Outraged Atheists Accuse Rick Warren of Blaming Colo. Rampage on Evolution in This Tweet — But He Says They Got It Horribly Wrong
- Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:15am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Pastor Rick Warren is known as a faith leader who is trusted by millions of people as well as presidential candidates. He’s also the author of the popular “The Purpose-Driven Life” book, among other related projects. But this week, he’s gaining attention after catching the ire of atheists and other critics who found themselves outraged over a tweet he sent on Friday.
The message, which read, “When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it,” has sparked outrage. Almost immediately, it was assumed that Warren was drawing a connection between evolution and Friday’s tragic shooting rampage in Aurora, Colorado.
“The mega-church pastor of the Saddleback Church, Rick Warren, took to Twitter on Friday to express his thought about the recent shooting at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater,” wrote atheist Staks Rosch of The Examiner (also the coordinator of PhillyCoR, Philadelphia Coalition of Reason). “Warren blamed the shooting on the teaching of evolution in public science classes.”
Following the publication of the tweet and the subsequent outrage, Warren deleted it — creating even more controversy. This, of course, led Rosch to post another article entitled, “Rick Warren Deletes Tweet Blaming Shooting on Evolution.” In this subsequent piece, Rosch continued airing his views on the matter:
This was obviously in reference to the recent mass-shooting at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater. This Examiner reported on the story with a screen capture of Pastor Warren’s Tweet. Just two days after the Tweet was made it was deleted presumably by Warren.
In Warren’s haste, he failed to delete the Tweet from his Facebook page. A screen capture of that status update is above. It clearly shows that Rick Warren did indeed Tweet that message and instead of issuing an apology to scientists, secularists, and atheists, Warren seems to be trying to pretend that it never happened by deleting the Tweet.
Rosch said that while it may be “possible” that the tweet wasn’t meant to comment on the shooting, he said such a prospect “is not probable” and pointed to past controversial Twitter statements by Warren. Rosch continued:
As a Christian, he no doubt believes God has forgiven him, but if Pastor Rick Warren really feels sorry for his ill-thought-out comment, he should issue a full apology through the media to actual people. Science education is a serious problem in this country and blaming this horrific attack on the teaching of evolution in science classes doesn’t help.
Blogger Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist was even harsher with his critique of Warren. As of this morning, it also appears that he has yet to publish a clarification of his initial post lambasting the prominent pastor (even after new details, which you will read about in this piece, were released). Mehta wrote:
Let’s hear those Warren-defending Christians explain this tripe that the pastor tweeted earlier today…
So, according to Rick Warren, pastor extraordinaire, teaching scientifically-sound evolution is the reason the shooter went into that theater.
Tell me again why he deserves our respect?
Dr. James F. McGrath, a New Testament Language and Literature professor at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana, also criticized Warren in an extensive piece on his Patheos blog. He, too, assumed that the pastor was commenting on evolution and the shooting.
But after responding to the tweet, McGrath apparently received a response from Warren further explaining the real meaning behind his initial tweet (he published it, along with a clarification).
In a statement published on the professor’s blog, Warren said:
TWITTER’S limit on words allows no context for statements. A lack of contxt causes misinterpretation. So when you tweet what’s on your mind, people preassume (incorrectly) that you are talking about what’s on THEIR mind. This is a clear example. My tweet was a brief response to a question to me about SEXUAL PROMISCUITY. It had NOTHING to do with the tragedy in Colorado.! I had received this email from a dad: “Pastor Rick, my daughter told me her teacher said in class “There’s nothing wrong with sex with multiple partners! Sex is a natural, inate drive, and any attempt to limit it to one, single partner is a manmade construct.” THAT is what I was commenting on. Unfortunately, you also incorrectly presumed the context.
Interestingly, Warren responded via Twitter as well following the controversy, seemingly corroborating his response to McGrath. “No context causes misinterpretation: When u tweet what’s on your mind, people assume ur talking about what’s on THEIR mind,” he wrote on Sunday.
While Warren has come out to explain the meaning behind his tweet, there is, of course, the question of why he deleted it in the first place. It’s possible he wanted to avoid further controversy and misunderstanding that would come from leaving it up. Regardless, it seems some of his critics jumped too quickly to lambaste him and to draw connections and assumptions that simply weren’t represented in his initial Tweet.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 571 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 395 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 386 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 369 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 331 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 386 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 395 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 331 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 386 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (350)
Hoax And Chains
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:18am“Scientifically sound” yet it remains a theory… because it is just a theory as is the faith-based theory. Either one is hardly a solid reason for placing blame on this twisted shooter. That said, I‘ll bet Mr Warren’s tweet comes from the frustration that we are, as a society, throwing values out the door, becoming more and more self-centered. When you can use pseudo-intellectual BS to justify the gay lifestyle based on the principle that two dogs do it, when in fact it’s not actual mating but is instead a dominance play, you’ve pretty much relegated the human race to nothing more than ignorant animals. Amazing that many in the press are taking every angle to squeeze more ratings out of this story. “What caused this?“ ”Why did he do it?“ ”But he was a Phd, med student!” As if we can somehow put this tragedy in a nice, neat little box and glean understanding from it. The shooter was a sick, twisted individual… not insane, and should be dealt with as such. While I do not follow Mr Warren, I find it pathetic how a bunch of useless, bleeding-heart liberals will take a tweet Mr Warren made out of frustration and run with it to bash conservatives and Christians.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:05pmDo you consider the Heliocentric Theory “Scientifically Sound”?
Report Post »TexVet61
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:12pmI agree, especially about science being sound. If science is SO sound, why do their answers keep changing… science is based on facts, but only on the facts they know, can identify and can prove, the naming of the planets is a good example, or medical, or earth (just to name a few). If you wait long enough everything the science community puts out will eventually change because the known “facts” have changed. so, I wonder what happens when they finally figure out that their sound science of evolution known facts change to show there is actually a “God particle”…. its called intelligent design by a greater being, our Lord and savior…
Report Post »jhaydeng
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:23pmIt starts with good parenting! Turn off the laptops and iphones and pay attention to your kids!!!!
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:31pmIt is not even a theory. By definition, macro-evolution is not even a hypothesis! For it to be such, it would have had to have been observed via experiment at least once! It is still at stage 1 in the scientific process, the Idea stage. That’s the dirty little secret. As a refresher, the 4 steps in the scientific process is:
1.) Idea (I proposed idea base loosely on known science. Macro-evolution stops here.)
Report Post »2.) hypothesis (The idea has been successfully observed in a scientifc experiment. Macro-evolution has NEVER and I repeat NEVER been observed by fossils or by experiment)
3.) Theory (The idea has been successfully re-produced and is repeatable in a known setting. Most ideas stop here since LAW is so hard to prove.
4.) Law (The idea will repeat Every time in defined conditions without fail)
The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:39pmalready posted this somewhere else….so you are just wrong. This post is from 2002 as well so there is probably even more evidence by now.
http://www.christianforums.com/t155626/
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:49pmYou do not understand what a scientific theory actually is. Then again, neither does Gregory Nathan Peterson.
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:55pm@Squid…well said..
@the Doors… FOOL!!
the Heliocentric Theory of Copernicus was PROVEN not only by Galileo and his telescope but by Brahe and Kepler with Brahe‘s data and Kepler’s 3 LAWS of Planetary motion and even proven AGAIN by Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation….then reconfirmed by modern scientists with the advent of better telescopes and SPACE TRAVEL!!
1) some problems with scientifically ignorant people…and yes..this includes teachers and those in the scientific community…Darwin’s THEORY was of Natural Selection and Adaptation…NOT evolution. Those that believed in evolution co-opted his theory and he said so many times in life and on his death bed. Darwin’s theory can best be described as MICRO-evolution.
2) MACRO-evolution that takes millions and millions of years has NEVER been shown or even observed in nature. There are no “Lucy” style primates out there, no 3-4 ft chimp like man or woman that walks mostly upright, no “big foot” creatures. ALL things that should exist if MACRO-evolution was true because it would not just STOP once ****-sapiens evolved. We should still see chimpanzees becoming “missing links” and wolves returning to the sea to be dolphins and whales and dinosaurs (lizards, crocs, gators) evolving into birds with feathers instead of scales….
BUT IT ISN”T HAPPENING….MACRO-evolution is a FRAUD!! Biologists LIE!!
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:01pmThank you for proving my point. Evolution, by natural selection is taking a similiar course. It’s easy to be a conspiracty theorist. All biologist lie! Keep making the world fit for you.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:01pm“You do not understand what a scientific theory actually is. Then again, neither does Gregory Nathan Peterson.”
I believe I just defined it. You guys want to change what the term “science” means. The word from it’s latin origin means truth or undeniable fact. Something you athiests abhor. That is how scientific process is taught in schools and has been since at least the 70′s. So I guess you need to go talk to the scientists in colleges and universities and let them know that you are way smarter than them and they aren’t teaching the scientific process correctly.
Athiests – Nobody’s smarter than them. Just ask them.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:05pm“millions and millions of years has NEVER been shown or even observed in nature. ”
since we haven’t been observing nature for that kind of time frame you see how your expectations are unreasonable. try watching the continents or the hour hand on your watch move. it’s kinda like that.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:10pmIf you want evidence of a living transitional species, look in the mirror. If you don’t like that answer, go to Australia, or better yet, your local zoo, and ask for the platypus exhibit. I like the platypus because it is a useful example and teaching subject. Not only does macroevolution exist, but we make use of the process through professional breeding as well as lab experiments with bacteria, flies, etc…We ourselves can’t mate with apes, even though we are apes and share a common ancestor with apes.
