New Atheism believes religion should be countered, criticized and exposed

[daws101]

It only serves you well and Bill Maher well to deal in semantics ---- as though that is the crux of the matter.

You win the definition war. Big deal. You lose the probability war every day.

What probability war would that be? What is the probability that some supernatural power created the universe and then hid the evidence? As opposed to the probability, based on the lack of evidence, that such a power even exists?

Extremely high, to answer your question. Even though I totally reject your premise about hidden evidence. FYI, creationism would have no fossil evidence would it? There would be no transitional fossils, would there?

Speaking of the probability war, question for atheists: What is the probability this mysterious process called "natural selection" which allegedly does not think or will or have any goals, and yet is able to make decisions such as "best genes for survival" and "concocting molecular changes" for feathers and wings and spines ---- what is the probability this mindless magical "thing" could create a pancreas when there was none before? Or an eyeball?... no, let's go for two? Etc.

not the irreducible complexity ploy.!
a simple answer to you questions is: giving the right conditions and given enough time "life" will evolve .
no magic or supernatural sky fairies needed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

atheism is not a religion it just the opposite of religion.
atheism is based on analytical thinking and empirical quantifiable evidence.
religion is based on faith :
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
you ass hats would be much better off not wasting your time attempting to equate the two
bill maher said it best:Bill Maher, the greatest: about religion - YouTube

If by atheism you mean asserting that there is no God, then no, that is not based on quantifiable evidence. It requires as much faith to believe that no god exists as it does to believe that any god exists. Sorry, but until the assertion that you believe can be proven, you too are a man of faith.

Wrong. One cannot not believe in something that never existed to begin with.

 

[westwall]

atheism is not a religion it just the opposite of religion.
atheism is based on analytical thinking and empirical quantifiable evidence.
religion is based on faith :
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
you ass hats would be much better off not wasting your time attempting to equate the two
bill maher said it best:Bill Maher, the greatest: about religion - YouTube

Atheism exhibits every behavior of religion...thus it IS a religion....

Christians have rituals, traditions, prayers, congregants, church services, gatherings of congregants, communion, holy days, missionaries, etc. etc. Atheism has none of that...no system of beliefs. Atheism is simply a belief that there is no god.

No rituals? Maybe, but militant atheists believe they have the right to dictate to others what they should believe and they are willing to inflict harm to do so. Clearly a tactic of the religious extremist. They hold meetings to disparage those of a religious nature, they congregate in court to "punish" believers for their beliefs. Symbols too!

Below are just a few of the atheist religious gatherings for 2013...


Atheists Meetup Groups - Atheists Meetups

Atheist Coalition - Meeting Schedule

2013 National Convention | American Atheists

Global Atheist Convention 2013 - AFA Forums

 

[daws101]

Atheism exhibits every behavior of religion...thus it IS a religion....

Christians have rituals, traditions, prayers, congregants, church services, gatherings of congregants, communion, holy days, missionaries, etc. etc. Atheism has none of that...no system of beliefs. Atheism is simply a belief that there is no god.

No rituals? Maybe, but militant atheists believe they have the right to dictate to others what they should believe and they are willing to inflict harm to do so. Clearly a tactic of the religious extremist. They hold meetings to disparage those of a religious nature, they congregate in court to "punish" believers for their beliefs. Symbols too!

Below are just a few of the atheist religious gatherings for 2013...


Atheists Meetup Groups - Atheists Meetups

Atheist Coalition - Meeting Schedule

2013 National Convention | American Atheists

Global Atheist Convention 2013 - AFA Forums

FUNNY YOU'D SAY THAT AS CHRISTIANS HAVE BELIEVED THEY HAD THAT RIGHT FOR BETTER THAN 2000 YEARS.
seems like a case of can dish it out but can't take it.
freedom of religion like freedom of speech is no free pass.

 

[orogenicman]

It only serves you well and Bill Maher well to deal in semantics ---- as though that is the crux of the matter.

You win the definition war. Big deal. You lose the probability war every day.

What probability war would that be? What is the probability that some supernatural power created the universe and then hid the evidence? As opposed to the probability, based on the lack of evidence, that such a power even exists?

Extremely high, to answer your question.

On what are you basing your assessment that the probability that a supernatural power created the universe is high? Don't you first have to demonstrate that the concept of supernatural is valid before you consider as high the probability of a supernatural power creating the uiniverse?

Even though I totally reject your premise about hidden evidence.

