That is a fact. You don't like to hear it, because you attracted them.

    Sorry, you tried but found yourself overmatched by others who had better logic and better facts. I'm not an anti-evolutionist, so I can tell you from an honest, objective perspective that you did not fair well in the debate at all. Perhaps that's why you could only sling angry insults while dodging questions you couldn't answer?
    ***************************
    What questions didn't I answer? I saw the games being played. I was asked about eye evolution. Provided links. Then NOBODY acknowledged them. Instead they flipped the page and asked about rose thorns. Typical Fundy bullshit. If I want to be surrounded by imbeciles, I can go to a Christian Fundy board. The only difference between that and your board is quantity. I believe you are lying when you say you are not an anti-evolutionist. You can't be if you were patting Kuhn, Omin and the rest of the numbskulls backs for their retarded answers.
    You don't believe that man evolved from something other than man.

    Look, I don't care either way if you decided to pick up your toys and go home crying, but usually that's not the side who can rightfully say they won.
    *********************
    I know I've won. And I received a couple of congrats already. I'm not crying. I just decided debating your regulars is like debating 8 year olds about science.

    Actually, Bacon, to believe you won anybody over in that debate is as much of a myth as believing in the tooth fairy. God willing, you will recover and do a better job at representing atheism next time, as your fellow believers surely must be embarassed by the inept manner in which you represented their religion on my blog.
    *******************************
    Atheism isn't a religion, you dimwit. And good luck thinking God is more real than the tooth fairy. You are living a life of delusion.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Bacon, you can't honestly believe that you did well. You were indeed challenged very seriously by Omin and Beamish, but rather than directly address the points like they did, you just countered with a "link" from one of your atheist approved sites and then tossed in more insults.

    I don't care that you are atheist, I just feel bad that you stunk at giving intellectual responses in the debate before making an ass out of yourself by crying all the way home to your blog.

    Hope you enjoyed those high fives you received from your inner-circle; kind of like patting the kicker on the back after he missed a field goal and lost the game. Anyway, Gert is doing a much better job of presenting an opposing view, so if I were you I'd read his comments and learn something.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I answered with links from real science sites. ATheist approved? You are an imbecile. Your post about reasons to support Israel proved that to me. You are in your own little delusional world.

    I didn't feel challenged at all by your fellow retards. I feel more challenge from my 11 year old nephew. Omin and Beamish aren't interested in the answers. They made it clear.

    Gert will get fed up too. He is smarter than you and your flunkies put together. He is like a scientist talking to a bunch of Downs children.


    I'm not interested in watching him slaughter your flock. Been there, done that.

    I'm seriously not going to your retarded Fundy site again. It is too mind numbing.

    Oh yeah Mr. Not an Anti-evolutionist, did man evolve from a species other than man? And what questions didn't I answer?

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm seriously not going to your retarded Fundy site again. It is too mind numbing.

    Clearly you are really going to teach us a lesson by refusing to go to my site. LOL! What's next, you'll show us how dumb we are by holding your breath 'til you turn blue?

    Oy...

    Regarding your avoiding questions, let's start with the first one Beamish posed.

    Can you prove that you, or anybody else, is really an atheist?

    Now, don't give me any because you SAY you are so we should believe you crap. Can you really PROVE you are an atheist? I say there aren't any, so I am an AAtheist.

    For that matter, can you prove that you don't believe in the tooth fairy?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Mad Dog Zionist:
    Sorry, you tried but found yourself overmatched by others who had better logic and better facts. I'm not an anti-evolutionist, so I can tell you from an honest, objective perspective that you did not fair well in the debate at all. Perhaps that's why you could only sling angry insults while dodging questions you couldn't answer?
    Ummm, no.
    Mostly it was Kuhnkat (who's obviously a mental midget, because he can't understand what the word 'theory' actually means in the scientific sense), & Onan/Onin, who's about as sharp as a marble (there's 100% emperacle proof, his typo, not mine, that a creator exists) who makes a whole bunch of goofs (eye evolution? That's been debunked a million times, as a squid's eye is better evolved than our own).
    If there's emperacle (hehehehe) evidence, 100% in fact, than how on earth did ID get the shit kicked out of it in Dover?

    Atheism isn't a religion. So knock it off w/the Tu quoque crap. It's infantile to the nth degree.

    & your claim that you're 'not an anti-evolutionist' lie is easily exposed by prior comments (on this blog no less!) where you accused people of having 'evolution as a religion' & 'worshiping Darwin'.

    Unless of course, you're 'recanting' your previous stance?

    ReplyDelete
  50. mad dog zionist:
    Can you prove that you, or anybody else, is really an atheist?
    What constitutes proof, in your book? I mean, outside of your infantile need to project your behavior onto others?
    You won't accept the spoken or written statement.
    Unless you got an A+ in Telepathy 101, your weak invocation of Agrippa's trilemma has no legs to stand on.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'll play this game. You first need to define Atheist for me. I promise to answer once you do.

    can you prove that you don't believe in the tooth fairy?
    ********************
    Either take my word for it, or give me a lie detector test. I'll pass each time with flying colors.

    Also, there is no evidence that a tooth fairy ever existed and in fact, many parents have gone on record admitting they were trying to pull a fast one on their kids. There hasn't been a recorded case that I know, where the money that turned up under anyones pillow came from a supernatural being.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Atheists are those that believe that they can live their lives exactly as the please without regard to religious or moral doctrine. May they all go the way of Madeline Murray O'Hare.

    ReplyDelete
  53. anonymous:
    Atheists are those that believe that they can live their lives exactly as the please without regard to religious or moral doctrine.
    Tell me: why DO you need an invisible deity to micro-manage your deeds?
    & here's the other question:
    Who makes the news more - atheists or theists? Oh, goodness: we're not out raping & pillaging & killing? Why not?
    Note that secular countries seem to have a higher degree of morality than religious ones. Hmmm...wonder why that is?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous said...

    Atheists are those that believe that they can live their lives exactly as the please without regard to religious or moral doctrine. May they all go the way of Madeline Murray O'Hare.
    ******************************
    Which moral doctrine taught you that murdering someone who doesn't believe in your God is a good thing?
    I guess it could be any of the moral doctrines out there.

    ReplyDelete
  55. What constitutes proof, in your book?

    I need to see hard, scientific evidence that a person in the depths of their heart, soul and mind discounts the possible existence of God. Bogus pledges and wild proclamations mean nothing to me. Either a person can provide real evidence of atheism based on scientific data and research or else it is just a crock like the tooth fairy and frosty the snowman.

    To believe anyone accepts atheism is one of the biggest lies that has ever been forced upon society.

    Atheists, sorcerers, palm readers, astrologists, yada, yada, yada... all just a crock. No such animals.

    Nobody has ever been proven to be an atheist anymore than anyone has been proven to be abducted by aliens.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Note that secular countries seem to have a higher degree of morality than religious ones. Hmmm...wonder why that is?

    Actually, Tibet and Nepal aren't too violent from what I understand, and they are just a tad religious.

    Islam is the reason all the other religious countries are violent, BTW, you dolt. A terrorist organization more than a religion, granted, but they are the violent ones.

    BTW, so-called atheist countries have historically been the MOST violent.

    The most "religious" non-islamic western country is the USA. Think we are the big terrorists, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  57. To believe anyone accepts atheism is one of the biggest lies that has ever been forced upon society.
    ****************
    What is an Atheist again? How many times do I have to ask you? You failed to define it. Other than that, your first new post qualifies you as a troll.

    BTW, so-called atheist countries have historically been the MOST violent.
    *************************
    I thought you can't be an Atheist?
    Are you talking about Hitler who was a bad Catholic, or Islam? or the Spaniards in the 1400's.
    Sweden and Denmark have the largest percent of Atheists in Europe. Poland has the least. Just thought you should learn a thing or two if you want to continue trolling.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Bacon, there was once a nation long, long ago, way back in time, known as the Soviet Union. That nation claimed to be atheist, although thinking people understand that there is no such thing as a true atheist.