Report Post »Restore the Republic
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:12pmA theory has been tested and has withstood those tests. you are thinking of a hypothesis. Gravity is theory and not a hypotheses because it has been successfully tested against hundreds of thousands of predictions. Evolution is a theory because it has been successfully tested against hundreds of predictions. in order to call something a “theory” it must have been proven. You are confusing the term theory with the idea of a hypothesis.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:14pmA scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT.”
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.
We‘d have already found and colonized another planet if it hadn’t been for the likes of people like you.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:15pm“since we haven’t been observing nature for that kind of time frame you see how your expectations are unreasonable.”
And by the same token, you see that your argument is convenient.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:18pmProf. Dawkins kindly points out that if ‘skeptics’ (sic) don’t believe in theory, they are welcome to jump off of a building and see the theory of gravity in action.
Report Post »ranchoazulmt
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:51pmthe doors dude. There is a big difference between seeing something in a telescope jumping on the leap of faith that is evolution.
Every time I hear something on Animal Planet that tries to use evolution as the reason that an animal is surviving is really not evolution as much as adaptation.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 2:02pmOk then how about the theory of gravity as someone else pointed out on here using a quote from Prof. Dawkins?
Just in case you missed it…
A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”
Report Post »black9897
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 2:16pm@RANCHOAZULMT
Many try to use Micro-Evolution (adaption) to say “see, evolution is a fact” but fail to realize that no one is disagreeing or arguing with changes within a species. Adaption is provable and verifiable. Lifting weights is adaption; tanning is adaption.
Macro-Evolution is based largely on assumption. Of course, even other beliefs (including religious ones) have assumptions in them. The 2 problems I have is one, when scientists and those who believe in macro-evolution aren’t honest about the assumptions and 2, when it is held up as undeniable fact and whoever challenges it, disagrees with it, or brings up another theory is looked at as stupid.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 2:26pm@ DOORS…of course your analogy relies on false logic my friend. Just because one unrelated scientific explanation is valid does not mean another one is or isn’t. That is not logically based thought. Evolution may or may not be sound, but it has nothing to do with the “soundness” of other scientifc theories. That is the fallacy of faulty analogy. Of course the the sun is considered the center of our solar system. It is observable as such. Evolution is not observable directly as is the sun since by definition it occurs over great spans of time. Evolution must be interpretted by the evidence that exists, not by direct testable observation (as can be done with the sun). Now whether it is sound or not requires a close examination of the evidence and considerations of different possible explanations. I think the “soundness” the poster was referring to (if I may safely assume) was order coming from disorder, structure coming from nonstructure, life coming from none life, etc…which is consistent with the premise of most scientific thought, hence the great hunt for the explanation of why are we here and where did we come from. Since the multiverse theory’s validity has been recently called into question by several prominent physicists (this was Hawkings big hope for why we are here) then you having a lot of assumptions that could in fact be suggested to rest on unsound scientific principles.
Report Post »KevINtampa
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 2:31pmStatement of hypothesis, evidence, conclusion, and post theory follow up questions:
Science requires a lot of faith.
I can not see DNA. I can not feel DNA. I can not taste DNA. I can not hear DNA.
Priests within the Church of Bio-Molecular Research will have me think that within the Book of Genetics one can find the path to actually recognizing DNA. With their special holy instruments, which no layman can understand because it takes years of studying them in their monasteries, these priests can isolate DNS. Then with their privileged access to special machines that translate the meaning of cells into a human language, these priests can understand and identify who specific DNA belongs to.
Science is religion.
When does an atheists faith end, where does it begin? We all have faith in something.
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 2:47pmRick Warren makes a lot more sense than these athiestic scientific elite fools. The more we hear from these elite liberal scientists, the less they make sense. Fifty years ago we laughed at these elite idiots. They were considered stupid. In those days ordinary people made all the sense in the world but today after generations of being taught by, ruled by, and listening to these elite fools, few people make a lot of sense anymore. The destruction of the family unit was intentionally accomplished by these pointy headed corrupt government fools. There is no way of knowing what will happen to society as a result of their lust or greed for power and control.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 2:52pm@ FOXHOLE…uugghh..here we go with the platypus example again. This is NOT a transitional form scientifically speaking. It can be your opinion, or your specualtion, but this is NOT scientifc in any way. There is absolutely NO proof in any way that there was any transiton leading up to the modern day platypus.
The platypus, along with its fellow monotreme, the echidna, was believed to have evolved in isolation when the land mass that would become Australia (Gondwana) broke away from the other continents supposedly 225 million years ago. This idea of evolution in isolation followed the theory of Darwin, whose affinity for evolution may also have been influenced by his early studies of the platypus during his time on The Beagle.
However, the discovery in the early 1990s of three platypus teeth in South America—almost identical to fossil platypus teeth found in Australia—threw that theory upside down. (Marsupials, too, were once considered to be exclusive to Australia, but their fossils have now been found on every continent.) Adult living platypuses do not have teeth, but the discovery of platypus fossils in Australia had already identified that their ancestors did have teeth, which were unique and distinctive.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:02pmSLEAZE – for you:
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/marsupials
Report Post »stage9
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:05pmHE’S RIGHT!
For years evolutionists of all stripes have been trying to convince us that we’re nothing more than apes!
Ota Benga, The Man Who Was Put on Display in the Zoo!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga
On the day of the Columbine massacre, Eric “Harris wore a white T-shirt with the words “Natural selection” printed in black.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood endorsed eugenics. “As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.”[83] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics
Richard Dawkins reminds us of what we are:
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”
If life is so meaningless, why should I give a care about yours?
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:15pmProblem with the example of the theory of gravity is easily explained. It would be a scientific law if gravity and its properties were universally ubiqutous, but it is not therefore it does not technically qualify for the scientific label of law. Gravity and its properties are different throught different parts of the universe. Howevevr, here on Earth apart from external manipulation is constant. A little disingenuousness from Dawkin’s and those who piggy back off of him. Theory is NOT necessarily proven. Some theories are strong, ie gravity, some are weaker (evolution possibly) , but to play this word game is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. Hypothesis and theory are closely linked and a collection of hypotheses can be assimilated into a theory to explain a broader area of science. But to simply say something labeled theory means it is unquestionable is the statement of the scientificly ignorant.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:31pm@ PHILLY that article you linked addresses marsupials in general, which is a different discussion…We are talking platypus specifically here. The theory was that of isolational evolution (7.Moyal, A., Platypus, p. 192. Back). I pointed out that the “theory” was found to be incorrect. As recent discoveries have illuminated. What I stated was 100% factual in that it was once theorized just as I described. No longer is it so. Then back to my point to hold up platypus as a declared TRANSITIONAL form is incorrect and not scientific. So what I stated was accurate and to the more specific point at hand not proof of anything.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:48pm@ PHILLY, DOOR, and FOXHOLE…forgive my manners. Busy hectic day. Thank you for your time and responses ahead.
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:20pmYO ATHEISTS: PROVE THERE IS NO GOD. You can’t. SHUT UP.
Report Post »Humanachievement
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:13pmGravity’s a theory. How ’bout you go test it.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:15pm“When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it,” Wow the kind of statement you would expect to originate from one of the fine “journalists” here. No surprise on why they would repeat it, just in case anybody missed this fine piece of ignorance. So the fact that our military teaches individuals to be killing machines contributes how?? How about a story of how many X-military commit violent acts.
Report Post »LesbianNaziHookerFromSpace
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:18pm@PATTY HENRY
YO THEISTS: PROVE THERE IS A GOD. You can’t. SHUT UP.
See how compelling the inverse is? Thank you, come again.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:39pm@ LESBIAN….actually what PAT HENRY stated is impossible in that it is impossible to prove a negative existential assertion, however, it is possible to prove a positive existential assertion. Now having said that I understand the meaning behind both comments. I just thought I would clarify that in a very real and technical sense, the first statement was not erroneous where as yours could be if God truly does exist. Thanks ahead.
Report Post »LesbianNaziHookerFromSpace
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 5:59pm@SLEAZYHIPPOS
I’m responding to PATTY HENRY using the very tired tactic of shifting the burden of proof of an assertion.
Rather than asking someone to prove a negative, then stating the obvious (that it can’t be done), and then using that flawed construction to silence those who she disagrees with, perhaps she might supply… you know… some _evidence_ for her belief (assuming that she is a theist).
Unfortunately, in millenia of recorded history and culture, we are no closer to demonstrating the existence of deity(s).
Further, in the field of Theology what it claims to know, all of the questions and mysteries have been answered outside of that field. How embarrassing!
Not a great testament to it’s predictive and explanatory power.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 6:43pm@ LESBIAN….you stated, “Unfortunately, in millenia of recorded history and culture, we are no closer to demonstrating the existence of deity(s). Further, in the field of Theology what it claims to know, all of the questions and mysteries have been answered outside of that field. How embarrassing!”…This seems like a copy and paste to me (I might be wrong), however, you could not be more erroneous in this statement factually and logically (Fallacy of exaggeration) as you assert all mysteries and questions have been answered outside of the field of Theology.
