Welcome to my blog, the purpose of which is to talk... about--stuff. And... yeah. Skeptics and freethinkers welcome. And Lovecraft fans. And Star Wars fans. And Bruce Lee fans. And martial artists. And any one who prays to the Old Ones.

Sunday, May 27, 2012


So apparently, Daniel Knight, the arrogant little punk responsible for the misinformation and bare-faced lies I refuted a couple days ago in my giant fundamentalism post, responded via e-mail, which explains the fruitless wait of the past couple days. Here is his first e-mail;

"I have posted a refutation of this… rubbish at my site. Come and debate me if you fell up to the challenge."

And you're the first to try this mr. christopher columbus? dude, it's already established that atheists are loony morons who can't think straight. look at the dumb comments here: http://toparguments.tk

You're simply denying 2+2 in whatever form it is, complex or not. Simply: atheists are biased hypocrites who DONT care about truth, and often are deluded into thinking they do. So hell no, not after 1000 arguments already (very repetitve) from atheists, all showing themselves to be futile morons, will i keep listening to no end to your supposed refutations. Get a life, stop denying the obvious and stop being a self righteous hypocrite, and sad for u, the key is Jesus, you must worship your God, and not your corrupt lowlife self. Otherwise: absolutely go to Hell. You're a moron who judges by mere appearances. When u see Jesus u AUTOMATICALLY think "stupid". Which means: YOU ARE STUPID, because u judge with presumption and based on what simply sounds absurd. In other words, your nonsensical and shallow. Goodbye guy who judges by assumptions and names.

Notice how is he is obviously projecting his own attributes upon me. He makes absurd, sweeping generalizations about atheists (with no proof beyond his own assertions), and then tells me that I'm a "guy who judges by assumptions and names". Mental projection 101. Not to mention that irony of him telling me to get a life when he's the one who's written over 700 posts that all boil down to, "UR STUPID IF U DONT AGREE WITH EVERYTHIN I SAYZ!!!" And how am I the self-righteous hypocrite? I'm not the one who thinks that he's part of "The Elect", Danny boy; that bullshit is what you believe. My, he sure did interpret a lot into one sentence, didn't he? But lo, it gets even more entertaining.

oh and, you read a refutation. you cant refute facts. ur the type that thinks, "no indirect evidence isnt evidence, now read MY INDIRECT EVIDENCE" as if that's ultimate proof. No moron you cant make the bible contradict if it doesnt OR REALITY. Your like a moron Christian who says oh see it says dont lie, but here's a lie in the bible! yet keeps calling yourself a Christian! NO "CHRISTIAN" GOD DOESNT LIE, NO "ATHEISTS WHO IS FOR REALITY, YOU CANNOT MAKE REALITY CONTRADICT". SEA FOSSILS ON LAND MORON. SAY THAT TO YOURSELF OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER TILL YOU WASH THE BRAINWASH OUT OF YOUR SILLY MIND. SEA FOSSILS ON LAND, MOUNTAIN TOPS, ALL OVER OF THE WORLD, STOP BEING A MASSIVE MORON. SEE THE GRAND CANYON? THAT WASNT MADE BY MAGIC IDIOT. Stop with the arbitrary "well dur one day der waf an ocean here, n den uh dur one day an ocean was here, oh and here too, uh dur and uh yeah dey werent not at same times, dat why uh dey all have fossils on da land" HUH:?

This is the best one, as far as I'm concerned. I especially love his crushing arguments for a young earth. Sea fossils on land are explained very simply through continental rifting and tectonic plate movements; some plates are subducted under the other, and thus go underwater. Likewise, fossilized sea creatures on mountain tops is explained the same way (see "orogeny"). "NOT ALL THE SAME TIME THATS WHY YOU FIND THEM ALL IN THE SAME PLACE?" Danny boy, if you could cite an actual instance where organisms from say, the modern era were found deposited in the same layer as a T. Rex, you just might have something. As it is, you have straw-men and an abysmal ignorance of geology. From your spelling, grammar, and tone, I'd say that you're either some pissed off little pre-adolescent or someone operating on the same developmental level. And how does Danny boy explain the fossils that died in desert, or tropical environment, sans water? Hmm? Yeah, that's what I thought. "SEE THE GRAND CANYON? THAT WASNT MADE BY MAGIC IDIOT." Once again; projection. Geology has proven that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion over several million years. The creationist alternative? A magical, invisible man-god named Yahweh got pissed off at mankind for killing each other, so he decided to solve the issue in the most humane, rational manner possible; by killing all of them. However, a drunken 93 year old by the name of Noah was spared because he was a straight kid who didn't run around in the da hood, so God made him build a giant--barge? Boat? Well, it's ripping off Gilgamesh so who cares?--to survive a flood he was sending. Oh, and this was the first time anyone had seen rain, so I guess that humans were also cannibals. So the whole earth is flooded, and the flood magically erodes a long, narrow canyon--without affecting the surrounding area (this flood could cancel the laws of physics, I guess). So yeah, you're one who believes in magic, Danny boy; except that your name for it is "GOD".

And now for his final bit of hand-waving (this shit is great!);

moron did you notice ive already said ive been through all your supposed refutations? these arent things i wrong out of the blue, they are responses to dimwits like yourself who come up with shit out of the blue, get that? it says FOR BEGINNERS MORON, OK? BEGINNEEERS. See how clues you fucking are? And dingbat, did you notice the list of books dingbat? So what you do mean asshole, "up to the challenge" like ive never done any thinking or work idiot? Notice my journal is filled with links? Idiot? Arrogant casual smug ass troll? DUR? DO I LIKE LIKE I NEVER HEARD MORONS LIKE U?






Listen to how dumb you are, "no dat rubbish bible say not lie, dat is bad to not lie" HUH!?

Grow up stupid. The Bible says to ignore arguments of ignorance, and ur obviously one massive moron.

LOL, the guy who really thinks that he knows more than 99.99% of all scientists--despite having no scientific credentials whatsoever--is calling me an "arrogant [N]narcissist idiot", when he fits that bill perfectly. Me? Oh, I've probably been a tad arrogant at times--but never to the extent of thinking that I am superior to most humans, as I'm a "Chosen One". I also love how all three e-mails are just loud, stupid, obnoxious straw-man rants--provoked by one sentence. Danny is in an advanced state of Dunning/Kruger; any challenge of his imaginary authority, no matter how small, threatens his ego and requires immediate attention. Like I've said elsewhere; to be a YEC is to engage in the most convoluted mental gymnastics possible, and requires either an willingness to lie, or a grade-school level ignorance of science. Dunning/Kruger, anyone? And deep down, Danny boy knows how truly inept he is; otherwise, he wouldn't be so afraid to come debate me. But, by conceding cowardice, he merely adds to my amusement, though at the same time I must confess myself to be slightly disappointed. I'd really hoped to gain a fundy troll to demonstrate the veracity of my accusations against YECs and fundies after each new post. Oh well. There are plenty of fish in the sea.