No problems there. I reject it as well. I was being facetious.

FYI, creationism would have no fossil evidence would it? There would be no transitional fossils, would there?

I am not sure what you are saying here.

Speaking of the probability war, question for atheists: What is the probability this mysterious process called "natural selection" which allegedly does not think or will or have any goals, and yet is able to make decisions such as "best genes for survival" and "concocting molecular changes" for feathers and wings and spines ---- what is the probability this mindless magical "thing" could create a pancreas when there was none before? Or an eyeball?... no, let's go for two? Etc.

Zero, because that is not how natural selection works. And it may seem mysterious to people like you who obviously don't understand it, but to the vast majority of scientists, it isn't mysterious at all.

Compare artificial selection to natural selection:

 

[orogenicman]

Best genes for survival isn't "chosen," it's that the bad genes literally don't survive because they cannot.

What does survival have to do with exponential change? Such as inventing hearing? This “survival of the fittest gene” is a red herring at best because it does not even begin to explain macro-evolution.

Also - the probability argument is automatically a non-starter when you really begin to grasp the size and age of the Universe, learn how evolution works, and then put the two together.

Yes, here we are with the evolutionists’ other favorite “god,” --- i.e. time. To them, anything can happen if given enough billions of years, never mind the insanity of it all. I often said evolution can be defined as such --- “if you stare at a canary long enough it will turn into a wolverine.”

We are not improbable, at all. You forgot when you're suggesting that everything became magically perfect - how many species FAILED, how many non eyeballs there were before the eyeball that did not suffice to fulfill survival. You can't talk improbability (numbers) by only factoring in the end product and then leaving out the vast amount of failures, i.e. over 90% of species that ever existed, to get to said end product. Some magic!

And once again we classroom students are forced to swallow that one species spawned another. Via drawings. As far as all your failures you are alluding to, why is it there are virtually no photographs of transitional fossils in text books, save for your prized archaeopteryx? There should be millions of transitional fossils and failed experiments amongst the tens of millions of fossils that have been identified and cataloged. There are not.

In addition, there should always been some animals in major transition (growing something new, etc) given the trillions or quadrillions of changes that had to have occurred in order to arrive at billions of new species (and I am not talking about bacteria).

But in order to wrap your head around that - you'd first need to begin learning from an honest place and not seeking to reaffirm your predispositions.

Ditto.

Well, none of that is correct - AT ALL.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

atheism is not a religion it just the opposite of religion.
atheism is based on analytical thinking and empirical quantifiable evidence.
religion is based on faith :
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
you ass hats would be much better off not wasting your time attempting to equate the two
bill maher said it best:Bill Maher, the greatest: about religion - YouTube

If by atheism you mean asserting that there is no God, then no, that is not based on quantifiable evidence. It requires as much faith to believe that no god exists as it does to believe that any god exists. Sorry, but until the assertion that you believe can be proven, you too are a man of faith.

Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural, that lack of belief resting on the fact that there is no quantifiable evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is not on atheists to demonstrate that a god does or does not exist. We didn't make the claim that god does exist. The burden of proof falls to those who claim that god does exist, not on those who don't make the claim.

In all fairness, there's more than one type of atheist, thus the "if" at the beginning of my assertion. If you simply don't believe that there -is- a God, then no, you've made no assertion.

There is, however, a difference between a lack of belief in the supernatural and a belief in the lack of a supernatural. If you say there is -no- God, then it doesn't matter what religions have said. . . you have just made an assertion and the burden of proof for your assertion lies squarely on your shoulders.

If you're the type of atheist that's agnostic as opposed to an atheist believer, then you and I see virtually eye to eye on the God subject. . . it actually troubles me to some degree that there are agnostic types who still refer to themselves as atheists. Not that I have a problem with any particular word, I just like my categories to have clean edges and my labels to be specific lol. Kinda anal about verbal and mental organization.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

atheism is not a religion it just the opposite of religion.
atheism is based on analytical thinking and empirical quantifiable evidence.
religion is based on faith :
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
you ass hats would be much better off not wasting your time attempting to equate the two
bill maher said it best:Bill Maher, the greatest: about religion - YouTube

If by atheism you mean asserting that there is no God, then no, that is not based on quantifiable evidence. It requires as much faith to believe that no god exists as it does to believe that any god exists. Sorry, but until the assertion that you believe can be proven, you too are a man of faith.

Wrong. One cannot not believe in something that never existed to begin with.

