Christianity Vs Atheism – Does it really matter?

does-it-matter

  • Leave a comment ?

    95 Responses to Christianity Vs Atheism – Does it really matter?

    1. When you have fundamentalists who what to teach Creationism in a science class, then yes, it matters.
      When you have a President who thinks God talks to him, then yes, it matters.
      When you have a former Secretary of Interior who said the environment doesn’t matter because the 2nd coming of Jesus will be in our lifetime, then yes, it matters.

      Reply

    2. When you have a school that puts you on suspension for saying a silent prayer before you eat it matters.

      When you have a science teacher that belittles religious beliefs and disciplines anyone that proposes an idea other than theirs in class and grades them down for it, it matters.

      When there are people stupid enough to try and force their beliefs on anyone else and those stupid fanatics are the ones that are in charge of teaching young minds actual proven facts and approved curriculum.

      When the nation is more involved in arguing over how things should be run in regards to religion, it only matters that we are as a nation too stupid to realize that it doesn’t matter what one believes and what another does not. Were it not for fanatics, on either side, this would not be an issue.

      Reply

    3. LordPartyTime:
      1) How can some one be suspended for saying a silend prayer? Please link to a source.
      2) Science class is for teaching science, the systematic study on natural phenomena through experiment. Everything else MUST be left out. Again, please give ONE example of what you have claimed happening.
      3)People who are smart enough to realize that science is the most successful model of thinking ever are trying to make sure that this heritage continues to be passed down.
      It does matter because nations that reject science tend to really shitty places to live.

      Reply

    4. 1) in high school, there was a lunch room “monitor”, she was athiest, i said a silent prayer before i ate my lunch, mouthing the words and before i was halfway done eating, the principal was calling me into his office and i got a 3 day suspension. My religious beliefs offended her.

      2) again, in high school. This time, however, the offending teacher was fired. I did A work on all assignments, was graded as such, and scored 98% plus on all tests. In a discussion on evolution, after extremely disparaging remarks concerning the intellectual fortitude and various other inappropriate remarks concerning any who believe in any form of God, I asked the teacher to provide proof of evolution, not conjecture. He brushed me off, and the next day my grade in the class was reported as a D. As I said, the teacher was fired and my A was reinstated.

      3) Show me one person who has evolved since the HMS beagle began her voyage, giving Darwin the inspiration for the THEORY of evolution. Science can be proven. It has yet to prove evolution, hence its THEORETICAL status. And have we as a nation rejected science? I daresay, we have accomplished some amazing technological and scientific feats for having such uninspired and backward ways. Having a personal belief in a creationist deity does not preclude the ability to thing in a scientific manner, nor does it imply the lack of knowledge.

      And if church and state are supposed to be separate, how is it that the state can constantly regulate the church…?

      Reply

    5. Oh, and I really really really … LOVE pie 😉

      Reply

    6. First of all, none of this matters. Second, LordPartytime, you’re a fucking idiot.

      Reply

    7. LordPartyTime:
      As for your examples 1 & 2, try providing a link some incidents. We are after all discussing a issue that hinges on verifiable evidence. Because right now I think you’re full of shit. Something like a teacher being fired would have been picked up by Fox News.
      3) As you should know since you got an A in science: people do not evolve, populations do. Oh, and here is scientific evidence that not only are people evolving, their evolving faster. Almost every experiment in biology from Mendel’s peas to the drug-resistant bacteria has directly confirmed the Theory of Evolution. No a single experiment has ever, every contradicted it.
      While I agree that religious thought doesn’t necessarily preclude it, it seems that you don’t think in a scientific manner and you do lack knowledge.

      Reply

    8. LordPartyTime:
      1,2: I agree, nobody should be punished for expressing their personal beliefs (within reason, of course)

      3: “Show me one person who has evolved since the HMS beagle began her voyage”

      First of all, anybody with any “birth defects” are examples of evolution. The human race as a whole wouldn’t have easily noticeable evolution within even 2000 years. There aren’t enough generations of humans within such a short timespan for the human race to change radically enough for it to be very noticeable. There are plenty of examples of other species evolving. Where do you think new kinds of bacteria come from?

      “Show me one person who has evolved since the HMS beagle began her voyage, giving Darwin the inspiration for the THEORY of evolution. Science can be proven. It has yet to prove evolution, hence its THEORETICAL status.”

      You do not know the definition of the word “theory”. I suggest dictionary.com.

      Reply

    9. You could always go die and further the gene pool along.

      Reply

    10. lordpartytime,

      Evolution is constantly changing, like out world and the people on it, therefore it can not be nailed down as a constant factor in everything. In retrospect most faiths have not changed in hundreds of years and are sadly lacking in todays world, a world which evolution is abreast with.

      Reply

    11. So LordPartyTime you can beleive in the THEORY of a giant wizard that lives in the sky and who has the mentalitity of basically a 5 year old, versus the slow adaptations to our environments of different species over (hundreds of) thousands of years?

      CHERRY PIE! FUCKERS.

      I win 🙂

      Oh no. Raspberry pie with thick cream, sort of liek whipped cream but not sweet at all. mmm so good. now i want pie. bitches.

      If i was god i’d be all “Sup bitches. Lol i’m god!”

      Or i’d by like why would i care about some retarded planet liek earth when i can teleport across the galaxy and make animals that would never normally meet fight each other, like a shark and a lion. or make new animals, and mix animals. and make them fight each other. like a unicorn + lion vs turtle + gryphon. Ownage. I’d be a kickass god. plus everyone would know i exist because they would wake up to candy and kittens every day. Awesome. and i’d invent magic and then go hang out with christpher reeves. Cuz if i was god he wouldn’t have died, and he’d actually BE superman. yeah. And a robot. there would be robots. cool.

      Reply

    12. I like how it’s cool for kids to pretend they know everything, and bash something because they think they’re smarter than everyone else. Religion may not be perfect, but it’s a good way to get across moral values, and the punishment vs reward system is a good way to get kids to behave, and learn how to be productive. Granted, you don’t NEED these “stories” of religious nature to get the moral values, but it has worked well for quite some time. Now that it’s popular to shit on Christianity in particular, everyone is jumping on that bandwagon.

      Reply

    13. @ rorschach: I’m a fucking idiot and you’re an accidental mutation of ooze. Good to see we agree eye to eye.

      @ reboot: if you do not accept firsthand accounts, then even a link would not satiate you, as I could have easily manipulated such a piece of evidence. This is the internet, is it not?

      @ kero: Actually, in my theory, the wizard is more like 3, and he’s not all that giant. Kinda short actually, stubby. But I do like the robots, maybe you should be god?

      Did we all so soon forget hair pie?

      As for the rest of it, i’m done arguing with y’all.

      Reply

    14. @LordPartyTime,
      A first hand account is perfectly acceptable if and only if you provide some way for me to verify your claims. If you can’t understand that, then you deserved to fail science.

      Reply

    15. At schulzbrianr

      I completely agree that religion is good for kids to teach moral values and how they should behave. But like Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy, who also teach great moral values, you need to realize that common sense dictates that they aren’t real.

      At LordPartyTime

      Guess I missed my chance since he says he is done but I think I’ll keep going anyway. When asked for a link to a real source he is implying that your gonna link to a major site such as fox or cbs that has reported news for a long ass time and is well established and well known. Instead of typing in something you “claim” happened to you. Cuz if we are gonna start telling each other stories, then you should know that I once traveled to the moon and while I was there I met Chuck Norris and we dueled to the death. Since I’m still here to type this then you should have figured out that after I killed him I replaced him with a robot so nobody would find out. And I “claim” no mater what you say, that that is a true story. And I need no links cuz if you don’t believe me, a random person on the internet, then you definitely won’t believe any other site.