    Anyway, this bastard nation of atheist wannabes killed over 20 million people in the name of a religion to which nobody actually subscribes: atheism.

    What is an atheist you ask? Well, it's pretty funny that someone claiming to be one can't himself define what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  59. MZ, you are quickly approaching troll status.

    You claim that there is no such thing as an Atheist. I am simply asking you to define Atheist. Is that too hard for you? My contention is that your definition is not even close to a proper definition. Are you going to keep deflecting, or are you going to answer the question.

    I'm not even going to humor myself torching you about the Soviet Union until you answer what an Atheist is. My definition is on the top of my blog. I want your definition in your own retarded words.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Bacon, you are quickly losing your ass in this argument.

    You want a definition of atheism that you can somehow pick apart the semanitics of? Well, ok, here you go:

    Atheist: 1. a fictional, mythological character who claims to completely and devoutly believe that God does not and cannot exist.
    2. a confused, deluded lemming who blindly spews false propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Mad Zionist Troll Shit
    1. fictional mythological characters don't exist, so you are right, your definition of atheist doesn't exist.

    2. By lemming you must be talking about someone who was taught religion at an early age, and continues to buy into the bullshit throughout his or her life.

    Muslims make up definitions and declare victories when they get their ass kicked. You are no different.

    You state Atheists don't exist. I'm asking for YOUR definition of Atheist. Or you can be an Islamist and make shit up. Your choice.

    Keep this little game up and you will join Rickey on my banned troll list. You are making a complete monkey out of yourself here. And I hate when Jews make Jews look bad. You are doing a grand job of it. Trollshit.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I gave you your definition, myth man. Whatever you want to make of it I don't really care, as you are willing to claim just about anything without showing evidence. You really need help.

    Prove you are an atheist or zip it, Fester. And Remember, give me scientific evidence and not your worthless vows or bogus pledges.

    ReplyDelete
  63. It would seem someone with such fervent areligious claims would not want to live in countries founded on Christian principles, but would be more comfortable in a secular one. Sorta like the jews love for *their* shitty little *country*, but not moving there.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Troll, I am all for reasonable debate. It is apparent that you just want juvenile banter.

    I'm not the one who needs help. There are many definitions of Atheist. You provided two that are not even close to any definition of Atheist.

    You are making up definitions, so you might as well make up answers too. It is meaningless and childish.

    I can prove an Atheist by my definition exists.

    I can only give scientific evidence that would be acceptable with a lie detector test or something that measures brain waves and impulses that prove I'm lying or telling the truth.

    Just like the only way to prove you really believe in God is to hook something up to your childish brain.

    I am an Atheist. I exist. There is no evidence that there is anything supernatural. God is nothing but a man made concept like the tooth fairy.

    Do animals believe in God? Would a child raised by wolves believe in God?

    God is a concept taught by those who need a crutch to try to give their life some kind of meaning and hope for an afterlife. It is all bullshit. You are living a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I can play retarded Mad Zionist too.

    There is no such thing as a theist.

    Prove scientifically that you believe in God.

    What a disgrace MZ is to Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Atheism is the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities.[2] It is commonly defined as the positive assertion that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism.[3][4][5] However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[6][7][8] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.[9][10] In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).[11][12][13]

    Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Other rationales for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Additionally, although atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, naturalism, rationalism and materialism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[14][15]

    Many atheists feel that religious believers indulge in self-delusion and superstition. This often results from parental and religious indoctrination that begins during a child's earliest years, well before a child has the capability to think critically and independently regarding his or her belief system.

    In Western culture, atheists are considered to be irreligious or non-spiritual[16]. Some religious and spiritual beliefs, such as several forms of Buddhism, have been described by outside observers as conforming to the broader, negative definition of atheism due to their lack of any participating deities.[17][18] Atheism is also sometimes equated with antitheism (opposition to theism) or antireligion (opposition to religion), despite not all atheists holding such views.[19]

    ReplyDelete
  67. You first need to define Atheist for me. I promise to answer once you do.

    Start answering, slick. I gave you what you wanted and now it's your turn.

    Prove you are and atheist, Bacon. BTW, lie detectors are not admissable in court, but after watching the video of you nervously stammering like a scared little boy I think you would fail that, too.

    You cannot prove you are an atheist because atheists don't exist. In fact, for a special bonus prove you are a flying unicorn while you're at it.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Prove scientifically that you believe in God.

    Ahhh...I was waiting for this.

    Bacon, you can't prove that I believe in God because it is intangible. You can't prove or disprove faith as it is without anything measurable or scientifically verifyable. You can only have the following options.

    1. Have faith that I believe in God
    2. Have faith that I don't believe in God
    3. Be unsure whether I believe in God or not

    Options 1 & 2 are religious as they involve matters of faith. Option 3 is agnostic. There are no other choices. Is the light starting to go on, now, Bacon?

    ReplyDelete
  69. More total bullshit from you troll.
    Again your definition of Atheist is not mine, and you are too much of an intellectual coward to give a definition.

    Here is the definition of Atheist:
    An Atheist is one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God, Gods, and other supernatural beings.
    *************************
    I deny the existence of God, therefore I'm an Atheist. I also disbelieve in the man made invention of God, as I do the Tooth Fairy.

    I'm an Atheist and I exist.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Disgraceful Jew Mad Zionist,

    you can't prove that I believe in the Tooth Fairy because it is intangible. You can't prove or disprove faith as it is without anything measurable or scientifically verifyable. You can only have the following options.

    1. Have faith that I believe in the Tooth Fairy
    2. Have faith that I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy
    3. Be unsure whether I believe in the Tooth Fairy or not

    Options 1 & 2 are religious as they involve matters of faith. Option 3 is agnostic. There are no other choices.

    What a retard.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I'm an Atheist and I exist.

    Yawn. What's next: "I really, really, really am an atheist? I swear?"

    You CLAIM to believe that God does not and cannot exist, but that proves nothing. People lie to impress their friends all the time.

    Like I said, prove it or admit it's a crock.

    FYI, you can't prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Bacon I am more likely to accept that you believe in the tooth fairy than I am that you are an atheist. Thanks for advancing my point, though.

    No proof still? Thought so.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Can you scientifically prove love or hate? Is love or hate faith? Do they not exist? The only way to prove them scientifically is by polygraph or brain scans. We aren't advanced enough in those fields to be conclusive yet...but we will.

    If you want to admit you are a Tooth Fairy agnostic, go ahead. You are a nutjob that belongs in a cult or a psycho ward. I think you are in a cult, so you are protected right now.

    Being an Atheist is a rational conclusion based on analysis of evidence and lack of evidence.

    It doesn't require any scientific proof unless you want to call me a liar when I say I deny the existence of God, Gods and/or supernatural being. (which makes me an Atheist)

    I would never deny that you don't believe in God if you said it. But you have already been caught as a liar when it comes to evolution.

    When I say that I don't consider the existence of God anymore, I'm not lying. If you choose to question me about it, it is your problem, not mine.

    Now make up all the Mohammadian fake definitions you make up and stick them up your Mohammadian ass.

    You are no better than a radical Islamic any hoot.

    ReplyDelete
  74. According to Mad Retard Zionists logic this is what I learned:

    Mad Zionist is an Agnostic Jew
    Mad Zionist is an Agnostic Muslim
    Mad Zionist is an Agnostic Christian
    Mad Zionist is an Agnostic when it comes to believing in the Tooth Fairy
    Mad Zionist is an Agnostic when it comes to believing there is an invisible man under his bed.

    In fact, Mad Zionist can't scientifically prove that child porn doesn't turn him on, so he is also an Agnostic pedophile.

    Actually Mad Zionist makes up definitions like Radical Muslims do.

    He states that a persons word to himself is not good enough. This is called a strawmans.