Silly ass argument. Faith is not belief in a being. Faith is belief in -anything- without proof. I'm not saying atheists believe in an un-God. Atheists, at least the sort to which I'm referring, believe that there is no God. That hasn't been proven. There might be a God.

If you believe in an explanation that hasn't been proven, then you have faith in said explanation.

How frayed is your logic circuit?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Christians have rituals, traditions, prayers, congregants, church services, gatherings of congregants, communion, holy days, missionaries, etc. etc. Atheism has none of that...no system of beliefs. Atheism is simply a belief that there is no god.

No rituals? Maybe, but militant atheists believe they have the right to dictate to others what they should believe and they are willing to inflict harm to do so. Clearly a tactic of the religious extremist. They hold meetings to disparage those of a religious nature, they congregate in court to "punish" believers for their beliefs. Symbols too!

Below are just a few of the atheist religious gatherings for 2013...


Atheists Meetup Groups - Atheists Meetups

Atheist Coalition - Meeting Schedule

2013 National Convention | American Atheists

Global Atheist Convention 2013 - AFA Forums

FUNNY YOU'D SAY THAT AS CHRISTIANS HAVE BELIEVED THEY HAD THAT RIGHT FOR BETTER THAN 2000 YEARS.
seems like a case of can dish it out but can't take it.
freedom of religion like freedom of speech is no free pass.

In all fairness he didn't seem to be posting those atheist religious meetings to show that atheists are evil, so your response is kinda out of left field.

The purpose of the post, given the context of the argument, seemed more or less to be drawing comparisons between atheism and religion.

Remember? The statement he was coming back at was that atheism isn't like religion because it doesn't have congregations, symbols, etc?

 

[westwall]

Christians have rituals, traditions, prayers, congregants, church services, gatherings of congregants, communion, holy days, missionaries, etc. etc. Atheism has none of that...no system of beliefs. Atheism is simply a belief that there is no god.

No rituals? Maybe, but militant atheists believe they have the right to dictate to others what they should believe and they are willing to inflict harm to do so. Clearly a tactic of the religious extremist. They hold meetings to disparage those of a religious nature, they congregate in court to "punish" believers for their beliefs. Symbols too!

Below are just a few of the atheist religious gatherings for 2013...


Atheists Meetup Groups - Atheists Meetups

Atheist Coalition - Meeting Schedule

2013 National Convention | American Atheists

Global Atheist Convention 2013 - AFA Forums

FUNNY YOU'D SAY THAT AS CHRISTIANS HAVE BELIEVED THEY HAD THAT RIGHT FOR BETTER THAN 2000 YEARS.
seems like a case of can dish it out but can't take it.
freedom of religion like freedom of speech is no free pass.

I'm agnostic silly person. I just find it amusing that you atheists DO THE EXACT SAME BULLSHIT THAT THE RELIGIOUS NUTTERS DO. And when it is pointed out to you the typical response is the one you just gave.

So, so predictable....

 

[daws101]

No rituals? Maybe, but militant atheists believe they have the right to dictate to others what they should believe and they are willing to inflict harm to do so. Clearly a tactic of the religious extremist. They hold meetings to disparage those of a religious nature, they congregate in court to "punish" believers for their beliefs. Symbols too!

Below are just a few of the atheist religious gatherings for 2013...


Atheists Meetup Groups - Atheists Meetups

Atheist Coalition - Meeting Schedule

2013 National Convention | American Atheists

Global Atheist Convention 2013 - AFA Forums

FUNNY YOU'D SAY THAT AS CHRISTIANS HAVE BELIEVED THEY HAD THAT RIGHT FOR BETTER THAN 2000 YEARS.
seems like a case of can dish it out but can't take it.
freedom of religion like freedom of speech is no free pass.

I'm agnostic silly person. I just find it amusing that you atheists DO THE EXACT SAME BULLSHIT THAT THE RELIGIOUS NUTTERS DO. And when it is pointed out to you the typical response is the one you just gave.

So, so predictable....

predictable maybe.. correct absolutely..

 

[turzovka]

Best genes for survival isn't "chosen," it's that the bad genes literally don't survive because they cannot.

What does survival have to do with exponential change? Such as inventing hearing? This “survival of the fittest gene” is a red herring at best because it does not even begin to explain macro-evolution.

Also - the probability argument is automatically a non-starter when you really begin to grasp the size and age of the Universe, learn how evolution works, and then put the two together.