What evidence have you personally examined to see if there is any truth to your assertions in regard to the Bible? Please be specific as there are 3 broad categories all scholars recognize for the examination of works of antiquity (since we would be evaluating in this case the claims within the Bible). Given your statement we are going to put your statement and assertion to the test if you are willing….Thanks ahead for your time.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:03pm@ LESBIAN…Let me speed this along a bit. The 3 areas are bibliographical, external and internal evidence. You pick which area you want to, the one you feel you have the strongest argument and we’ll put it to the test together, agreed? I suppose since you have apparently examined the evidence given the boldness of your previous proclamation I should probably ask you if you are a strong athiest (asserting that you know there is no god) or a weak atheist (asserting you have never seen any convincing evidence). Thank you ahead…
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:19pmSleazy, you’re saying the fossil record says they had teeth, and now they don’t have teeth. So, they’re evolving and they are a transitional species. We are all transitional species. Every piece of organic life on this planet are a form of transitional species. When a baby chimp is born, you can put a silhouetted profile up against a silhouette of a newborn baby of the same size and they match. They hold their head the same way and is shaped the same, the neck vertebrae line up, and everything matches to where without looking you couldn’t tell the difference. Sometimes, people are even born with tails and in fact, when developing in the womb, a human does indeed have a tail, a throwback to millions of years before our evolution brought us this far. A baby platypus is born with teeth that they lose not too long after birth, yet another throwback to the ancient platypus. So your point is what? That you keep having to clinging to your outdated religious beliefs? I’ll even show you how macroevolution applies to your Xtian religion; would you now stone a child to death for sassing their parents? Would you agree that is it Xtian to keep sex slaves as spoils of war? Do you condone slavery? What about animal or human sacrifice? If someone were to suggest you get back to the Bible and worship the way it was originally written, following all the laws, you couldn‘t pull off much of what is in there and you’d be labeled a heretic and probably put to death.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:40pmPolsmoker, Rick Warren seems to make sense because his audience hasn‘t seen past the 8th grade and that’s how they likes it.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:41pmThe answers in science don’t keep changing. Science grows and builds upon itself.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 9:00pm@ FOX…thanks again for your response…”you’re saying the fossil record says they had teeth, and now they don’t have teeth. So, they’re evolving and they are a transitional species.” My friend this is not transitional forms. This can be easily understood as adaptation. It is not scientific to call that transitional my friend……”Every piece of organic life on this planet are a form of transitional species.” Then the logical question is why is there such distinction between species if all are transitional? This actually argues against evolution as Stephen Jay Gould commented, hence punctuated equilibrium and we are back to the problems I illuminated earlier.
Report Post »“When a baby chimp is born, you can put a silhouetted profile up against a silhouette of a newborn baby of the same size and they match. They hold their head the same way and is shaped the same, the neck vertebrae line up, and everything matches to where without looking you couldn’t tell the difference.” This is not scientific evidence for evolution my friend it is anecdotal at best.
“a human does indeed have a tail,”…This is known as the sacrum or coccyx and is not vestigle at all but provides important attatchment points for muscles that are important to support an upright posture, true it sticks out in the 1 month embryo but that is because the limbs and muscles have not developed yet. I am a surgeon by profession just so you know my background in the sciences. Thank you…
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 9:09pm@ FOX…In regards to your religion analogy (that was a logical fallacy of distraction and false analogy). You error is in your hermeneutics of the Bible. Not to mention that it proves or says nothing about the relaity of evolution among living organisms. Nonetheless I will comment on a few things. You have assumed many things without a proper understanding. Many of these I have commented on before on here. I hate to bore others but 1st of all, those things you listed were rarely if ever practiced (stoning) by the Hebrews who were given the law. Secondly, those laws were meant to point to the spiritual fact that our rebellion against God ultimately deserves death. Just as slavery was a physical manifestation of the spiritual slavery to sin. God did not condone it in the sense of taking pleasure in it, however, it was allowed to teach men about the spiritual reality of bondage to sin which is ultimately a greater and more terrible oppression than physical slavery. Why would we need a savior if there was nothing to be saved from? But I digress, the main point is that your assertion was full of assumptions and error and we could pick each topic if you like and go over proper hermeneutic principles of interpretation and examine each of your claims individually, but that is off topic of the evolution discussion at hand.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 9:30pm@ FOX…I did not convey that I was a surgeon to imply superior knowledge or intelligence (that would be logically fallacious) or to brag in anyway. I hope you didn’t take it that way. In sincerity I just wanted to provide my background of study in the interest of disclosure. Thanks again.
Report Post »Atrum Angelis
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:15pmAt the moment, science can neither prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods.
Report Post »If I could we wouldn‘t be having this arguement as one side would be proven correct in it’s belief.
Science can show many things. Of God(s), it cannot say.
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:38pm@ ATRUM….Science will never disprove the existence of God as it is impossible to prove a negative existential assertion. Only positive existential assertions can be proven.
Report Post »Atrum Angelis
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:49pmI know how the scientific method works. My statement still stands, however. It can neither prove (through science) nor disprove (not possible) the existence of a deity.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:20pm@ Atrum….I didn’t suggest you were unaware of how the scietific method worked, I suggested you didn’t understand the laws of logic (nothing personal intended). You stated, “At the moment, science can neither prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods.” This implied in my understanding that in the future it may be able to disprove the existence of God. Had you stated simply, science cannot disprove the existence of God, then no argument form me, but the qualifier, “at this moment” changed the assertion in my mind. Nevertheless, in your response you stated you knew it to be an impossibility. Forgive me if I misunderstood your assertion. Not trying to be argumentative, just want to be consistent in our understanding regarding this topic…..Thank you ahead.
Report Post »Atrum Angelis
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 12:31amMy apologies. It would have been better English if I had said: Science cannot prove, at the moment, Gods existence, nor will it ever be able to disprove his existence.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 12:32am@Hippo
I’m an atheist, and I agree with what you stated in regards to two stances of Atheism.
While my version of Atheism may be called “weak”, it is the only stance that I can take without considering myself a hypocrite.
I would rather be considered “weak” to others(though I know weak isn’t intended as it is normally stated), but intellectually and logically honest with myself then to claim a stance I can’t logically(personally) accept.
It is part of what turned me off from Christianity and religion in general. I could accept some of the teachings of Jesus as moral(some not all), but I couldn’t accept any of the divinity claims, or stories in the Bible like the creation account, Noah’s Ark and other events that I think strain logical thinking. I have accepted that I would rather burn in hell for eternity(if Christianity is correct), then take a stance on something that I can’t logically accept.
While I know it’s almost impossible to curb, I can’t stand being a hypocrite(especially if I’m basing my life around it). Even when I was a Christian, I always based it off of a “belief” and not something I claimed to know as fact(which is something I’ve discussed with other people on here). Now as an Atheist, I feel comfortable saying it‘s unlikely there is a God and that the evidence I have seen isn’t convincing but I am not going to say, “I know there is no God.”
Kinda off topic but I wanted to express myself in regards to your post.
Report Post »Al J Zira
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 12:58amJRook, you’re such an idiot. Were you ever in the military? How do you know they teach individuals to be killing machines? Have you ever heard the term: Rules Of Engagement? You wouldn‘t know what’s being taught to any military personnel because you hate the military. You’re watching too much TV.
Report Post »Also, I wish someone would produce a report on military violence versus violence in the general public. There’s enough gang members in this country to equal the standing military. That alone is enough to even the amount of violence in the military . Add in the violence that goes on in general and I‘ll bet the percentages are strongly in the military’s favor.
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 9:17am@ MODERATION…I assure you my friend “weak” in this case does not mean your position is weak necessarily. It is a relative term in this instance when compared to some other’s particular atheistic stance. Yours is the more logically consistent position (as you pointed out), so in reality it is the more superior position over strong atheism or militant atheism even though it is labeled weak atheism. I do thank you for your honesty about your experience and difficulties with the Bible in particular. I really wish we could sit down have a cup of joe and discuss the different aspects of our life story and how we have arrived at our current stations in life. It seems we traveled the same road but in different directions as the Bible is the only thing I have seen answer the questions I had as an atheist about the reality of the world we live in from morality, to the seen world, to our struggle with doing what we know is right. Thanks again friend your comments are always welcome.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 10:10amYo Mod:
I know you did not address myself, so I hope you don’t mind if I interject. I would agree with “Sleazysother” concerning the coffee. I have thought this often when speaking with christian and atheist alike in this format. I’m sure you know the incident with Jesus and Thomas .. do you not put yourself above God in saying that HE must prove HIMSELF to you … is this not a bit arrogant …….consider —> that God wants you to prove yourself to HIM, and the revelation happens when the trust is given. The king does not answer to the servent, the servent answers to the king, but the good king will serve the honorable servant. This REQUIRES humility … where as scripture say’s God opposes the proud… that God is far off from the proud, yet another. I would find your statement of not wanting to be a hypocrite sincere, but are you serious that you would rather burn then trust …do you not put your trust in many things in a regular day; people included … but you cannot trust God … who can do any and all things…“ supernatural” is not what He does, it is what He IS. Why can you not perceive something BIGGER then you. No offence … but It would seem that because of pride you acheive the very thing you wish to avoid.
Report Post »anomnomnommm
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 5:59pmThe fact that it‘s about sexuality doesn’t make it any better…
Report Post »Ohello
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 7:46pmIf you teach people that they are no better than animals, then you will create a society of animals. So it is with all atheistic, communistic, socialistic, and islam-istic ideologies. These societies deny God, or define them in their own image. All devolve to humanistic ideology with one human-type superior to all others. For the NAZI’s is was the Aryan Race (Persians), for the Islamist it is the violent Muslims, for communists it is the godless, state-ist elites with Sanger-inspired eugenics, child murder, along with the mass murder of state defined “undesirables”. Facists is the state/corporate elites. Only with a Christ (God) centered society are all men created equal, given freedom to worship God and to do good acts as personal decision based on God’s definition of Good, Righteous, and Holy behaviors. Since when is murdering the unborn, infidels, and undesirables as a humanist state driven ideology ever been righteous, or good?
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 8:38pm@Truth
Some of what you said is my problem with religion and Christianity.
“do you not put yourself above God in saying that HE must prove HIMSELF to you … is this not a bit arrogant …….consider —> that God wants you to prove yourself to HIM, and the revelation happens when the trust is given”
Most would argue that God shows the proof of himself through the Bible.
