The Information Challenge

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

With hindsight - given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place - it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth - I have a horror of blinding people with science - and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of "information". Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated - not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer's memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the "Information Challenge", at adequate length - the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.

Read more.....

One word, hilarious!

Wow, that little paragraph barely skims the surface of the article, it's quite a good read, but I'm sure too long and too scientific for some

wow...this video is amazing...

wait..i meant rubbish...this video is rubish lol...the bible IS scientifically accurate..."christian" scientifically accurate...just because some dude goes to a siminary and has a PhD in "christian" science doesnt mean shit...these guys could have a box of watches in front of them and it would sound the same as those late night home shopping network salesmen..they are selling something...fear...BEWARE!!!

I agree w/ the statement someone made about the missing link being a stupid thing for ppl to look for...we ARE a long evolved species so tryin to find the "key" change isnt needed...the proof of evolution is there... through fossils found over the past 150 years we have neandertals and early humans, plus species that were humanoid and are older than both (pithicus, habilis, javaman)...we know through carbon dating how old they are, and we know their eating habits, their skills, and their habits in hunting and family...we know TONS about these creatures and early humans..... neandertal and modern humans were around AT THE SAME TIME...fact...ppl used to think that neandertal was an earlier human but through the power of genetic research and carbon dating, we know that we are not related to them...most DNA strands from 2 different humans would have about 8 differences (eye color, hair, face, skin, etc) other than that they would be identical w/ any other human..tests on neandertal bones had dozens more differences than that....NOT EVEN THE SAME SPECIES..they were similar in that we both had a common ancestrial link with each other but they evolved in a different fashion than their modern human counterparts...we are more similar to simians than neandertals...evolution is not a straight line but a branching tree that has many dead ends, like neandertal and all humanoid branches since we emerged ready to take this planet by the throat...in africa...

.to think that we were created from dirt and stuff by an omnipotent invisible man is ridiculous...its alright to think we came from a lump of dirt but not a single celled organism? at least it is alive...why arent these guys telling the scientific accuracy of God making eve for adam by taking one of his ribs? we know its not true...Noahs ark? ITS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT 2 OF EVERY ANIMAL ON THE PLANET ON A BOAT!!!! even if it was "apparently" just the ones that breathed through its nostrils...when did noah become a lion tamer? and have the balls to kick a rhinos ass onto a boat? much less have to do it twice for each one ROFLMAO...man o man...the bible is a load of bullshit written over centuries by many different ppl who had their own ideas and agendas and biasses, and stories they heard growing up...christians seem to think that early humans were dumb even when they jump to defend their knowledge about god...there was language....we show it when we are tiny babies that we want to show what we are thinking about by the simple act of pointing at something....is it not conceivable that there were many different nationalities of ppl whos ideas were pretty much mashed together whenever new ppl showed up and started tellin ppl of the stories they heard as a child....stories...myths...legends...

i hate to break it to you christians but someone has to.....your "religion" is nothing more than a bad re-write of the egyptian religion....if you would actually read real books instead of the propaganda and dogma that is fed to you, you guys might have the smarts to go research ancient history and see for yourselves.....afterlife...virgin birth..death...rebirth..heaven..all egyptian, which BTW was the longest lasting empire in the written history of the world...right near where? oh yea...THE "HOLY" LAND....to think it wasnt spread around is idiotic...the egyptian culture was so strong that even invaders tended to take on their beliefs and that includes romans too...throughout generations and genertations the egyptian religion begat another religion which begat another which eventually became the basis for your belief structure...do some research sometime and see for yourself....

Izabadgirl thanks for posting this. I hope you don't take this in the wrong way but....as an engineer, raised and educated right here in the buckle of the bible belt, the type of thinking displayed on those videos is DANGEROUS AND VERY FRIGHTENING. IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT THE RELIGOUS RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY HAS THE FREEDOM TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT, HOWEVER, THEY AREN'T SATISFIED WITH THIS. THEY WANT TO PLACE THEIR BELIEFS INTO LAW AND FORCE THE REST OF US TO CONFORM. THEY ARE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO EVERYONE. OUR X PRESIDENT BUSH IS A FINE EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE ZEALOTS WILL DO WHEN GIVEN POWER.

Seconded.
Here is a transcript of a PM sent to me yesterday. These people actually take pride in their stupidity!