      Bam, done now to go see I Am Legend. Heard it was good.

      Reply

    16. And, shoot, while I’m at it
      @schulzbrianr, I’m not trying to make fun of someone for their beliefs, my first post to just to try to demonstrate that it’s not an issue that can be ignored. Further post were to demonstrate that LordPartyTime has no clue about science.
      As for the moral aspect: the US is one of the most religious countries in the world right now, but we have the highest incarceration rate of any developed country. No study has ever shown atheists to more likely to commit crime than Christians (and some have shown the opposite). Its a nice idea, but there is no factual basis to believe that religion makes you more ‘moral’.

      Reply

    17. The fact that some people choose to believe in something greater than themselves is nothing to compare to proof of science. That’s all well and good, but the fact that the persecution of Christians (and other religions BY Christians in the past) is no reason for you to mock a system of beliefs that someone else holds. I have never had anyone try to cram religion down my throat, and you are free to believe anything you wish. If someone comes up to you and tries to convert you, be polite, but tell them, I’m sorry, I don’t believe, and let that be that. If they are one of the religious zealots that hounds you until you accept Christ or you burn in hell, then accept that they are probably off their rocker, and ignore them. Crazies come in all forms, unfortunately some of them happen to be religiously insane. I’ll try to respond rationally to your first post.

      *When you have fundamentalists who what to teach Creationism in a science class, then yes, it matters*

      Yes, you’re right, religion (of any doctrine) should not be pushed in public schools, other than possibly the beliefs of ALL major religions to offer counterpoints, but then we get into debates like this, and nothing more is ever accomplished.
      *When you have a President who thinks God talks to him, then yes, it matters*

      Are you referring to the CURRENT (US?) p
      resident? Or a potential candidate like Romney, or what? If any president says something like that, perhaps it needs a form of clarification, like “I believe God helps me make the right decision for the people of the country I am leading” then how does that hurt anyone or anything? A person/president is (and should be) allowed to have a religious belief.

      *When you have a former Secretary of Interior who said the environment doesn’t matter because the 2nd coming of Jesus will be in our lifetime, then yes, it matters*

      I have not ever heard about this, but that isn’t surprising, since I rarely read/listen to the news (other than Fark, which still SURPRISINGLY (or not) keeps me up on current events my dad and his golf buddies talk about, love ya Drew!) or any form of political shit, since all candidates are motivated by self-interest. If so, then perhaps he is a form of balance to ultra-environment nut Al Gore. They are both loons, and the truth is possibly somewhere in the middle, that the environment DOES matter, but we cannot stop living our lives the way we do now and totally change everything because Mother Earth is in TOTAL DANGER. On the other hand, we should do little things, like not waste water, recycle, etc. Moderation in everything.

      I hope I have not ruffled feathers too much. Yes, I Am Legend was good, but I was not satisfied with the ending, if I can say that much without spoiling it too badly.

      Reply

    18. Good call, schulzbrainr
      Belief in evolution by country Notice Iceland at the top, US near the bottom
      Prisoner per capita by countryNotice US at the top, Iceland near the bottom, trend can be generalized.
      Violent Crime per capita by state
      Percentage of children who attend weekly church services by state
      Nothing conclusive, but its clear that church attendance and crime rates have nothing to do with each other. Which in turn discounts the idea that religion helps you become moral.

      Reply

    19. razzleberry pie from marie calenders and apple/blueberry crisp are pretty tasty with ice cream. why does the universe have to be created couldn’t it have always existed and just goes through cycles of expanding and contracting or maybe it retains its shape and only appears to be expanding from inside. maybe darwin didn’t even exist and all those people before photographs are a test from god to see if we fall for the trap like those damn fossils, the selection of bacteria that are anti-biotic, humans coming from ape/monkey. natural selection dominates. this is stupid…………………

      Reply

    20. Just because there is a religion, and some prisoner who raped and murdered people says “I found Jesus” doesn’t mean shit either. Also, pay attention next time you’re in statistics class to how you can manipulate data to prove your point.

      Also, I don’t remember being asked to participate in any of these surveys, therefore the selection isnt 100%, and is therefore only a prediction (again with the statistics)

      Also, I never said that religion HELPS you become moral, only that it was a good way to get the idea across to children. Other than “If you do this, you get a cookie” or “If you do this, you get spanked” or whatever. It’s a way of showing that doing the right thing will benefit you, and that politeness, courtesy, and being a decent person is the best way to be successful or whatever.

      Reply

    21. I’m glad we were all able to get this out in the open. I feel we’ve really resolved a lot of issues by discussing “religion” on the Internet.

      Reply

    22. I didn’t say anything about prisoners finding Jesus in prison, I just showed that religious countries and states have just as many (if not more) criminals than those that are less religious. I’ll even point out that Russian has high crime rates and low church attendance, so its not like atheists are all perfect, either. I am merely refuting the claim that “Religion … [is] a good way to get across moral values”. There is no statistical basis to support this claim. Punishment and reward conditioning can be done without using religion

      Also you don’t have to poll 100% of population to get accurate statistics[ref: Probability and Statistic, DeGroot and Schervish, 3rd Edition, Chapter 7]
      I didn’t see it at first, but here is Church Attendance

      I was refering to our current President, but Romney and Huckabee are equally guilty of such statements. The said Secretary of the Interior was James Watt, under the Reagan adiminstation.

      I agree, I Am Legend was good except the end. For most of the movie there were hints that they were going to keep the awesome ending from the book, but they chickened out and just set-up a bad pun.

      @FlyingMantisShrimp, et al.
      Discussing ideas is why the Internet was invented (and porn). I live in a city that in predominantly Atheist and rarely even meet someone who is strongly religious. I can imagine that other people may be in the opposite situation. So where else would we discuss religion than on the Internet.
      That said, I about done. Not having preview is making this too hard to proofread.

      Reply

    23. I love how people say that we need religion to pass on morals. Morals are nothing more than rules that enable a society to proceed somewhat smoothly. Don’t steal. Don’t murder. Things like that. Morals change over time. This has been shown again and again. It used to be ok to marry a 7 year old child. Not so much any more (unless you live in Arkansas, but then she has to be your sister….JOKING!!). It used to be ok to perform human sacrifice. Ask the ancient Aztecs, Mayans, Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Greeks. But not any more. Morals change. If we look at it that way, it is EASY to have morals without a belief in a great invisible wizard in the sky.

      Reply

    24. only a thing. science theories CANNOT be proven. They can only be confuted by experiments.

      Reply

    25. I also think that this country is actually balanced, being that we have so many religions (that we are supposedly free to practice without interference from the government) or the lack of a religion, not that we are religious, which to me would be closer to having a single religion being the predominant one. I’m also not saying that it CAN’T be done without religion, I believe it can, but most kids are too damn dumb (thanks to parents being too damn dumb) to figure out how to do this without a time-tested structure like a major religion. I was raised Catholic (or Christian, or something like that) and I don’t know how strongly I ever believed in “God” but I did believe that the message of Jesus was a good one, that there are evil people who need to be punished, and innocent people who need to be protected (I would classify myself as an “Old Testament God” type of guy) etc.