“I would find your statement of not wanting to be a hypocrite sincere, but are you serious that you would rather burn then trust …do you not put your trust in many things in a regular day; people included ”
Yes, I’m being serious. I am not convinced by the evidence for a God, and I view a “belief” or “believing” in something as a weakness. I look for evidence of things, and if that evidence is sound I will then accept it. If overwhelming evidence shows the contrary of something I have accepted, I will choose to no longer accept that. Religion doesn’t operate that way. With religion, you have a way you perceive the world and NOTHING can go against what your perception is.
“Why can you not perceive something BIGGER then you. No offence … but It would seem that because of pride you acheive the very thing you wish to avoid.”
The universe is bigger then myself. I am humbled to think how insignificant I am in the universe. Most people who know me wouldn’t call me prideful. It‘s not pride that’s keeping me from being religious.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 11:01pm@ MODERATION…..I sympathize with your position and wanting to have reasonable evidence to base you beliefs upon. May I ask what evidence you have lQQked at in regards to the bible and then why did you find it either unconvinvcing or faulty? It is my belief that God has gone to great lengths to make himself and his character known to man. I can say have investigated very thoroughly and from many perspectives (I hope you can tell from my posts that I am being sincere and not just blowing smoke) and could not arrive at any other conclusion, but that God, as the bible describes him, exists. I hope we have many more meaningful exchanges on the blaze. Take care and thanks ahead…
Report Post »slkgej6
Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:10amIt’s pathetic when the left is allowed to use ANY tactic without consequence. This is exactly the same tactic the MSM and Obama’s campaign is using. Left=the end justifies the means. I am a scientist. I understand all the experts on this subject. They mock anyone who suggests there might be another answer, but the only evidence for evolution is morphological, nothing more. Regardless, how in the world did that leftist idiot interpret Pastor Warren’s tweet as a description of the theater incident? What he saw in the tweet is not what he said he read. Any fool without an agenda would have known that the tweet referred to something else. Once again, though, liberals trumpet their “triumph” over the religious right by obfuscation, misquoting, lies and lawlessness. They literally ARE what they accuse the right being. Every violent incident on the internet, every foulmouthed, drunk jerk on YouTube is liberal. When you’re a liberal, you can beat the crap out of someone, lie about anyone, party like a drunken sailor, disgrace yourself with debauchery and debase yourself in deceit and still, if you spout the right drivel, you are on easy street. No challenges, MSM will lie for you and cover up anything that contradicts their view of the liberal agenda and you can still live in abject hypocrisy with no fear of ever having to defend yourself publicly. This is yet more evidence of the Obama methodology.
Report Post »MemphisViking
Posted on July 25, 2012 at 12:13pm@ Moderation
“Most would argue that God shows the proof of himself through the Bible.”
He does. I‘m as logical a person as you’ll meet, and I find nothing illogical about the Bible. Everything you say you can’t accept is based on your rejection of God. If you consider that God exists, then there is no illogic to creation, the resurrection, the various miracles, etc. You have to first reject God to consider those things impossible. The fact is, while the Bible is truth, there is much of it that people are incapable of understanding with their own wisdom.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 26, 2012 at 2:13am@Hippo
I saw a lot of contradictions in the Bible that forced me to feel like a hypocrite. The Bible saying in Genesis that God created man and woman, so that they would leave their parents and become one, and then in 1st Corinthians Paul writing basically saying it’s better for man to be alone, but since there’s so much immorality, to go ahead and get married to avoid fornication. This came across as a glaring contradiction.
I could never justifiably respond with “God is love” to good things and “God is mysterious to bad things.”
I could never talk to friends and they would use all kinds of reasoning and poetic words to describe things, and when those things got taken to their logical conclusion it was, “well who are we to understand that?”
As I started to become more atheistic, I started to view Jesus being crucified on behalf of humanity as an evil act and not an act of salvation. One that according to my moral stance, I would be forced to try and stop, or at least reject and declare, “I don’t want this done on my behalf.” That alone right there makes me not a Christian lol.
I won’t get into original sin, eternal damnation, etc
On a lesser note, I always viewed religious people saying that other cultures Gods didn’t exist as hypocritical.
My view is
Most believers nowadays don’t accept that Zeus, Odin, Thor, etc ever existed.
I just take it to the next step and think it’s likely none of them ever existed.
Report Post »woodyl1011fl
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:17amThe link between evolution societal decay is real and undeniable. Evolution has no basis for moral law and moral behavior. The twentieth century bears witness to the evolutionary worldview in action which is also the atheist worldview and it was the bloodiest century in all of recorded human history. We are paying a horrible price for the state religion of atheism in total control of our education establishment. John Dewey’s vision of American government run education is complete. But human beings murdering other human beings came long before evolution as we know today was refined into the religious worldview system it is today. Sin is our problem and the resulting depravity of man’s character is was acted out in this theater as well as other mass murders such as Columbine and VA Tech. The professors defense of evolution as not being a foundational basis for evil actions is duly noted but a fatally flawed argument. Warren was right even in his cowardly back tracking and the professor apparently doesn’t really understand or is willfully ignorant of what evolution really is; it is not science and never has been real science but masquerades as such and is the alleged scientific basis for the naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic worldview. None of which have improved mans lot on earth.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:43amWell how many of those who aspire darwin’s theory as fact believe as darwin did that africans were a lower link in the evolutionary chain.
Report Post »Because Darwin damn sure view africans as a lower species.
FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:47pmFrom the people who bring you “Evolution Bad; Sheeple Good”, more GOP pee party goodness: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/19/well-connected-utah-gop-tea-party-fundraiser-accused-multiple-rapes
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:36pmFOXHOLE – but i don’t understand, he has an absolute moral code through his belief in an almighty creator. he must be a closet atheist.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:36pmFrom the same Democrats that brought you the KKK,Margret Sanger,Jim Crow and evolution is the answer
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-reader-darwins-racism/
and for course this classic darwin quote
“At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the ***** or Australian and the gorilla.” (1874, p. 178).
Report Post »and lets not forget
http://harunyahya.com/en/Makaleler/13005/Charles_Darwins_twisted_views_that_regarded_everyone_apart_from_Caucasians_as_anthropomorphous_apes_and_lower_race
FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:45pmPhilly, I think it really would look like the end times if these people didn’t have their imagined magical babysitter to keep them all in line.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:49pmPhilly, you know what would be funny? If they were all closet Atheists trying to pretend for each other not knowing the truth about each other. They’re doing their chest beating and 10 commandment rallies and not one of them really believes in it.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:50pmThey’re all closet homosexuals, too. The ones who speak the loudest usually are.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 2:00pmHey JohnJamison, you mean all those Democrats who jumped over to the Republican party when the civil rights act was passed by the Democrats?
Report Post »ranchoazulmt
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:08pmIs the problem evolutionary or is it simply 30+ years of teachers in grade, middle, high, and college saying there is no God. If it feels good do it! You can always get it taken care of by Planned Parenthood (a misnomer if ever their was one).
Report Post »As our dearest leader siad; “I don’t want them to be saddled with a mistake.” Is that all it is? It is also your grand xxx (fill in the blank.)
If you are willing to tell someone that the answer to one moral problem is to kill it, what are we really teaching them?
johnjamison
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:32pmaholeatheist,
Report Post »Why don’t you gives the list of the quote unquote KKK democrats that jump over to the Republican party. Last time I checked the last card carrying public KKK member just died Sen. Byrd ring any bells. And the same Byrd Clinton defended after his death. And are you talking about the same Civil Rights act the Republican since Warren Harden was trying to get through in the 1920. The Civils right that 96% of Republican passed and only 64%of Democrats passed. The civil rights act that Democrats like AL GORE SR,and STROM THURMOND. filabustered until the very last second You that civil rights act.
FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:23pmJohn, there was quite a lot of party line crossing back then. Funny how it all happened after that little act was signed. There were a few bad apples that stayed. Heck, even the Repugs have some good guys, but for the most part, yes they skipped over.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:34pmOr, would you like to talk about Strom Thurmond?
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 11:04amFoxhole,
Report Post »Don‘t change the subject why don’t you give us the extened list of KKK Democrats that jumped to the Republican side. And then show all the racist legislation those racist Republican passed.
You know like the Jim Crow laws passed by Democrats,or the segregation laws passed by Democrats,or the seperate Drink fountain laws passed by democrats,or the military Re-segregation laws passed by Democrats,or the pro-lynching laws passed by Democrats…you know all the laws the Republican fought against since the Civil War.
Quit parroting the progressive response to their history of Racism and provide some evidence.
Brentley
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:10amHas the Blaze banned certain people from posting comments that are not in violation of their policy? Just curious if anyone else has had this problem.
Hoax And Chains
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:21amI will post something. It sits there a short time with everyone else’s most recent posts. I’ll come back in a few minutes and they will all be gone, with the posts reverting to the original, older posts that were there when I first opened the page. I figured someone was deleting them to keep their post at the top of the page.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:54amNot all post, post in a timely manner. It depends on the number of posters logged on. It is possible the buffer gets dumped and a post lost. I’ve never see a post lost. I’ve never noticed any getting deleted. Only the admin would have that privilege and I am sure they don’t sit their 24/7 waiting to find a post they can delete. Also the cache setting on your browser could not refresh your page properly. I’ve noticed an increase caching issue with IE and Firefox and not clearing properly regardless of settings.
Report Post »Explain_Saturn
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:43pmI always try to post well stated and non-offensive messages but most are never allowed to appear on the Blaze!
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 12:36amI will sometimes have difficulty posting a specific post, but it is random.
Report Post »teddrunk
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:09amTwitter is the devils toy.
Report Post »Winedude
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 12:04pmI don’t waste my time on Twitter but your statement is patently absurd. What makes you think something so ridiculous? Sin is an imaginary disease created to sell you an imaginary cure.
Report Post »Brentley
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:07amEvolution does not work. Sit down and read, not from some ******* but the EVOLUTION HANDBOOK. Very good book that shows evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
Report Post »Taking GOD out of everything leads to chaos, chaos leads to more chaos.
GOD IS THE ANSWER THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR!
If any of my grandchildren come home and tell me that their teacher told them it is ok to have sex with multiple partners in a classroom. I will find a long long line of lawyers to make sure that teacher will never have a job anywhere.
The BUMMERHEADS are clueless.
The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:18amThat book is extremely easy to refute. Just do a search on youtube.
Report Post »Hoax And Chains
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:27amThere is such a thing as mitochondrial evolution and we see it around us everyday. Oddly, it does not explain all the countless life-forms that have come from one little single spark in a past, far distant primordeal ooze. Nor does it explain just where all the laws of reality came from and how that spark of life originally started. Yet… they call evolution a “sound science” and people that question it are supposed to be morons. Ironic.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:37am@Hoax: It isn’t that all those who question evolution are morons, it is HOW they go about questioning it. One must first understand how evolution works and why it is accepted science before one goes about refuting it. There is a formal process for such things and it goes much, much deeper than, “but it’s only a theory!”
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:47amMicro-evolution defined as small changes within a species is scientifically (empirically) observable. No one questions that.
Report Post »Macro-evolution defined as the change from one species into another, completely different species has never been observed and is therefore not scientific.
The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:53amAnd to reiterate Calm…you when say stuff like “Oddly, it does not explain all the countless life-forms that have come from one little single spark in a past, far distant primordeal ooze”
That single line is proof that you have not looked into evolution thoroughly. You are railing against something you have not taken the time to research and understand.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:55am@Kevin
Actually, it has. I’ll let you do your own research.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:00pm@Kevin: What is a “species”?
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:05pmDoors, I’m not asking for much. If you can, provide just one example of macro-evolution.
And, Calm, how did Darwin define species?
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:19pm@Kevin: In Darwin’s words: “I look at the term ‘species’ as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other … It does not essentially differ from the word ‘variety’, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake.”
It would seem that if we are to take Darwin’s definition of the word, clearly macro-evolution does not seem to differ much from micro-evolution (which in fact it does not), and the distinction becomes moot.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:29pm@kevin
I used google and the search took less than a minute. So, I know you have the internet, there might be even a better one out there if you would like to look.
If this doesn’t work there are plenty of science books out there.
http://www.christianforums.com/t155626/
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:36pmAlso, If you are looking for observations of an inguana turning into a lion, that is not how evolution works. That would actually be evidence against evolution
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:47pm“That book is extremely easy to refute. Just do a search on youtube.”
Youtube – the highest source of all things true in the universe. Good lord…..
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:56pm@KEVN
DoorsOfPropaganda is playing the usual evolutionists trick. Show evidence of micro-evolution or adaptation which no one refutes. The ability to adapt or (micro-evolve) is information that is already contained within the DNA of the object. The DNA does NOT produce any new information that is beneficial to the object. All it can do is mutate which weakens it. So, it’s a shell game. Offer examples of micro-evolution and then say it confirms macro-evolution.
When you ask for evidence, they rarely provide it and when they do it’s ALWAYS evidence micro-evolution because there is no evidence for the other. They‘ll then try to tell you that you’re too stupid to know that his how the scientific process works. Finally, when all else fails, they will resort to name-calling. There is no point arguing with them. I just respond to show others reading the flaws in their argument. I’m not trying to force anyone to have to learn creation or intelligent design. They want the governnent to use a police force and tax code to learn their religion.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:59pmCats do not turn into dogs. With macroevolution, you have one of the same species of lets say mice, but it could be anything. Due to continental drift or some other form of isolation, the group splits up and forms 2 groups. After a very long time, both groups will evolve until they can no longer mate with one another and thus become two different species of mice. Or, when 2 different species mate, they produce a sterile offspring. We have proof of this happening both in the fossil record as well as modern day animals. The process is called ‘speciation’.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:09pmFOXHOLE – a good example of what you describe is the lemur family. they have adapted nearly identically to that of monkeys, yet they are completely unrelated. they’ve also adapted to their individual environments in amazing and different ways. there are large lemurs and tiny mouse sized lemurs. they are an amazing study in (macro) evolution.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:10pmHaha…but it’s true. I mean you literally don’t understand evolution. Not that you are incapable of understanding but because you refuse to. Like I have said before squid…you create your own world man. You could have all the evidence in the world in front of you(which you do) and still not believe in something just becaue it would go against your belief in talking animals, which there is no evidence for.
Belief is not merely an idea possessed by the mind but the mind possessed by an idea.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:12pm“Cats do not turn into dogs.”
Congratulations on your first step to becoming a creationists! You’ve described micro-evolution. We agree with micro-evolution or variation with kinds. I have no problem believing all dogs, wolves, jackals, etc. came from the same ancestor. But, it was a dog. It did not come from something non-canine.
But, for evolution to be true, a cat had to come from something that is not feline. That is the crux, of macro-evolution. That is also the evidence that nobody seems to be able to find.
Report Post »davecorkery
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:15pmThe evolution handbook has been refuted so many times and so well that no one takes it seriously anymore, except uneducated people. Creationism is only being taught in churches now, but science is taught every day to all american children. Do the math. It won’t be long before the old “believers” are gone, and only the educated will remain.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:16pmSo you’re saying the only thing keeping your overhormonial grandchildren from having classroom orgies is the fear of god? You have some pretty depraved grandchildren. Are you sure you’re fit to even be a parent, let alone a grandparent? Sounds like someone isn’t raising them quite right.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:18pmI find the marsupial evolution pretty interesting….70% of all them ended up in Australia and New Guinea. Of course Australia is an amazing example of evolution and how differently the marsupial’s have evolved while being on an island.
I wonder why God put almost all of marsupials on one island? Did the Ark make stops like a city bus? All the marsupials off here!
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:24pmJust in case people are curious, who you are dealing with scientifically speaking. Squid believes the earth is 6,000 years old.
You don’t understand speciation squid.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:35pmSquid, we are all products of macroevolution. Everything was something else at one point or another. No, a cat doesn’t turn into a dog, but a water animal may develop lungs, crawl onto the land, develop feet, lose its gills, grow hair, get larger, climb trees, come down from trees, begin to walk upright, discover fire, develop a larger brain, learn to stand completely upright, start wearing clothes, make a wheel, invent a computer, and then finally piss you off with it. Macroevolution in action.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:36pmMay have taken millions of years, but the wait to piss you all off was worth it.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:56pmLemurs are fantastic creatures.
Report Post »ranchoazulmt
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:58pmOr how we get everything from nothing!
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 2:05pmwe have been talking about the theory of evolution….not the theory of how you get everything from nothing. I know you are late to the game but damn…
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 2:07pmRANCHO – once again science is filling in the gaps. our understanding of “nothing” is changing. turns out what we thought was “nothing” has all sorts of particles popping in and out of existence. at this point in time, we’re not so sure “nothing” even exists. i’d say that this information would blow your mind, but you likely simply refuse to believe it.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 6:02pmIt is a scientific fallacy to say we have observed speciation in the fossil record. That is not scientific but more along the lines of propaganda. We see fossils and then we apply the theory of either Phyletic speciation or Divergent speciation or a combination of both to coincide with the hypothesis of gradualism or punctuated equlibrium to explain what we see. We have observed nothing and in applying these hypotheses we lean on some assumptions. One question for you all, do you know why the theory of punctuated equilibrium was espoused? And if you do, ask yourself this question. Are we fitting a theory to explain evidence or are we fitting evidence to explain a theory because of our presupposition. There is a fine line of distinction here, but your responses will determine if you truly understand the question, honest evolutionary biologists admit this. Thanks ahead…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:20pmHere is a clue to my earlier question which none of the atheists seem interested in answering……”how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?” For an evolutionist, why should there be species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries…..Stephen Jay Gould, famous evolutionary biologist.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:35pmYo Sleazysother:
There, that’s shorter …. you know as well as I that they make assumptions based on assumptions.
It’s like walking out onto a frozen lake assuming the ice has the thickness to support your weight 5 days after someone else said it was OK and that person never really checked it.
I also believe that when one considers/studies every aspect of the bible; God is almost proveable … and I would say almost in that visible conformation is the only absolute proof.
One might say Thomas was blessed to have this opportunity … I do believe that it took away from his eternity … I do not speak void of understanding, but hopefully without boasting.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:56pmThere are different species for different reasons. Allopatric speciation (continental drift/geological separation), and sympatric speciation (pollymorphism). In other words, small variances in the DNA may not allow a species to mate with other members and causing one species to split off and become two. Is that the answer to your question? I don’t know how else to explain it to you.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 8:04pmSleazy, google Darwin’s finches. It may explain better than how we seem to be doing for you.
I can’t compete with people who think the world is only 6,000 years old. Their ‘knowledge’ is based off of dishonesty and is dependent upon a lack of education without scientific understanding. It is based upon emotional dogma while science is based on scrutiny, reason and tests. No matter what what we present as evidence, it will never be good enough as they can twist the words of their holy book to fit whatever mood they are in. We can’t compete in a debate when the people we are debating are either parroting the words of liars or outright liars themselves. You can’t score a touchdown when the goalposts are constantly being moved.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 8:41pm@ FOXHOLE…First thank you for your response. Your answers really were not addressing the question I asked. The quote of Stephen J Gould was a clue. He lQQked at the fossil record and acknowledged that transitional forms were not present like they should be based on the theories that collectively are called evolution (Macro). In fact the distinction that you have asserted and acknowledge actually argues against evolution (at least some parts of it) and Gould acknowledges this. That is why the thoery of punctuated equilibrium was postulated and espoused because these transitional forms were not present as they should be. So the theory was based essentially on the absence of evidence not on the presence of it. Your example of pollymorphism actually argues against (macro)evolution. Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution. In this case great lengths have been undertaken to justify this position however, some of the initial problems still exist. Namely, this argues against progression and speciation such as we see today. Many biologists acknowledge this problem.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 9:44pm@ 4TRUTH….Agreed. Everyone has a worldview and in that worldview everyone (every single person whether they relaize it or not or acknowledge it or not) has a set of presuppositions that act like glasses to sight. It is the way a person sees and interprets the world around him. It effects the way “evidence” is understood and interpreted, It effects the answer of solutions to problems (if they even acknowledge those problems). Often the only way a person’s worldview is ever altered is when something profound occurs. That was the case for Thomas as it was for me as well. Thanks agian and God bless….