    Also because concrete scientific proof doesn't exist today when it comes to lie detection, doesn't mean it won't exist in the future, and therefore it does exist now. In other words there will be a way that when someone says the believe in Jesus and not in Mohammed, we will be able to tell for certain that the person means it, just like I do when I say I don't even consider the possibility that God exists anymore. I used to, I don't anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Mad dog zionist:
    I need to see hard, scientific evidence that a person in the depths of their heart, soul and mind discounts the possible existence of God.
    ROFLMAO! Translation: "Oh, I'll just slap together a litmus test that no 1 can provide evidence for!"
    What a rhetorical rent boy.
    Islam is the reason all the other religious countries are violent, BTW, you dolt. A terrorist organization more than a religion, granted, but they are the violent ones.
    Oh, like the Kach? The Tamil Tigers? The Army of God?
    I'd advise you do more research, since you seem to think that Islam's the root of ALL evil (standard monochromatic melodrama).
    BTW, so-called atheist countries have historically been the MOST violent.
    What, in the last TWENTY years? Gimmee a break.
    The only reason Tibet & Nepal are so peaceful, is that it's too frickin' cold.
    Now, standard definition of atheist, is 'without a belief in the supernatural'.
    anonymous provided the standard definition.
    You do realize lemmings DON'T run off of cliffs, don't you?
    Oh, my bad. You're severely undereducated, willfully ignorant, or just plain stupid.
    Or all of the above.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Can you scientifically prove love or hate? Is love or hate faith? Do they not exist?

    Precisely my point. Just as you claim to have absolute and total faith in the concept that God doesn't exist, which cannot be proven or unproven since it is outside of the realm of science, so are feelings or beliefs.

    Simialrly, God is not any more tangible than love or hate. It is this fact that makes atheism a false premise, because it claims to deny what is completely unscientific based on science and technology.

    You are at best an agnostic, and that's the case with everyone else who is an atheist.

    As for me, well, I'm going to bed now. I think as annoying as my attack here on you was it did prove my point about how obtuse it is to ask people to scientifically or technologically prove or disprove God.

    Believe in Him, admit you are not sure, or at best say you have your doubts, but don't be foolish and act like you know God doesn't exist based on any standard of human measure.

    Call me whatever you want, my job here is done.

    Regarding the whole evolution debate, I am a micro-evolutionist, I am not unqualified or able to comprehend biblical creation (neither was the Rambam), I am unsure about whether the story of Noah's ark and the flood is meant to be metaphorical or literal - and don't care either way, I do accept that the Torah is given from God to the Jewish people and includes both the written and oral law's that Jews are obligated to live by, and, finally, I do believe in God.

    I'm sure this qualifies me as a "Fundy" to you, but I have no problem with that if that's the case.

    ReplyDelete
  77. More about Mad Zionist troll.

    Mad Zionist can't prove scientifically that he doesn't like the idea of blowing Tom Cruise, or having sex with with Pam Anderson.

    This makes Mad Zionist, according to his logic, a bi sexual.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Precisely my point. Just as you claim to have absolute and total faith in the concept that God doesn't exist, which cannot be proven or unproven since it is outside of the realm of science, so are feelings or beliefs.
    **************************
    I don't have faith God doesn't exist. I have concluded that I don't need to consider his existence because there is no evidence he exists.

    Simialrly, God is not any more tangible than love or hate. It is this fact that makes atheism a false premise, because it claims to deny what is completely unscientific based on science and technology.
    ********************************
    Wrong. I have experienced love and hate, and I realize it is an emotion that exists and comes and goes sometimes. Physiologically love and hate will be proven without a doubt. The concept of God is a non existent entity just like the concept of a tooth fairy. You keep ignoring this analogy, because it makes your rant meaningless.

    You are at best an agnostic, and that's the case with everyone else who is an atheist.
    ***********************
    According to your Mohammadian definition, everyone is an Agnostic including the Pope.

    As for me, well, I'm going to bed now. I think as annoying as my attack here on you was it did prove my point about how obtuse it is to ask people to scientifically or technologically prove or disprove God.
    **************************
    Nobody is trying to scientifically or technologically prove God or the Tooth Fairy. You believe in God, it is up to you to prove his existence. If I believed that there were 5 invisible elephants in my dining room, I wouldn't expect you to believe it, but if I pressed it, I would be the one required to show evidence.

    Believe in Him, admit you are not sure, or at best say you have your doubts, but don't be foolish and act like you know God doesn't exist based on any standard of human measure.
    ****************************
    This is just a retarded statement. I've told you already, I don't have to even consider his existence as there is no proof of it. God and the tooth fairy and the invisible man under my bed are in the same category. They are fables and fiction. I'm sure of it.

    You lied when you said you are an evolutionist, because an evolutionist has to be sure of an ancient earth and has to understand that macro evolution is just a whole lot of micro evolution and you would be sure that man didn't land on earth as man.

    ReplyDelete
  79. BE"A"J,

    MZ seems to be taking the weak form of the argument, in that he does not believe in the existence of atheists, whereas I take the strong form: "atheists" do not exist.

    Yes, it's a parody of atheistic thinking, if one dare besmirch the word "thinking" in such an egregious manner.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I don't have to consider the existence of atheists. There's no proof. Even BE"A"J" has a definition of God he believes to be immeasurable.

    The BlasphemyChallenge is further proof that BE"A"J is not an atheist.

    Can an atheist blaspheme?

    ReplyDelete
  81. I don't have to consider the existence of atheists. There's no proof. Even BE"A"J" has a definition of God he believes to be immeasurable.
    *****************************
    Since an Atheist is someone without a belief in God and many people share this conclusion, and I know what I believe and there is no reason to lie to myself, I know Atheists exist. I am living proof of it regardless if an imbecile believes me or not, just as I know people believe in God, because there is no reason for so many people to lie about believing. So theists exist too.

    However, there is absolutely no proof that God exists. There is no God going around making the claim and fitting any reasonable definitions of what a God can be.


    The BlasphemyChallenge is further proof that BE"A"J is not an atheist.

    Can an atheist blaspheme?
    *******************************
    Now this shows how stupid you are. Of course an Atheist can commit an act of blasphemy by definition:

    "A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity."

    You don't need to believe in God to perform the act of blasphemy.

    Beamish, you think you are smart with your creationist science links and your retarded philosophical arguments. You are living a lie, although you will never know it, and suffer from a psychosis in your need to have a crutch and keep the self delusion going that there is an invisible man in the sky who will look after you when you croak.

    You look foolish coming here, go back to your mental midgit comrades over at MZ's Fundy board and pat each other on the back and reasure each other that God exists. You obviously would go insane without the belief.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Can you prove that you, or anybody else, is really an atheist?

    ???

    That was one bizarre debate last night. Wow. MZ is a true Fundy -- not only is he absolutely terrified of a world without a heavenly father watching over every breath, every shit, every fart, every dead squirrel, every sloppy blow job, etc, but his terror is so profound that he must vehemently deny that anyone else on earth disbelieves in his omnipotent/omniscient lord of the universe.

    It's not enough to hate atheists. He has to deny that atheists even exist! Even though he hates them. Talk about chasing chimeras.

    What's so funny to me is how he flips the relativistic, "What is proof? What is reality" question back at you, BEAJ. You say you don't believe in A, and he comes back with not only "What is A?" but also "Prove that you really don't believe in A."

    I thought only we godless monkeys played that sort of game.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Just in case anyone is wondering, Mad Zionist now joins the ranks of Bernarda and Rickey as trolls. I will now pick and choose which of his comments I will print. This inevitably will make him whine on his blog about me....a blog which I have no intention of ever visiting again.
    For all I know he and his flock of retards could be high fiving each other. I have realized the board has a pre-teen mentality, so I don't care what is said about me by these ultra-morons.
    I have tried to debate him here, and he continues to turn the page and claim he is proving something.

    The only thing he has proved to me is he is a moron who invents words and concepts like an Islamist.

    And he is not here for honest intellectual debate, it is obvious. He is incapable of it.