      Also, hopefully I don’t sound like too much of a dickhole, but I didn’t read any of the links you provided, for a couple reasons, one, I believe that polls and charts and shit are misleading, and two, I’m stealing my neighbors wireless (but since it’s not a tangible object, it’s about as real as you think God is, so can I really steal it?) and it’s shitty and slow, plus it’s almost 1am, and I’m not really tired, but better get to bed anyway. So that’s why I probably didn’t provide (what I consider to be) an intelligent rebuttal to any of the information they displayed.

      Oh, and, again, I didn’t read that prison stats thing, but, some people don’t deserve to be in prison, either they were put in for some bullshit like pot possession (I am against weed, but don’t think it really warrants imprisonment) or embezzling, or on death row instead of the death penalty, and some (a lot) of people that are free (OJ, and until recently Michael Vick) SHOULD be in prison, but are not. So again, ANY statistics on prison will be off in my mind, because the basis for those numbers is based on a legal system where the team with the most money can dig up some obscure case or law to twist justice.

      And, me stating that religion is a good way to get across moral values is my opinion, and I rarely care enough about proving my opinion to be correct to people to do any form of research, hoping/believing that my argument will at least contain enough logic to convince them that I could possibly be right, not that I am trying to prove them wrong. I have nothing against atheists, or agnostics, Buddhists, or anyone (except radical Islamics, but that’s probably due to my military service, and seeing the videos of those raghead fucktards changing “Allahu Ackbar” while they blast a roadside bomb on a Humvee) of any religion, just that they should show tolerance towards other people’s belief’s, and that the same tolerance should be shown to them.

      On that note, I’m going to bed, good talkin’ to ya.

      Reply

    26. Tolerance nowadays towards religious beliefs in a bad thing IMO.

      Disdain is more appropriate post 9/11. It has been proven that our morals do not come from a religion and nor is it a reliable frame from which morals can be passed down (because religion refuses to change as the moral zeitgeist of the society evolves – the scripture still casually mentions things we’d consider horrific today.

      As for Jesus, there is no contemporary evidence that he ever existed. Everything you could produce would be hearsay. The quality and quantity of what you have is roughly equal to to what the Greeks had on Hercules at the time. Better, I wager since those accounts won’t have been subjected to 1,500 years worth of mistranslation, editing, or tweaking.

      Reply

    27. It’s neat how such a shitty picture can spark such a heated debate. Especially since the image implies that atheism is the belief in the big bang. An atheist is a person who believes that gods do not exist. TWO FUCKING DIFFERENT THINGS!

      Reply

    28. @ Reboot.

      Oh no, I totally and seriously agree with intelligent conversations over anything.

      I’m just saying that this same, old discussion has been played out thousands of times and it never, ever makes a difference. Nobody probably walks away from this thinking “Oh, well that (name her) really had a good point!” Most of the time, it’s just reduced to a pissing contest with people typing and not listening.

      Reply

    29. I have a lot of little… PieEttes here. Tasty they be.

      With 0% God!

      Reply

    30. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

      Gets you guys every time. Well played, tiki. Well played.

      Reply

    31. You forgot one thing: Lemon meringue pie owns all…and anyone who says differently, can talk to my hammer.

      PS – My internets are better then your internets!

      Reply

    32. I gotta say, this is one of the best threads I ever read. Usually these threads get pretty crap, but this one has been interesting from start to end, which makes me think MCS might actually be getting better. One thing caught my eye though.

      “teaching young minds actual proven facts and approved curriculum.”

      I know you Americans don’t care much about education unless it touches upon one of your more sacred topics like religion or white surpremacy, but that’s a pretty odd view to take of education as a whole. Generally the point of education is not to teach facts, but to teach critical thinking. That is, they should be teaching you about the idea of evolution (or the idea of calculus , or the idea of historical evaluation). A young student should know how the ideas work, in detail, but should feel free to evaluate those ideas as they see fit. Anything else has no place in schools. But that idea of evolution seems to be completely alien to Americans, who are too busy rabbling on the internet from their mansions or waiting in mile-long lines for government cheese to be concerned with the finer points of the philosophy of education.

      Interestingly, I was taught evolution in a very sciency way by a Deacon O’Hanlon, in a Catholic school, and the Mother Superior, who taught me religion one year, was quiet enthusiastic about the concept, saying that is was another way of understanding God’s Majesty.

      As for religion and crime, religious people can be criminals too. They just are really conflicted and meet tragic ends like in ‘Mean Streats’.

      To Schulz: I can’t support the taking of innocent life, but I can fully support the distruction of humvees. I’m sure if you left them all abandoned in the desert somewhere, the muslims (or anyone) would be happy to blow them up with or without whitey inside.

      Reply

    33. First and foremost:

      I’m sad that nobody noticed that they used an Interrobang in the picture.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrobang

      Second, pie is a religion, which you should join:

      In the beginning, there was naught but several different ingreedients, drifting in chaos.

      On the first day, the Pie turned on the great cosmic oven, preheating it to precisely three hundred and seventy-five degrees Farenheit. The Pie blessed Its divine Kitchen-Aid, and it was good.

      On the second day, the Pie unwrapped Its pre-made graham cracker crust, which was eternally crumbly and delicious. The Pie blessed this crust, and nibbled on the crumbs it left behind, and it was good.

      On the third day, the Pie whisked divine sugar, flour, cornstarch, salt, lemon zest, water, and lemon juice together in a medium saucepan. The Pie cooked this mixture over medium-high heat until it boiled, and it was good.

      On the fourth day, the Pie stirred in the butter, and then slowly added a bowlful of whipped eggs. The Pie again brought this mixture to a boil, stirred it occasionally, removed it from the heat, and it was good.

      On the fifth day, the Pie placed this mixture into its graham cracker crust. It also whipped eggs and sugar to light and fluffy perfection, and spread it in artistic swirls atop the mixture in the pie crust, and it was good.

      On the sixth day, the Pie placed its work of art into its great Kitchen-Aid, for ten minutes, until the surface was golden brown, and it was good.

      On the seventh day, the Pie rested, and sampled a small portion of its lemon meringue masterpiece before anyone else got to it. It was lemony, and it was tasty, and it was good.

      On the eighth day, the Pie placed Man upon this great confection, as it had made Man and the rest of nature and pastry out of pre-canned pie fillings while its perfect pie was baking.

      The Pie had created the first man and woman, Scone and Tart, respectively. They lived peacefully upon the Great Lemon Meringue Pie in the Sky, amongst the birds and beasts and pastry. The Pie did warn them, “Eat not of anything the Cakes give you; they are oversweet and overfrosted, and don’t taste so hot.” Scone and Tart heeded his words until they met the Cake. Having never seen something so heinous before, they did not recognize their peril. The Cake genially offered them to taste of Cupcake, his decoratively frosted son. They gladly did so, and the Pie was angered, and threw them down from the great Pie in the Sky to the Earth, which was nice and green but particularly lacking in fine baked delicacies.

      However, the Pie was so angry with the Cake, It banished Cake, Cupcake, and their other heavily frosted consorts to the fiery depths of the Burnt Underside of the Crust. Their sugary coatings quickly extinguished the flames, but proceeded to melt together and form a bog of boiling, sugary syrup.

      From that day forward, the Pie was so bitter about the loss of Its children that It vowed to extinguish any followers of the unholy Cake.

      Reply

    34. As for Ward: Lollercaust to you friend. I’m a historian, and I’ve gotta say, there’s no proof virtually anyone existed before the year 1500, save maybe a dozen kings or emperors.

      Proove to me, for example, that Aristotle existed. What do we have of him? A few very muddled, pieced together books (the textual critic in me says multiple authors), and a handful of ancient referances made hundres of years after his so called “death”. Who’s to say he wasn’t as legendary as Achilles? Or that Achilles was all that legendary, for that matter.