Firstly, there are MANY proven facts which confirm that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old, so don't try using the old "Not one of them..." line on me when you obviously haven't even bothered to check your facts beyond asking your "qualified" pastor.

Secondly, if they do want to believe that the earth is 6000 years old that's fine with me - except when they try to run a country on the basis of it.
2 years back I took the family to the Grand Canyon, and the Park staff were pushing this 6000 year shit - because their fundie director had ordered them to do so.

Thirdly, America is not as religious as the RR love to imply, and with the passing of the Reagan and double-Bush regime, hopefully some sanity will be restored.

Fourthly, English is my 6th language - at least I can spell correctly.

I have lived under both Hitler and Stalin, endured the excesses of the extremes of left and right, but the very worst and oppressive regimes I have ever encountered, are theocracies.
The Bible is but a collection of ill-told embellished fairy tales originating from bronze-age goat-herders. The only reason for its existance was to hold together a crumbling Roman Empire - for an emporer who was not a christian.
If you take the bible as being factual in either as a historical, scientific or engineering manual, then indeed you are a deluded fool.
You can continue this strawman debate of yours if you wish, but I advise you to learn Old Hebrew, Amharic, Cuneform and Egyptian Hyraglyphics before shooting yourself in the foot again.

lol czechmate, i agree with you. I dislike religion and love science.

But the point i was trying to make is that there are MENY theories about how old the earth is... but not one theory has been proven to be 100% accurate and so not one of them has been adopted as fact. Yes there is a lot of evidence pointing in the direction of the theory that earth is 4.5billion years old but not enough for it to be fact, thanks to lack of technology. And when there is so many theories of how old the earth is which one do you know to trust?

I am only 15 and excuse my spelling.

Oh and if your going to reply to something i say, at LEAST, post your reply in the right bloody topic -.-

http://ipb.quicksilverscreen.com/index.php?showtopic=154991

The hypothesis which has evidence to back up its postulates.

Counting back the birth dates in a book is not even a hypothesis never mind the empirical heights of a theory. Since you agree that the earth is 4 odd Billion years old, I'm guessing you're basing that on the evidence not faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Christians are simply attempting to remove the component that people use to determine the age of the earth. That component is of course science. The same tools used to determine the age of the earth are the same tools used to illuminate the evolutionary non-Christian history of Christianity. It all started with the Egyptians and Cannanities, to the Jews, all the way up to convoluted modern moderate pseudo-Christians, and we all may observe this. No heated debates required since an army of PHD's already fraught this battle for us.

Biblical historians know a thousand times more about the bible than any preacher, and Christians know this. How do you keep the world believing in nonsense like religion? You simply remove science and reason. At very least, the faithful MUST ignore science and reason. This explains why preachers, while regarding the bible as the MOST IMPORTANT book ever written, are not bible historians.

How anyone can pick one out of 2500 gods and swear it is the only REAL one is absolutely shocking to me. Every Christian should at VERY least learn their own book. This free lecture series will get you started! Its very informative, fun to watch and free of charge. http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/intr.../class-sessions

For those people that think a bronze age book has anything scientific to offer whatsoever here is the deal. We were not created , we evolved. If Genesis said man evolved over millenia then you'd be on to a winner. Alas it doesn't, so created we are not. For those still struggling with the basics of evolution here is an explaination of our descent from a common anscestor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE

Izabadgirl

The name say's it all really, mentality of a down syndrome 9 yr old.
Actually I take that back, down syndrome people generally posses more common sense than Izabadgirl as they lack the sophistication to believe anything they care to despite the evidence.

As even simpletons generally recognize that what is true is actually important and does in fact matter for someone who has any self respect, it's a real shame any concept the religious
may have of self respect is quickly drowned out by noise that is their own fear of death and utter desperation to grasp any idea that lets them hear their own thoughts.

Hey now. Don't attack the person, attack the crap they say.

Good point. Personal attacks are counter-productive. Having said that, kinglover's post wasn't entirely personal, and has some good points as well.

Thanks for the correction. At time of writing we had a MAJOR breakdown in telecomms in my area (gigantic thunderstorms - the worst for 168 years apparently) and I completely lost the thread.
1180 apologies (1000 apologies + taxes)

I think you may have recognized my strategy, I really think it's time the relgious are actually held to account about the claims they make, clearly to claim the bible is scientifically accurate is a nonsensical statement more akin to propaganda than any genuine attempt to present evidence or look at what has been proven critically.