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 9:55pm@ FOX…I completely agree with you about intellectual dishonesty, no doubt that some have presented false or less than honest arguments from the designer side of things. I would assert however that both sides of the argument have been guilty of this unfortunately as scientists have also engaged in disingenuous assertions and argumentation about their presuppositions as well. That is the great misrepresentation that science and scientists are above these types of deceptions. If we are truly concerned about truth instead of being “right” or espousing an agenda, then we should have the courage to avoid these pitfalls and let the truth be the divining rod. On the other side of the coin scrutiny, intense examination, and prolific questioning are the friend of truth, not the enemy. Thanks again…
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:04amAthiests, methinks thou doth protest too much.
Report Post »WillG
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:16amSQUIDVET,Agreed as you and I do on damn near every topic/story on THE BLAZE.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:05pmGreat minds……
Report Post »You must be good looking too! lol
ranchoazulmt
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:01pmtoo much nd too loudly based on your geographical foot print and …
Report Post »trinklefinder
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:02amwhy are people so sensitive. they wouldnt have lasted one week growing up with my family. if this is something that offends you then you must be in a perpetual state of offense.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 2:29pmI don’t know, perhaps its people saying that nonbelievers have no morals is my guess. I can see how it would be insulting, especially from a mega church preacher.
Report Post »Graffiti71
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:00amToo much in-your-face information is slowly rotting our brain from thinking clearly of anything these days. What’s worse is everyone is looking for something to cry foul on. And most people don’t even care about context anymore. Just little bits and pieces of info to fuel their own hatred. Too many angry people doing nothing but seeking out those bits and pieces to start a fight. Why do they insist on being so miserable?
Report Post »If There is No God
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:58amMr. Warren is %100 correct. When kids are taught there are no moral absolutes, absolutley, anything can happen.
Report Post »INTHEBROTHERHOOD
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 1:31pmhe satd he was commenting (answering) on a different tweet(question) that had nothing to do with the co. shooting. but apparently the timing of the answer made it seem like it was in line with the event. no big deal…..I believe what he said could very well be true in relation to the shooting. It does apply…we have been giving our children nothing to live for or hope for in the public school system. thank god for the private institutions.
Report Post »JustPeachy
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:58amI find it slightly amusing how easily they become offended. If they are so sure of their positions, why worry if others might disagree, or “get it wrong?” The FACT they obviously jumped (quickly!) to conclusions shows how defensive they are–and maybe not quite as sure of themselves as they’d like others to believe?!?
All this “outrage” over a comment that had NOTHING to do with or about them. LOL Too funny.
Somewhere within themselves, do THEY feel guilty somehow, responsible for what happened? Is THAT why such a quick and angry defense?
If so, dear evolutionists and teachers of said religion, you are no more to blame than the poor “Tea Party guy” who has the same name as the shooter (criminal). The actual criminal is the only one to blame.
Now go back to bed and sleep easy. (No one’s blaming you!!! lol)
Report Post »TexVet61
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:19pmActually Totripoli
Report Post »Your statement is flawed and I will break down why
1.******So essentially what you‘re saying is that you don’t believe in evolution because the consequences of its reality would be inconvenient to you?********
Choosing to believe (or not) in Evolution carries no consequences whatsoever. By choosing not to believe only becomes an inconvenience to those that wish to push this flawed opinion on the rest of us with a brain. Not only is this NOT “sound” science, but it’s only a theory.
It would not matter if you chose to believe or not, nothing would happen to you, it wouldn’t change your life, your world etc… we behave based on the depth of our character, our moral values and our conscience. I would say that evolutionist refuse to believe in Christ and God almighty as our creator because the consequences of THAT would be great inconvenience to them. But I digress, back to evolution.
Definition of evolution: Theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.
Definition of theory: Idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
2.** That’s like not believing in gravity because if you do it means you might possibly fall to your death. **
It would not matter what you chose to believe on Gravity, no matter what it was, one thing is for sure, if you ignored it you would fall to your death, which would be a li
FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:42pmBecause the protests of the religious are what is holding our society back from damn near everything. That‘s why we aren’t keeping silent anymore. You want to see dinosaurs? Go to church.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:53amI just love the evolutionist like the one quoted in the article claiming “evolution is scientifically sound.” These people obviously don’t understand true science which is observable and repeatable, i.e. the Empirical Method. And they are willing to totally disregard the Laws of Nature (Science) like the Law of Biogenesis, and the Laws of Thermodynamics when these laws violate their BELIEF SYSTEM. The Theory of Evolution is actually not even a theory at all, it is a philosophy.
Report Post »Let’s look at a few examples. At what temp does H2O freeze? 32F, how do we know that? Through observation and repetition. How did life begin? No one saw it and it has never been repeated. So the answer is not found in science at least not in true science.
So, you believers in evolution just need to realize that you have a belief system just as I do, and yours is NOT based in true science.
SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:03amI caught that phrase too. He should have been talking about the Colorado shooting because the point is valid. If there is not God and we are nothing more than evolved bio-chemical mass, who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Society, who are they? The moral standard is set by those who are the most powerful. There’s no away around it. There is NO logical arguments for ethics or morals if evolution is true because who decides the standards and by what authority?
Report Post »WillG
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:03amExcellant point.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:08amWhat is “life”?
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:08amWhen people use the law of thermodynamics to say that it goes against evolution, they kind of reveal their cards. They don’t know what they are talking about and should read some books about evolution.
Report Post »totripoli
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:12amAbiogenesis IS NOT Evolution. They are separate fields of study. We have vast amounts of observable, testable, verifiable evidence for Evolution (the study of how things evolve). We do not have vast amounts of observable, testable, verifiable evidence for Abiogenesis (The study of how life began on Earth)… yet. 100% of the time I see someone post in opposition to Evolution, they don’t understand Evolution.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:28amCalm Voice of Reason – What is your point? How do you define life? How would a biologist trying to create life in a lab define it?
Doors – Nice claim. Your comment provides no value tot he argument.
Totripoli – “… vast amounts of observable, testable, verifiable evidence for Evolution…” Would you kindly provide a few examples of your vast amount of evidence?
Report Post »totripoli
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:31am@SQUIDVETOHIO
So essentially what you‘re saying is that you don’t believe in evolution because the consequences of its reality would be inconvenient to you? That’s like not believing in gravity because if you do it means you might possibly fall to your death.
You’re right in saying that there is no OBJECTIVE moral code, but absolutely wrong in saying there are no logical arguments in a secular reality for morality and ethics. Of course there are, as they’re required for the continued existence of ourselves, and our species. Without societies dictating basic moral understandings (Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t rape) society itself (order) wouldn’t exist. I would say that morality and ethics are utterly essential to the existence of society. Our elected representatives decide the general social moral standards with the power granted them by the populace.
Report Post »guz75
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:33amYou clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The only thing you have right is that evolution is not a theory, it is a collection of theories. Scientists have used what they’ve discovered in nature and tested it against these theories over the years, using the empirical method and tested it to the point that on a sliding scale, evolutionary theory is as expressed in the article ‘……scientifically sound’.
As for the Law of Biogenesis, that states that living things must come from other living things; evolutionary theory doesn’t question this, in fact it’s specifically about the progression of living things. As for the laws of thermodynamics, there are 4, I’m assuming you mean the 1st, specifically the bit about energy can’t be created? Which again has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, for the same reason as above.
Much of evolutionary theory has been tested in the way you said; ‘empirically’ and is considered scientific fact, but evolutionary theory expands as we gain more knowledge and some areas will require more experimentation. So evolutionary theory is usually described as being both theory and fact and will probably remain that way as we discover more areas that need to be proven.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:43amTotripoli, Your comment is naive. Just like Carl Sagan, who once was having a discussion with R.C Sproul refused to give an answer to the question, “What was there one nano-second before the Big Bang?” Surely you do not deny that evolutionist have provided theories on how life began so the Law of Biogenesis is applicable to the argument. The point of using the Laws of Biogenesis is if you take the argument back far enough you will always reach a point for which we do not have an empirical answer which means evolution is a belief system not based in science as most evolutionist assume. Most folks who accept evolution fail to realize they have chosen (or been indoctrinated into) a belief system. It is actually very sad.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:54amGUZ75, You like most folks here make claims without providing any actual evidence. You state, “Much of evolutionary theory has been tested in the way you said; ‘empirically’ and is considered scientific fact…” Would you kindly provide a few examples to back up your claim? As for your comments on biogenesis, besides the fact that I love when evolutionist pretend there have never been any evolutionary theories provided for the beginning of life, please see my comment above as to why it is relevant to this discussion.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:13pm@Kevin: My point is that we have no solid definition for when highly structured elements become more than mere minerals and become “living” systems. We are essentially a collection of sustained chemical processes, any particular one of them could not be distinguished from one happening in a non-“living” system. Ultimately, there is no reason that what we call “life” could not arise from non-“living” molecular structures.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:27pmCalm, are you serious? You do not see a difference between life and “highly structured elements…” Really. How about something that is self-replicating, possesses an energy transfer system, a waste disposal system, a self protection system, a mobility system.etc….?
Report Post »And then you make the very scientific comment, “Ultimately, there is no reason that what we call “life” could not arise from non-“living” molecular structures.” And my friend Calm, there is no reason that anything you imagine cannot happen. I mean, you might sprout wings tonight in your sleep and fly away tomorrow. It could happen… just sayin!?!
NineteenEighty4
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:37pmCalling evolution a theory doesn‘t mean it isn’t true. Guess what? You believe, or at least have given tacit implication, that evolution is true, and I can prove it to you. Have you even gotten a flu vaccine? If you have, your body should be immune to the flu in all its forms for the entirety of your life. If the virus stayed the same, your antibodies would kill all the signs of flu in your body effortlessly, years and years after the initial “shot.”
Now, have you ever gotten a second flu vaccination? If you have, ask yourself why? Why would anyone need a second vaccination for the same virus? The answer is beautifully simple. It’s not the same. The flu, and all other viruses, mutate very rapidly. It evolves. The flu that you were vaccinated for last year is totally different from the one the year before. It’s so different that this new strain of flu may be immune to your antibodies. That is why millions and millions are pumped into research and new vaccinations every single year. They aren’t just throwing money away. They observe how the virus changes and act accordingly. That is observed evolution.
If you’re right, the whole concept of repeated vaccinations is not based on “real science” and doctors and medical researchers everywhere are wrong. If you don’t believe in evolution, don’t get another vaccine for the flu for the rest of your life. See if you don’t get sick.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:46pm@Kevin: There are a number of reasons why I could not sprout wings in my sleep tonight and fly away.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:49pm1984. Thanks for proving my point. All of the flu viruses you mentioned are still flu viruses. and 1000 or 1,000,000 years from now they will still be flu viruses. Just like Darwin’s finches are still finches and will be finches forever. You have provided an example of micro-evolution defined as changes within an organism or species or “kind.” You have not presented an example of macro-evolution which would be the change from one species or kind into another.
Thanks again.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:54pmCalm, really? And there are numerous reasons why life cannot not arise from non-“living” molecular structures.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:54pmTrue science = showing an animal a striped stick and then having that animal give birth to a striped offspring. Makes perfect sense to me. I think I will abandon all that elite evolution nonsense and only read the Bible from now on since it’s so full of all this science wit and wisdom. I don‘t see why we aren’t using the wealth of information in it to cure cancer or travel to Mars since it has all the answers we will ever need.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 2:34pmFoxhole,
Report Post »You comments have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. True science is actually conducted without any influence of evolutionary thought. For example, we can use empirical science to learn how cancer cells work, how a kidney functions or any number of other things without the least concern of where they came from. Evolutionary thought is absolutely irrelevant to the things you rant about in your post.
FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 8:13pmSo Kevin, you were never immunized?
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:53amI think this act proves there are people who evolved from monkeys and still have the mentality of a Donkey.
Report Post »Tri-ox
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:51amWhen students are taught by LIBERAL TURDS, they act like LIBERAL TURDS (a.k.a. obama supporters).
Report Post »TomSawyer
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:47amWhy is Hemant Mehta calling evolution scientifically-sound? Evolution violates many scientific principles and we need to get to a point were people understand that so well that statements like that are laughed at as much as the earth being flat.
Report Post »BRONZESTAR
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:10amAgree
Also if evolution is so sound why is man the only species to evolve to our current state (communication, verbal skills, abstract ability, cognition… ) no other life form evolved as rapidly as the homosapien. Makes you think we had a hand/boost by some other force (GOD).
And how does Roush get to score the pastor on christian values?
What a hypocrite
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:13pm“Makes you think we had a hand/boost by some other force (GOD).”
well if you think it it must be true. who needs to study it. your gut tells you everything you need to know.
btw, dolphins and whales have highly evolved intelligence and communication skills. they make lack the physical tools to create things such as a domicile or computer, but since they are perfectly adapted to their environment they have no need for such things. doesn‘t mean they don’t have intelligence that rivals or surpasses ours. someday we will find out, as many Scientists are working on ways to communicate with them. and when i say communicate, i mean talk. like literally talk to them.
Report Post »Merc300kls
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:04pmBecause it is a scientifically proven theory and considered to be a fact by many.
Report Post »Depressed_American
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:42amI understand what Pastor Warren was trying to say. He is right!!! When our so-called schools teach that you have no PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, this is a result of those teachings…….
You have these Liberal “Teachers”who teach that Humans are a disease of the earth, and that we are no better than a fish (draught in California caused by a migrating fish).
Our schools have lost its Moral Standards, It’s always somebody elses fault never your own……. How are we any different than animals????
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 12:56amNo personal responsibility?
Christianity teaches you can do whatever and as long as you accept Jesus as your lord and savior, and that he died for your sins on the cross, and on the third day he rose…..all is forgiven.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 4:59pmYo Mod:
I thought you said you went to church …..???
Scripture DOES NOT say that we are free to SIN
Either you purposly mis-represent or you really do not know of what you speak.
Which one is it .. because that sounds a little hypocritical…
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 8:31pm@4TRUTH2ALL
I am merely expressing what the scripture says.
You can sin, and no matter what you do, as long as you believe that Jesus died for your sins, your’e okay.
Granted, the Bible tells you to turn away from sin, but there are so many sins, some in which you have no hope of ever not committing that you are constantly sinning.
Report Post »guz75
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:42amOf course, because we all answer our emails with 14 word posts on twitter and facebook. If you’re going to make up an excuse at least make it vaguely believable.
Report Post »woodyee
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:38amThis OUTRAGE will make the headlines for the rest of the summer – just like the false story of James Holmes, home-grown terrorist and OWS/BlackBloc, being a teaparty member, will also last for months…
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:37am“TWITTER’S limit on words allows no context for statements.”
Gee, maybe some people might see that as good a reason to not use it as a vehicle to comment on sensitive and complicated topics.
Report Post »JustPeachy
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:59amVery good point, Chet.
Report Post »mbp1982
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:35amNot a big fan of Rick Warren and his love affair with Islam, but this story is yet another example of liberals and their double standards.
So it’s okay to blame the shootings on an innocent Tea Party activist who just so happened to share a name with the actual shooter and lived in the same city as the shooter, but it’s not okay to blame evolution? And these people have the utter nerve to demand apologies while at the same time blame people who are pro-Second Amendment. Has ABC News apologized to the Tea Party activist they falsely accused? No. Evolutionists, secularists and atheists are not owed an apology for anything, especially since they’re all fond of blaming Christianity for many ills.
But as another poster here noted, Rick Warren will probably cave and issue sniveling apologies, and once again Christians and conservatives will be held to an impossible standard while the left gets away with everything under the sun.
Report Post »Kathleen3
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:48amI echo your opinions but do not have the capacity to do so as adequately as you have, as Rick Warren, atheists, Progressives, or the media would ever prompt me to come to their defense.
Report Post »bdandsl
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:35am“When students are taught they are no different than animals, they act like it.”
I agree.
Report Post »rickc34
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:38amNo God = no morals= man does what he thinks is right in his own eyes without fear of Gods judgment.
Report Post »c.parker
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:54amI also agree. Animals have no responsibility beyond themselves. This is the biggest difference between humans and the other species.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:54amSo you would rape and murder if you didn’t fear god?
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:09amI also believe there is a connection …
NO APOLOGY WILL BE FORTH COMMING…
Yes … Doors … fear of the LORD is good … is suger not sweet ? … what is bad about good ?
Report Post »trinklefinder
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:09am@ doors, with no moral authority, and if i was ok with it, then why would i not? after all, with no absolute truth that would make values and morals subjective.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:45am“with no moral authority, and if i was ok with it, then why would i not?”
why would you be ok with it? you would have to have a sick mind to think rape or murder were ok, regardless of your belief or lack thereof in a deity. this is a stupid cop out that Christians use to justify their belief. morals come from within. you don’t need to believe in God to be moral. that is a FACT.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:49amScary to think there are all these people walking around, the only thing holding them back is a belief and fear in a sky god.
Of course that is not true, because that is not what keeps people from raping and murdering. Therefore, it’s just scary that they believe that is what it is.
There is little advantage to raping and murdering the creatures that you depend on for survival. We are extremely social animals. Plus, I do not want to be raped and murdered and luckily through millennia our brains evolved empathy…“feel your pain”. Most people know exactly what that is, if you see someone get kicked or slapped you can feel it like it almost happened to you. The easiest example is when guys see another guy get hit in the groin you can hear guys everywhere go “oooooohhhhhhhh”.
There are people however, among other things, who are born without the ability to feel empathy as most of do. So why would god “create” them to not be able to follow his moral absolutes? But that could be a discussion for another day….
Either way, the belief that the only way we have morality is through a deity is just mythology. I fear your god as much as you fear Allah…and I am a moral, caring, loving, and empathetic person just like I hope you are.
Report Post »pdw
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:13pmThe police will agree when hope is gone crime goes up.
Report Post »trinklefinder
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:17pmIt’s not a cop-out philly, what if my morals say it’s not immoral to murder and rape? If a creator does not exist, who then provides us with a sense of right and wrong? What would make your right and wrong any better than my right or wrong, after all, with evolution there is no standard, no absolute. You say morals come from within essentially proving my point. With no creator, and no absolutes then morals WOULD come from within, believing that then you must also concur that our morals could be very different, thereby allowing mine to be more…..sadistic than yours. You many not think it’s right, you may not think it’s moral, but you can’t deny that since they come from within me, that makes them my morals, and to according to you, that’s our standard.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:23pm“It’s not a cop-out philly, what if my morals say it’s not immoral to murder and rape?”
then you have serious problems and need help.
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg
Report Post »trinklefinder
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:46pmIt’s unfortunate, philly, that you are still unable to concede my point. I think it speaks to the deep denial of non-believers. I thought I gave some good points for you to try to discount (of course you can’t because they valid), instead you attack telling me I have a sick mind, that I have serious problems and need help. Way to win and discussion.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:57pmi never said that you have a sick mind. i said that anyone who would relish in the murder and rape of a fellow human being would have a sick mind. get it?
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 4:14pmYo Doors:
Do you decide what is good?
Report Post »Does society?
Does the collective universe?
Does your mother or father?
randy
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:32am“When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it,”
Sorry atheists! I Agree with him wholeheartedly!
Actually, I’m not sorry at all for agreeing with him..
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:47amyou are aware that we ARE animals, right? technically we are Primates, along with the other great apes and monkeys.
his statement is indefensible. that you agree with his stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
Report Post »trinklefinder
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:19pmhey philly, watermelons and clouds are both 98% water, does that make them related?
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:44pmNo that makes them both 98% water.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:15pmwhite trash and ghetto folk are all uneducated morons. does that make them related?
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:31amI think your safe Atheist. .I’m sure he didn’t mean to offend you.
Rick’s on your side ..Real Christians know this..
Report Post »momrules
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:31amOutraged atheists!! Is this news anymore. Atheists are becoming a new Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, NBPP wing of outrage claim and fame.
And NO……the Big Bang Theory and evolution have not been proven and never will be because it is a lie.
We are human beings, created by God. Unfortunately some people have been taught that we are animals and they do act accordingly. Mr. Warren I am neither a fan or follower of yours but please Stand Your Ground.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:53amEvolution has been proven…over and over and over again. Put down the left behind series and pick up a science book.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:03amTHE_Doors………..Pick up a Bible and learn the truth.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:14amThe bible is an amazing read…I have read it. Shakespear is better…any one else find it odd that he was a better writer than god?
Seriously, there is a lot of amazing science out there, it’s truly interesting and beautiful. You should learn about it.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:17amThe_Doors_Of_Perception
Not until you show me the little green men that started life
here on earth in the first place.
BTW ..Youmight want to reconsider your stance..
Report Post »If we were to use todays liberal logic.. You would be considered a racist…
You just said all humans came from apes.
.Thereby saying all blacks derived from Apes ..Is that what you meant..?
woodyl1011fl
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:54amThe_Doors_Of_Perception, Evolution is perception not fact, has not been proven over and over again. Do your own research; evolution is not possible given the complexity of even a single cell, let alone the complexity and interrelationships of biological systems. Even using their own immense ages there is not enough time nor can evolutionists explain where the information came from that controls how basic matter organizes itself into even the simplest forms.
Report Post »trinklefinder
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:55amYou’re lying doors of perception, you have not read The Bible, you have not read the The Bible cover to cover. Why lie? How long did it take you to read it? Whats your favorite book? Why? I’ll wait……..
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:04pm@Sawbuck
What in gods name are you talking about? ****-sapiens are primates…we are still apes. Black people are still apes just like you and I are. Guess what? Chinese people are apes too. You know what? Swedish people are apes too.
Also, were you talking about aliens or something?
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:23pm@Woody Evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life. You should look up what scientific theory means…it is far from perception. Is the heliocentric theory a perception? There are mounds of evidence for evolution but even if there weren’t we have genetics now and its all you need. Even if all the fossils ever found on earth didn’t support evolution, which they do, we still have genetics. Continue to suspend reality to fit your god woody.
@Trinklefinder Not sure what makes you think I am lying. But I have, I would say Job is my favorite book of the bible. There is some interesting research on that book,a lot of people think it was written by a different person/people that wrote most of the old testament books that made it in the bible. It is an excellent work of literature.
I am a reformed born again christian…used to do mission trips and everything. I have brought a handful of people to the lord. I was born a skeptic but when you are raised in a christian home it is hard to question that at first, even though you are rational in every other aspect of your life. After 9/11 I really started looking into “religion”….and a lot of dots kind of connected themselves after awhile. I already loved science and history…so once I was no longer scared to question my “savior” the orgins of “religion” and “god” became very apparent to me. Humans. Humans who are 98% genetically the same as chimps. My view on life is beautiful now…this is my one and o
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 12:45pmAre you kidding me? Genetics disproves evolution. Genetics is based on D.N.A. Are you familiar with D.N.A? It is genetic information that is not random but ordered. The intelligence that is contained in single strand of DNA is amazing. It even has a built in “spell-check” to fix damaged strains of code. Scientic law states that intelligence information cannot come from a non-intelligent source. Genetics suggests that we have common Creator, not a common ancestor.
And which fossil proves evolution again? Was it Pilt-down man that turned out to be a Pig’s tooth? Or “Sally” who has and ape’s skeleton pieced from fossils over a mile apart from eachother? Don’t get me started on all the fossil frauds that have been discovered.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 1:34pmWe have mapped the human genome. And it does prove that we have a common ancestor. You should read the language of God by francis collins. He is still a christian but at least understands science. Oh and he mapped the human genome…he was acatually there haha. Genetics proves evolution…i‘m sorry you can say it doesn’t but it does.
Report Post »Rayblue
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 2:06pm@Doorsofp…I’m really starting to wonder about you.
Report Post »You seem to be trying a little too hard.
The family’s full of biology professors, genetic engineers, doctors and me. And in my own opinion, I’m the only one that has a grasp. Maybe you feel the same way. Some here will fall for the armchair geneticist routine but the pros can pick the argument apart over a cup of coffee. I respect your opinion but don’t try to overscience the issue with wicipedia references.
kevin1122
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:19pmDoors, Are you saying all humans have a common ancestor? If yes, I agree with you that we do. Or are you saying all life has a common ancestor? If yes to this you are sorely mistaken ad besides that you have argued against this throughout the discussions on this story.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:11pmYo Doors:
Again with the genome … you really don’t know much about it do you?,other then mention it and Mr. Collins christianity (maybe) like that makes it fact ( now you believe the christian, hey !).
Report Post »Again … a human and mouse are more simular in % then a man and chip
NewLife24
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:29amWarren is a wuss who will buckle under scrutiny. Remember his stand or lack there of on Chrislam? What a dolt.
Report Post »woodyee
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:35amYou mean he’s not an iron man like John Boehner?
Report Post »DOH!
Roberto G. Vasquez
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 10:25amWarren wasn’t blaming evolution, he was blaming university profs for teaching dangerous nonsense.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:49amyup, they should be teaching the Bible instead. who needs knowledge when advanced studies into mythology can be taught? with the Rapture soon to come we don’t need Scientists anyway. right?
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 3:13pmI don‘t see why you can’t allow both
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 6:39pmGreat Idea Goat!!! Just what kids need, EVERY lame brain myth polluting education! Never mind their parents & churches, just step aside and let government fill your kids heads with religious nonsense! What could possibly go wrong with that??? Sofa King Stew Pid…
Report Post »http://i50.tinypic.com/x2jxpx.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/b964nc.jpg
4truth2all
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:45pmYo Pontiac:
Good to see you are still alive … you don’t have to respond in kind.
Report Post »Did you draw that ?
Yeah, our “educational” system is just workin great right now … let’s see it reminds me of …….. Oh, I know ….. a joke … maybe I’ll draw a cartoon and just tell the truth … that’ll be funny!
The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 7:48pmIf it doesn’t hurt their education, it helps it.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on July 23, 2012 at 8:35pmIf it doesn’t hurt their education? Religion isn’t education, it’s indoctrination. It is not governments job to pick and choose which mythology is shoved down peoples throats.
http://i48.tinypic.com/167ngpx.jpg
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 10:20amYo Pontiac:
Scripture say’s that it is useful for “teaching, correcting, and rebuking.”
It also say’s “woe to those that put sweet for bitter and bitter for sweet”
so I hope you don’t mind if we again disagree.
You fight for your own destruction
I fight to save you from it
and you dislike me for it …
the only way you can stop me from doing so is to murder me …
and that is because of Jesus (Proverbs 24:11)
The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 4:03pmPassing on religion to your children is child abuse? If a species can’t imprint what they know onto their offspring, they go extinct.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on July 24, 2012 at 8:03pmGoat, where did you extrapolate “child abuse” in my post? And did I say “YOU” couldn’t indoctrinate “YOUR” children into an antiquated bronze age myth? Stop manufacturing arguments I was not making. I thought I was making it pretty damn clear that it is NOT the role of government to promote any religious belief.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:55amIt‘s the government’s loss then :P
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on July 25, 2012 at 2:43pmTheir loss of theocratic tyranny is our gain in liberty. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 25, 2012 at 3:51pmIf that is possible to come about through Christian ideology, please let us know, because it sounds very counter-Christian.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 25, 2012 at 4:10pmDon’t believe me? See for yourself at the OON organization website
http://www.owned.on.nimp.org/
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on July 25, 2012 at 6:51pmIf you think that old link is still effective then your fellow christians will be the only ones to click it with their outdated, O/S provided, web browsers. History is already full of examples of christian tyranny. Your own attempt at malice above simply exemplifies what Christians really are.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 25, 2012 at 10:17pmThanks for checking it, I wasn’t sure if it still worked :P
And how did you know I was the ambassador for all of Christendom?
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on July 25, 2012 at 11:29pm@The_Cabrito_Goat
[Thanks for checking it, I wasn’t sure if it still worked :P]
Oh I didn’t check it. I just know what nimp is and know that it doesn’t work on firefox anymore.
[And how did you know I was the ambassador for all of Christendom?]
Report Post »We had a discussion about it in the forum I’m a member of here
http://beam.to/The_Cabrito_Goat