      As a reasonable person, I have no legitimate reason to suspect that Jesus was not a historical figure, though I suspect the Gosples shouldn’t be taken as Gosple.

      I’m glad that atheists like Ward are taking the idea of “blind, militant intollerance” over from religion. I’d be dissapointed to see angry cracker hate die out with the old beliefs.

      Reply

    35. Ciao:
      Yes, that is one of my main gripes with the US education system. The schools force teachers to adhere to curriculum’s, and adherence to standardized tests as the basis for raises, performance, etc. I paid attention in school, never skipped class, but didn’t to homework, seeing as how I thought it more important to learn the idea that day, if I didn’t understand it, how would going home and trying it on my own be any more beneficial than in the school environment with classmates and the teacher? If I DID understand it, then what was the point of doing more of it later, as if repetition that soon afterwards would help my memorization more. Also, I find that I can keep pace with those who went on to college, when I did not, because the first two years of college seem to repeat high school courses anyway, but it’s brand new to these kids because they were losers/slackers/whatever in high school. Anyway, yes, the US is sorely lacking a strong leadership, and common sense to boot. Know that I am fighting my own battle to maintain these values.

      Also, from what I have been told, the Muslim/Islamic terrorists wouldn’t mind blowing up something that is a symbol of American freedom and so forth like a HMMVW, but it is the killing of American citizens that allows them to go to Allah with the 72 virgins or whatever the propaganda is. Again, I haven’t known any middle east terrorists personally, so I can’t say for sure that is the rationalization, but from many second and third hand accounts, it seems to be the case.

      Reply

    36. “@ rorschach: I’m a fucking idiot and you’re an accidental mutation of ooze. Good to see we agree eye to eye.”

      Ah but, rorscach will evolve into something better, you however will still be an idiot.

      /peace

      Reply

    37. @ Caio

      “there’s no proof virtually anyone existed before the year 1500, save maybe a dozen kings or emperors.”

      So what says you on human(ish) skeletons dated back to +190mya?

      Egyptians: the great pyramids are +4000 years old.

      Can’t do math, or temporarily “forgot” them for the sake of argument?

      Reply

    38. I refuse to read past the first two comments. LordPartyTime, you are a liar. Capital fucking “L” LIAR. You were never fucking suspended for saying prayers before eating, you lying shitsack! Take your worthless christian lies and stuff them up your worthless ass, and then go cry to your imaginary friend.

      Part of me suspects that you just make up stupid lies and bullshit to stir people up-if that’s the case, then know this-you are an even bigger shitbag for doing so. Go jerk off in your mom’s panties again, cocksnack!

      Reply

    39. Now that is funny. I am not commenting on the issue at hand, but the astounding amount of personal attacks is true hilarity. Nippletwister, I can only assume, is all of twelve years old, read a book that his daddy told him he couldn’t, and decided to use some of his new favorite words on the internet and make himself feel all big and smart. *golf clap*

      Good for you, nipp, good for you. I do, however, invite you to visit Jerome, Idaho. Then, after experiencing some of that wonderful culture, I’ll gladly accept your humble apology for your grossly incorrect assumption.

      Reply

    40. @LPT
      The personal attacks are because you’re making assertions without anything to back them up. Which shouldn’t be to surprising, since that is the basis of religion.
      If you’re going to be a dipshit, people will make fun of you. You’ll understand that better once you leave NapoleonDynamite-ville.

      @Frank, Caio’s point, I believe, is that its impossible to prove the existence of most specific people before 1500. Pharaohs, like emperors, would be one of the obvious exceptions.

      Reply

    41. “So what says you on human(ish) skeletons dated back to +190mya?

      Egyptians: the great pyramids are +4000 years old.

      Can’t do math, or temporarily “forgot” them for the sake of argument?”

      Yes, I should have said *individual* people seeing as that adjective was totally obvious from the context anyway. But in cracker insane dream logic world, I guess that could have been interpreted as humanity as a whole. Sorry for the vagueness, and I’ll try to remember who I’m adressing next time.

      Prove an individual Egyptian peasant exists who we know any actual substantial information about. Or even a British peasant from the middle ages. Can we really say famous people Wat Taylor and Jack Straw existed and were who the two choniclers said they were: Hell, some historians think they might have been the same person. That’s less proof than we have for Jesus, man. There’s such a paucity of real verifiable information on anyone but kings and the highest nobility back then, and such skewed chronicles, who’s to really say what’s what. I mean, I’m not sayin, but I’m sayin.

      Schulz: Right on man. Morality is the most difficult thing in life, and it’s an individual thing. More power to you for even thinking about it. It’s more than most people do.

      Reply

    42. zeitgeistmovie.com/ amazing video people , changed meny of my veiws on life well worth spending the 2h i think it is to watch it if you havent already

      Reply

    43. First off I think it’s really kinda silly that you both agree that religion (weather your pro or anti) is important and your still fighting about who’s right. Reminds me of the Crusades when Catholics were fighting with each other as to what to call themselves. You both agree on the same basic point so why fight? Secondly, @ reboot you want your link about religious discrimination in schools? How about one from The University of Michigan?

      sitemaker.umich.edu/hwaters/discrepancies_with_religion_in_schools

      Lastly, I am a southern baptist, not that any of you may even care, and I also believe in evolution. I KNOW having gone through college for microbiology that living organisims DO evolve. The flu virus for example evolves into almost 250 different strains every year. However, I highly doubt that humans evolved from either single celled organisms or primates. Seriously, if that were the case then every living being would (theoretically) be more compatible (biologically) and have more cells in common with each other.

      Reply

    44. Ohh and Pumpkin pie is the best. 😀

      Reply

    45. Fjord83,
      None of your examples are relevent or analogous to what I was asking a examples of.
      The first two deal with muslims in schools. I have no doubt that muslims have problems in American schools. The third example was about kids being barred from “gang colors/styles, cult dress/styles, Vampire/Death-style make-up, black nail polish, satanic jewelry, dog collars” none of which are religions (No, vampire is not a religion). LPT claimed that atheists were specifically discriminating against Christians in school, including forging grades.
      Where the hell did you study microbiology?? Don’t tell me you actually got a degree?? Common cellular traits between species has been documented since the microscope was invented. Since DNA has been discovered, we’ve found even more biological common traits. Humans not only evolved from primates, we are primates! If a college gave you a degree in microbiology, they should have their accreditation recertified.

      Reply

    46. First I making reference to the fact that ALL religions are targeted in schools, just google “religious discimination in schools” and you’ll get a whole list of articles. Secondly, yes all living creatures do have common traits and cells. However, if all living creatures evolved from a single cell organisim, (and I may be wrong) which is what I understand darwinisim to belive, then how do we have thousands of different species and the only creatures that have the most in common are in the same class? If we evolved from primates why are there still primates? If we evolved from a single cell we sould be able to get a heart transplant from a fish, and new limb from a deer, etc. All living creatures would have more in common not just at the cellular level. What’s more, you keep asking for proof, and links and all that other jargon. I have a challenge for you. Prove christianity wrong. Go out, do your own research, and find the irrefutible proof. Numerous christians don’t belive everything that the bible says (i.e. the virgin birth) these people are not true christians. In the bible God says “Everything in my book is true.” For someone not to be able to believe one story or passage, they can’t believe God’s promise, if they can’t believe God’s promise then they can’t be true christians, for someone to prove one fallity in the bible they would totally destroy the christian religion, so I ENCOURAGE you. Prove me wrong. Quit trying to get others to do your work for you and do it yourself. Show me undenyable proof. Make the world a happier place and destroy christianity.