These are the actions of a liar and morally bankrupt person, I think a grown adult SHOULD be judged by their actions and anyone who routinely puts all non believers of their
religion (which I may add is well documented to be created by and for people beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt) under the banner of Atheist (especially in the USA)
and demonise these people.

It's a bit rich, in my opinion is much worse than being a racist, a position that is not tolerated by other adults in polite society. I don't intend tolerating the religious branding me or anyone else not in their club as sub human so yes I think I AM in fact justified in personally attacking a person who holds such views and clearly voices them in a public forum and i think it is important to do so.

That is the most thought provoking and interesting I have read on these forums in months. VERY interesting point.

If a person loves, worships and 100 percent supports a God who is clearly sexist, bigoted and homophobic.... then isn't that as bad as being sexist, bigoted and homophobic?

If a person loves, worships and 100 percent supports a God who demands the death of witches, those who work on the sabbath day and adulterers, then at what point should we label those worshipers as amoral?

If I go out of my way to confront misogynists and homophobes then why should I tolerate Christians, for example? Their own God demands misogyny and homophobia... so doesn't that make him a huge asshole... and at what point do we label the Christian god a huge asshole?

If I had a job interview and the person told me that they cut off a woman's hand because she attempted to break up a fight by grabbing one of the mens genitals... then I probably wouldn't hire him... but if they said they were a Christians and support a God who demands such a thing I should treat them the same as a non-beleiver? (you can find this ridiculous bible command in Deut 25:11-12 , If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.) WTF?!

At what point do we hold worshipers accountable for the demands put on them by their gods? More importantly, at what point do we label atheists as a group of people who refuse to support religious murder, bigotry, sexism and homophobia?

If there is anything remotely scientific about religion and its claims then at what point do we demand to see this data? Two people on these forums have claimed they have discovered scientific evidence to support their belief in religion, and then when confronted, backpedaled straight out of their boasts. Kent Hovind can lie through his teeth while packing his creation museum full, so at what point to we call bullshit?

To an atheist, absolute faith in an invisible man who has never once validated his own existence or left behind even a shred of evidence appears as simple lunacy. AT what point do we demand rationalization for these HUGE claims of gods and prophets?




Ill say one thing, that has a similar theme... after 2012 all those apocalypse junkies are gonna get their own shut-the-fuck-up-card in the mail. Never again will I tolerate anyone's stupid Armageddon theories after 2012. They tried on 1999, 2000, 2006, 2007, and now they are going for 2012. No more. All done. Bye bye. The question is, at what point do we accept a similar stance with religion?

You bring up some great points...

I came to this basic conclusion through the idea that it is reasonable to judge a person by the associations they hold.

ie: if you are Christian and love the Christian god as per the bible (which you MUST to be a Christian so is a default position) that is clearly painted as a homicidal mass murderer, how is this different from associating from any other tyrant, be it hiltler or pol pot? The disturbing conclusion I have come to is there is logically no difference. While i realize most believers generally are driven by emotion not evidence it needs to be pointed out as this is in fact the reality or their claimed belief to be a member of a club happy to take orders from and do the bidding of a mass murderer, who decrees those not in the club evil. This applies to Islam without a doubt and I'm sure many religions in the past as they are largely about tribalism creating a "them" and "us" situation that humans naturally need aiding in things like community spirit and to rationalize war.

I will not associate with people who are members of these cults... willingly. Does the fact I find their god and their willingness to associate with such a character obscene make me intolerant? should I tolerate homophobia genocide and racism under the banner of religion? Should i not be Offended that I'm stereotyped by the religious as evil or worthless because I actually have enough self respect to stand up on the side of reason and evidence? I think as grown adults they need to be held accountable to the beliefs they claim to subscribe to, for the same reason I would not associate with Nazi's and want to be labeled one or respect anyone who feels pride labeling themselves one.
This position is the only position where you are in fact taking religion seriously, listening and weighing up what those in the club actually claim. If those claims are actually put to the test instead of shrugged off as most non believers do, recognizing there is a large amount of hypocrisy involved with religion and people in general are good DESPITE their faith ie: most Christians do not stone people to death who work on Sundays even though they clearly should as that is a commandment with the same weight as any other.

I think this grown up approach is helpful also for defining what you think is important, and clearly displays WHY those that deny basic human rights and freedom of speech to themselves and others are by definition the enemy of a useful social system where science can advance and can be agreed to be a largely moral society. The importance of science being able to advance is also an important moral imperative I think is often overlooked as science has saved more lives and lessened suffering more than anything else and will almost certainly solve all our physical problems and needs or at least can't be deigned to be our best bet.

Government has to keep the peace and for now the religious need to be managed or their delusion could become dangerous the best thing government can do is improve education and fund science and time will run it's course as in most developed countries religion is on the decline, and will continue, in the meantime I think religious claims should be treated like any other claim made by an adult. I personally think your own self respect and values should be maintained at all costs and part of that is not respecting those who hold obscene values, in this light tolerance in the sense of tolerating obscene and evil beliefs is not moral.

Anyways food for thought....

... and so it has begun. For a long time atheists have been fighting to have equal footing with theists. It was only a matter of time before the atheists began to identify themselves as, on average, morally superior individuals.

Lets make this a "for example" argument: By default, atheists are morally superior to Christians. This is because they do not love and worship and agree with a mass murdering, sexist and bigoted God.

I would love to know the theist point of view on this topic.

This is a great point. However if you break it down just a little you come across some problems. Most religious people are religious because they were raised to be that way by almost everyone surrounding them sharing this same beleif. Most have no clue when it comes to rationality in this frame of mind because it has never even crossed thier mind. so, in a sense, these people are brainwashed. And when it comes to murdering in the name of religion most do not take part in the practice of this. As the truth is so obvious to us it is a closed book locked away in the attic to most religious people. I like your points about not respecting the person because of the beleif however I think it is more important at this point in time to educate rather than alienate. Sure confront them when they make wild claims but do it in an educational way that will help inform them as to why they are incorrect in thier wild assumptions.

Once we have a strong foothold and the norm is no belief in any god then we can alienate because of stupidity. But as for now these are not stupid people, more or less ignorant people. Lets subtract the ignorance by giving them the same knowledge that we have and after we have exhausted all our resources for truth and rationality and they still refuse to let go of thier dogma then let the alienation begin. I don't want to throw the book at these people just yet. I would rather open the door so they can join us in the venture to educate mankind as to why religion is rediculous.

Desert for the food for thought....

Well, there is of course that glaring fact that Christians do not actually believe in their God.

Oops. Did I say that out loud? I am sure that ruffled a few feathers. Let me explain...

Anyone can observe that no one worships the God of the bible.

- Christians have little interest in the rules
The bible has approx. 600 rules in it. Christians have never even so much as bothered to make a list! THAT is how uninterested people are in the rules left behind by their own God. Almost every Christian in America can tell you the 50 states, but exceptionally few Christians can not tell you the ten commandments in order. Whoa!

- Christians don't even read their Gods book
The bible is the worlds top selling book throughout history.... and is almost never read from cover to cover. Ask yourself: Have you? I didn't think so. Christians around the world wait to read the next Dan Brown novel to see what he has to say on the bible... while never reading the ACTUAL bible. The irony!

- Christians are on average morally identical to people of other faiths and non-believers as well
Go to a shopping mall and try to point out the Christians. Christian women wear gold and braid their hair and wear expensive clothes and never veil their heads. The Christian men sometimes grow their hair long and shave off the corners of their beards and mix the fibers in their clothes. All of this behavior is forbidden in the bible, but no one seems to give a shit.

- Christians do not care about their religion enough to learn about it
Religious studies courses EXIST! Anthropological evidence EXISTS! Religion is a worldwide phenomenon that have been going on for thousands of years, with LOTS of study material availible... not just Kent Hovind's DVD series. You would think, if your spiritual choice was the most important choice you will ever make then you would at least study up a bit. Christians on average dont care, and are more willing to reject information then to review it.


If I was a Christian I would...
1- read the bible cover to cover
2- write down EVERY rule
3- follow each rule to the fullest of my ability.

So....... where are the Christians who are doing this? It isn't hard you know. Just don't order the shrimp when you go to the Keg. Its not rocket science. Wear a pure linen robe. Easy as that. Hey Christians. We are watching you! You look like you are full of shit! At least pretend to be doing something!