Jon McNaughton is a conservative christian shit-stain who rips off Thomas Kinkade, but with far less talent. His painting, "One Nation Under God", has become known and loved amongst the inbred sheeple of our nation who must subconsciously maintain that Thomas Jefferson, the source of separation of church and state, was a commie (of course, this would make the entire Continental Congress god-hatin' commies by association, since they voted unanimously to ratify the secular Constitution). In response to this asinine assault on freedom, history, and good taste, a far superior version has been done showing the one true god whose name should be on our money in place of the pathetic, Narcissist Hebrew god, who isn't even omnipotent, omniscient, or all-present (see Genesis 18; 20-21).

   Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! Ia! Ia!

Thursday, May 24, 2012




"I often come across people who speak as if there’s no evidence for the Bible, basing this on their simple-minded gullible falling for whatever fits their predisposition to their sinful lifestyle, in other words, believing whatever is convenient and justifies their feelings, their way of life."

Funny; except for the bible part, that's exactly how I describe creationists.

"I have written many articles in my journal (there’s over 690 articles now, not including the “pages” that always stay on top) and many references throughout my journal, which I’ve noticed are very VERY rarely clicked on, and yet I’ll get atheists and agnostics and Christian-haters babbling about how there’s no evidence for what I say on my journal, and saying I’m a liar, dishonest, and one “secular thinker” in under about an hour of reading a few articles of my journal, says I have no evidence for my “assertions” and “You clearly don’t care about truth”, a phrase this conniving weasel was repeating back to me since no doubt he came across it. It’s incredible that evil morons like that think I’d let their comments be posted, but they seem to be hoping to anger me so much that in some sort of angry state my judgment will be compromised and that I’ll just go ahead and let their rant get posted so that they can anger. mislead and waste the time of others (he had also stuck in a link to his stupid journal, no doubt stupid since he was denying evidence all over my journal right in front of his face, let alone in hundreds of thousands of pages all over the Internet, evidence in countless bookstores and libraries and the evidence that can be understood from Bible itself)."

Yes, I know it's long, and I know it's rambling, but make sure to read the whole excerpt above, especially the last couple sentences, which are very telling. Case in point; "he had also stuck in a link to his stupid journal, no doubt stupid since he was denying evidence all over my journal right in front of his face, let alone in hundreds of thousands of pages all over the Internet, evidence in countless bookstores and libraries and the evidence that can be understood from Bible itself". So, anyone who doesn't agree with Knight is an evil moron whose arguments are stupid by default. My, my, it's nice to see Calvinists upholding intelligent discourse. And of course he has a convenient excuse for not allowing dissenting comments; they would just "waste time". It's funny how most atheist blogs and sites have open comment policies, or only moderate excessive profanity and ad homs. But the best part is the reason he gives. He is saying that since there are thousands of web pages that agree with him, and countless books, he is correct. Argumentum ad Populem. UFO nuts who claim to have been abducted and anally probed could make the exact same argument against their detractors. But don't worry; the Fail just keeps stacking up.

"1) Bible Archeology (BA) (the archaeological evidence is already linked to thoroughly in my 20 Questions for Muslims article, linked to on the right hand side of this page). B.A. usually refers to idols that ancient people have made, ancient records carved in stone, or ancient coins, ancient cities (many of which were buried under the sand till discovered). And these things confirm the Bible’s claims about various types of religions having existed, and specific cities, and races of people, and other things. Do the research, retyping it is a waste of time when it’s already there to read. Books on the archeology of the Bible:..."

First off, and I think I've mentioned this elsewhere, factual elements in a fictional story only lend it credence if you're delusional. "The Stand" by Stephen King contains countless facts that were present  throughout 1990s America. He writes about authentic cars, planes, vehicles, firearms, drugs, medicines, events, persons, and cultural trends of the time. So does this mean that his epic story of post-apocalyptic good vs. evil happened in some parallel universe? Of course not! Likewise, for a much closer parallel to the bible, look at the Iliad. Until the discovery of Troy's actual remains in 1870 by Heinrich Schlieman, there was no evidence for Homer's writings. So, does the historical fact of the Trojan War mean that Achilles was really invincible down to the ankle? No. Factual elements with evidence don't prove supernatural ones without evidence. So to argue that the bible is accurate because of actual cities, races, religions, and cultures mentioned in it's pages is just as stupid as arguing for Odysseus' fight with Polyphemus based upon the discovery of Troy. The one does not follow the other, and I think I speak for all skeptics when I say that it's the fantastical parts of the bible we have difficulty swallowing. The Assyrians conquered the Hebrews? Well, that's been corroborated by history. Samson somehow killing off an entire army with a bone? I don't think so.

Note; right after this, he lists 12 books relating archeological discoveries that match biblical accounts. Since they're not relevant to the argument, you can find their titles by scrolling down a short ways into his post.

"2) Bible Geology: That’s a term I just thought of, but I’m sure looking it up will result in search results on the Flood of Noah and evidence for it. The most obvious evidence are sea fossils on mountain tops and dry land masses all over the world, and that are bunched together. They are like that because of huge water currents pushing the sea animals into large clumps."

*sigh* As a geology student, I find this dreadfully stupid. The first problem with "Flood geology", which isn't geology at all, but religious pseudo-science, is the over-simplified arguments they use. The entire geologic column is layered. These layers formed over vast expanses of time, but it wasn't until we developed radio-metric dating that we could tell just how long exactly. Mountains, for example, are formed by tectonic plates grinding together and pushing upwards in the middle [source]. Which means that the flood is only one possible explanation, and as we shall see, one that has been falsified by other evidence (hint; it involves the Time Scale and the fossil record within).

"It’s the same with land animals that were killed, which are almost always found buried together"

Many of whom died in non-marine environments [source]. By creationist "logic" (if you want to drag the word though the muck by associating it with them), dinosaurs went extinct in the Flood. Exactly why, we don't know; wasn't Noah supposed to pick them up? Oh well; maybe it just slipped his mind. The point being; creationists use the flood as a way to explain the mass extinctions we see in the fossil record. The problem? Is that it's "extinctions", plural, not just one. The Geologic Time Scale is divided by  major events in earth history, but mainly though evolutionary trends seen in each layer. A major upheaval; i.e., an extinction event, often makes up the end of an eon, era, period, or epoch. We see major mass extinctions, and then a resurgence of life following it. If the column has been laid down all at one time, however, then these layers wouldn't exist since the fossils would all be jumbled up with no sequence or pattern. As it is, the fossil record simulates approximately 2 billion years of gradual adaptation and increasing diversity.

"There are also various fossilized human footprints, and though evolutionists try and “debunk” them, they fail, and you’d be wasting valuable time reading their meandering (and on a side note: completely boring) attempts to."

The stupidity and intellectual dishonesty of creationists never fails to amaze me. First he says that almost nobody actually looks at the sources he cites, which certainly sounds like a reasonable complaint, and then turns around and says that there's no point in reading anything written by people who don't agree with him, because in his own little world, he is the ultimate authority on science, so the 99.9% of the scientific community that doesn't agree with his views are "evil morons", even though they have credentials and a lifetime's experience in their various fields. What credentials does our friend Daniel have? And just to clarify to the sheeple out there; good science is not about entertainment value, but proof. So if you dismiss theories, papers, or arguments on the basis that you find them "boring", you're a lazy, ignorant ass-hat. And regarding your claim of fossilized human footprints; humans (as in modern Homo sapiens) have existed for roughly 200,000 years [source]. So yeah, a fossilized foot-print doesn't deal some crippling blow to evolution. And [citation needed].

"Another obvious sign of the flood are the many crystals all over the world (crystals require liquid chemical mixing to form, and to form large and well formed shapes). It seems more reasonable that something like a quartz crystal would have more likely formed due to a large amount of chemicals in liquid mixing up and forming over a few years, rather than an 7000-15 billion years."

So every atheist or scientist who disagrees with you is evil and stupid, and yet you seem to be completely ignorant of what arguments geologists make for an old earth and biologists (and paleontologists) make for evolution. For starters; crystals are igneous rocks, which means they form in magma, or molten rock [source]. And the earth is roughly four billions years old, not fifteen billion, which is the age of the universe. That's a pretty sophomoric mistake, Mr. Omniscience. You would do well to take a geology class.

"The crystal evidence occurred to me on 4/24/2012, after one of my crystal digs of an unknown crystal type nearby, which today, on 4/25/2012, concluded was gypsum. When I read a few sites on it today, I came upon one that said mineralogists thought gypsum was the result of the ocean once being over landmasses. Do you think all these things happening in the order I described them are mere coincidence? I myself don’t think so."

Finding an unfamiliar crystal doesn't change the basic fact that igneous rocks form in magma, not water. And geology has already explained how and why the ocean was once over landmasses. Continental rifting is one.

"3) Bible internal consistency: this refers to the Bible saying things within itself that are in agreement, that don’t conflict/contradict. The Bible is a large book with many different claims and teachings, prophecies and laws and using various literary devices like symbolism and figures of speech. So then, it is not a simple book over all. It doesn’t even use periods or commas, making it even more complex. It also doesn’t use every single word to express a thought like is often done in English. You have to fill on the blanks using logical deduction and from knowledge of the language use of the Jews who spoke the language in ancient times (by reading other ancient writings that are more modern and translated into other languages) or from Jews who still speak the language. The Greek part of the Bible is not as hard to understand as Hebrew. But so, again, the Bible is not a simple book. The point is, humans are very prone to making mistakes, and so the Bible being as large and complicated as it is, should have major mistakes, especially since it was written by over 50 different people, and was a struggle to preserve over thousands of years of famines, wars, journeying and persecution. Yet, if you’re not blinded and spend enough time researching, you should find, like me, that the Bible has no contradictions. I’ve heard every supposed contradiction and even thought of ones that no atheist seemed to notice, but they always turned out to not be errors."

This sounds good in writing, but not if you actually crack open a bible and read it. For example; Isaiah 40:22 ""He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." If the heavens are spread out like a tent, then the earth must be flat in this context. And then there's this here.If the bible contains no contradictions, why are there multiple versions of David and Goliath?

1 Samuel 17:50

King James Version (KJV)
50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David. 

1 Samuel 17:51

King James Version (KJV)

 51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

So did David kill him with the sling, or with the sword? And what about the gospels, with their omniscient third-person narratives and their conflicting accounts of who found the empty tomb first? According to Matthew 28;1, only Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark 16;1 says Mary M., Mary (Jesus' mother), and Salome. Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10 says "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." John 20;1-4 says Mary Magdalene went alone, saw the moved stone, and then ran back and returned with Peter. So which version is correct? Or is the bible a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book?

"Here’s an example of 101 failed attempts to find contradictions in the Bible: http://gluefox.com/min/contrad.htm”>http://gluefox.com/min/contrad.htm"

Yeah, the problem being that I've only seen a mere handful of the ones in the link above on atheist websites. Not to mention the dreadful logic that they use. At one point, the author quotes some christian apologist saying that the bible couldn't have been written by bad men, since they would have been condemning their own behavior and sending themselves to hell. The stupidity of biblical inerrantists is pretty thick there. Religious leaders have been engaging in hypocritical behavior since the dawn of civilization. Look at Jimmy Swaggert, for crying out loud. Or Ted Haggerd. Or a whole plethora of hypocrites who privately indulged in the very "sins" they denounced daily on radio and television. As a social control, few forces are more useful than organized religion. That's why the GOP panders to the great unwashed masses of America, by promoting Christianity--the predominant religion in America-- in a frankly unconstitutional manner. Same thing with Saudi Arabia and Islam. Throw the people "spiritual support", so they don't notice that the education system is going down the toilet along with public welfare and human rights. So arguing that bad men couldn't have written the bible with the intention of misleading people is ridiculous. For all we know, they could have been the Bronze Age equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard or Jim Jones.

Note; I've skipped over the second site, since like the first one, it focuses on Muslim arguments against the bible, which are basically just hair-splitting since the bible and the Qur'an have similar sources.

"Alleged Contradictions in the Bible Answered"

This particular link comes from Contender Ministries,a fundamentalist group that endorses YEC (young earth creationism) and has various pages on non-christian religions. The problem with this page is that while I noticed a couple of misconceptions that some people do claim are contradictions in the bible, the major contradictions that skeptics bring up are not dealt with here. They also say nothing of inconsistency, like how the gospel writers knew what Jesus prayed in Gethsemane when they were supposedly asleep.


Unfortunately, this site was hacked, so the link just takes you to their cluttered home page.


Interestingly, this page isn't a response to alleged contradictions in the bile, but a giant index of theological ad apologetic articles, some of which deal with contradictions, but for the most part focusing on orthodoxy.

"Another Christian also spent the time to refute some of the basic errors in the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (more like “scribbled in rantings Bible”): http://muiczone.com/Article_View.cfm?ArticleID=42"

This site is the most amusing one yet. Why? Because in attempting to dispel the SAB, they pull out ten "discrepancies" and leave the other 99.9% untouched. The SAB isn't a single web page; it's the entire bible, with all the genocide, slavery, and inconsistency hi-lighted for your enjoyment. Let's see them respond to the whole thing chapter by chapter.

"The Most Common Philosophical and Moral Arguments Against the Bible by me"

Actually, this is the most funny link; most of his responses are to straw-men; For example, his first "argument" that he tackles is this; "All these arguments I’ve listen can be summarized as one argument, “All religions are wrong because they are bad,” or wrong because “God is bad.”"

Which of course, is complete bullshit. I've yet to see a single atheist argue against religion on the sole basis that "God is bad". The real argument behind skeptical logic is that religions are wrong because they cannot provide sufficient proof for their claims. In addition, he defends the Hebrews raping, killing, and plundering on the basis that since they were acting under command from God, everything they did was justified. Funny; Hitler claimed he was acting under orders from God as well. So I guess the Holocaust is justified. It's interesting that Calvinism essentially boils down to "might equals right". God created us, God is all-powerful, so if God comes down from heaven, kills your family in front of you and then proceeds to rape you, it's perfectly all right because he's the ultimate authority. Of course, John Calvin was a tyrant and a mass murderer himself, so it only makes sense for his conception of god to resemble his own authoritarian mindset.

"4) The Bible is full of prophecies, many of which came true. There are no provable failed prophecies."

Wrong. Matthew 16;28. And this.

 "5) Anyone can see that reformed Baptists and Presbyterians are a peaceful and loving people, charitable to the poor and kind to those who hate them, risking their lives to better others. These are true Christians. No one can say, “The Bible doesn’t improve or help anyone to be happy, or to make them courageous” and that it simply makes people stupid mental slaves, when honestly judging these two groups. A person who makes such a judgment is ignoring what is easily seen and full of hate and pride. They are also ignoring history. It wasn’t these two groups that committed mass murders like the Catholics, Mormons and atheist groups have committed. This can be called the Christian testimony of changed lives."

 First off, tell me how hard it is to find converts to any religion who claim that their experience made them better people. Muslims have them. So do Scientologists. But this can't be used as a rational argument for the veracity of a religion. Thanks to Knight's Calvinist views, he can set up a nice little No True Scotsman Fallacy. Crusades? Not True Christians(TM). Inquisitions? not True Christians(TM). John Calvin burning people to death for refusing to convert to Calvinism? Not... oh. The point; saying that peaceful people of your religion proves it is absurd. Every religion has members who are dedicated to peace and compassion, just as there are people without religion who are charitable to others. The only way to prove your religion is with evidence.

"6) The testimony of non-Christian lives: endless crime, wars, battles, fights, riots and on and on. Compare that to the lives of the RPs and RBs I mentioned. The Bible says you will find evil among those who reject him and his word, notice I said HIS WORD, and peace, in general, among those who love him and obey his word. It’s true, go find out for yourself if it’s not obvious to you."

I predict that tomorrow, a Jew will drop some money into a little box at the local grocery store for kids with cancer. Oh wow, I'm a prophet! Because making self-fulfilling prophecies is easy. Case in point; sometime within the next week, an ignorant creationist will reference the "Crocoduck" in a debate with a skeptic. Oh geez, I'm two for two.

"7) Go to icr.org, answersingenesis.org and creationwiki.com to look up the various evidences for the universe (not just Earth) being no older than 6,500 years. No one can say these sites ignore the truth, because they are filled with refutations of statements made by the most popular Christian-bashing individuals, books and websites."

This may be the funniest portion of Knight's post. One thing I find amusing is that these sites have no credibility with people who have actually gone to a good college and studied science. All three of them use straw-man arguments almost exclusively. Knight says that no one can doubt their truth, since they are filled "with refutations of statements made by the most popular Christian-bashing individuals, books and websites."
Even though those are straw-men. Check out Creation Wiki's page on vestigal forms to get an idea of what I'm talking. Or even better yet, take AIG's page on radio-metric dating and contrast it with articles written by real paleontologists and geologists.

"8) Is it too hard for anyone to spend time in a haunted house to verify if spirits exist? And think: if humans are just matter, with no spiritual component, not even a mind, then that would mean after 7 years, when your body has replaced every molecule, that you are no longer the same person."

Why do you ask an irrelevant question at the beginning of 8? This is colloquially referred to as a word salad. Secondly, where the hell did you get the "no mind" part from? I've yet to see any scientists claim that we have no mind. Furthermore, we do not change our molecules every seven years. I honestly don't know where you got that idea from. While our body does gradually replace cells over time, there is no body-wide purge of old cells (much less molecules) every seven years [source]. And even if it did, your DNA would remain the same, so you would still be the same person, legally and biologically. Apparently, creationists are incapable of telling the difference between fact and fiction.

"Therefore, when someone refers to something you did longer than 7 years ago, it’s not true, because that was a different human being entirely. Do you feel or reason that you really are a different person every 7 years? If that were true then you would not be responsible for crimes past 7 years ago, and no one could honestly charge you or anyone with a crime that long ago. Would you be willing to use that excuse in court? Could anyone in jail longer than 7 years say, “The molecules in my body have been completely replaced now that 7 years have passed, I’m a different person, let me go.”?"

Um... just out of curiosity, have you graduated high school yet?

"But if we have a soul that isn’t be replaced or destroyed, then you are the same person. And if souls exist, then that is one more evidence for the Bible being right about people always being responsible for their actions no matter how much time has passed, and having an eternal part of themselves (the soul and the spirit – but only those God forgave have a spirit according to the Bible – a spirit is basically like another body, which survives death, though there is nothing “in” it like the physical body, though it does have an emotional heart, mind and perhaps the soul sticks with it at death)."

So, got any hard proof for the soul?

" 9) Design. This is the most obvious evidence for a creator according to God’s word, but not just any design, beautiful design. You can see beautiful design in nature everywhere. Those who say it is random don’t know what they are talking about or are lying. Design is not random, there is no such thing as randomness."

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You find nature beautiful, so therefore your god is real. So if I find Norway beautiful, can I use that as a argument for the existence of Thor? Or maybe I'll just stick with logic instead of fantasy. And by the way, if there is "no such thing as randomness", explain the existence of the /b/ section.

"Everything follows laws (and if not, then God’s commands). When a scientist says something is random, he’s appealing to a Random God of the Gaps (this is a twist on an insult phrase used against Christians, which is used to promote a myth about Christians simply saying, “God did it” to explain things)."

[citation needed]. Show me one instance of a genuine scientist saying that something happens randomly, ungoverned by natural law. And by the way, trying to argue that both sides use God of the Gaps doesn't lend your side any credence. And G.O.G.F. is not an "insult phrase used against Christians". When you attempt to argue for the existence of gods from a gap in knowledge--i.e., the cause of the Big Bang--you're committing that fallacy. And since pretty much all theists make that argument, instead of admitting that we simply don't know, it's a logical fallacy. If you don't like logic, then boo hoo. Your faith doesn't make you transcendent over reality, Daniel.

"When a scientist or anyone against Christians says a thing is random, they are explaining a thing away without any effort in in depth reasoning themselves. They are being lazy and denying reality, and denying what is already well known, and taught by scientists themselves: that everything goes according to physical laws."

Mm, I just love the smell of straw-men in the morning, don't you? [citation needed].

"Some will even say, whether contradictory or not, that randomness is one of the laws, in other words, that it is constrained too and cannot go beyond certain statistical probabilities. For example, no one can truthfully say that a person with their imperfect muscle control and imperfect senses can roll a dice so that four dots turn up 100 times in a row. A machine could do it, but not a human, unless they had been greatly enhanced or constrained by a machine. You can learn about this here: http://www.problemgambling.ca/EN/ResourcesForProfessionals/Pages/ProbabilityOddsandRandomChance.aspx"

You seem to be confusing randomness with probability, or chance. Here's a little science fun fact for you; random interactions happen all of the time, like when a meteor floating through space comes into contact with an event horizon and is sucked into a black hole. But this interaction, despite being "random" in the sense that no intelligence or sentient act led to it, is still governed by natural laws.The meteor can't magically float the other way when it starts approaching the event horizon because it is an inanimate object. Unless it comes into contact with a solid, physical object that nudges it in a different direction, it will eventually be swallowed by the black hole. Randomness doesn't invalidate natural laws anymore than a winning streak in Vegas cancels out the law of probability.

"Also consider that cryptologists have spent decades trying to figure out how to make a password or encryption method that is perfectly random, so that no one can break the code. However, that is not logically possible; if it was, than no password/decryption method would be able to decrypt the encryption. In conclusion: no one can rationally say that design, especially highly ordered and beautiful design, came about by randomness, without any thought being responsible for the beautiful thing they are seeing."

False analogy. For starters, human codes are products of design and can only come into being by intelligent design. However, the universe is not a line of coding on a sheet of paper or on a memory card. It is trillions of times larger and more complex than the most complicated computer system ever designed. And right now, as far as science is concerned, there is no need to invoke a creator to explain the universe. This doesn't mean that science won't find data pointing in that direction some day, but invoking your own personal god when we can't know for certain is a God of the Gaps fallacy.

"10) Miracles. There are many miracle stories, some can be attributed to demons, but the point is, “amazing supernatural events” happen."

So demons can cause miracles, and actually exist? [citation needed].

"One of the best documented positive type miracles is the “angel in the hospital” events. An angel healed a girl in a hospital in North Carolina, and on following days, healed more children. However that second fact is not well known. However, many “skeptics” have heard of just the one healing (and ignore it) and instead claim (without any evidence) that the angel that was seen was just a reflection. Amazing how all the sudden one day reflections show up shaped like angels lighting up a hallway that coincides (randomness again!) with kids being healed of extremely hard to heal sicknesses. Miracles can also be lives changed for the better (like I referred to in evidence 5)."

First off, [citation needed]. It is extremely negligent and lazy to reference a story as proof without providing a source for it, because then your readers have to take you on your word that it happened the way you say it did. Sloppy, sloppy. Secondly, a reflection in a hallway that looked like an angel? Weak. Really weak. What if they said it looked like Buddha? Or Elvis? Our eyes play tricks on us all of the time. Secondly, saying that kids getting over an illness for no apparent reason is a "miracle", is God of the Gaps fallacy. Are you a medical expert? Did you examine these kids for yourself? Have you researched other explanations of the event?

"11) There is evidence that Earth is at the center of the universe discovered using triangulation (and if so it, could help explain how aliens have apparently found this planet among countless others, if they had the technology to use a similar type of triangulation). Look up geocentrism in my journal or the Internet and read, watch and or listen to what Malcom Bowden teaches."

The universe is nearly, if not completely, infinite. Which means that it's impossible to know if we sit at it's exact center. Who's invalidating the law of probability now? And furthermore, modern cosmologists think that the universe is expanding, so geocentrism is unfalsifiable rubbish, just like Iintelligent Design. And by the way; your psychotic, rambling rant about Carl Sagan was the most stupid thing I've read in a while. And your argument against? That's he's "nerdy and pretentious". Nerdy? Seriously? What an imbecile. Go back to stealing lunch money from skinny math students, retard. What sophisticated arguments will you use next? "You're Fat!! You wear glasses!! My dad can beat up your dad!!" If anything, your site is just another picture-perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

"Now, what excuse does anyone have? Can someone who isn’t hateful or mentally ill, having done the research on the topics mentioned here, or accepting the already obvious evidence stated here, say, “What evidence”? They may do so, and claim to be lovers of truth, logical, rational, or truth seekers, but they would be either blind, forgetful, or lying in extreme hatred."

The only one who fits every single negative attribute in that excerpt is you.Your anti-intellectual rants against science and common sense are filled to the brim with bare assertions and the most childish ad hom attacks I've seen a in a long time. Nerdy? Holy shit, what a great argument!! Why didn't Socrates think of that one?!

ADDENDUM, May 28th.

So Daniel has  posted extra links in response to my rebuttal of his so-called "refutation". Since I've already covered the sections of his bible evidence for beginners post, I will simply address the new links one by one.

"If you research the news long enough, you will find that the numbers 4,000 and 5,000 (years old) comes up often. For example, it’s been estimated that there was a massive die off of coral reefs 5000 years ago, that in China an ancient advanced civilization died off 5000 years ago, that civization had a technological surge 4000 years ago, and on an on, which supports the Bible’s claim that there had been a world-wide kill off of most life on Earth’s surface which involved water as the main killing agent, and that mankind became technology advanced after the first 1000 years, but then was killed off almost entirely, and then after another 1000 years, had again become very advanced (lasting examples are evidences of extensive intercontinental travel, advanced ship-building in China, megaliths, various extremely advanced micro technologies evidence by jewelry, small machine parts, stories of ancient robots, flying vehicles, some models of which survived, and giant stones they moved and ancient stories of what seems to be devestating fighting between powerful and advanced civilizations, but apparently from diseases (various pestilences, war, and earthquakes, which the Bible prophecied would come, devastated itself)."

This entire paragraph falls apart for one reason; [citation needed]. A technological surge 4,000 years ago? Ancient robots? Really? Something tells me that if I made a preposterous, bullshit claim--like, "14th Century Alchemists Perfect Laser-Guided Missiles"--Daniel wouldn't even care. It's also funny how he mentions a coral die-off 5,000 years ago (with no citation); if the great flood really happened, one wonders how any corals, or any kind of sea life at all could have survived in anoxic mud. After all, don't creationists claim that the flood is what deposited the entire geologic column at one time? So how, pray, does a whale breathe mud and debris? Eh? And that last bit about the bible foretelling war, disease, and natural disasters is especially stupid. Remember what I said earlier about self-fulfilling prophecies? If I predicted that there's going to terrible earthquakes in Japan sometime in the future, nobody in their right mind would take me seriously. Japan has been suffering earthquakes for thousands of years. And yet, when the bible predicts war and pestilence, all the religious think it's a genuine prophecy, when anyone could say the same thing. It's not like war is in danger of being discarded by humanity anytime soon.

Various Findings That Contradict Big Bang-Evolution Theory Documented By Prof. William Corliss

This link is interesting because it never provides concrete facts, but conjecture. To see for yourself, click on the link and type "big bang" in the search box at the top. The most ridiculous part is where they try to argue against the BB for "philosophical reasons", another way of saying, "if it doesn't cater to our beliefs, it's wrong". Science is science, kiddies; philosophy doesn't change cold, hard fact.

The Cave Man Myth

This site is great. As an example of sourceless pseudo-science, few sites I've seen rival this one. It's funny how he talks about the discovery that Neanderthals didn't look very different from modern humans as if this is a great revelation. From this, he goes on a rebuttal of evolution, which fails since he literally does not have a single citation anywhere. He also fails to mention other earlier hominids that fit nicely with evolution's prediction of what we would find as we progressed upwards through the column, but runs contrary to creationist claims. Gee, how convenient for him.

Advanced Cities That Flooded or Sank Underwater

Unlike the anti-science rubbish in the last link, this one actually deals with fact (to a certain extent). What's stupid is that from the title of the article, there's an unspoken assumption that an ancient city's remains found underwater is proof for Noah's Flood--which like saying that finding a Roman nail in Israel proves that Jesus was real. Continental rifting, anyone? And the best part is that there's no evidence for this city being "advanced"--all they've found so far are megaliths with primitive symbols and carvings. Hardly indicative of wondrous technology. Nowhere does this site probe alternative explanations, or provide citations of any kind (which automatically discredits them). All they offer is speculation and bare assertions. A true YEC web site through and through.

Ancient Nuclear Technology

This title alone speaks for itself. And no citations, so yeah, you really have to be one gullible sheep to swallow a word of this crap. Hell, it even mentions aliens, for crying out loud. What's next? A consortium between Bigfoot and the Illuminati to sap our precious bodily fluids?

The Golden Ratio: Fibonacci

This link is an article from the Institute for Creation Research, and tries to interpret design from numbers, shapes, and patterns. Basically, just more of the same stuff that goes under "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". We're here, and certain numbers and patterns are repeated in nature, so gawd musta done it. Personal interpretation does not equate evidence folks; a cloud that looks like a dragon to you doesn't mean that dragons are real. And of course, no mention of the fossil record or the emergence of new species that have been observed by scientists. Example; new species of mice [source].

Miller-Urey/Electro-chemical Abiogensis Experiment Disproved

Actually, the title, like everything else at AIG, is a lie. Why? Because contrary to AIG's claim that the idea of an anoxic atmosphere is an "assumption", geologists have proven it. The period was the Archean eon. The sedimentary rocks from this period are black or dark, indicating little or no oxygen.

Thermodynamics of Living Systems

Definitely one of the weaker attempts to debunk evolution without ever touching the physical evidence.The first real problem is that the author is using the Second Law of Thermodynamics to prove that the first life could not have formed by itself. And yet, this doesn't even touch Darwin's theory. The origins of life are the purview of abiogenesis, not evolution, which explains biological diversity and speciation, not the origins of life itself.

Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong

This site is pretty retarded by any definition. Not as bad as that "ancient nuclear tech" link, but still pretty bad. Let's start with this author's perception of Darwin's theory; "Darwin believed in the idea that variations caused by environment could be inherited.  Thus the giraffe’s long neck was a result of the “inherited effects of the increased use of parts”.  The Origin of Species, 6th ed, London 1902, p 278.  Darwin believed that if parent giraffes strained their necks to reach the top leaves then the progeny would inherit longer necks." That quote was clearly taken out of context. Natural selection states that desirable traits--those that aid survival--will be passed on. However, this does not arise from "increased use of parts". That idea came from Lamark, and was an early attempt to explain the changes that scientists observed in the fossil record [source]. And of course, as we've come to expect from creationist sites, not a single peer-approved article is cited, so this entire site is just baseless speculation and outright lies. Oh, and he tries to use the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" as an argument against TOE; stupidity in action.

Lava Dome at Mount St Helens Debunks Radio-Dating Methods 

This argument falls apart when you consider AIG's beef with radiometric dating; their claim that in order to calculate the amount of daughter rock, you must make an assumption. If this is the case, why do the vast, overwhelming majority of tests done provide consistent and congruent dates? [source]. You can also find more on the accuracy of radiometric dating here.

The Big Bang Theory Collapses

Yet another argument against the BB, even though this discovery could be interpreted as the moment of creation by the religious. Because my knowledge of astronomy is rudimentary, I won't attempt to answer this link, or cop out by countering with a link to website defending the BB. If anyone who knows more about the subject can provide relevant information, feel free to leave a comment.

No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations

This is easily the most retarded article I've ever seen from ICR. " But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4"

Notice their blanket denial; "there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another". Um, nylon-eating bacteria, anyone? How about Richard Lenski's E. Coli experiment, which creationists seem to be universally ignorant of? Likewise, they fail to mention new species of mice that has developed, and perhaps the most damning evidence of macro-evolution ever found; Eurycea rathbuni. Obviously, this animal adapted to it's environment. If vestigial forms don't exist, then why does the salamander still have it's useless eyes? Eh? And then there's this; "The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences." "Few differences"; and yet the name of the article is "No Fruit Fly Evolution after 600 Generations". Double-speak. And what's even more absurd is ICR's assertion that this refutes evolution, when it's not unheard of for some species to go without change for a long periods of time. Major adaptations only occur when there is a high selective pressure on the organisms to adapt or die; under optimal conditions, however, it will either happen slowly or not until pressure arises from the environment. So if you have little to no idea of how natural selection works, this article seems factual; but not in light of knowledge.

After this, he provides three links to Creation Wiki, AIG, and ICR concerning "living fossils". Basically, they try to disprove evolution by pointing out species or genus groups that date back millions of years. The mentally retarded argument being that if evolution is true, why haven't there been major changes in these organisms in the last several millions years? This is why creationists are at the bottom of the science bucket; their refusal to educate themselves over what evolution really is renders the majority of their arguments as gibberish. As I pointed out above, evolution isn't magic, or something that happens randomly; it is a response to the environment, an adaptation to outside stimuli. So if an organism evolves to a form that is well-suited, and no significant climate change occurs, or sexual pressures, that particular genus, family, etc., may not shows significant changes for millions of years. Perhaps if Daniel took the time to learn something and actually write original arguments of his own instead of just linking to a bunch of bullshit conspiracy sites, he might be taken a bit more seriously by skeptics.

And then he goes on to list several books cataloging outdated scientific theories (including one claiming that string theory has been refuted), perhaps in the hopes that pointing out science's self-correcting mechanism to uneducated readers will make doubt the value of scientific research. Of course, some of them are obviously science-denier books with the assumption that since science changes it's mind, it's somehow subjective or untrustworthy. But others appear to be genuine efforts to record junk ideas for posterity. After the books, he lists several off-site links (surprise, surprise) to crazy conspiracy sites picking bones with Einstein's physics, the speed of light, and geocentrism. Because I've crushed enough propaganda today, I'll just take care of the geocentrism and call it a day.


This is one of the most spaced-out pdfs I've ever seen. While it does contain a fair amount of crazy, one wonders why Daniel used it since the author clearly accepts both the Big Bang and an old universe. My guess is that his mind is too fried by faith to notice a bit of cognitive dissonance like that. But in any case, this link is based upon assumptions that our line of sight extending beyond is indicative of a position merely 60 million light-years from the epicenter of the BB. The problem is that as the author admits on the third slide, the physics of light restrict our view of the surrounding universe, so triangulation is impossible without a point of reference far away. Secondly, there are no citations for merely of the author's more startling claims.


This is the most retarded attempt to prove geocentrism in history. According to this video, earth is in the center of the visible universe.


Just let that sink in for a moment.

His last comment on the subjects prove that he never got through grade school;

" Earth is even in the center of the solar system".

Yep. He honestly doesn't know that the earth is in orbit around the sun. As Darth Vader might say, the Stupid is strong with this one.

 Evidence of Geocentrism

If you feel like punishing yourself, watch this video. It's sad. How sad? Really sad. Here's what YouTube poster Wordavee1 had to say;

"So you don't know anything about about astronomy, cosmology?
If the earth is still the stars must be moving, so they revolve once a day, if one was just one light year away it would have to travel about 6.2 lightyears in one day, roughly 2000 times the speed of light, and the ones further away would have to be in perfect sync, moving at millions of times the S of L.
Geocentrism is stone age stuff, grow up."

The up-loader's response was just more science-denial; 

"Thanks for your comment, but that sure is a lot of "ifs". But let's get real - you have no idea the true size of anything in the universe, nor the true distance, and neither does science. They CONSTANTLY rewrite their theories and even their "facts".
For a powerful example, go ahead and Google "Vast Solar Eruption Shocks NASA and Raises Doubts on Sun Theory"
Oh but wait... didn't science claim it as "fact" that the sun was over 1.4 x 10^18 km^3 in volume?"

So since science doesn't stay in stasis, it must be untrustworthy. Fuck-tard. Give it up, Daniel; your site is a pile of bullshit that doesn't come from you, since you're ignorant as shit over pretty much everything, but others whom you reference as authorities when most of them don't even have credentials in the fields they pontificate about.

Saturday, May 19, 2012



Dr. Carson, blah blah blah. I don't think he needs an introduction, but if you don't know who he is, Google him. I'm not wasting any more words on the current creation-tard fiasco than is necessary.

"It comes down to a matter of ownership. Who owns the universe, who owns the earth, who owns your life? Those who believe in evolution, and in a naturalistic explanation of the universe, ultimately see themselves as end-owners--as the creator and ultimate source of authority. In this way they answer to nothing and nobody, for there is nothing higher than themselves"

Dr. Carson is stupid. In fact, he's worse than stupid; he deliberately dishonest. How in fuck's name can I and other intelligent people who accept the fact of evolution consider ourselves to be the "creators" of the universe? How idiotic is this drivel? But it gets worse. Evolution, naturalism, etc., are matters of science, and do not come down to "ownership". They come down to evidence. Cold, hard proof.

"By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior."

Yep, he's a liar. If this were true, then scientists and atheists would run around raping and killing and looting 24/7. But lo! we do not. So I guess the good doctor is just full of shit. The secular basis for ethical behavior is that humans are stronger in groups, and without codes of conduct, will be weakened by chaos and anarchy. This is the same way lower animals survive; weak or murderous members of the pack/herd are cut out when they threaten order. *gasp* By golly! Morality that doesn't require a racist, sexist, genocidal cosmic bigot peeking over your shoulder day and night.

"For if there is no such thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher values"

Creationists are idiots. There is simply no other way to describe their willful ignorance of facts that don't cater to their religious bias. And it doesn't matter how brilliant he may be as a surgeon; he has no facts, no evidence, and no compelling arguments against evolution here, just bare assertions that a first-year philosophy student could tear apart. Or someone like me, who's taken two semesters of geology and knows what the evidence for evolution comprises. All he does is make claims, and then fails to back them up. And conservative idiots still defend him and claim that he's being "bullied". Oblivious to the fact that he hasn't been silenced and has the right to believe in bullshit, but not the right to be respected for holding easily falsified beliefs about science.

"Yes, in my education I had to learn evolutionary theories, and as a God-fearing Christian I wondered how to make God and evolution mesh. The truth is that you can't make them mesh--you have to choose one or the other"

If you have any real knowledge of evolutionary theories, then you do an excellent job of concealing it. Furthermore, Francis Collins, who knows far more about evolutionary science than you, accepts evolution but also believes in god. Your false dichotomy reeks of lies. 

"Yes, my answer is that the more you understand science, the less you can believe all this is an accident! Just look at the brain, with its billions and billions of neurons, and 100 billions of connections, and how it remembers everything it has ever seen and heard . . ."

Argument from Ignorance; a logical fallacy. Natural selection accounts for complexity. The entire fossil record shows simple organisms becoming increasingly complex without any magic involved. And Richard Lenski's E. Coli experiment proved that major adaptations can be set up by more than one mutation, which means that highly complex organs can evolve in stages so to speak.

"Put a probe on the hippocampus of an 80-year-old man, and he can tell you verbatim the words of a book he read 60 years ago. This is a highly complex and sophisticated organ. Not a likely result of chance processes"

Your ignorance is astounding. Creationism fails for this reason. As the fossil record shows, no magical sky fairies (gods, that is) are required to account for complex systems, since biological organisms adapt and change to survive.

"Even if you allow the formation of a single cell. And a single-celled organism is also amazingly complex--the cell membranes, the nucleus, the nucleolus, the mitochondria. . . . Plus, we give evolutionists too much if we start with a single cell. Try starting with inert substances!"

Holy shit. This kind of ignorance is mind-boggling. Cells weren't always complex. The first single celled organisms observed in the fossil record from the Archean are simple and did not possess plastids, mitochondria, or a nucleus. They consisted of a plasma membrane, cytoplasm, and DNA [source]. In addition, the emergence of life from "inert substances" is the purview of abiogeneis, not evolution, which deals exclusively with the development and adaptation of life, not it's origins. It's sad that I, a freshman college student, know more about evolution than you.

"Even if you accept evolutionary theory--developing a more sophisticated organism in this theoretically "logical" fashion, then there should be a continuum of organisms."

Once again, it is clear that you have no idea what you're blathering on about. Who has ever said that evolution must produce a continuum of organisms? This is the most dreadful rubbish I've ever read. He's not even arguing against evolution, but a pathetic straw-man of his own making that has "evolution" painted on it's chest. Evolution is a state of flux. Organisms adapt based on current environmental or sexual pressures with no pre-ordained results. So a "continuum" of organisms is impossible.

"And why did evolution divert in so many directions--birds, fish, elephants, apes, humans--if there is some force evolving to the maximum?"

What? Does this all make sense in some strange parallel dimension?  What "force"? Oh, wait; straw-man. And the useful idiots at Red State defend this crap! Unbelievable.

"Why isn't everything a human--a superior human?"

Why isn't everything a unicorn--a superior unicorn? Never mind logic or evidence, or valid questions, let's just make up random stuff and throw it out there like it's some devastating argument. 

"Darwin specifically stated that his theory hung on the discovery of intermediate forms, and was sure that we would find them. More than a hundred years later we still haven't found them. Even the earliest fossils don't show such intermediates"

Idiot creationists and the supporters of I.D. voodoo lie about fossils all the time. This is their only defense [source].

"Take the simple case of ape to human. It should be easy to find abundant fossil remains since, according to evolutionary theory, this is the most recent transition. If we can find so many fossils of dinosaurs, which are further back in the evolutionary scheme, we should have plenty of evidence of intermediates between apes and humans. But we don't have them. We have very few supposed intermediates--like "Lucy," based on fanciful reconstruction with a lot of filling in. Today we have people with significant congenital abnormalities whose skeletal remains would seem like a missing link. So "Lucy" does not make the case, and there should be multiple "Lucys" if the transition from ape to human were true."


"Also, there's the whole subject of irreducibly complex organisms--the idea that everything has to be there all at once for it to work. How could all the complex items evolve simultaneously--as in the eye, for example"

Richard Lenski and the E. Coli experiment blew that argument out of the water--20 years ago.

"Before Darwin most scientists were Christian. Even Darwin was brought up a Christian, but he became embittered. He set out to prove another explanation to life. I have to give the man credit--he was a powerful observer. On the Galápagos Islands he found thick-billed finches whose bills were capable of breaking apart hard seeds. He also discovered iguanas and tortoises with different adaptations. Therefore, he concluded that these organisms were evolving, and he was right in terms of microevolution--adaptation to the environment. Imagine if you only got fed if you could dunk a basketball . . . "

Once gain; the distinction made by creationists between micro and macro evolution is thin at best, and preposterous at worst. If life adapts to it's environment on a cellar scale and on a scale of species, than eventually one species will diverge into another. Macroevolution is just microevolution occurring for a lengthy period of time. We see macroevolution happen when new species of mice split off from ancestor species [source]. But Dr. Carson conveniently forgets to mention that macroevolution has been observed.

"Only tall people would be fed and would survive. They would pass on their tall genes to their offspring. Is this evolution or adaptation?"

Both. Evolution is defined as adaptations to the environment over time. Although, in the case of this basketball analogy, it would be evolution via artificial selection.

"Obviously it's the latter."

Wrong. Evolution;
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny [source].

"But evolution means one organism eventually changing into another quite different, and there's no evidence for such change. God allowed for adaptation, which speaks of a wonderful Creator who gave His creatures a genetic structure flexible enough to adapt. But that's not evolution"

Take a good look at this. This is what creationism does to intelligent people; it makes them look like utter idiots in light of real science. This kind of hair-splitting rhetorical word-game is beyond retarded, but it's something that creationists do every day.

"Look at the complexity of the universe, too. The Hubble telescope has revealed much more to us. But our galaxy is just a tiny dot in the great scheme of the universe, and there's much more beyond what we know. Even in our own solar system--we orbit 93 million miles from the sun. If it were 92 million miles, we'd be incinerated; 94 million miles, and we'd be a frozen iceball. There's so much--it's all so extraordinarily organized with such complexity. How does that happen?"

If the universe was merely the size of our solar system, or even an entire galaxy, you might have a point. But it's not. Our galaxy isn't even a dust mote compared to the cosmos. Life emerged here because the conditions were right; the fact that life is impossible in vast swaths of the cosmos confirms that. Fine-tuning fails for this reason. No human alive can fully comprehend the size of the universe. So to say that it all revolves around us because we just happen to be here is absurd in the extreme.

"Then take the ideas of the origins of the universe. The scientists speak about the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything tends toward a state of disorganization . . ."

Oh sweet freaking christ, I see where this is going...

"So how could our incredibly organized universe come about as the result of a big bang? This flies in the face of the second law, which says it would be less organized as a result, not more! Scientists have to be consistent."

Oh! I thought he was going to launch straight into the whole Ken Ham "herp, durp, evilution violates the Second Law, duhhh..." Sorry about that. Perhaps I gave the good doctor less credit than he merits. But seriously, that's God of the Gaps fallacy. You don't have a degree in astronomy, or physics, so how are you sure that you know all there is to know about the Big Bang? And just because science doesn't have a definitive answer yet, doesn't mean you can point your finger to the sky and proclaim, "GAWD DONE IT!!".

" Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics..."

I take back anything good I've said about this hack. That's just slander, and everyone knows it. The Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Salem witch trials, Jim Crow, the McCarthy era... none of those times had any outstanding ethics, but were all the doing of christians.Take the beam out of your own eye, doctor...

"...you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires."

Which is what morality is. Morality has never derived from a "Higher power" or "authority". It is based upon subjective societal needs and wants. That's why christians reference Leviticus as a source for calling homosexuality an "abomination" while conveniently ignoring verses in the same chapter describing the eating of shellfish and wearing garments woven from multiple fabrics as "abominations". That's why they caterwaul about the teachings of Jesus, while ignoring his commands to sell all of their possessions and give the money to the poor. That's why ethics has emerged to replace antiquated concepts of "morality". We can all agree that we have the right to live our lives without fear of persecution, and without having to persecute others. Causing needless pain to others is therefore "evil".

"You have no reason for things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son from drowning."

Unless I love my son. Love is a natural feeling towards offspring and relatives. It has been accounted for by science, not magic. Educate yourself. Evolution is a scientific theory. it doesn't address issues of ethics any more than gravity or particle physicists. Or neuro-surgery, for that matter.

"You can trash the Bible as irrelevant, just silly fables, since you believe that it does not conform to scientific thought. You can be like Lucifer, who said, "I will make myself like the Most High."

Rejecting a nonsensical book filled with talking animals, magical zombie resurrections, and impromptu violations of the laws of physics--all without a single scrap of historical proof, just like myths in other cultures--does not mean I want to make myself a god. Your slander is stupid and childish.

"Can you prove evolution? No."

A bare-faced lie is most unbecoming of a professional surgeon.

"Can you prove creation? No."

But at least he possess some degree of honesty where his personal beliefs are concerned. I'll give him that much.

"Can you use the intellect God has given you to decide whether something is logical or illogical? Yes, absolutely. It all comes down to "faith"--and I don't have enough to believe in evolution. I'm too logical"

Sure, you're logical; and Ted Nugent is perfectly sane. Go back to school, Dr. Carson. Your education is clearly lacking.