      Reply

    47. @Fjord83
      You are a liar and have never “gone through college for microbiology”.

      All of your questions have trivial answers from any high school biology text. The fact that you still bring up these tired arguments proves you’ve never passed a biology class in your life. Got anything else? What about, “the eye is too complex to have evolved”? These are elementary.

      In the bible God says “Everything in my book is true.”

      That is nowhere in Bible.

      Literal interpretation of the Bible has already been proven wrong, based on internal contradictions and inconsistencies alone. QED

      Reply

    48. reboot, i’m not trying to prove you wrong, but to give you a bit of perspective from the point of one who does happen to believe the bible. Using your own link:
      GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
      GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn’t created until the fourth day.

      From the viewpoint that God created everything, as in nothing existed but him at the point in time which creation took place, it is entirely understandable to create light, and then to later create a source for that light (other than God himself). The source of light was created and placed in the firmament (sky), otherwise the light would have come from everywhere and nowhere. Kind of like a torch. In the darkness of a cave, you use a lighter to light a torch. You could hold it, or you could put it in a sconce in the wall. Disregarding that all the other things existed before you,(the torch, the cave, the lighter, the sconce) the creating light (striking the lighter) and putting it somewhere (the torch) and then putting the torch in a sconce (sun in the firmament) represents the closest analogy i can think of.

      I’m not saying your site is wrong, or that you are. I’m not trying to push my beliefs on you. I am, however, showing you how it is possible for someone to believe. Call it misguided, call me a liar for my beliefs, call me stupid. It really doesn’t matter.

      Reply

    49. you know, as far as Evolution vs. Creationism goes ~at least as it concerns the origin of life~ neither one can really be called scientific, because neither is a repeatable event. you can’t create another universe.

      science is defined as ‘systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.’ (dictionary.com)

      The thing is, on the surface, both evolution and creation offer viable explanations for why we are here. the problem arises when you try and scrutinize either side. i would say both have their own hurdles and obstacles.

      in my opinion, the Bible and your average Inbreeder are the biggest obstacles that Creation has to overcome.
      and the biggest obstacle Evolution has to overcome is the physical mechanics of microbiology.

      Reply

    50. @ LPT, some of those contradictions can be resolved or rationalized through metaphysical interpretations, as you have done. But you have to admit that there are a lot inconsistencies listed there and if even one is unresolvable then the whole “the Bible is the perfect word of God” falls about.
      And just to clarify, I did not call you a liar for your beliefs, I called you (and Fjord83) a liar for making specific, unreasonable claims without any evidence. If a teacher got fired, that should at least be in your local newspaper and you can provide a link. I even did my own google search based on Jerome, ID, and came up with nothing. Though I did learn that you have some wacky Christian Academy and there are tons of Mormons from there.

      Reply

    51. @natedog,
      “he biggest obstacle Evolution has to overcome is the physical mechanics of microbiology.”
      O RLY? care to elucidate how the very process that is used to support the Theory of Evolution is also its biggest obstacle?

      Reply

    52. The paper never got a hold of the info because the principal was overly concerned about her reputation, she was a dick. The teacher left quietly, as he wanted to get hired somewhere else. Our papers are more concerned with agriculture news, the burden of living in a farming state. However, I understand your refusal to believe me. Totally understandable.

      I’ll take a look at the rest of the inconsistencies, but from the brief overview of what i had read it was mostly mis-interpretations of the scriptures in question, but in the interest of fairness I’ll go ahead and read every one, as some actually looked valid. As the author/s of the site said, though, even irrefutable proof to one person is easily overcome by another’s ‘faith’.

      Reply

    53. @reboot:

      In order to truly understand a function, one must understand in detail every relevant step in the process. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as vision must include its molecular explanation.

      When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)

      GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

      Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

      Darwin himself said that:

      “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (“The Origin of Species,” 6th Edition, 1928, p.170)

      So reboot, please tell me how this process that allows us to see could have come about by means of ANY step by step process.

      While you’re at it, look at the blood clotting cascade that keeps up from bleeding to death or how bacterial flagellum can be a molecular rotary motor complete with universal joint, drive shaft, stator & rotor, bushings, a propeller, etc…

      Reply

    54. @natedog, did you miss the part in my reply to Fjord83 where I sarcastically dismissed the eye-complexity argument? It was almost if I’ve heard that argument and could immediately refute it and provide support for that refutation.

      www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

      Your description of the biochemical processes in vision is roughly accurate. But it’s not as impressively complex as you seem to think it is. There are a lot of biochemical cycles that are just of elaborate, if not more-so.
      Funny that you mention molecular motors because it just so happens that my undergrad work was in that field (I’m second author on that paper). So, yeah, what do you want explained? BTW: joint, drive shaft, stator & rotor, bushings are really just convenient metaphors.

      Reply

    55. Ermmm, while were getting all deep n’ shit here,

      How the fuck can paper beat rock?!

      And cake > pie any day.

      Reply

    56. so would SOMEONE explain how any molecular machines or even a motor from a car can come to be in a step by step method? you have to have all the parts there and working in order for the machine to work. take out the driveshaft or a rotor or a propeller and it does not work.

      Reply

    57. ? huh

      A motor will work without a drive shaft 😀
      But a cam’less motor will not work because everything must work in perfect harmony to function in a machine.

      Reply

    58. @natedog, a molecular motor protein is only a motor in the sense that it converts chemical energy into mechanical energy. Any comparison with a car engine or electric motor is only a convenient metaphor. If you look at kinesin, it really only has two parts (3 if you count the microtubule surface).
      I don’t know what part your having a hard time believing.
      Motor proteins are driven by alternating between binding and non-binding states. The change between these states is initiated by the hydrolysis of a nucleotide (like GTP or ATP).
      Lots of proteins are enzymes, lots of enzymes bind to a surface as part of the chemical process, most (I dare say all) change geometric configuration during the enzymatic cycle. Motor proteins just combine those simple processes.
      There’s been a lot of research on the specific evolution of motor proteins.
      I don’t mind talking about the specific details, but you need to familiarize yourself with the basics first.

      Reply

    59. @reboot

      to call a motor protein, or any protein, ‘simple’ is totally lame. cells are not simple. and neither are any of their parts. people play it off like life began as some simple goo or whatever; when the chasm between nonlife and life is staggering and profoundly different.

      you’re totally missing my point, which is that machines ~even simple ones~ cannot just come about mindlessly in a step by step manner. the human body, as it exists now, could not have come to be what it currently is in such a way.

      you have to have all the many many vital parts working together in balance and harmony. and even then, it’s a daily struggle just to live.

      and you can’t just ignore the mechanics of it all.

      you have all these different systems working together; ALL of which you need to live. the circulatory, digestive, endocrine, nervous, skeletal, reproductive, respiratory, muscular, etc… take away one, & you’re done, son. you have to have them all to even have them at all.

      if you take ANY step by step progressive path, you will not arrive at the human body.

      your blood is made in the bones. riddle me this, batman: which came first?

      your blood only carries stuff it gets from the other systems, like the respiratory and digestive and endocrine and immune system. without these systems, the circulatory is pointless. and with out a circulatory, the other systems have no way to move their goods around the body. which came first?

      most people would think that the nervous system came first? nope. the only purpose of a nervous system is to run other systems. if there are no other systems, then it’s pointless. and you can’t have any of the other systems without a nervous system.

      the human brain alone is the most complex thing in the known universe. and it is just one part of a larger thing with many parts, most every one of which is needed in order for any of the others to work.