One of two things is happening here. Either...

A: Christians actually love their God, but find it far to inconvenient to actually read, list and follow the bible.

B: Christians actually deep down disbelieve in their God, which is why they ignore their God and his book.


"Loving" God and ignoring him is impossible, by the definition of what it means to love something. "Knowing" that you will be judged by God one day and ignoring his rules does not add up. If anyone claims the above they should be halted and corrected, because they are absolutely full of bullshit.


So, having said that, I suppose Christians can not be held accountable for loving a cruel, mass murdering, sexist asshole God because they do not really believe in him in the first place. So Christians, you are off the hook. There is of course this slight problem with you being full of shit however...

Check out my sig bro, Do you Believe the Bible is True?. PMSL

Haha. Hilarious. Keep updating that sig.

Cheers mate, here is A.J. Jacobs talk on his "Year of Living Biblically" for anyone who's not seen it.

http://ipb.quicksilverscreen.com/index.php...p;mode=threaded

I'll give it a bump, what the hell.

Living Biblically is a MUST see for anyone who has an opinion either for or against religion. Classic. Thanks for the post.

Im sure that all societies one day wont need religion as a tool... that is when we get intelligent enough not to have to use it!

First of all I'll say off the bat that I could not watch this video because there are no subtitles (I'm deaf) and I can't find subtitles for it. IF any of you happen to find them let me know.

However by reading about the video and some of the things that have been shared in this discussion. I have a good idea of what it's about and I've seen a lot of similar attempts to "justify" or "prove" religious accuracy.

But there's one part of this discussion that I wanted to comment on and that's when it was brought up that someone in here is an Atheist and have not told some people in their lives that they don't believe in god. This is the topic I'm about to talk about here.

I can relate because I'm also an Atheist. I'm also very outspoken about it and if anyone asks about my religious beliefs I'll tell them the truth. But the key phrase is "If anyone asks". I haven't told my mother or father that I'm an atheist simple because they've never asked if I was. I've never told some of my friends because they've never asked me. Frankly it's really no ones business but my own anyway. So unless the subject comes up then you wouldn't know I didn't believe in god.

On the other hand I don't mind talking about it at all. If someone wants to discuss religion with me that's all fine. I won't be offended in the least and although I believe all religions are basically mythology. I still find some of them interesting in the historical and cultural sense.

It's usually those who are religion that judge others by that. Many will dislike someone on the spot as soon as they find out their religious views do not match their own. I know not everyone is like that but I know plenty who are. But I've never meet an atheist who judges others like that. The topic of religion doesn't even register in their opinion of other unless that topic is brought up.

It's obviously being talked about a lot in this discussion but again I say it's because the topic has been brought up here.

So no matter what someone's religious beliefs are. There's no need to tell anyone unless they ask. It's none of their business anyway. If you like or dislike them in the absence of the knowledge of their religious belief. Then their religious beliefs don't matter.

I completely agree. What scares me is that Theists use their religious beliefs as a factor to vote a candidate, and that's just absurd. Because of this, we aren't going to have an openly Atheist in the White House anytime soon.

Could you imagine if an Atheist faked his religious belief and got himself elected. But once sworn in they announced that they really are an Atheist?

Or better yet. They go all the way to their fifth year in office (A year into their second term) and make this announcement.

How many who voted for the the second time would be upset at this news? After all they must have been happy with them for they voted them to stay in office their second term.

Sounds like a plot for a good movie too.

Statistically, it is improbable that every single president has been truly religious. It is however a mandatory platform it seems.... for now....

MajicJax... I was born deaf but now am now hearing, and sign with my gf's family. Both her parents are deaf. I bring that up whenever I meet a deaf person. Makes me realize how little CC we got in these vids!

They had a unique experience with religion since they were both denied any sort of religious education. Even tho they could lip read and speak they were both largely left out. Not one single volunteer would help them out.... in a CHURCH?! They say they didn't mind much however, since they were largely atheists to begin with. I often wonder if this was because they were left alone to view religious possibilities without much influence? I wonder how much that constant verbal influence has to do with programming ourselves with dogma?

From what I've read many churches have interpreters these days (Some have to pay for it though). But I agree that many deaf likely don't get into "church" that much. For me I don't think it had much to do with my being an Atheist other then it being helpful in avoiding having to listen to them talk about it. Should see the look on the JW's when they knock on my door and I tell them I'm deaf. LOL

Besides according to the bible we deaf aren't worthy anyway.



Come to think of it this kind of means most of us aren't worthy. Are you "Seeing"? Do you have a "blemish"?

i remember a scripture saying

you are black unto the earth

its mistanslated as black instead of Dark unto the earth

but its interesting, it seems to say we are made of dirt

this is interesting on its own

Scientist said that Every Element in our body can be found in dirt

If anyone knows the Scripture or if anyone knows the Scientific Data i speak of post it

This is what i remember what exaclty was said or read from, i did not look into it, so if you make any connections, post plz

Well, I'd say that most elements can be found in 'dirt' if you are referring to the earth's crust. although you might not find all of them there, such as the noble gases, as they do not react, and stay in gas form in most non-laboratory situations. Although, pockets of them would exist within the crust.

The part in the bible about mankind being made from dirt is based off of the observation that dead things decay and turn into dirt. The leap of imagination was made that if we turn into dirt, then we must have come from dirt.

Also, if you take a look at Creation stories, tales of humans being made from clay ("earth"), are quite common. For example, the Egyptian gods Ptah and Khnum both were believed to have fashioned humans out of clay and on a potters wheel. To the ancients, clay was a substance that could be molded into any likeness, so hence it was believed the element that the gods used to fashion life.

There's no science in the bible, so it's kind of pointless to try to find "proof" of the correctness of the bible, in the bible, and especially when whe have known for a very, very long time that the bible is completly incorrect in many, many passages. After all, which do you prefer for a treatment if you are diagnosed with Leprosy:

A.) Biblical Treatment: sacrifice some birds, smear their blood on your thumb and toe, wave a magic wand over you body, pray, sprinkle more blood on you and around your home etc..
B.) Modern Antibiotics.

It's your choice.

-First off the bat. Thanks to izabad for this post and the others. Thanks to izabad for having something known as a spine.


-In the op:



-Correct me if i'm wrong but that is all that is in the op amirite?

-Than a mountain of personal flameage against you ensues.

-There is certainly more outrageous posts other than this in the docs section that no one flames the oper over.


-I truly love these daddy dawkin' choad sucking clowns that play both sides of the field. They bastardize the definition of what an atheist truly is by definition. A entire lot of confused and misguided tardbarkers with nothing more than a Dawkin quote here and a pat the the other "QSSFAKETHIEST who posts prior on the back there.

-The best thing I can advise Iza is to post these type of links and don't feed the trolls that follow. They live in facepalm land.

-I am a staunch agnostic and no dim witted atheist represents anyone of the same school of thought. Regardless of what laughable BS the wankers on this forum claim.

-These guys ( the QSSFAKETHIEST squad) are utter jokes who forgot to read a dictionary of the title they chose before they chose it. That is nothing but pathetically comical at every level and always will be.

PS- This video is batshit insane.

I edited out the noise from the signal, to give the pure message above.

I always found this Interesting


Charles Darwin – The Evolution Lie (Spoken of by Roger Morneau)


Charles Darwin: Satan's Emissary?

One of those patients, that Roger Morneau speaks of, was Charles Darwin through whom Satan chose to introduce the theory of evolution. Through hypnosis, the enemy influenced Darwin's mind greatly. He well knew Darwin had a fertile mind and that he would most likely take his mental suggestions and develop them into an effective weapon against God's word.

This is what Satan meant when he told the council he would destroy the Bible without burning it. He outlined to them in great detail just how he would use evolution to destroy man's belief in:

1) the creation week,
2) the fall of man, and
3) the plan of redemption.

He said anyone teaching this theory was to be blessed by him before the whole galaxy and greatly esteemed. They would be allotted 5 angels to be assigned to them throughout their whole life, thereon. By this they would be considered ministers of this great religious system, and would be given great power to:

a) induce spiritual blindness,
to convince and
c) to convert.

As we all now can see, the enemy has been most successful. Since the conception of the evolution theory by Charles Darwin in the mid-1800's, the unholy mind of the evolutionist has continually been turned toward discrediting the Biblical account of a literal creation week of seven days duration.

Now we know what went on behind the scene, and why the Genesis account of creation has been under constant attack by the enemy to undermine man's belief and his worship of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Creator. Behind the scene pulling intellectual strings has been Satan and his cohorts, leading his faithful followers to delude and deceive the whole world.

Darwin's theory, when first proposed, was eagerly grasped by agnostics and infidels alike, as a way to explain the origin of the cosmos and the earth, eliminating the need for the Creator. The only thing that has evolved is their theory which pits a fiat creation by an almighty God against a slowly evolving cosmos taking millions and billions of years.

Life is described as beginning from some primordial soup which somehow began with the formation of a single cell, evolving through a process of natural selection to its present state of development. Thus the universe and man is ever evolving toward some higher state of existence. However, believers in this theory of an evolving world have never been able to produce any 'links' between the various identities, since all still produce 'after their kind' (Gen.1:21), except in cases of artificial intervention by man or Satan.

This is a very convenient way to deny what 6,000 years of sin has done to planet earth and its inhabitants. The Bible says that such a time of trouble such as this world has never seen is approaching. Soon God will come, in fact, He is ready even now to pour out His wrath upon this wicked world. This planet is not evolving toward some better utopian society, but rather toward SELF-DESTRUCTION—the exact opposite of what Satan would have men believe. He has very successfully use d this delusion to turn man's attention away from the tragic consequences of 6,000 years of sin, and what it has wrought upon planet earth.

Now that you are, by the providence of God, informed about the enemy's secret plans, you need not be deceived by these devices. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. May God bless you all as you seek for truth and light in this darkest hour of earth's history. I look forward to my next visit with you. Thank you for your time.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. The Creation story in Genesis is 100% scientifically inaccurate. Not only that but most believers read the Creation story with the it's true meaning going right over their heads. I bet most believers still don't realize that the Creation account in Genesis was written with the implied assumption that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. I mean, C'mon! In Genesis plants were created before the sun! It's clear that the biblical authors were ignorant that plants needed sunlight to live. On top of that there is the silly notion that death did not exist until Adam & Eve ate the apple! LOL If there was no death then there would be no eating at all, for the act of consuming implies killing a lifeform to obtain nourishment from it. If there was no death then no creature ate anything which mean Eve wouldnt' even have the desire to eat the damned fruit to begin with!

Even modern Christians are dumb enough to believe that every animal just ate plants. Duh! PLANTS ARE ALIVE! EATING A PLANT KILLS IT!

I'm sorry but the obvious answer is that all religions are false, including Christianity. The account of Creation in Genesis is MYTHOLOGY. It's not real. Animals don't talk and any God who would punish manking with death for eating a damned fruit is surely not a God worthy of worship.

Oh man! I hope I qualify! How exactly do I know if my atheism is fake?

Or better put.... how stupid does a race have to be to accept the possibility of over 2500 gods, and the millions of ways to worship them before going "bullshit"?

This thread fucking rocks, and here is my shout out to all the fake-atheists out there.

"Fake Atheism" is an actual valid criticism leveled at the modern Atheist movement, and some of it's key people (Dawkins for example) who include Agnosticism in the definition of Atheism or who somehow alter the standard definition of Atheism.

I had to look it up! LOL

"Fake Atheism" Comic

Oh. That is interesting. I never really thought about it. Kinda semantics really... but interesting nonetheless.

I think Dawkins is appealing to the part of both atheists and agnostics which find it very very very very unlikely that any one small g god is the authentic capitol G God. That is probably why he includes them both.

Six-hundred and sixty-six billion.

Seriously, grow up kid. EVOLUTION IS NOT A LIE! EVOLUTION IS near PROVEN FACT! EVOLUTION MAY BE THE ANSWER TO HOW AND NOT WHY!!!

Maybe your idea of 'God' exists, and maybe instead of burning thousands of souls on funeral pyers (metaphorically speaking), you should open up to the idea, and realize that the story of Creationism was a fabricated story to apease the highly uneducated masses in their persuite of the question "How did we begin?"

Keep in mind, your church used to bring many up on charges of HERECY AGAINST THE CHURCH for even SUGGESTING that the earth was not the center of the universe, and was round.

The Vatican is decades of murder, oppression, and lies.

If I had some idiots force feeding my a bunch of right wing christian propaganda, I'd tell them I was an athiest too just to get them to piss off.

Do you see the sun carefully with your own eye every morning?

Nope. I rely on instrumentation to look carefully at the sun. Welcome to 2009.

Look. There is an intellectual dividing line here. Both sides are "faitheists".
- One side has faith in a divinely created universe.
- The other side has faith that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are not lying to us.

So.... where does the evidence point?

On one hand, if the universe was divinely created then you have got...
- absolutely not one single shred of tangible evidence.
- over 2500 gods and hundreds of thousands of religions that the creation could be potentially attributed to... and no proof which is the right one.
- a bronze age explanation for the universe that people have used up to 8000 years ago.
- an ANSWER.... while having no real reason to assume you have got the answer in the first place besides the obvious religious obligation.

On the other hand, if you believe in the theory of evolution, you got...
- a theory that no one has any obligation to believe in aside from the simple acknowledgment of basic facts.
- a theory that the vast majority of the world's geniuses subscribe to.
- HEAPS upon HEAPS of actual tangible evidence.
- a theory that has not been changed or replaced for the last 150 years, only added to and improved.
- a theory that saves thousands of lives, feeds millions, and currently improves your quality of life on a daily basis. While religion was burning witches, science was tripling your lifespan.

So.... if I had no bias either way I would have to ask: Which way does the evidence support? Which is more likely to be true? Religious people know the answer same as everyone else.



edit: If you can not understand this.... then religion becomes one of your only options to explain the universe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

You cant see the created with your own eyes how can you see the creator?

On your second note. (you qoute)
Look. There is an intellectual dividing line here. Both sides are "faitheists".
- One side has faith in a divinely created universe.
- The other side has faith that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are not lying to us.

I agree with you but you have missed something . My religion is all for evolution and never against (well mix opinions really). It has an apen door on this subject, and infact the theory of evolution was started by some of the Islamic scholars (i think one of the guys was called Nesseradin or something). Most credit are nowadays given to Darwin though! If science proves 100% on anything, it can therefore considered as a fact and no religion has to do anything with it and it shouldnt. after all we are making our understanding of the world better using science? And in the religious prespective, I for example, want to know how exactly god created the universe and what happened after that?

Im sorry ultraforge but for myself the evidence of the universe existence, everything in it, the way everthing works, the way everything has a reason for its existence and the way of everything is, it is enough for me to come to a conclusion of gods existence.

make something ("created") out of nothing, I assure you that I give my solid word that will stop believing in god once anyone does that?

I fixed that for you.

Evolutionary ideas such as common descent and the transmutation of species have existed since at least the 6th century BCE, when they were expounded by the Greek philosopher Anaximander.[220] Others who considered such ideas included the Greek philosopher Empedocles, the Roman philosopher-poet Lucretius, the Arab biologist Al-Jahiz,[221] the Persian philosopher Ibn Miskawayh, the Brethren of Purity,[222] and the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi.[223] As biological knowledge grew in the 18th century, evolutionary ideas were set out by a few natural philosophers including Pierre Maupertuis in 1745 and Erasmus Darwin in 1796.[224] The ideas of the biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck about transmutation of species had wide influence.....
However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theories of natural selection were independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Darwin's landmark 1859 work On the Origin of Species brought the new theories of evolution by natural selection to a wide audience,[7] leading to the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#His...tionary_thought

You're assuming there ever has or ever will be nothing.

That is good and thank you for making me acknowledging it. Btw - I was talking about this guy though whom I read about Nasir-al-Din

I still think they should put the peoples name as you said above in the school science book. Mine said that "Darwin was the one who came up with the idea"! It does'nt even mention that people even in the past had thought about it and some were the pioneer of the evolution theory - not just Darwin.

If you spent less time reading the Quran (or the bible) and more time studying science, the evidence you're seeking would start to make itself abundantly clear. The more you immerse yourself in scientific facts and theories, the less of a mystery this world and the universe becomes. I'm not saying that science has all of the Big Questions answered (yet), but it's rather naive to not know a thing about science and to go on and say that the magnitude of the mechanics of evolution and the universe are so perplexing to you, there just HAS to be a creator behind it all.

That's the mindset of a frightened child with an overbearing father that takes everything daddy says to be the truth.