    I deleted his last juvenile comment.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Hey, Beamish:

    Yes, it's a parody of atheistic thinking, if one dare besmirch the word "thinking" in such an egregious manner.

    I would submit, that you wouldn't know critical thinking if it bit you on the ass.

    ReplyDelete
  85. BE"A"J,

    You're pretty cross-eyed with rage, aren't you? Calm down.

    I didn't post any links at all, to creationist sites or otherwise. You must be mistaken about me. Your mind-reading skills certainly aren't going to pay the bills if you've concluded I'm a "fundy."

    If you must know, I happen to believe that evolution theory and intelligent design theory do not necessarily have to be incompatible - both seek to answer different, orthogonally branching questions.

    I'm betting you're clueless as to what exactly those questions are. No matter.

    Your tone has been less than friendly towards me and others. If I didn't find the misplaced "intellectual" conceit of atheists to be a source of endless hours of entertainment (it's like watching Wile E. Coyote cartoons, really) I might indulge in a little reciprocal disrespect.

    But, instead, I think I'll help you understand what's so damned funny to me about you and your fellow viral video bandwidth wasters.

    "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" is not determined by a dictionary definition. It is a theological doctrine in the Christian faith. Basically it has two components - to blaspheme the Holy Spirit requires recognizing the divine and then to reject it.

    Needless to say, an "atheist" does not, and by definition can not recognize the divine in order to reject it.

    You can't blaspheme my God. You don't know Him.

    As an atheist slinging atheism in an atheism candy store, you talk about God more than most fervent Christians I know.

    Sure, you speak ignorantly on theological questions, and mock believers, but you've never blasphemed.

    You can't.

    ReplyDelete
  86. So only believers can be blasphemers? Cool. Blasphemy laws, where they still exist, cannot under those circumstances apply to atheists, agnostics, muslims, hindus, pagans, wiccans or anyone else who does not profess christianity. This is good news. ;P

    ReplyDelete
  87. Beamish, the collective stupidity and wilful ignorance found on MZ's site bothers me because I can't believe people are that stupid....it is frustrating.

    "I'm betting you're clueless as to what exactly those questions are."
    ***********************
    Enlighten me

    As far as blasphemy goes, I explained that as a Jew, my blasphemy had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, it is accordig to the definition of blasphemy in the dictionary. Now you can invent new definitions and move the goalposts, but it is an idiotic statement to say that it is "further proof I'm not an Atheist"
    Very childlike reasoning on your part.

    I recognize that I can do an act of blasphemy that is perceived as such from the eyes of a believer. When people were burnt or jailed throughout history for blasphemy, nobody asked the blasphemer if they believed in God or not. With witches, it was assumed they didn't.

    Do you feel like an idiot yet? You should.

    Beamish, you don't believe in common ancestry (which is the core of evolution theory).

    Here are some of your quotes from the Fundy board:

    I said:
    There is not one scientific study that contradicts evolution. Not one.

    You said:
    Using the same methodology used to determine if a fossilized ape skeleton is related to humans would have you drinking antifreeze someone told you it was lime flavored Kool Aid.
    What testable claim does evolution theory make?
    **************************
    After I was asked by someone to prove eye evolution. I posted a couple of links. You did the typical Fundy thing and turned the page, without even acknowledging that I gave scientific evidence of eye evolution, you decided to post this:

    "The "Atheist" Jew,
    Could you please explain the evolutionary development of rose thorns?
    What are their purpose?
    What conditions led to this adaptation?
    How did rose plants sense that large animals need to be kept from walking through them or eating them and develop thorns to deter them?
    Rose bushes are a root plant. Not grown from seeds. How did the roots of the roses that did not survive being eaten or trampled transmit information to the genetic makeup of other roots instructing them to develop thorns?
    If you think this is an impasse, wait until we talk about the evolution of seed bearing plants."

    I replied with a link to answer your question.

    I had to go back to MZ's site to copy all this, and I notice you did not seem to even try to comprehend the link, which expalains how and why plants evolve. You instead, want to imply that some magical force makes a rose have thorns....of course you can't give any scientific evidence to back up this claim, and you fail to even try to understand that rose thorn evolution can be explained completely by science.

    Oh, I just noticed this gem:
    "I wanted to ask him how dead rose bushes telepathically communicated to the roots of future rose bushes that they needed to develop thorns long before animals evolved."

    Evolution can easily explain the following (from Wikipedia):
    While the sharp objects along a rose stem are commonly called "thorns", they are actually prickles – outgrowths of the epidermis (the outer layer of tissue of the stem). True thorns, as produced by e.g. Citrus or Pyracantha, are modified stems, which always originate at a node and which have nodes and internodes along the length of the thorn itself. Rose prickles are typically sickle-shaped hooks, which aid the rose in hanging onto other vegetation when growing over it. Some species such as Rosa rugosa and R. pimpinellifolia have densely packed straight spines, probably an adaptation to reduce browsing by animals, but also possibly an adaptation to trap wind-blown sand and so reduce erosion and protect their roots (both of these species grow naturally on coastal sand dunes). Despite the presence of prickles, roses are frequently browsed by deer. A few species of roses only have vestigial prickles that have no points.

    ReplyDelete
  88. most of your reader prickles wear beanies.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Rose bushes are a root plant. Not grown from seeds. How did the roots of the roses that did not survive being eaten or trampled transmit information to the genetic makeup of other roots instructing them to develop thorns?
    Gee, I dunno, maybe via pollen?
    My assessment of your ability to recognize critical thinking stands.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Krystalline Apostate,

    Could you direct me to information on dead roses that not only produce pollen, but also produce pollen that instructs future plants to adapt against what killed them?

    Are you sure you know what critical thinking is?

    BE"A"J,

    You forgot to quote your response about roses having thorns for the same reason porcupines have thorns (?).

    Nonetheless, you again posit a Lamarckist explanation for the development of rose thorns.

    I await your tackling the subject with science.

    ReplyDelete
  91. On, on the 2 questions:

    Evolution theory seeks to explain how life developed on Earth.

    Intelligent design theory seeks to explain why life developed on Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  92. So only believers can be blasphemers? Cool. Blasphemy laws, where they still exist, cannot under those circumstances apply to atheists, agnostics, muslims, hindus, pagans, wiccans or anyone else who does not profess christianity. This is good news. ;P

    You'll have to travel to the Islamic world to find enforced blasphemy laws, and Muslims have an entirely different set of criteria for what constitutes blasphemy to them.

    I'm speaking from a Christian theological view. "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" is a very concretely defined theological concept. You can't blaspheme the Holy Spirit and deny Its existence simultaneously. I'll not bore you with further details

    I'm not sure what is supposed to be blasphemous about sneezing into a yalmulke, but my Bible says those that claim that there is no God are "foolish." It does not call atheists "blasphemous."

    I think the "blasphemy challenge" videos are as pointless as the kneejerk response videos that came after.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Beamish, you really need to educate yourself on evolution.
    Evolution is all about survival (food and shelter (location) and avoiding predators long enough to successfully allow the next generation to make it to maturity.

    Intelligent design got thrown out of Dover courts because there is no evidence backing it.

    Evolution theory does explain why life evolves. For example, you don't have to look any farther than the cane toads evolving longer legs in Australia.

    As far as my porcupine analogy, that is just one of the reasons (I admit I am not a rose expert). Note the line:
    "Despite the presence of prickles, roses are frequently browsed by deer." Most likely in many ecologies smaller animals avoid thorns because of the thorns. Regardless, the thorns help the odds of a roses survival. At one time the roses without thorns died out because they couldn't handle the environment. Again over 95% of all living species on this planet have gone extinct.

    And yes, one can commit Blasphemy from the point of another person.
    Also, I said I didn't denounce the Holy Ghost because it was a Christian concept. Most of those doing the blasphemy challenge are ex-Christians who knew your man of myth.
    There are still blasphemy laws on many states books, though they aren't enforced, and in Canada we have it in the books here, though the last one charged and jailed for it was in the early 1900's.