      what if you had all the systems except for the reproductive? where would you be then?

      what if you had everything but no bones? besides being screwed because we’d have no blood, we’d be equally screwed because we couldn’t move.

      no muscles? well think about that one. the heart is a muscle. but it is part of the circulatory and muscular, which is so bound to the skeletal system that it is often referred to as the musculoskeletal system. and since the blood is made in the bones, i guess it’s just one big system. but teeth are bones, and they’re part of the digestive system, right? and wait, the blood carries oxygen from the respiratory-

      oh my, it does seem to all be tangled together, no?

      you gotta have it all in ONE step, not many over so many years…

      but it doesnt stop there. nooooo. look at the systems themselves; say the circulatory. you have a pump, some pipes, and the blood, which is all the stuff from all the different systems (food, air, waste, hormones, antibodies, etc.)

      take out the pump, and you die.
      take out the pipes, and you die.
      take out the blood and you die.

      look at the DNA/protein relationship as far as information is concerned. all the genetic info is in the nucleic acids, right? the proteins and enzymes take the info and make all the cellular doodads, right?

      you can’t have the one without the other.

      (and encoded information itself is quite a hurdle for evolution.)

      anyway, evolution does not even try to tackle the actual facts of how life has evolved-let alone how it made the jump from nonlife.

      Reply

    60. and also reboot, when you say
      “a molecular motor protein is only a motor in the sense that it converts chemical energy into mechanical energy.”,
      i really beg to differ.

      if you simply go to google images and google “bacterial flagellum motor” you will see thousands of pictures of the things. it is a motor in the literal sense and all the other senses.

      and also, if you read that “lot of research on the specific evolution of motor proteins” that you linked to (www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/10/3681) you will not find research on how it actually happened on a mechanical level.

      Reply

    61. @natedog,

      to call a motor protein, or any protein, ’simple’ is totally lame. cells are not simple. and neither are any of their parts. people play it off like life began as some simple goo or whatever; when the chasm between nonlife and life is staggering and profoundly different.

      It’s not simple, but its not an impossible task, either. Lookup some stuff about ATP synthase, which is your basic rotary motor protein. All the parts work together beautifully, but there are also examples each of the individual components serving a purpose on their own.
      There are intermediate transition examples of almost all of your gaps. Start with single celled organisms -> cooperative slime molds colonies -> specialized cells in sponges -> development of organs in jelly-fish -> worms -> fish -> amphibians. Once you get to frogs its just a matter of some further organ specialization and development. Didn’t you dissect stuff, in jr. high? Did you miss the point? This is elementary stuff, crack a book.
      I linked to a paper on the evolution of myosin. Did you read it? Did you read the link on kinesin? If you’re not going to the read the material that I refer you to, you’re being deliberately ignorant and this conversation is pointless.

      Reply

    62. “if you simply go to google images and google “bacterial flagellum motor” you will see thousands of pictures of the things. it is a motor in the literal sense and all the other senses.”
      WRONG. I’m way past google images. If read my paper, that was published in Physics Review, that I linked to, it shows that myosin can best be described by non-processive stochastic methods, making it fundamentally different from an electric motor. That’s not even an original idea, my adviser and I just developed a modification to the theory that analytically treats the asymmetric rate distribution. You don’t really get to “beg to differ” on this one. Pictures don’t cut it, the mechanism is what makes the motor.
      As for PNAS article, did you read the full article? Because there’s 6 pages of dense description plus 49 references. You might need a better background to understand the terminology, but its there, you can find it, the only reason you still have questions is because you haven’t looked for answers.

      Reply

    63. you still fail to even attempt to address my point. now who’s being ‘deliberately ignorant’ and making pointless conversation?

      i’m not talking about slime. i am talking about your body. the HUMAN body. evolution says that it happened in sooo many successive steps, a, b, c, d, e, f……..w, x, y, z (‘a’ being your single celled organisms and ‘z’ being the body we have today) but you can’t reverse the process and start taking parts out of the body…

      please address this specifically with the human body, not some ‘slime mold colonies’. i mean really.

      and you cannot even show how a fish evolves into an amphibian or how you get a worm from a jelly fish. you can have a cute little story about how everything just ‘evolves’, but you cannot address the actual, physical mechanisms of the change.

      most every major plant and animal body type had ‘evolved’ shortly after the cambrian explosion at the beginning of the fossil record anyway.

      and crack a book? i am soooo glad you gave me that idea, because i have never done that. i’m totally unread. in fact, i’m illiterate.

      Reply

    64. “but you can’t reverse the process and start taking parts out of the body…”
      I don’t know why you are obsessed with that being a necessary condition. It’s called an irreversible process. The parts of the body evolved codependently. At some point, an ancestor to humans in a different environment with differently specialized organs survived without bones, analogously to an earthworm. But if you remove the bones from a human, they cannot survived (easily). There is no contradiction there.
      Fossil record before fish is tricky, because there is no hard material to fossilize, but fish to amphibian might look like this. Lungs are basically self-moisturizing, internal gills.
      The mechanism for change is mutation and natural selection. This guy named Darwin wrote some books about it.
      “i’m totally unread. in fact, i’m illiterate.”
      Yeah, it kind of seems that way. Good luck with that reading.

      Reply

    65. “most every major plant and animal body type had ‘evolved’ shortly after the cambrian explosion at the beginning of the fossil record anyway.”

      All that other stuff you said is fine, though I have my suspicions and all, but this? This? This is some bullshit created by a pop-sci writer, and virtually every legitimate scientist specialing in that sort of thing strongly disagrees. I forget the name of the fella, and but he was the dude who took the second look at those fossils they found up in the BC mountains a while back. I could look up the name if you’d like.

      Reply

    66. Oh, sorry, dude. If you want me to look it up, you’re going to have to wait 5 minutes and nine seconds because The Final Countdown came on and I have to rock my cock straight off. It’s like a personal theme song for me.

      brb2rock

      Reply

    67. Caio, I think you’re talking about Stephen Jay Gould and his excellent book “Wonderful Life” about the Burgess Shale in BC and how the initial reassembling of fossils was flawed by the bias of the investigators to match modern types of species.
      natedog, now that I think about it, I think your problem is looking for a deterministic mechanism for evolution, when natural selection is a statistical process. Look at the webbing on between your fingers and toes. Some people have more other people have less, right? And isn’t that webbing similar to the fins of a fish and the wings of a bat? Think of normal distribution curves for the amount of webbing for fish, humans and bats. Each curve will have a different mean and a different standard deviation, but they will overlap at the extremes.
      Now think of every physical characteristic having a distribution.
      Natural selection just chops out portions of that distribution and creates new means and new species. That’s your mechanism.

      Reply

    68. hooo that took some time to wind down from. newai, christianity vs. evolution:

      denise.nichel.org/calvinhobbes/snowart/blackandwhite/evolution.gif

      I’m off. Whatever your persuasion, Natty Dread wish you an irie christmas and a dancehall new year.