Yes, here we are with the evolutionists’ other favorite “god,” --- i.e. time. To them, anything can happen if given enough billions of years, never mind the insanity of it all. I often said evolution can be defined as such --- “if you stare at a canary long enough it will turn into a wolverine.”

We are not improbable, at all. You forgot when you're suggesting that everything became magically perfect - how many species FAILED, how many non eyeballs there were before the eyeball that did not suffice to fulfill survival. You can't talk improbability (numbers) by only factoring in the end product and then leaving out the vast amount of failures, i.e. over 90% of species that ever existed, to get to said end product. Some magic!

And once again we classroom students are forced to swallow that one species spawned another. Via drawings. As far as all your failures you are alluding to, why is it there are virtually no photographs of transitional fossils in text books, save for your prized archaeopteryx? There should be millions of transitional fossils and failed experiments amongst the tens of millions of fossils that have been identified and cataloged. There are not.

In addition, there should always been some animals in major transition (growing something new, etc) given the trillions or quadrillions of changes that had to have occurred in order to arrive at billions of new species (and I am not talking about bacteria).

But in order to wrap your head around that - you'd first need to begin learning from an honest place and not seeking to reaffirm your predispositions.

Ditto.

Your whole post is giggle/cringe worthy. Really - and the only way to know that is to read you an entire book and...........I aint doin' that. lol, good day. good day.

What a comfort and crutch it must be to have the media and government and popular opinion on your side where all one has to do is propose and never explain. No wonder our children and our culture have turned inward on their narcissistic selves and ignored God and consequence.

 

[G.T.]

Best genes for survival isn't "chosen," it's that the bad genes literally don't survive because they cannot.

What does survival have to do with exponential change? Such as inventing hearing? This “survival of the fittest gene” is a red herring at best because it does not even begin to explain macro-evolution.

Also - the probability argument is automatically a non-starter when you really begin to grasp the size and age of the Universe, learn how evolution works, and then put the two together.

Yes, here we are with the evolutionists’ other favorite “god,” --- i.e. time. To them, anything can happen if given enough billions of years, never mind the insanity of it all. I often said evolution can be defined as such --- “if you stare at a canary long enough it will turn into a wolverine.”

We are not improbable, at all. You forgot when you're suggesting that everything became magically perfect - how many species FAILED, how many non eyeballs there were before the eyeball that did not suffice to fulfill survival. You can't talk improbability (numbers) by only factoring in the end product and then leaving out the vast amount of failures, i.e. over 90% of species that ever existed, to get to said end product. Some magic!

And once again we classroom students are forced to swallow that one species spawned another. Via drawings. As far as all your failures you are alluding to, why is it there are virtually no photographs of transitional fossils in text books, save for your prized archaeopteryx? There should be millions of transitional fossils and failed experiments amongst the tens of millions of fossils that have been identified and cataloged. There are not.

In addition, there should always been some animals in major transition (growing something new, etc) given the trillions or quadrillions of changes that had to have occurred in order to arrive at billions of new species (and I am not talking about bacteria).

But in order to wrap your head around that - you'd first need to begin learning from an honest place and not seeking to reaffirm your predispositions.

Ditto.

Your whole post is giggle/cringe worthy. Really - and the only way to know that is to read you an entire book and...........I aint doin' that. lol, good day. good day.

What a comfort and crutch it must be to have the media and government and popular opinion on your side where all one has to do is propose and never explain. No wonder our children and our culture have turned inward on their narcissistic selves and ignored God and consequence.

The fact that you think I need to explain evolution to you and why it's so solid and there *is a fuck ton of concrete evidence for it? It speaks for itself - it's not my fault that you cling to debunked bullshit and it's not my job to educate you. That's your parents' and teachers' jobs, not mine - but I'm not here to debate settled scientific theory as though some dufus on a messageboard or some obscure junk science links can debunk the well organized, well respected and well researched scientific community.

 

[turzovka]

---Somehow my entry got duplicated?---

 

[turzovka]

The fact that you think I need to explain evolution to you and why it's so solid and there *is a fuck ton of concrete evidence for it? It speaks for itself - it's not my fault that you cling to debunked bullshit and it's not my job to educate you. That's your parents' and teachers' jobs, not mine - but I'm not here to debate settled scientific theory as though some dufus on a messageboard or some obscure junk science links can debunk the well organized, well respected and well researched scientific community.

I need not present any argument, a number of your own heroes of evolution cast all the doubt necessary. Or have they not studied enough for your standards?

Stephen Gould: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”

Steven M. Stanley is an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record. "The known fossil record," Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History: “I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …”

[Incidentally, I read a rebuttal on talkorigins.com who makes the case Patterson did not mean anything like it sounded. I found their defense to be very weak and reaching.]

Stephen Gould Quote: “"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.”

Gould is not attacking evolution, but he is making an argument for punctuated equilibrium and virtually mocking Dawkins & co. insistence of gradual evolution. So to review the arguments of two of the most revered high priests of evolution.

Gould & Co: A exists because X is present. There is no evidence for Y.
Dawkins & Co: A exists because Y is present. There is no evidence for X.

Conclusion: There is no evidence that experts agree on exist for A. Therefore A is not only yet unproven, it is very highly suspect since, some of the finest experts on the matter highly doubt the presence of the necessary evidence for it to exist. Here in the 21st century when science has made remarkable discoveries unimaginable, they still cannot identify proof of how we evolved that the experts can agree upon.

Essentially, Gould disproves Dawkins claim for evolution because he says there is no evidence for Gradual evolution. Or does Gould have no credibility? Dawkins disproves Gould’s claim for evolution because he says there is no evidence for punctuated equilibrium (i.e. monster steps). Or does Dawkins have no credibility?

The most knowledgeable man on evolution in the world Stephen Gould (now deceased, I know) balks at the claims of gradual evolution yet public schools and universities everywhere insist it be taught as fact. And we who challenge evolution based on the same lack of evidence as Gould’s are counted as fools. How rich.

 

[G.T.]

The fact that you think I need to explain evolution to you and why it's so solid and there *is a fuck ton of concrete evidence for it? It speaks for itself - it's not my fault that you cling to debunked bullshit and it's not my job to educate you. That's your parents' and teachers' jobs, not mine - but I'm not here to debate settled scientific theory as though some dufus on a messageboard or some obscure junk science links can debunk the well organized, well respected and well researched scientific community.

I need not present any argument, a number of your own heroes of evolution cast all the doubt necessary. Or have they not studied enough for your standards?

Stephen Gould: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”

Steven M. Stanley is an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record. "The known fossil record," Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History: “I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …”

[Incidentally, I read a rebuttal on talkorigins.com who makes the case Patterson did not mean anything like it sounded. I found their defense to be very weak and reaching.]

Stephen Gould Quote: “"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.”

Gould is not attacking evolution, but he is making an argument for punctuated equilibrium and virtually mocking Dawkins & co. insistence of gradual evolution. So to review the arguments of two of the most revered high priests of evolution.

Gould & Co: A exists because X is present. There is no evidence for Y.
Dawkins & Co: A exists because Y is present. There is no evidence for X.

Conclusion: There is no evidence that experts agree on exist for A. Therefore A is not only yet unproven, it is very highly suspect since, some of the finest experts on the matter highly doubt the presence of the necessary evidence for it to exist. Here in the 21st century when science has made remarkable discoveries unimaginable, they still cannot identify proof of how we evolved that the experts can agree upon.

Essentially, Gould disproves Dawkins claim for evolution because he says there is no evidence for Gradual evolution. Or does Gould have no credibility? Dawkins disproves Gould’s claim for evolution because he says there is no evidence for punctuated equilibrium (i.e. monster steps). Or does Dawkins have no credibility?

The most knowledgeable man on evolution in the world Stephen Gould (now deceased, I know) balks at the claims of gradual evolution yet public schools and universities everywhere insist it be taught as fact. And we who challenge evolution based on the same lack of evidence as Gould’s are counted as fools. How rich.

Yo dude, re-read my last post. That's all you're getting and deserve if you thgink you're debunking evolution. Fuck outta my face with your pseudo junk science and cherry picked nonsense.

Pick up a real book.

 

[turzovka]

Yo dude, re-read my last post. That's all you're getting and deserve if you thgink you're debunking evolution. Fuck outta my face with your pseudo junk science and cherry picked nonsense.

Pick up a real book.

I read the books of your heroes. So how did we evolve, DUDE, if we did? Was it gradual evolution or was it punctuated equilibrium?

Since you insist it is all decided and "proven."

Sorry, DUDE. But you are simply parroting the company line which is in total disarray when one takes a closer look.

 

[orogenicman]

Yo dude, re-read my last post. That's all you're getting and deserve if you thgink you're debunking evolution. Fuck outta my face with your pseudo junk science and cherry picked nonsense.

Pick up a real book.

I read the books of your heroes. So how did we evolve, DUDE, if we did? Was it gradual evolution or was it punctuated equilibrium?

Since you insist it is all decided and "proven."

Sorry, DUDE. But you are simply parroting the company line which is in total disarray when one takes a closer look.

 

[Derideo_Te]

New Atheism believes religion should be countered, criticized and exposed

New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."
The term is commonly associated with individuals such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (together called "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" in a 2007 debate they held on their criticisms of religion, a name that has stuck), along with Victor J. Stenger, A.C. Grayling, and P.Z. Myers.Several best-selling books by these authors, published between 2004 and 2007, form the basis for much of the discussion of New Atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

The fallacy is assuming that these 4 speak on behalf of all atheists. They don't. As an atheist I am not hidebound into a "cult" where I must "believe" a certain "dogma". Instead I am free of all "cults", "dogma" and "beliefs". There is no "Book of Atheism" nor any ancient "scriptures" that must be taken on "faith" alone.

FYI there have been atheists around for just as long as there have been religions and yes, they predate Christianity.

So speaking on behalf of myself as an atheist and no one else I do see merit in religions. They serve a purpose in society and as long as they are neither abused nor used to cause harm to others they are a benefit to society.

If the outcome of the rational debates about religion result in religions that are more tolerant then that can only be to the benefit of both religions and society as a whole. So right now the only "downside" seems to be that some of the most intolerant religions are having a problem with the concept of a rational examination of their intolerance. Needless to say they are intolerant of Atheists so it is not surprising that this is their reaction.

If there is one religious leader on the entire planet who would sit down and have this debate it would be Pope Francis. As an atheist I admire his actions because they speak far louder than all of the pious words of his predecessors. If anything he recognizes the harm and is doing what needs to be done to remediate it within his own religious organization.

So I wish him the best as I do anyone who tries to rid the world of the things that cause harm to people. If these rational debates move society to a better place then I support them wholeheartedly. Society is changing as we have the opportunity to communicate more freely and openly than ever before. Religions must serve society rather than try to make it in their own image.

So my position is to shun the bad that causes needless harm and embrace the good instead. Perhaps there are some religions that will adopt this philosophy and become even more relevant in the new society. I see signs of this happening already. These are pastors who are tending to the flocks of the new millennials rather than trying to make them fit into the hidebound orthodoxies that are at variance with the society that is evolving. In some respects their arguments are not all that different to what the 4 atheists above are proposing.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Best genes for survival isn't "chosen," it's that the bad genes literally don't survive because they cannot.

What does survival have to do with exponential change? Such as inventing hearing? This “survival of the fittest gene” is a red herring at best because it does not even begin to explain macro-evolution.

Also - the probability argument is automatically a non-starter when you really begin to grasp the size and age of the Universe, learn how evolution works, and then put the two together.

Yes, here we are with the evolutionists’ other favorite “god,” --- i.e. time. To them, anything can happen if given enough billions of years, never mind the insanity of it all. I often said evolution can be defined as such --- “if you stare at a canary long enough it will turn into a wolverine.”

We are not improbable, at all. You forgot when you're suggesting that everything became magically perfect - how many species FAILED, how many non eyeballs there were before the eyeball that did not suffice to fulfill survival. You can't talk improbability (numbers) by only factoring in the end product and then leaving out the vast amount of failures, i.e. over 90% of species that ever existed, to get to said end product. Some magic!

And once again we classroom students are forced to swallow that one species spawned another. Via drawings. As far as all your failures you are alluding to, why is it there are virtually no photographs of transitional fossils in text books, save for your prized archaeopteryx? There should be millions of transitional fossils and failed experiments amongst the tens of millions of fossils that have been identified and cataloged. There are not.

In addition, there should always been some animals in major transition (growing something new, etc) given the trillions or quadrillions of changes that had to have occurred in order to arrive at billions of new species (and I am not talking about bacteria).

But in order to wrap your head around that - you'd first need to begin learning from an honest place and not seeking to reaffirm your predispositions.

Ditto.

Your whole post is giggle/cringe worthy. Really - and the only way to know that is to read you an entire book and...........I aint doin' that. lol, good day. good day.

What a comfort and crutch it must be to have the media and government and popular opinion on your side where all one has to do is propose and never explain. No wonder our children and our culture have turned inward on their narcissistic selves and ignored God and consequence.

Oh the irony!