    ReplyDelete
  94. yarmulkes make good snot rags, mr. beamish

    ReplyDelete
  95. BE"A"J,

    No matter how many times dog breeders dock the tails of their puppy Doberman pinchers, the next litter is always going to be born with tails.

    Lamarckism is a thoroughly debunked theory, and yet evolutionists still try to incorporate it into their explanations. Why?

    "Survival of the fittest" - Darwinism - implies inherent properties already present in the organism. The survivors of extinction events didn't "adapt," they just didn't die when their environmental conditions changed.

    So we're back to square zero. Where has macro-evolution occured?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Rickey,

    yarmulkes make good snot rags

    I must admit I would have probably been more likely to accept BE"A"J's attempt at blasphemy had he put his yalmulke back on his head after sneezing in it. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  97. You also seem to be missing the point on "how" and "why" for development on life on Earth.

    Evolutionism's best guesses address "how" - natural selection is the net result of events or environmental changes leaving survivors behind to propagate the next generation... But this is murky - the next generation will always be the same species as its parents.

    ID's best guesses address "why" - life is possible on our planet because of set parameters in our biosphere were designed to host life forms... But this is murky as well - to date no one has produced L-type enantiomers to form a basic organic protein from raw chemical elements by changing their enviromental conditions.

    Neither on their own explain much.

    Both fields require further research.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Beamish:
    Could you direct me to information on dead roses that not only produce pollen, but also produce pollen that instructs future plants to adapt against what killed them?
    Sorry, missed the 'not'. My bad.
    However, I think you missed an essential ingredient in the question.
    Roses w/o thorns didn't get to transmit their info.
    However, the thorns are multi-purpose:
    "While the sharp objects along a rose stem are commonly called "thorns", they are actually prickles – outgrowths of the epidermis (the outer layer of tissue of the stem). True thorns, as produced by e.g. Citrus or Pyracantha, are modified stems, which always originate at a node and which have nodes and internodes along the length of the thorn itself. Rose prickles are typically sickle-shaped hooks, which aid the rose in hanging onto other vegetation when growing over it."
    Also:
    "Despite the presence of prickles, roses are frequently browsed by deer. A few species of roses only have vestigial prickles that have no points."
    Intelligent design theory seeks to explain why life developed on Earth.
    Actually, the bulk of ID work is designed to piss all over the theory of evolution at every turn.
    They're a fringe-theory insular community that spends millions of $ on PR, & haven't released much in the way of contributions to the world (read: zero, zilch, zip, de nada).
    When they actually contribute something of note, I'll be happy to give them a hearing then.
    Philosophy's a wonderful thing, but as Bierce once said, philosophy is "A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing."

    ReplyDelete
  99. Beamish, quit with the Fundy stuff. New genetic occur randomly, and the ones that enable the species to survive in the environment stick....it usually takes lots of time.

    Read up on Evolution and quit with the survival of the fittest crap. A blind fish that has a great sense of smell and hearing has a better chance of survival than a fish who can see and has average hearing and sense of smell.

    Again, macroevolution is just lots and lots and lots of microevolution. You Fundies don't get it, if you agree that micro evolution happens, you agree macro evolution happens.

    There is nothing to the field of ID. What theories do they have? What scientific research have they shown, other than try to poke holes like you are doing in existing scientific theories?

    Evolution doesn't explain much to someone wilfully ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Beamish, being the common Fundy that you are, you keep flipping the page.

    If you had real questions about evolution you would get your info from secular sites that discuss real science without an agenda. Science is about observable fact, and not a conspiracy theory to prove no God.

    All the early biologists were theists, and many alive today are theist.

    Now you ask a philosophical question: Why did life evolve on this planet....it should be does evolve.

    The simple answer is that DNA changes. And science theorizes how and why. And it has nothing to do with God.

    If you want to get philosophical we can, but there is no point, because we aren't even on an equal playing field. You've been brainwashed from an early age that God is a reality, and it has stuck in your head.

    Philosophically, if you want to believe in theistic evolution, which is much better than your Fundy beliefs you have now, I would just say, why do we still get cancer, why are babies still born with deformities.

    But lets cut the crap. You haven't answered some questions:

    You have made it clear you don't believe in macro evolution (which again is foolish because macro is just a lot of micro changes. Either you believe genes mutate and can change traits, or you don't....and there is proof it happens, so if you want to still deny it, you are just being wilfully ignorant to try to make man "special" or try to protect a literal bible.

    Questions I'd like to see you honestly answer are:

    How old do YOU THINK the earth is?

    Was man created as man, and how long ago approximately?

    Was there a world flood and when was it?

    Did dinosaurs roam the earth 70 million years ago?

    Do YOU THINK we are approaching end times?

    ReplyDelete
  101. How old do YOU THINK the earth is?

    At least 4 billion years old. Maybe 6 billion years.

    Was man created as man, and how long ago approximately?

    Yes. Not very long ago. At least 2 million years.

    Was there a world flood and when was it?

    There have been several "world floods." The end of the last major Ice Age caused the big flood of the Middle East recorded in the Bible.

    Did dinosaurs roam the earth 70 million years ago?

    Yes.

    Do YOU THINK we are approaching end times?

    Yes. The magnetic field of the Earth will be decayed enough to be unable to shield the planet from cosmic radiation somewhere around the year 10,000 AD. If we're still here, we're fucked.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Now some questions for you:

    Do you believe that time passes exponentially faster in a smaller universe?

    Do you believe the universe is expanding?

    If someone handed you a glass of antifreeze and told you it was a lime flavored Kool-Aid ancestor, would you drink it?

    ReplyDelete
  103. You surprised me with some of your answers Beamish. In a good way.

    Earth is 4.6 billion years old, in case you are ever on Who Wants To Be a Millionaire. The universe is around 13 plus billion.

    You think man was created as man? In other words we didn't evolve from a common ancestor? And you are willing to go back 2 million years for Adam and Eve? You meant around 2 million years? Or do you think man roamed around over 2 million years ago?

    So you basically agree with this timeline? Except you think, homo erectus magically (Adam and Eve stuff) appeared 1.8 million years ago? And Adam and Eve had much smaller brains than we have today?

    Let me rephrase the flood question. Do you believe all humans other than Noah and his family were wiped out in the world after the last ice age (18,000 years ago) and do you believe Noah had two of each animals and other than birds and fishes, they were the only animals to survive in the entire world?

    Hopefully, man will be able to handle a shift in the magnetic field. I'm hoping we'll be technologically advanced enough to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I believe that further studies in DNA will overturn the conventional wisdom in the future, making current thinking as passe as believing a dinosaur laid an egg and a bird hatched from it (Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" theory) or that a population of dinosaurs laid eggs and birds hatched from them in a bout of "punctuated equilibrium" (Gould's "hopeful monster" theory remix).

    Since we currently can't extract DNA from stone fossils that have been saturated and eroded by millions of years of burial and compression, who's to say all those "hominid" skeletons aren't actual human skeletons warped and shrunken by time and the elements?

    What is your skeleton going to look like after 2 million years of burial in limestone sediments?

    If the "missing links" argument has no merit, why are scientists struggling to find one?

    We literally have no reason to believe humans weren't always humans.

    ReplyDelete
  105. As to the story of Noah's flood and it's "world-size," such a story is not unique to Middle Eastern culture (it appears at least 100 other cultures) which points to a multi-directional migration of peoples carrying the same story (or at least its basic elements) out of the Middle East / Mesopotamian region.

    Call it the "speciation" of historical records.

    ReplyDelete
  106. As to believing Noah and family packed 2.8 million lifeforms onto a wooden boat the size of a small aircraft carrier, with enough food to keep them and enough sanity to keep their pens and stables clean until the waters receeded...

    I'm thinking something was lost in the translation.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Beamish, sometimes evolution happens quickly, like the cane toads legs, and sometimes it happens very gradually.
    Skeletons and fossils are not just found in limestone...they also appear in ice. If even one discovery showed the skull was the same size or larger many years ago, evolution theory would be thrown out. And there are quite a few Christian scientist who would love to make that discovery.
    Your hoping for a miracle that science will support creation is just more Fundy bs. So is your argument about the skulls. No evidence, just hoping the evidence is screwed up. That is a joke.

    As far as a world wide flood is concerned. Geologically, it did not happen. And yes cultures everywhere have LOCALIZED flood stories, not world wide floods, and certainly not evidenced by a world wide flood at a specific time.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Beamish, yes the universe is expanding.

    I'm not sure if the speed has remained constant or has increased or decreased since the Big Bang. It hasn't come up in conversation until now.

    If someone handed you a glass of antifreeze and told you it was a lime flavored Kool-Aid ancestor, would you drink it?
    *************************
    I don't like lime flavored Kool Aid. It would depend on the circumstances if I drank the Kool-Aid. I wouldn't drink it knowing it was anti-freeze, but a Fundy might depending on which cult he or she is in that is.

    You really don't understand how science works, and the checks and balances that goes on and the amount of scrutinization evolution has endured by the FundiMENTALists. You still hope evolutionists are wrong about common ancestry even though there is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC evidence that runs contrary to common ancetor theory.

    ReplyDelete
  109. No non-human "ancestors" have been found flash frozen in ice. How did this flash freeze happen anyway? You've got mammoths with food still in their stomachs frozen in ice.

    Suit yourself if you want to believe you're related to a humanoid rock formation. I'll wait until the genetic evidence is there before making unsupported inferences.

    You know, how science works.

    ReplyDelete
  110. This would take a degree in quantum mechanics to explain (which I don't have), but time moves faster in a smaller universe.

    If theories are correct, there was a point in the early aftermath of the Big Bang where billions of years of "time" passed in what our current sized universe would call "a few seconds." Speaking in a sense of the theory of relativity, time passed at the same rate within the context of the different sizes of the same universe, but in a mathematically explainable (if we could step outside the universe and describe the Big Bang and its progression without the hassle of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) the beginning of the universe might have been a few thousand years ago, relatively speaking.

    Trippy stuff, but it doesn't pay the rent.

    ReplyDelete
  111. How about avalanches? Or the first snows of a very long ice age? It is pretty easy for an animal to remain frozen, especially on land that has been frozen since the last ice age.

    You are showing your wilful ignorance again. Do you have one scientific study that has to do with fossil shrinkage? Surely, a Fundy scientist must have engaged in such a study to try to disprove evolution or find facts that run contrary to evolution theory. Again, if evolution were false, there would be lots.

    As far as missing link goes....that is a passe Fundy term. Go to a secular science site and educate yourself. You won't educate yourself at sites that try to disprove evolution without any scientific evidence, as they only use conjecture and semantics. It is pathetic actually.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Yup. I just pulled names like "Goldschmidt" and "Gould" and "Heisenberg" out a hat.

    Lalalalalala.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Beamish, since you don't provide sources, I find myself having to research your nonsense more than I want to. But that is how I am. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. When you don't provide proof, which is the basis of your beliefs, I look for proof.

    Anyway, so far I found that your relativism statement is pretty meaningless, and from a relative standpoint, if anything, time went slower and is speeding up. So if anything the billions of years leading up to us right now would even seem longer.

    ReplyDelete
  114. If you want to be honest, you got them from a Fundy science website.

    Read what this says about Gould for instance.

    This is getting tedious. For now on provide sources. I'm getting tired of your Fundy tactics of turning the page.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I'm tired of you hopelessly trying to prove you're not a blithering idiot by trying to change the discussion to one where I sit through your insults and name-calling while I wait for you to discover the scientific method.

    If you've absolutely got to call me anything, call me a "theistic evolutionist." I don't disagree with a lot more than I disagree with.

    But I don't and I'm not consulting anti-evolution theory literature to argue with you. I'm just not making the grand and unsupportable inferences from evolution theory that you are.

    There is evidence that humans have physiologically changed (nasal cavities had more hair to keep breath warm in colder climates, etc.) in the last 60,000 years, and are still changing.

    There is no evidence that humans 60,000 years ago weren't humans.

    There is no evidence that 60,000 years from now, our decendants won't be humans.

    ReplyDelete
  116. It is you who is ignorant of the scientific method.

    A theistic evolutionist doesn't think man showed up here as man. You are a creationist.

    "I'm just not making the grand and unsupportable inferences from evolution theory that you are."
    **********************
    Are you lying for God now? What unsopportable inferences have I made?

    There is no evidence that humans 60,000 years ago weren't humans
    **********************
    I see you learned something today from the links I've provided. You left off the evidence that man was different 180,000 years ago though and not considered modern humans.


    There is no evidence that 60,000 years from now, our decendants won't be humans.
    ***********************
    We are doomed 10,000 years from now, remember? Aside from that, we might be completely different depending on environmental changes.


    I notice how you turned the page one more time, whenever I gave you a link to expose your Fundy bs.

    ReplyDelete
  117. That should read over 1,800,000 years ago, and I notice I typed unsupportable wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  118. It is true that time runs slower in a gravitational field. In many ways time is a function of gravity. It's even been theorized that the only way to time travel into the past is to step through a black hole's event horizon (if you can figure out how to prevent being squished into a quantum singularity) and then step out of it. By some arcane Stephen Hawking math I don't even pretend to understand, you'll leave the black hole into a point before you entered it, maybe even high-five yourself on the way out.

    But, nobody knows if this is actually true or possible. It's all hypothetical at this point.

    But how fast was time flowing in the quantum burst of the Big Bang, when the universe was a Planck length in diameter? Prior to matter and the emergence of gravitational fields?

    The math says billions of year per second, relatively.

    From a creationist view, this could be what the Genesis account meant by "days of creation" - from an point of view of an external observer where time would be virtually meaningless - outside the universe (for lack of a better term) from Big Bang to Adam took a "week," inside the universe it took 12+ billion years.

    But to me, that's an inference beyond the demonstrable. It can't be proven or disproven, and it changes nothing about the understanding of our universe.

    It takes the same "leap of faith" that believing a humanoidal fossil rock formation is my ancestor without DNA evidence does.

    Evolution theory removed from guesswork is elegant. So is intelligent design theory. I don't believe the two are incompatible.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Which stage in the scientific method does calling people who disagree with you a "fundy" appear in?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Let's try a different tact.

    Why do you believe homo erectus wasn't in fact genetically homo sapiens sapiens?

    How do you know homo erectus is a common ancestor of homo neandertalis and homo floriensis rather than different varieties of homo sapiens sapiens?

    Are German shepards and Chihuahuas different species?

    ReplyDelete
  121. You dwell on minutiae. You need to get a life, job and a driver's licence.

    ReplyDelete
  122. beamish:
    Yes, let's try a different tact.
    Are German shepards and Chihuahuas different species?
    No, they are not. Dogs, wolves, jackals, & coyotes ARE.
    Do you even understand what a species is, as opposed to say, a family, genus, etc?
    But how fast was time flowing in the quantum burst of the Big Bang, when the universe was a Planck length in diameter?
    Ummm...there was no time until the Big Bang exploded. Or space (which I interpret as dimension).
    According to quantum loop, there was actually a condensing universe prior to the BB.
    How do you know homo erectus is a common ancestor of homo neandertalis and homo floriensis rather than different varieties of homo sapiens sapiens?
    Well, there is the process of speciation. By your logic, how do we know that other primates aren't just leftover experiments? We are 99% compatible w/chimps, and there's only a 2 chromo difference between primates and ourselves.
    The compatibility issue w/ID, is that it injects an unfalsifiable factor into the mix.
    Yes. Not very long ago. At least 2 million years.
    Oh, really? Got fossil? Got any proof at all?

    ReplyDelete
  123. This thread has gone on from discussing atheism to science. Science is also an interesting subject.

    "I'll wait until the genetic evidence is there before making unsupported inferences. You know, how science works."

    So, you don't know how science works. Theories are based on observations and makes testable predictions of new observations. We knew before Mendel's genetics or the discovery of DNA that evolution was correct because it made such predictions.

    "Why did life evolve on this planet?"

    This is the sort of 'why' question science can answer: right circumstances and chance.

    ReplyDelete
  124. "If the "missing links" argument has no merit, why are scientists struggling to find one?"

    "Missing links" is not a scientific term. Found fossils agree with the expected phylogenetic tree. For example, the predicted characteristics of Tiktaalik roseae was used to find it. (Predicted age suggested the correct layer, predicted habits suggested the correct layer formation, predicted form confirmed the find.)

    "Since we currently can't extract DNA from stone fossils that have been saturated and eroded by millions of years of burial and compression, who's to say all those "hominid" skeletons aren't actual human skeletons warped and shrunken by time and the elements?"

    Of course fossilization affects the remains. By comparison between fossilized remains and living similar animals these effects are known.

    "We literally have no reason to believe humans weren't always humans."
    Just a few months ago the first two successful extractions of DNA from neanderthals were published. They are not identical with humans, and the amount of difference is as predicted by divergence times known from fossils.

    The same goes for DNA among the apes.

    This goes back to my previous comment on genetic evidence - we now have specific genetic evidence that supports the earlier evidence of evolution, and our specific evolution among closest kin.

    ReplyDelete
  125. "time moves faster in a smaller universe ... a point in the early aftermath of the Big Bang where billions of years of "time" passed in what our current sized universe would call "a few seconds.""

    This is meaningless as stated for three reasons.

    First, we can't compare time rates ("ticks" in clock systems) at all between universes, or easily between different sizes of our expanding universe. All clock systems are affected. The global time in spacetime is defined by the time since inflation stopped in all cosmologies, even those who embed big bang in a multiverse.

    Second, we don't have a theory of quantum gravity. In this theory we would presumably know what time is in all sorts of conditions, say in big bang. We don't.

    Third, time runs slower in high gravity conditions. So we would observe the converse effect from what you ignorantly claim.

    "if we could step outside the universe and describe the Big Bang and its progression without the hassle of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle"

    But we can't, so your classical concept of time is irrelevant. In fact, in some variants of comology, "causal patch" theories, we can't really compare times between different patches (ie what different observers see.)

    "But how fast was time flowing in the quantum burst of the Big Bang, when the universe was a Planck length in diameter?"

    As I said above, comparing time rates, for example with apocryphal accounts like the bible, is meaningless as such.

    You also presume a knowledge we don't have. Big bang isn't primarily a theory describing the birth of our universe but a theory describing the expansion we see. The situation between cosmology and biology is very like here. We need special theories (abiogenesis for biology, quantum gravity for cosmology) to describe the birth of the systems, which later development current theories (evolution for biology, Lambda-CDM theory for cosmology) can describe.

    In many big bang cosmologies the big bang has no "quantum burst" and only the observable universe but not the whole of it was of Planck dimensions.

    For example, eternal inflation embeds our universe in a multiverse where the local end of inflation marks the start of our pocket universe.

    ReplyDelete
  126. "in a mathematically explainable ... The math says billions of year per second, relatively."

    This is meaningless drivel of all sorts. First, in the first case we can't make a physical model. Second, you deny that general relativity is "mathematically explainable". Third, you seem to think math by itself 'explain' things. Fourth, in the last case we don't have a quantum gravity theory, so we don't have a mathematical model. You don't know how math work any more than you know how a scientific theory work.

    "It's even been theorized that the only way to time travel into the past is to step through a black hole's event horizon (if you can figure out how to prevent being squished into a quantum singularity) and then step out of it."

    Such theories are AFAIK abandoned due to later development - one type of exit was called a "white hole" (you can't exit a black hole, even if the information you contained presumably eventually can) but they are no longer considered realistic.

    But that isn't the only way of time travel considered. Wormholes are another example.

    Generally, time travel is considered unlikely since all sorts of physics seems to argue against it. (No closed timelike loops in general relativity, would solve NP complete algorithmic constructions in P time, et cetera.)

    ReplyDelete
  127. Torbjorn, thanks for the informative posts. You might be wasting them on the wilfully ignorant though. Predictably he will turn the page once more.
    But I like refutations on my blog, because the lurkers should see how ridiculous the creationists are.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" theory isn't an attempt to explain gaps / missing links / absence of transitional forms in the fossil record?

    This is news to me, and probably Gould too.

    Are you sure you kids have ever studied evolution theory?

    ReplyDelete
  129. Some light reading from the man who hand-waved away the lack / absence of transitional forms in the fossil record with a neat "theory" to explain it.

    Why was Gould's rehash of long discarded Goldschmidt theories necessary?

    We don't need to look for transitional forms because evolution only happens where no one can find it?

    ReplyDelete
  130. KA,

    I don't believe there is any GENETIC evidence to demonstrate that homo erectus was not in fact a human. Same with Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon, and the even more evolution theory challenging homo floriensis.

    You are correct that Chihuahuas and German shepherds are breeds of dogs, but are the same species.

    You are obtuse to miss the point I was making. I believe homo erectus to be a "breed" of human, yet mislabelled as a different species.

    You've got nothing evidential to dispute this. Until science progresses to the point where such claims can be tested (by figuring out how to extract 2 million year old DNA from a fossil, for example) both you and I are speculating.

    I'm intellectually honest enough to know the boundary between testable claims (science) and evolutionist daydreaming.

    How is it

    ReplyDelete
  131. We know that evolution can happen quickly or very slowly. Gould is dead, so nothing surprises him anymore.

    Gould or any of his critics knew that evolution happens, and that what you call macroevolution happens. The argument was how long it took. We now know both camps are correct.

    Neanderthal DNA has recently been extracted, and you know what? It isn't quite the same as human DNA.
    How do you explain that?

    ReplyDelete
  132. From Wikipedia:

    Confusion with other rapid modes of evolution

    Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution, Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism, pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism (in the strict and literal sense of biological continuity).[2] This is because even though evolutionary change aggregates "quickly" between geological sediments—relative to the species' full geological existence—change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:

    Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[4]

    The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.

    ReplyDelete
  133. I would have to see a study of the Neanderthal's DNA. Are the differences appreciable enough to justify the categorization as a different species?

    But further, I'd recommend this study become the keen interest of the Human Genome Project, who'd probably like to know how such a comparison to human DNA was made before human DNA was ever completely mapped.

    Then again, scientists work at the HGP. They're funny like that.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Why do Arabs and jews have the same DNA?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Biologists don't consider Neanderthals to be human.

    There has been a lot more inferences made since the linked article appeared.

    Neanderthals and homo sapiens coexisted. Neanderthals branched off around 200,000 years ago. The human branch and chimps branched off 5 million years ago. Early on when species branch off, it is theorized that interbreeding can occur. One way to define different species is for the interbreeding to produce an offspring that can also breed.

    At least that is how I understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Neanderthal DNA Sequencing

    In July of 1997 the first ever sequencing of Neanderthal DNA, a breakthrough in the study of modern human evolution, was announced in the Journal Cell (Krings, et. al., 1997). DNA was extracted for the type specimen and the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence was determined. This sequence was compared to living human mtDNA sequences and found to be outside the range of variation in modern humans. Age estimation of the Neanderthal and human divergence is four times older than the age of the common mtDNA ancestor of all living humans. The authors suggest that the Neanderthals went extinct without contribution to the present mtDNA of modern humans.

    The Neanderthals inhabited Europe from about 300,000 to 30,000 years ago. Previous hypotheses that Neanderthals were replaced relied on mtDNA study of existing populations. Directly analyzing the remains of the Neanderthal type specimen has affirmed this view.

    The researchers removed a sample from the humerous specimen. They analyzed the extend of amino acid racemization to determine suitability for analysis. It was determined that the amino acid levels were at 20% to 73% of those in modern bone, evidencing DNA survival. This and other tests indicated the remains might contain amplifiable DNA. Amplification products were cloned. Twenty seven clones of obvious non-human origin were produced. The entire sequence of hypervariable region 1 was determined, 387 positions. This was accomplished with overlapping segments.

    In comparison to modern DNA 27 differences are seen. The Neanderthal sequence was compared with 2051 human and 59 chimpanzee sequences over 360 base pairs. Twenty five of the 27 variable base pairs coincide with positions that vary in at least one of the human sequences. The sequence was compared with 994 human mtDNA lineages. While these lineages differ among themselves by eight substitutions on average, the range of difference with the Neanderthal sequence is 22-36. The Neanderthal sequence has 28.2 ±1.9 substitutions from the European lineage, 27.1 ±12.2 substitutions from the African lineage, 27.7 ±2.2 substitutions from the Asian lineage, 27.4 ±1.8 substitutions from the American lineage, and 28.3 ±2.7 substitutions from the Australian/Oceanic lineages. This indicates no closer a relationship with Europeans than with the other modern human subsets considered.

    The comparison to chimpanzees with modern humans is 55.0 ±3.0, compared to the average between humans and Neanderthals of 25.6 ±2.2. These results indicate a divergence of the human and Neanderthal lineages long before the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of humans. Based on the estimated divergence date of 4-5 million years ago for humans and chimpanzees, the authors estimate the human and Neanderthal divergence at 550,000-690,000 years ago. The age of the common human ancestor, using the same procedure, is about 120,000-150,000 years ago.

    These results do not rule out the possibility that Neanderthals contributed other genes to modern humans. However, the results support the hypothesis that modern humans arose in Africa before migrating to Europe and replacing the Neanderthal population with little or no interbreeding.

    In March of 2000 the results of a second fossil Neanderthal DNA sequencing was announced in the Journal Nature (Ovchinnikov, et. al., 2000). The fossil specimen is an infant from the Caucasus region dating to less than 30,000 years ago. A rib was used in the DNA isolation and a 345 base pair sequence was produced. The specimen had 22 base pair differences, compared to 27 for the type specimen, over the 345 base pair sequence. The two Neanderthals share 19 substitutions. Although the two Neanderthals were separated by 2,500 km, they are closely related in mtDNA lineages.

    This second study estimates the most recent common ancestor of the Neanderthals at 151,000-352,000 years, while the human and Neanderthal divergence is placed at 365,00-853,000 years. The same model produces an age for the divergence of modern humans at 106,000-246,000 years ago.



    Sources:

    Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Pääbo. 1997. Neanderthal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans. Cell 90:19-30.

    Ovchinnikov, Igor V., A. Götherström, G. P. Romanoval, V. M. Kharitonov, K. Lidén and W. Goodwin. 2000. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature 404:490-493.

    ReplyDelete
  137. All mankind trace back to Africa 60,000 years ago. Racial divergence started then as man migrated.

    Middle eastern semites are closely related because many Judaism didn't get going until around 650-800 BC, and prior to that they were the same stock as everyone from that area. Just more regional to Judea specifically.

    But because Jews have always valued reading and learning versus the Arabs who value terror and death, the Jews who are alive today are smarter than the average Arab.

    This also has evolutionary implications since Jews have been persecuted for over 2000 years, and the slower less innovative Jews were most likely to have not had their seed survive versus Jews who were able to escape persecution or figure a way to survive.

    In other words: Jews smart, Arab not so smart.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Rickey, you corrected me.
    It looks like neanderthals and humans diverged 500,000 years ago. I don't know why I thought 200,000 years.

    ReplyDelete
  139. The authors suggest that the Neanderthals went extinct without contribution to the present mtDNA of modern humans.

    Maybe they emitted pollen after they died that makes atheists believe they changed human mtDNA without actually being a human genetic ancestor.

    ;)

    Looks like the science fair isn't going to ever get started here.

    Oh, well.

    ReplyDelete
  140. In other news, O.J. Simpson insists that homo floriensis might be the real killer...

    ReplyDelete
  141. Why do the DNA cousins, jews & Arabs hate each other so? Will they be killing each other until the end of time?

    ReplyDelete
  142. Rickey, why are Muslims killing people all over the world? It is an ideological thing I guess.

    I do know that if the Muslims Arabs dropped their arms, there would be peace in Israel. If the Jews dropped their arms, there would only be Jewish Dhimmis, if that.

    Beamish, this isn't a science blog, and I'm not qualified enough to teach you about science, even if you were half interested. The answers to your questions have been asked and answered....go to secular science sites for the answers, you won't learn a thing from Fundie holepoking sites.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Here's a few more for Beamish. There are also more links on these blogs and websites. These people know their science:

    Evolving Thoughts

    Panda's Thumb

    Pharyngula

    ReplyDelete
  144. Beamish:
    You are obtuse to miss the point I was making. I believe homo erectus to be a "breed" of human, yet mislabelled as a different species.
    Not so. This falls more under the umbrella of morphological/typological variant of speciation.
    You've got nothing evidential to dispute this. Until science progresses to the point where such claims can be tested (by figuring out how to extract 2 million year old DNA from a fossil, for example) both you and I are speculating.
    You can't just dismiss inductive methods out of hand.

    rickey:
    While it's nice to see you actually making the effort to contribute to a discussion (for once), studies a decade old are pretty ancient in technological terms.
    http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/06/06/182.aspx
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4986668.stm

    ReplyDelete
  145. Speaking of holepoking, how's the goy goomah?

    ReplyDelete
  146. "In July of 1997 the first ever sequencing of Neanderthal DNA, a breakthrough in the study of modern human evolution, was announced in the Journal Cell (Krings, et. al., 1997). DNA was extracted for the type specimen and the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence was determined."

    Thanks! I totally forgot about the earlier mtDNA work. The core DNA work is so much more recent, extensive and exciting, I guess.

    "The authors suggest that the Neanderthals went extinct without contribution to the present mtDNA of modern humans."

    Yes. But apparently there is more ambiguity in mtDNA studies, or so I gather. Another view of the ongoing research is presented by John Hawks, who studies fossil characteristics.

    Hawks notes on accuracy that "Human mtDNA is really variable, with greater than 1 percent sequence divergence between people, and much higher in some places. In contrast, human nuclear DNA has less than one base pair in a thousand different between copies."

    And the greater mtDNA variability means that "The coalescence age of human mtDNA is only a couple hundred thousand years, so sampling ancient humans is sort of likely to result in sequences that lie outside this range of variation -- and with Neandertals, that is precisely what happened. But nuclear loci have coalescence ages on the order of 600,000 to 2 million years or older."

    ( http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genomics/neandertal/neandertal_genomics_faq_2006.html )

    But Hawks has a stake in the issue. He compares neandertal and sapiens fossils, and sees increased and shared characteristics variation in both at a time which most likely indicates some interbreeding.

    (He also controversially spells neandertals without -th- as in modern german spelling of -tal. :-)

    It is also clear that genes have introgressed into modern human populations from archaic populations at least once. Whether that was neandertals or not is less clear.

    ( http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/introgression_faq_2006.html )

    ReplyDelete
  147. Rickey, I wish I had a goomah. A wife and goomah are two different beings.

    ReplyDelete
  148. You don't know what you have since you did the intermarriage and assimilation.

    ReplyDelete
  149. A goomah means mistress or girlfriend, and usually pertaining to a Mafioso.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Thanks for the links, everyone. I'll take some time to explore them / holepoke them.

    As a last word, what kind of sick fuck parades a Hitler avatar on a Jewish site?

    ReplyDelete
  151. As a last word, what kind of sick fuck parades a Hitler avatar on a Jewish site?
    ************************
    Even the internet attracts the mentally ill:)

    ReplyDelete