      Reply

    69. you’re just not getting my flow here.

      just saying that the parts of the body developed co-dependantly is rubbish. you say it can happen, but you cannot show how it happens. you can say ‘mutation’ and ‘natural selection’ but you cannot show the way. you just point to a path and say that we came down it.

      having more or less webbing between fingers and toes has nothing to do with how a system like a circulatory or respiratory can come to be in a step by step method. you say these systems evolved together, but that really is asinine.

      you would have to ‘mutate’ the system whole and intact. and then you’re still screwed unless you mutate many other systems at the same time.

      that is where evolution trips up; on the physical part, on the mechanics of the process. it’s a nice little happy story that sounds good, but it fails when you look at it closely.

      life is clearly based on machines-machines made of molecules. molecular machines haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along ‘highways’ made up of other molecules, while still others act as cables, ropes, and pulleys to hold the cell in shape. machines turn cellular switches on and off, sometimes killing the cell or causing it to grow. solar powered machines capture the energy of photons and store it in chemicals. electrical machines allow current to flow through nerves. manufacturing machines build other molecular machines, as well as themselves. cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, and even ingest food with machinery. Highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life is enormously complex.

      it is obvious that molecular machines are vastly more complex than the machines we, as humans, make and use in our everyday lives, like cars or toasters or calculators or telephones.

      so why isn’t life pooping up in junk drawers around the country? why don’t we see transformers ‘evolving’ out of junk yards or land fills?

      you can search the scientific literature out there, but you will be very hard pressed to find any papers on the question of how molecular machines (the basis of life) developed. the complexity of life has paralyzed science’s attempt to account for it.

      Darwinism can explain many things, but it doesn’t explain molecular machinery. each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biological chemical processes that cannot just be papered over with rhetoric.

      Anatomy is simply irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. so is the fossil record. it doesnt matter whether there are huge gaps in the fossil record or even whether the record is continuous.

      the fossil record has nothing to tell us about whether the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step by step.

      Darwinism, on this anniversary of Darwin setting off on his voyage aboard the USS Beagle, must be reconsidered in light of advances in biochemistry. For Darwin and his theory to be right, it has to account for the molecular machinery of life.

      Reply

    70. “how a system like a circulatory or respiratory can come to be in a step by step method.”
      Circulatory system is a good example of step-by-step evolution. There are worms that have no circulatory system, interstitial fluid spread nutrients by diffusion. There are animals that have only a dorsal vessel and there is no distinction between the blood the interstitial fluid. Then other tube crossing that dorsal vein creating a kind of gridwork. Then specialized muscles that can help the flow. All the way up to closed circulatory systems with highly specialized heart and strong distinction between blood and interstitial fluid.
      Homework problem: research and describe the step-by-step evolution of the respiratory system.

      “you would have to ‘mutate’ the system whole and intact. and then you’re still screwed unless you mutate many other systems at the same time.”
      Check out this description of the evolution of the eye. When you done with that, click on the link about argument for incredulity. Ponder how this applies to you.

      “molecular machines (the basis of life)”
      That’s wrong. Prokaryotes don’t have an “molecular machines” Everything is free floating in the cell and transported by diffusion. Motor proteins are needed mainly to transport of larger structure such as organelle.

      “the fossil record has nothing to tell us about whether the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step by step.”
      Don’t need the fossil record, we have living examples of all the transitional phases of eye development. See previous link.

      I’m curious about what books you’ve read to get your information. What specific books and authors have you read about molecular biology? You obviously copied the whole eye mechanism sequence from somewhere, where did you copy it from?

      “so why isn’t life pooping up in junk drawers around the country?”
      Because there is already competition from specialized life for available nutrients and resources.
      “why don’t we see transformers ‘evolving’ out of junk yards or land fills?”
      Really? WTF?

      Reply

    71. YOU ARE IGNORING MY POINT!!!

      how many times do i have to ask the question?

      you give no mechanism on how this could happen!
      here are the steps that link gives for the way that the eye ‘might have evolved’:

      * photosensitive cell
      * aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
      * an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
      * pigment cells forming a small depression
      * pigment cells forming a deeper depression
      * the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
      * muscles allowing the lens to adjust

      but this is all just flawed logic. and so is just putting me into a box labeled “argument from incredulity”. i never said that life was so complex that i cant understand how it could have evolved, therefore it must be created. i said that the mechanics involved in biochemistry cannot come about by a step by step method.

      your steps above dont show or prove anything.

      first of all, how do you get a photosensitive cell in the first place? and dont try to gloss it over like it is some simple little gooey thing that can just form itself; it is quite complex. your link doesnt address how the photosensitive cell evolved in the first place. it just includes it as a convenient starting point. and then we add more cells, these are pigmented, right? oh, and then we’ll just throw in an optic nerve. oh, next we need some more pigment cells to make a ‘deeper depression’. and the skin covering the cell can simply form a lens…

      also from your linked article:

      “Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.”

      so you take some loaded ‘steps’ that just conveniently start with cells, then add more cells, then more and more cells, until your simple photosensitive cell (which is not at all a simple thing) becomes the vastly complex human eyeball? and it only took 364,000 generations? now add all the other systems and vital parts of the systems, and how many generations would you need?

      but still, none of it will work without the rest, EVEN IN ONE GENERATION!

      you simply must address the mechanics of it all if evolution is right.

      another quote from your article:

      “Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.”

      you don’t know the path the eye followed; you can’t even point to a path. the path doesnt even show up on any maps.

      Reply

    72. and as for this part of your post:

      1) “so why isn’t life pooping up in junk drawers around the country?”
      Because there is already competition from specialized life for available nutrients and resources.

      2)“why don’t we see transformers ‘evolving’ out of junk yards or land fills?”
      Really? WTF?

      1) what possible competition-or specialized life- is there in a junk drawer?

      2) my point here is that there are already formed mechanical parts in a junk yard. there are many machines that are really not too far off from being complete and in working order. would it not be easier for life to evolve out of a landfill-with all the ready formed available parts-than it would for life to form itself from scratch?

      and evolution can do nothing to bridge the gap from the non-living to the living.

      either ADDRESS THE MECHANICS OF HOW IT HAPPENED or admit you’ve been owned.

      Reply

    73. to answer the original question
      no it doesnt

      Reply

    74. it does when one of the two options has been the cause of repression, hatred and violence for over 2 thousand years.

      Reply

    75. “i said that the mechanics involved in biochemistry cannot come about by a step by step method.”
      which is equivalent to saying “I don’t understand who the mechanics involved in biochemistry come about by a step by step method”. It’s not as if you’ve offered a mathematical proof that it cannot be done.

      “how do you get a photosensitive cell in the first place”
      Even single-celled organisms like bacteria are light sensitive. So its not a complicated property.
      Lots of long chain conjugated molecule are responsive to light in the UV-vis spectrum. So you have a cell that mutates to have some such molecules. Since light sensitivity is based almost entirely on the length of the molecule, this is just a variation in the statical distribution. Light changes the chemistry of the cell, but not enough to kill it. After many generations other biochemical mechanisms have changed in response the light-activated chemical changes and you have a photosensitive cell. In other words, the light-sensitive molecules become an environmental factor and the evolution of single celled organisms to new environmental factors is documented. QED.
      I’m not going to write a page for each step, but its not because I can’t. Look up the references, the research is there if you want it.

      “none of it will work without the rest”
      You keep repeating that, but its wrong. If changing one part caused the whole thing to die, then even so-called micro-evolution would be impossible. Even hardcore Creationists don’t try to claim that anymore.

      “1) what possible competition-or specialized life- is there in a junk drawer?”
      That’s easy: bateria, fungi, microscopic animals, etc.
      “2) my point here is that there are already formed mechanical parts in a junk yard. there are many machines that are really not too far off from being complete and in working order. would it not be easier for life to evolve out of a landfill-with all the ready formed available parts-than it would for life to form itself from scratch”
      Because biochemistry works on a molecular level and those machines are in the junkyard are only machines on a macroscopic level. There are no chemical mechanisms for the junkyard machines to diffuse, reproduce or mutate.

      “and evolution can do nothing to bridge the gap from the non-living to the living.”
      That is a tricky gap and a subject of a lot of research. One theory this that early life was a form of microscope crystal. The crystal became embedded in a a medium (like clay or sand). When the crystal was finally washed free from the medium a new crystal formed in the hole. A new crystal could form in the same recess and have similar structure. This has some merit because DNA and RNA are made of sugar and phosphate residues and of course sugar forms a crystals. But like I said, that’s still ongoing research.

      How do you think life was formed and why? What’s your alternative theory that has no logic holes?

      Reply

    76. do you not think it would be easier for machines on the macroscopic level to develop into a life form than the complex molecules on the microscopic level?

      DNA and RNA are much more than sugar and phosphate residues. you are totally leaving out the all important ENCODED INFORMATION carried by the nucleic acids. it is not like the amino acids can just arrange themselves all willy nilly. they have to be in a certian order.

      if you untangle the chromosomes in the DNA from just one of your cells, you would have a string 6 feet long. IN EACH OF YOUR HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS OF CELLS. there are 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA, all encoded in a specific way. DNA is a language. But you’re totally right. it blindly wandered its way throughout the ages to become me and you here today.

      Intensely complicated molecular machines can evolve on their own, but simple prefabricated machine parts in a junkyard have no chance. of course.

      i call shenanigans.

      and the reason i keep repeating that you have to have the whole organism (all the vital parts, at least) in order for it to work. you can not have half of an engine and expect it to work. you can not have just 25 chromosomes and expect a human to come out of them. you have to have 26.

      so did we just evolve with 26 simple little prechromosomes that eventually evolved to the ones we have today? or did we start with one, and then gradually added another and another and another?

      you fail to grasp this simple concept. you cannot offer up any experiments that can show an incomplete, but viable, human.

      you also fail to address it at a mechanical level.

      The cell could not have evolved to be what it is in a peice-meal fashion. just look at the MECHANICS of it all. take the way the cell delivers its goods to the various parts of itself.

      all cargo delivery systems face common problems: the cargo must be labeled with a correct delivery address; the transporter must recognize the address and put the cargo in the correct delivery vehicle; the vehicle must recognize when it has arrived at the right destination; and the cargo must be unloaded. if any of these steps is missing, THEN THE WHOLE SYSTEM FAILS.

      if the package is mislabeled or no label is present, it doesnt get delivered. if the package is delivered to the wrong address or the container cannot be opened once it arrives, then it may as well have never been sent. THE ENTIRE SYSTEM MUST BE IN PLACE BEFORE IT WORKS.

      most people thing that cells are a homogenous globule of protoplasm, but that is wrong and ignorant. In particular, eukaryotic cells (cells of all organisms except bacteria) have many different specialized compartments in which many different discrete tasks are performed; such as the nucleus (the blueprints/info), the endoplasmic reticulum (processes protiens), the lysosome (garbage disposal), the mitochondria (produces energy the cell uses), etc… EACH OF THESE COMPARTMENTS IS SEALED OFF FROM THE REST OF THE CELL BY IT’S OWN MEMBRANE. if you count the membranes and interior spaces, there are more than 20 separate sections in a cell!(which brings us back to the problem of delivering cargo).

      the cell is a dynamic system and it continually manufactures new structures and gets rid of old material. and although some compartments make some materials for themselves, the great majority of proteins are centrally made and shipped to the other compartments. the shipping of proteins between compartments is an intricate and complex process.

      so at what point in the ‘evolution of man’ did this cargo delivery system evolve? because if you dont have even this one part of the whole, then the organism will die.

      LIKE I SAID, LOOK AT THE MECHANICS OF IT AND YOU WILL SEE EVOLUTION-OR ANY OTHER STEP BY STEP PROCESS-IS DEAD IN THE WATER…

      Reply

    77. “it is not like the amino acids can just arrange themselves all willy nilly. they have to be in a certian order.”
      Actually they can and do. Free amino acids in solution will form near arbitrary arrangements.

      “you can not have just 25 chromosomes and expect a human to come out of them. you have to have 26. ”
      “you cannot offer up any experiments that can show an incomplete, but viable, human.”
      This happens all the time. Sometimes its a problem, sometimes it goes undetected. Your whole machine argument is a total disaster, because we have many, many cases of living things with some of the “missing pieces”.

      “Intensely complicated molecular machines can evolve on their own, but simple prefabricated machine parts in a junkyard have no chance. of course.”
      I gave 3 mechanisms that show these are fundamentally different, go back and read.

      “if any of these steps is missing, THEN THE WHOLE SYSTEM FAILS.”
      Then how do you account for so-called microevolution which is demonstrated to happen?

      “most people thing that cells are a homogenous globule of protoplasm, but that is wrong and ignorant.”
      I never said anything like that.

      “EACH OF THESE COMPARTMENTS IS SEALED OFF FROM THE REST OF THE CELL BY IT’S OWN MEMBRANE.”
      Only in eukaryotes. So study prokaryotes. Then study some of the transitional species.

      “so at what point in the ‘evolution of man’ did this cargo delivery system evolve? ”
      Somewhere from the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. After large proteins, but before organelles.

      “LIKE I SAID, LOOK AT THE MECHANICS OF IT AND YOU WILL SEE EVOLUTION-OR ANY OTHER STEP BY STEP PROCESS-IS DEAD IN THE WATER…”
      Once again, you are saying that the biochemical mechanisms cannot change step by step. That would mean that even micro-evolution is impossible. Micro-evolution has been demonstrated, therefore your argument is wrong.

      I’ve asked you two questions: what books or other sources are you getting your information on biochemistry from? what alternative to evolution to propose and why? can you answer either of those?

      Reply

    78. This is all too confusing for me. On one hand, we have hard evidence of evolutionary processes, and can see it happening around us. We can see how easy it is for “simple” organisms to survive.

      And on the other hand, we have someone saying OMG IT TOTALLY CAN’T HAPPEN THAT WAY CAUSE I READ IT ON THE INTERNETS.

      I’m going to have to go with the hard science.

      The Hard-On Science(nsfw link) that is.

      Reply

    79. i’ve never cracked a book. and there are no alternatives to evolution.

      Reply

    80. Yeah tiki, it doesn’t matter.

      because it does not matter how we got here, its just that we are here.

      So what if your right, then what? wtf are you gonna do? pull an Al Gore and win a prize? So what? If thats all you live for… your not living for much

      Reply

    81. yeah
      meh
      it really doesnt matter

      Reply

    82. this is fucking retarded you are all childish.
      i wore a pair of ass tight jeans to school today and a lot of people commented on them. my point is the fact that they were concerning themselves with MY LIFE. why do you people care about other peoples lives, views, or any other shit like that? its fucking retarded.
      you people act like little kids arguing over fucking pokemon cards.
      get a life off the internet.
      except for tiki, cuz im guessing this is how he makes some money.
      pumpkin pie with whipped cream.
      duh.

      Reply

    83. lordpartytime, you are so right. i don’t think christians go out and bash atheists, why do atheists have to bash christians? it seems it’s just part of the pecking order. starting to notice a trend? i wonder why there are so few christains today.

      Reply

    84. You do realize if you choose to be an atheist that doesn’t mean you believe in one existing scientific theory and leave nothing up to debate what so ever, as a matter of fact as an atheist you don’t have to believe that any existing theories are correct or incorrect. That’s the great thing about being an atheist, you choose what to believe and don’t have to blindly devote your entire life to one belief according to your faith (faith by definition believing in something without proof).

      Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Visual Tricks Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas