Atheism is the Rational Response

Reply to SCMike.

2008-10-13T09:00:00.000-07:00

SCMike is largely a waste of an intelligent persons time.

He refuses to answer any objections, substantiate any claims, returns to his same unsubstantiated talking points over and over again and ignores any post of yours that he is uncomfortable answering.

"#1 Are you certain that this is a logical fallacy?? If so, please tell us how you're certain, apart from God. If not, you certainly have no right to judge my claim."

Are you certain that it's not? Is god talking to you right now? Did he reveal to you in a way that you can be certain that your arguments are perfect and right? If so, could you please show us when and where god has revealed this to you? If you're receiving messages from an omnipotent, omniscient god - I've got a few questions for it that would allow you to substantiate your silly claims.

You have yet to provide any evidence or reason that one needs to be 100% certain about something in order to state a fact correctly or posit a relevant idea or claim. While you're doing so, please account for the fact that science and all its trappings ONLY works and allows us to examine the world around us(and improve lives, and cure diseases and feed millions of starving children and send humans into space, etc) because of the concept of falsifiability. Falsifiability is the idea that something is proven to be MARGINALLY TRUE because of the POSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY.

You also state multiple times that you know "SOME THINGS" for certain. SOME THINGS but not ALL things - isn't that right? You said that you don't know EVERYTHING for certain - just some things. Well, what about everything that you're not mysteriously certain about via divine revelation? Are you just as 'uncertain' about those things as I am - or do you use your proven - reliable cognitive abilities in such cases that don't require divine revelation? Do you ask god every single time you use an elevator whether or not it will work? Or do you rely on past experience, evidence based reasoning and your cognitive abilities to decide that you're ALMOST CERTAIN that the elevator won't send you dropping 12 storeys to your death? Are you ALMOST CERTAIN that you won't get into a car accident and be killed? Are you ALMOST CERTAIN that if you eat a hotdog from the grocery store you won't get salmonella and die? Are you almost certain that the computer you're using to read this will work when you turn it on? Are you almost certain that your car will work when you turn it on? I'll bet you rely on evidence based reasoning to assure you of such things(unless you claim divine revelation and absolute knowledge).

When explaining this discrepancy, please explain to all of us which things it is necessary to be 100% certain about via 'divine revelation', and which things it's okay to let our congnative faculties assure us that what we're considering is EXTREMELY LIKELY to be true. Please explain to us how, when and why you decide that a certain thing is something you need to be 100% positive about and which things it's okay to be ALMOST CERTAIN about.

"#2 What absolute, universal, standard of logic are you claiming I am violating, and why does that standard NECESSARILY apply to my argument??"

None, because there's no such thing. You skipped my entire, lengthy post explaining why even your language betrays the invalidity of your points here. I'll repost it for your benefit.

SCMike's talking point:
"For example you write "By calling my argument a fallacy, you are appealing to the very absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason that you deny exist."

Absolute and universal mean the exact same thing. If something is absolute than it's universal. If something is universal than it's absolute.Why would one engage in such redundancy other than to attempt to SOUND intelligent? If you wanted to be clear and concise, you would omit one of those terms.

Also, logic and reason are synonyms. There's no reason to appeal to the exact same thing twice. That's like saying "the laws of violet and purple." Redundant language.

Immaterial refers to something having no 'body or form'. What does it mean to claim that your supposed absolutes have no body or form? How does this add information to your discussion? Every thought that every human(right or wrong) has ever had is 'immaterial'. Every idea, concept, 'law', has been immaterial. The concept of economics is immaterial. What does it mean to say that your absolutes are immaterial? What does it add to the dialogue about or understanding of these absolutes? Not a thing. It just SOUNDS smart and helps to cloud the issue.

And attempting to define your absolutes as 'laws' is also pretty self defeating. Which of the 20 definitions for the word 'law' are you attempting to utilize? A law, as understood by most people, is something that humans have INVENTED to describe a natural phenomena. And like all ideas, these laws are immaterial - they're simply concepts that exist in our minds. As such, any laws posited by humans are subject to change with new information and likely have been changed multiple times.
An example would the 'laws of motion' - a collection of rules and ideas to explain the phenomena of motion. These laws were THOUGHT to be absolute, and were certainly immaterial. But the law was CHANGED by Einstein's discovery of relativity. New information changes our ideas and concepts which in turn changes our laws. Under no definition of law would it be asserted that a law is unchangeable.
Therefore, calling anything that you want to claim is absolute a 'law' is self-refuting. A law, by definition, is a set of rules and ideas about a concept that is CHANGEABLE with new information.

So, when we strip away all the redundant and mis-used language from your claim, Mike, we go from:

"Absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason exist."

Absolute logic exists.

This is your claim. Absolute logic exists.

And when you strip away all the other unnecessary and misleading verbiage, you get something that isn't nearly as baffling or impressive sounding as you try to make it out to be.

What does it even mean to claim that absolute logic exists? And how would one ever be able to prove it? Logic is simply a particular method of reasoning or argumentation engaged in by the fallible minds of humans. As such, how could this human construct be considered absolute?

When you strip it down to its barest bones, your conjecture has zero meaning, Mike.

"#3 Is it possible that an omniscient, omnipotent God could reveal Himself to us in a way in which we can be certain?? You seem to be assuming that this is NOT possible. Why??"

Is it possible that my waffle could get off my plate and do a tango? Technically it is. Technically, thanks to the scientific principle of falsifiability, anything is possible. However, also thanks to falsifiability, I can say that it is EXTREMELY unlikely based on evidence based reasoning that my waffle will tango - or that your invisible, magic sky friend is transmitting you special messages. I'm not saying that it CAN'T happen - I'm stating that you've given me zero reason to consider your claims to be even remotely true.

Also, what does it even mean to state that you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about something when the thing you're claiming to be certain about has been demonstrated by science to be RIDICULOUSLY HIGHLY LIKELY - ie that gravity will continue to exist, or completely untestable and therefore unprovable - ie that god exists.
You're claiming certainty about something scientifically proven to be marginally true or something untestable. In essence your certainty claims amount to nothing, provide you with no extra information about the natural world and no more understanding than anyone who chooses to take a more intellectually honest route. If this supposed certainty adds no extra provable information, then what's the difference?

"(I know why you skipped my question (twice) asking you to tell me something you know for certain that is not true)."

I skipped it because it's a ridiculous strawman of what I was discussing. I never claimed that I PERSONALLY know anything for 'certain' which is 'not true'. I said that many christians(who you say have divine revelation from god) have BEEN absolutely certain about things that were later PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE. Then I asked you to account for this. You have yet to do so.

"knowledge (n)--the act, fact, or state of knowing

know (v)--to perceive or understand clearly or with CERTAINTY (emphasis mine)

(Webster's Student Dictionary)

Apology accepted in advance. ;D"

So, you're giving me the second or uncommon usage of a word that we weren't discussing? And then you're expecting me to perceive this as some small victory on your part?

You blatantly stated that the definition of the word KNOWLEDGE was 'something that you are certain about' - when I provided evidence that this claim of yours was demonstrably false, you attempted to weasel out of your original claim and utilize different wording. This is so blatantly dishonest. If you can't even be adult enough to admit an error, retract it and attempt to restate your point in a way that DOES make sense, why should I consider anything you're saying to be intellectually honest or true?

"I will explain this to you once more, Maragon, in hopes of you finally understanding (although I won't get my hopes up). A person cannot be absolutely certain about something that is not true."

So all of the millions of christians that came before you and exist with you that are claiming something that you're not claiming - ie that the earth is flat - are lying? Is everyone except you lying about how certain they are about something? Were millions of christians bearing false witness when they stated that they were absolutely certain that the earth was flat? You can't retroactively state that someone wasn't certain because they were wrong. Truth has no bearing on certainty - no matter how many times you attempt to unsubstantiatedly assert the contrary.

As for yourself - if one of your beliefs that you currently hold to be absolutely true was disproved tomorrow, would that change how certain you were when you were claiming to be absolutely certain? And if one of your beliefs that you're certain about turns out to be not true is it because your cognitive faculties were tricked? Or because you didn't understand the evidence? Or was it because your god was lying to you?

"By the way, how do you know for certain that Christians have been factually incorrect about the age of the earth, or should I put this statement with your other unjustified knowledge claims?? Let me know."

You keep saying that I have multiple unjustified knowledge claims.
Are you absolutely certain that I have made unjustified claims to knowledge? In order to be absolutely certain about this you would need to claim that you know absolutely everything that I do - and every thought passing through my brain.
Or do you just think that it's HIGHLY LIKELY that I am making unsubstantiated claims to knowledge?

To wit, why must you ask me ad nausem if I'm ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about everything I ever say? You know damned well that I make NO CLAIM to ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. I see no reason for you to do this other than an attempt to further evade answering questions you're uncomfortable with.

Also, you state many many times that you are not certain about EVERYTHING - just some things. Ergo, you are not absolutely certain about everything you ever say. Therefore, why do you keep asking me if I'm ALWAYS CERTAIN when you admit that you are not always certain? What a ridiculous(but convenient) double standard you have there.

"The proof that God exists is the impossibility of the contrary."

The proof that you're wrong exists in the impossibility of the contrary. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT YOU ARE NOT WRONG. Refute my posistion. But every time you do, I'll simply explain to you that your refutation is meaningless because it's not possible that you're not wrong.

Also, in order to assert that the 'contrary' is 'impossible' you would need to have absolute knowledge of every possible instance in which a god could not exist, and be able to refute all of them. Therefore I hope you can give us some SPECIFIC reasons as to why it is impossible that a god doesn't exist. Cite some examples. Substantiate something you've claimed. Surprise us.

"Actually, God has revealed that we can know things for certain and that He exists. Surely, you're not about to deny this possibility, are you??"

Certainly you're not going to deny the fact that this is viciously circular?

You basically restated what I said, and agreed with it.

You believe that god exists, because god told you that he does. You're assuming your conclusion to be true in your premise.

I know that the invisible purple moose in my closet exists because he told me that he does. Please refute this fact.

"Actually, I believe the onus of proof lies upon you to prove your assertion, although I am thrilled to see that you have realized that you must abandon your atheism in order to account for knowledge. Thanks!! God Bless."

Are you certain that the onus of proof rests on me?
Why should the onus rest on me? I can't even EXPLAIN my argument to you, because you can't account for the absolute, immaterial, universal, green, laws of logic, reason and peanut butter that you would be using to evaluate my claims. Also he must exist because of the impossibility of the contrary.
Are you certain I've abandoned my atheism? Are you certain that I rely on an invisible purple moose to account for knowledge?

Are you certain about anything relevant? Are you certain about anything that hasn't been proven marginally true by science? Are you certain about anything that hasn't previously been proven to be true but would be subject to testing and verification?
Didn't think so.

The craziest discussion I've ever had.

2008-07-20T20:34:00.000-07:00

First email from me:

Dear Sye,

I know that you claim to be an engineer on Ray Comfort's site, this is a continual source of hilarity to me given the poor caliber of your arguments and your abysmal understanding of science.

Today you said,

"What is the evidence for the validity of the scientific method?"

My fiance, who is an actual registered Professional Engineer(P.Eng) in Canada would like me to point out that the evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering - which is applied science.
Of course, if you were a real University educated P.Eng, you'd know that already.

Have a nice night using circular logic to confuse people who are even stupider than you are.

Love,

Two atheists with real educations.

First reply from Sye,

Hello Meagan (I've always liked that name :-)

You said that the evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering??? How is that evidence for the validity of the scientific method???

Your argument would be like me saying: "The evidence for the existence of God is the profession of theology." Hardly an argument.

The scientific method is entirely dependent on the uniformity of nature. How does the profession of engineering justify the uniformity of nature?

Cheers,

Sye

First reply from me:

Sye,

"How is that evidence for the validity of the scientific method??? "

If the scientific method was not valid, it wouldn't be possible to apply it in the field of engineering. In example, it would not be possible to use the laws of electromagnetics to communicate via the internet if they were not discovered utilizing the scientific method. Engineering is simply applied science.

"How does the profession of engineering justify the uniformity of nature?"
The scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with the uniformity of nature. By saying that, it assumes that nature is uniform, but the fact that this is true hardly invalidates it.
You just brought this up out of nowhere, it has no context in our discussion.

"Your argument would be like me saying: "The evidence for the existence of God is the profession of theology." "

No, it's not. Engineering is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method. Theology is proof of the existence of organized religion, nothing more - seeing as god(s) are not testable and verifiable via the scientific method.
To make the correct analogy the existence of god would be proven by a real faith healer, and none of them have panned out yet.

Second reply from Sye:

Meagan,

"If the scientific method was not valid, it wouldn't be possible to apply it in the field of engineering."

Soooo, back to my question: "What is the evidence for the validity of the scientific method?"

"The scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with the uniformity of nature."

Well, then, I'm afraid it is you who does not understand the scientific method. Science can only be done because the future is assumed to behave like the past. Without that assumption, science would be impossible, problem is, the professed atheist has exactly zero basis for such an assumption. You should look for a smarter scientist to marry :-)

"By saying that, it assumes that nature is uniform, but the fact that this is true hardly invalidates it."

Huh, I just want to know on what basis you proceed with the assumption that nature is uniform?

"Your argument would be like me saying: "The evidence for the existence of God is the profession of theology." "

"No, it's not. Engineering is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method."

Yikes, do you realize what you are saying??? You are basically saying: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering, which is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method." YOWZA!

Cheers,

Sye

Second reply from me:

Sye,

"Soooo, back to my question: "What is the evidence for the validity of the scientific method?""

Just because you refuse to acknowledge my answer doesn't mean I didn't give one.
How about you go ahead and give me your evidence for the invalidity of the scientific method.

"Well, then, I'm afraid it is you who does not understand the scientific method. Science can only be done because the future is assumed to behave like the past. Without that assumption, science would be impossible, problem is, the professed atheist has exactly zero basis for such an assumption. You should look for a smarter scientist to marry :-)"

So, the fact that nature has been uniform for all of recorded history is not a basis for the assumption that it will continue to remain uniform? The uniformity of nature is a logical assumption based on the scientific evidence. All you're trying to get at is that god makes nature uniform, which as anyone who understands science would know, is unfounded and untestable and therefore a useless assertion. And even if there was a god who made nature uniform, how would that invalidate the scientific method?

And my fiance isn't a scientist, he's a professional engineer, maybe you'd know the difference if you had any actual accreditation.

"You are basically saying: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering, which is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method.""

That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't see what your problem is.

Third reply from Sye:

Meagan,

"Just because you refuse to acknowledge my answer doesn't mean I didn't give one."

Well, it sure wasn't much of an answer: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is that we use it." You don't see the problem there?

"How about you go ahead and give me your evidence for the invalidity of the scientific method."

Um, no, I DO believe that it is valid, the difference is that I can account for the foundation of the scientific method - the uniformity of nature, whereas you cannot.

"So, the fact that nature has been uniform for all of recorded history is not a basis for the assumption that it will continue to remain uniform?"

Yip. First of all, you are assuming the validity of your own reasoning to come to the conclusion that nature has been uniform, and you are begging the question, by assuming that the future WILL BE like the past, because the future HAS BEEN like the past, in the past. See, I'm not asking about the past, I want to know on what basis you assume that the scientific method is valid, not on what basis it HAS BEEN valid.

"The uniformity of nature is a logical assumption based on the scientific evidence."

Eeeeek, you're doing it again. You are saying: "The uniformity of nature is a logical assumption based on the scientific evidence which is based on the uniformity of nature."

"All you're trying to get at is that god makes nature uniform, which as anyone who understands science would know, is unfounded and untestable and therefore a useless assertion."

Please show me the foundation, and tests for the validity of that statement, then perhaps you could show me the foundation and the tests for the validity of the scientific method.

"And even if there was a god who made nature uniform, how would that invalidate the scientific method? "

Huh? I am not saying that the scientific method is invalid, I am saying that YOU cannot account for the validity of the scientific methos according to YOUR worldview.

"You are basically saying: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering, which is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method.""

"That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't see what your problem is."

Thanks for that admission! Perhaps we should just let it rest there then. If you can't see the problem with saying: The validity of the scientific method is verifiable via the scientific method, then there is no point in continuing.

Cheers,

Sye

Third reply from me:

Sye,

" Well, it sure wasn't much of an answer: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is that we use it." You don't see the problem there?"

Uh, no? If it wasn't valid, it wouldn't work. The scientific method is validated by the fact that it works.

"Yip. First of all, you are assuming the validity of your own reasoning to come to the conclusion that nature has been uniform, and you are begging the question, by assuming that the future WILL BE like the past, because the future HAS BEEN like the past, in the past. See, I'm not asking about the past, I want to know on what basis you assume that the scientific method is valid, not on what basis it HAS BEEN valid."

That's awfully silly. Why do you think it will stop? What evidence do you have that the uniformity of nature is not constant?

Trying to arbitrarily separate past knowledge and future knowledge is nonsensical. You've given me no reason to not continue to assume the uniformity of nature based on the fact that nature has always been uniform - you've just decided that I should.

And besides all that, looking to a deity(lets pretend one exists) to keep nature constant holds no logic or predictable power whatsoever. What if the deity decided to change the laws of nature tomorrow? On what basis are you assuming it won't?

It seems to me that an atheist has far more reason to assume the uniformity of nature, because there appears to be no agent of change, which is not the case with a theist.

"Eeeeek, you're doing it again. You are saying: "The uniformity of nature is a logical assumption based on the scientific evidence which is based on the uniformity of nature."

No, it assumes the uniformity of nature, it isn't BASED on the uniformity of nature. The fact that nature is uniform merely makes the scientists job alot easier.

"Please show me the foundation, and tests for the validity of that statement, then perhaps you could show me the foundation and the tests for the validity of the scientific method."

You're asking for something that doesn't make any sense. Why should I have to prove to you that something that cannot be tested or validated in any way is useless? It's common sense.

"Huh? I am not saying that the scientific method is invalid, I am saying that YOU cannot account for the validity of the scientific methos according to YOUR worldview."

That's a nonsensical assertion. As a rational person I can utilize my prior knowledge to assume future outcome. Your attempt to debase this is ridiculous. Saying we can never assume anything about anything without absolute knowledge(that you conveniently claim you get by believing in jesus) is as deep as a high school philosophy course.'We can't know anything for sure, man.'

"Thanks for that admission! Perhaps we should just let it rest there then. If you can't see the problem with saying: The validity of the scientific method is verifiable via the scientific method, then there is no point in continuing."

If you can't understand why the validity of the scientific method rests on the fact that the scientific method actually works(all while claiming to be an engineer) then you're right, there isn't anything else to discuss. What else could possibly validate the scientific method other than the fact that it works?

Will update when/if there's more.

Gigantic explanation...part 2.

2008-07-17T10:07:00.000-07:00

Cynthia,

I'm very glad that I've helped you to have a better understanding of what the theory of evolution actually postulates. There is no greater compliment for someone like me than knowing that I've made science more accessible for someone! =)

Your new questions - I'll need to handle them separately - are:

Where did the single celled organisms come from?

And where did this common ancestor originate from?

Your first question veers directly out of the field of evolutionary biology. The definition of evolution is; "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species". What does this mean? Essentially the theory of evolution deals only with the diversification of species via natural selection. It has absolutely nothing to say whatsoever about how life or our universe began. The theory of evolution steps in at the moment that the first single celled organism arose - but has nothing to say about what cause it to be there in the first place. Please do not mistake this as a flaw in the theory of evolution - said theory is simply not interested in answering that question, the same way that the theory of aerodynamics isn't interested in the origin of life.

Fear not, though, the origin of life is so important that it has it's very own theory; Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the scientific study of how life emerged from inanimate and inorganic molecules. The current popular theory is that abiogenesis occurred some 4.5 billion years ago. Now, I know what you're thinking - how can something that's not alive make something that's alive? That's a very relevant question, and one that I will try to explain in the simplest terms possible - please be advised though that this is not my primary field of study.

Everything in existence is made up of atoms(atoms are minuscule objects with proportionately tiny masses that can only be observed individually using special instruments). I'm talking everything, you, me, my desk, a tree, Mars, the sun, a flea .....all made up of things called atoms. "The atom is the smallest possible uncharged unit of ordinary matter." Atoms are the building blocks of every solid, liquid and gas in the universe. Atoms are not 'alive'. They are not the same as 'cells', they are the building blocks of cells. Essentially, at a base level, everything in existence, everything alive and inanimate is made up of something that is inanimate. Your body is made up of live cells which are in turn made up of inanimate atoms. It's a weird concept. So, really, every living thing is made up of non-living things. It's simply the way in which atoms and types of atoms combine together that determines whether something is alive or not.
Basically, I just want you to understand that everything is made out of the same stuff.

Where this stuff comes from and how it got to earth and how it combined and when it originally sparked life becomes increasingly complicated. So complicated that I'm not comfortable attempting to pass on my limited knowledge, in case I misunderstand some of the theory. Abiogenesis takes what we know about atoms and amino acids and DNA/RNA and chemical compounds and discusses how these conditions brought about life. Truthfully, there is not any consensus yet amongst scientists, but there are several popular theories that I can't possibly explain. Abiogenesis is still being heavily researched.

If you'd like to know more than I can explain I encourage you to head on over to Talk Origins and look up Abiogenesis - some of the men and women who are doing the actual research have provided some great overviews and discussion.

Your second question had to do with where this common ancestor originated. Because of the phrasing of the question I'm not quite sure which common ancestor you're referring to. However, I'm going to move away from abiogenesis and the first single celled organism and back into biology - where I have some idea of what I'm talking about. ^_-

You quoted me discussing the common ancestors of chimps and humans and apes and monkeys. As I said earlier, the common ancestor of all living things was a single celled organism. And then things just kept diverging and evolving from there. So it's not really the right wording to ask where a common ancestor came from - because it can always be traced back further and further and further. It's a little harder to think of this 'backwards' so I'll use a diagram/analogy.

.........................x............................
Here's species 'x'. Species 'x' is a monkey-like creature(but is not necessarily a monkey as we think of them today because modern monkeys didn't exist yet). Species 'x' lives in a jungle like habitat surrounded by other species of animals. Some animals it lives peacefully with, some animals and insects will be eaten by species 'x' and some animals will try to eat species 'x'. All of these things combined with things like weather and climate make up species 'x's environment. Species 'x' is subject to environment pressures. Let's say that in this case species 'x' is competing with species 'b' for food. There are so many species 'x' and species 'b' that there isn't enough food for everyone. So, some members of species 'x' migrate out of the jungle in search of food.

..................x1.............................x2..............
Now we have two separate populations of species 'x'. Because some of the population left, the species 'x1' in the jungle is able to continue living the way they have been because the environmental pressure in regards to enough to eat has been alleviated.
Because some of species 'x2' left the jungle, the same skills that they used in the jungle may not be as good elsewhere - say out on the plains. There are different traits that are good for animals that live in trees and animals that live on the plains. Let's say that the ability to run fast helps any of the members of species 'x2' live longer in their new habitat. The members of the 'x2' population that are able to run the fastest have the most chance of escaping predators and living long enough to reproduce. So, when two members of 'x2' who can both run very fast reproduce, their offspring have a large chance of also being able to run fast. And then this 'run fast' gene keeps getting passed down through generations until virtually all members of group 'x2' can all run very fast.

So, let's say that over thousands of years, this 'x2' group has been adapting to the new environmental pressures of their habitat. And these pressures have 'naturally selected' members who can run fast. Some things that may help a species run fast is the formation and strength of the leg muscles, the streamlined shape of a body and flatter, less flexible feet. So, over these thousands of years, through environmental pressures, genetic mutations, genetic drift and some other nifty, complicated biological processes, species 'x2' has adapted to better suit their niche in their habitat. Species 'x2'looks alot different from when they first stepped onto the plains, lots of little changes have altered their over-all appearance.

Meanwhile, species 'x1' has stayed in their nice habitat in the jungle. They also have continued to adapt and have been subject to the pressures of natural selction. But because they live in a tree filled jungle instead of wide open plains, they have changed in different ways than group 'x2'.

After these thousands of years, 'x1' and 'x2' don't look so alike anymore, and if we were to examine their DNA, we would see genetic differences that were not there thousands of years ago. So, if they've changed enough, we can't rightfully call them 'x1' and 'x2' anymore, because they're no longer the same species.

Instead:

...............x1.............................x2..............
.............x1.................................x2........
...........x1.....................................x2...........
.........x1........................................x2.........
.......y.............................................z..........

The two groups of species 'x' have become so different, that they are now seperate species, species 'y' and species 'z'.

In this case, the common ancestor of species 'z' and species 'y' is species 'x'(who may or may not exist any longer).

This, in a nut shell, is the diversification of species via natural selection. But, take it further. The offspring of species 'z' splits off into several groups and due to natural selection end up being species 'a', 'd' and 'c'....their common ancestor would of course be 'z'.

I hope that this gives you a better understanding of what a 'common ancestor' is. The study of evolution allows us to trace the evolutionary path backwards or forwards.

I'm happy to answer any more questions you may have.

Have a nice afternoon.

Copied here in case Ray doesn't post it.....

2008-07-16T21:44:00.000-07:00

Hi Cynthia,

I'm sorry, I must have missed your question - these threads fill up so quickly.

"Where are you saying evolution says we came from then?"

That's quite the question in and of itself.

Obviously evolution shows us that we(and yes, I know it's hard to conceptualize - not just for you, but everyone) share a common ancestor with every single living thing on the planet. Life started out as single celled organisms.

However, I believe that you were referring specifically to my objection to the notion that humans 'came from' monkeys.

My objection stems from the fact that this type of misunderstanding belies a total ignorance on how evolution works and what science says we are. Scientists have never claimed that humans come from monkeys. We don't. Let's repeat that. I am an atheist, I accept evolution, I have studied Biology - HUMANS DO NOT 'COME FROM' MONKEYS. There has never, anywhere, at any time, been a monkey that gave birth to a human. We are RELATED to monkeys, but we're also related to all mammals.

Let's explore this.

The first thing you need to know is that science uses a system of biological classification to 'organize' all of the diverse living organisms on this planet of ours. A common misconception is that humans are the 'pinnacle' of existence, and everything is 'less evolved' than we are. This is untrue. The modern cheetah is just as 'evolved' as a human is. We are merely evolved to do very different things and fill very different biological niches.

Let's look at this classification system:

Human Beings
(Homo sapiens sapiens)
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species:H. sapiens
Subspecies:H. s. sapiens

So basically, this classification is telling us that we are mammals in the order of primates, our family is hominidae and our species is Homo sapiens, our subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens. We have a subspecies classification because we know of other extinct homo sapiens that were very close to modern humans, but not quite.

When people say that we 'come from' monkeys, they don't quite understand that the term 'monkey' refers to a huge group of animals. What most people mean by 'monkey' is 'primate'. Humans are a member of the order of primates - but the amount of species included in this order is huge and the species are very diverse. The order of primate includes everything from mountain gorillas to a common squirrel monkey.
Although humans and monkeys are classified both as primates, this is as far as our related-ness goes.

In the order of primates, there are three major groupings of simian primates. A monkey is a member of either new world or old world monkeys. There is a third, separate group called Apes.

If we move away from order, and move down to family, humans are classified as Hominidae - we share this classification with all of the other great apes; humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Apes and Monkeys are both PRIMATES, but they are part of completely separate families. There was a point where Monkeys and Apes shared a common ancestor, but that was long long before Humans. There are many important differences between Apes and Monkeys, and knowing these differences helps to properly conceptualize the difference between saying humans 'come from monkeys' and saying that 'humans share a common ancestor with the other great apes.' One of the main differences between Apes and Monkeys is the absence of a tail. No Apes have tails, which is a common trait amongst monkeys. Apes are generally larger than Monkeys. Apes rely more on their sense of vision as opposed to smell like Monkeys do. Apes are capable of creating tools and using language.

Within the family of Apes, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees.The most recent data shows us that we share between 95% - 99% of our genetic material with chimps. Our DNA is so closely related that we can actually pass diseases back and forth - which is why there's usually glass between Apes and the spectators in zoos. Like humans, chimps can make tools to aid in food gathering and consumption, they engage in social and cultural behaviours, they use language, they display instances of emotion(mourning death, romantic love, empathy towards other species - they've been seen feeding things like turtles, etc) and they even laugh.

"It has been estimated that the human lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from that of gorillas about eight million years ago."
This means that Humans shared a common ancestor with chimps five million years ago. This common ancestor was neither a chimp nor a human. This common ancestor had two(or more) population groups that became separated(usually geographically) because of environmental pressures(ie, competition for food). As the two populations adapted to the environments around them, small changes in the population combined with natural selection eventually diversified this common ancestor. One group evolved into chimpanzees - over 5 million years. One group evolved into humans - over five million years. Neither chimps or humans 'came from' each other, we simply shared a common ancestor millions of years ago, in the same way that a poodle and a doberman shared an ancestor thousands of years ago.

In conclusion, Apes and Monkeys are both Primates, but very different. Humans are part of the same family as Apes, not Monkeys. Humans are classified as part of the Great Ape family because of our genetic similarities and the fossil evidence(if you're interested, I would be more than happy to provide you with pictures and charts and graphs and additional reading ^_^ ) of our common ancestors and close evolutionary paths.

I hope you can see now why the idea that humans 'come from' monkeys is one that is outdated and does not reflect what the evolutionary theory actually postulates.

I'll post a copy of this on my personal blog - it may be easier to read that way.

2008-07-15T11:54:00.001-07:00

I encourage all of you to check out The Atheist Nexus.

It's a new Atheist only networking site(a la Facebook, Myspace, etc) where you can meet people with similar ideas, debate, find great book recommendations and find links to other great blogs.

2008-07-10T09:45:00.001-07:00

Why did Jesus cross the road?

Because he was nailed to a chicken.

What Does Creationism Offer?

2008-05-20T09:12:00.001-07:00

The Theory of Evolution has explanatory properties. When a problem arises(ie. new flu strain), scientists can utilize the ToE to create a testable hypothesis and then attempt to solve the problem(in this case create a new vaccine) - drawing from the vast amounts of information that evolutionary biology tells us about the world around us and the particular problem they're working on.
In short, ToE has explanatory power - we can use it to predict outcomes and answer complex biological questions.

What does Creationism offer within this same paradigm? If Evolution had not been discovered and was not understood, what explanatory power could Creationism offer us? How would it help us to cope with or solve an issue such as a new flu strain?
Creationism would certainly not be able to identify and create a new vaccine for a flu virus based only on the assumption that god has created this virus. And of course the idea that a loving god willingly creates viruses and diseases to kill the humans he apparently loved enough to kill his son for presents its own idealogical challenges.

How do Creationists deal with this stumbling block? How can you rally against biology when it is ever present in all aspects of your life? Does your ideology offer a reasonable alternative that can explain all the same things that Evolution can?

If Creationism cannot offer a testable, verifiable and USEFUL alternative to all of the knowledge that ToE offers, then of what use is it to us?
Thousands of years ago, before science, we as humans did not understand the world around us. We blamed a god(s) for any and everything that happened. We had a god for the thunder, a god of the rain, a god of wind and snow and earth and harvest and the animals around us. Nowadays, through science, we understand how all of these things(and everything else) is a naturally occurring process. We no longer need a god to explain thunder, lightning, wind, poor harvests, disease - we know WHY and HOW these things happen. We know that Zeus is not hurling lightning bolts at us, and that the sea is not angry because of Posideon. We have moved BEYOND these primitive superstitions to real understanding.

What Creationists are advocating is a huge step backwards in the progress of humankind. Going from being able to explain how something works, to stating 'goddidit' is NOT progress. And saying that god has done something is not really explaining much of anything. If all of us were content to believe that 'goddidit', we wouldn't be enjoying the level of technology that you are currently immersed in. We wouldn't have this level of medical care - which is DIRECTLY related to biology and ToE. Things like vaccines, animal testing, genetic defects, the germ theory, and a million more are directly related to or because of evolution. Take ToE away, and none of these things make sense to us anymore. Biology ONLY makes sense within the confines of Evolution - and I can't even begin to espouse the benefits that we receive from modern biology.

In closing, you are attempting to trade a theory with explanatory power that can make testable predictions, for an idea that humankind first dreamed up at our conception. You want our Western Civilization to have the same level of understanding that our ancestors did 10,000 years ago. You want to roll back the clock on human progress simply so that you don't have to entertain the possibility that perhaps the bible isn't inerrant, perhaps we are not special creatures who rule over a universe we can't even comprehend let alone get to, that we probably DON'T have any form of afterlife, that we are in fact mortal creatures like any other on this planet of ours.
If that's the posistion you want to hold, then fine. But at least understand what that posistion entails.

The Edge of Evolution

2007-06-06T14:45:00.000-07:00

Reviews can be found here, here, here and here(Panda's Thumb is offline right now, I'll repost this link when they return).

"Whether I bother to read it or not, I'd like to draw you attention to the following quote by Behe:

"Here's something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts." (p. 237)

Quite. Malaria - which "causes disease in approximately 400 million people every year and kills between one and three million people every year" (source) was intentionally designed. And I guess, so to is AIDS, and Ebola, and so on.

Oh yeah, that's a God Designer worth worshipping. Sign me up."
-John M. Lynch

You know what really blows my mind about Creationists/IDers?

2007-06-05T10:26:00.000-07:00

They sneer at science one minute, try their damnedest to 'refute' scientific theories, and in the next minute bastardize science in an attempt to create 'scientific proofs' for their deity. So which is it? Does science have the power to explain the world or doesn't it? I suspect you believe that science only applies when you want it to apply, and you dismiss it when it doesn't prove what you'd like it to.

They lie, misquote and misrepresent scientific facts simply to further their own silly agendas. They willfully ignore scientific evidence all while stating that we should accept their evidence because it came from 'god' or the 'bible'. So, I'm to accept evidence for how the world was created that was written over 2000 years ago? Wasn't that around the same time that we believed the world was flat and that the sky had windows to let the rain in? Wasn't that about the time that disease was considered the work of demons or bad spirits? Wasn't that a pre-scientific time?
The fact of the matter is that at the time Genesis was written by some guy, the idea that a god made the world WAS the only plausible answer. We didn't have science, we were ignorant of the spherical nature of the world, that we orbited around the sun, of germs and genomes, of dna and dinosaurs, of geology and geography, evolution and common descent wasn't even thought of. But now, science has explained so many things that the bible was wrong about; we know the earth is round, we know that the earth revolves around the sun, we know dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years before we existed, we know why rain happens, we know disease isn't caused by demons, we know that evolution has shaped and produced the billions of animals that have existed over the millenia. Don't you realize that this opposition to evolution is just the persecution of Galileo all over again? When the idea that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around like the bible stated was postulated, the man who made the discovery was bullied and almost sentenced to death by christians - all because he had an idea that proved the bible wrong. But nowadays you accept that the world is round, and you accept that the earth revolves around the sun. You accept the theory of gravity, you believe that it works the way science says that it does - you don't scream and take offense, telling us 'gravitiers' that what's really happening is that god is pushing down in us all the time to keep us in place. It's only a matter of time until the controversy surrounding this theory dies down too - and truly, in industrialized countries, the USA is the only population that seems to have a problem. The rest of the world has already come to terms with the evidence and what science says.

I am certain that idiots like Comfort and Cameron have been TOLD time and again that evolution is not random, and that science doesn't say that the universe came from nothing. However, they're making millions of dollars off of telling people exactly what they want to hear, so any evidence will never be good enough for them. Honestly, these IDers and Creationists are SELLING you something. Go to the Way of The Master website and see how many pamphlets, books, DvDs, classes, and other merchandise they're trying to get you to purchase. Sure, they'll tell you that your god created the universe - for a price, for more of your money. Go to the Creation Museum and pay the $20 admission fee so you can see animatronic dinosaurs who apparently ate vegetation instead of animals with their razorsharp teeth. Real museums charge a fraction of the price - because they're out to educate, not make money. Ken Hamm and Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and Todd Friel and Peter Popoff and all the rest of them are living in nicer homes than yours and driving fancy cars and living a great life all because you are paying them literally millions of dollars a year. You're paying them to argue that science isn't real, you're paying them to keep you happy and ignorant. And this doesn't just go for the 'big names' in Creationism/ID - even the small website owners are usually selling something - tshirts, a self-published book, ect. And what credentials do these men hold? Are they University Professors with PhD's who have devoted their lives to scientific research regarding these matters? While I believe that it is more important to attack the argument than the person, credentials are still and important way to judge who is trustworthy when you're not familiar with the subjects being discussed. Would you take advice from a medical doctor, or some guy who read about medicine on the internet?

But more than anything else, I despise the theist who pretends that he's an expert in the fields of biology, chemistry, astronomy, history and genetics combined. The men I spoke about above like to talk alot about what evolution and the big bang are, and why they can't possibly be real - but these guys have never done any scientific research of their own, and they have no credentials whatsoever. Think about what you're doing when you believe these men - you're saying that you would rather listen to an un-educated man because he's going to tell you what you want to hear rather than an expert who refuses to lie to you.

The theists on these boards who show up, copy and paste arguments from apologetics sites and insists over and over that he knows better than the experts you do - because he read it somewhere on the internet, are merely playing into the hands of these men. The IDers/Creationists think that they're smarter than our historians, more educated than our psychology and philosophy majors, better versed in evolution that our biologists - because you've been to an apologetics website, or maybe watched some Ray Comfort videos on Youtube. Why do you think you know better than the experts? Why does it not occur to you that maybe you just don't UNDERSTAND what the theories are saying? I don't understand quantum physics, however, I don't think that this makes physics any less valid or true.The fact of the matter is that if evolution or the big bang DIDN'T conflict with the ideas of your god, you wouldn't even know the theory. There are so many scientific theories that have far less evidence and are far more controversial, but you don't bother to debate those because they say nothing about your god. Do you honestly believe that when you say something like, 'evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics', or 'we've never seen a transitional form', that you're out-smarting thousands of men and women who are card carrying PhD's? Don't you realize that if this were true that the theory would have been revised or cast out completely? Making claims like this places you in the same league as the conspiracy theorists that believe that NASA faked the moon landings, aliens landed at Roswell, or that the US government orchestrated the horrible attacks on September 11th.

Nothing makes me more furious than the armchair scholars who come here and parrot the ideas that have been fed to them,(for only $19.99 BUY NOW! and we'll throw in some Jesus Saves bumper stickers!) by men who are getting filthy rich off of these deluded believers. Creationism and ID movements are profit driven power houses, and they can afford to drop several million dollars on propaganda, scientists are just normal people who make a normal wage. Creationism/ID simply has better PR. I understand the want, the drive to believe that we were divinely created. It sounds so much more poetic and special than evolution does, but we have evidence to support one, and none to support the other. And before you go ahead and point out that I am no expert, please realize that I've never claimed to be. However, I do accept the expert testimony that has been made available to me by the men and women who have worked all of their lives to be able to explain the wonders of the natural world to us. And, as I said earlier, I understand that just because I cannot understand something that science says, doesn't mean that it's untrue - it means that I am untrained, uneducated or simply not intelligent enough to wrap my head around something so complicated. There is no shame in admitting that you don't know or understand something. But saying that you know more than the experts, and refusing to accept evidence when it is presented to you is arrogance in the extreme.

Definitive Proof Of Evolution From The Lolcats

2007-06-04T23:34:00.000-07:00

Why Atheism Doesn't Require 'Evidence'

2007-06-04T12:20:00.000-07:00

I am sitting here making no claims whatsoever about the world, or a creator, or a deity.
You, as a theist are claiming that you have a god who created, controls, watches, governs and interacts with the world.
You are making a claim, whereas I am making no claim.

From a scientific standpoint, the burden of proof exists solely on the person who is making a claim.
If you state that there is a purple teapot orbiting the moon, then it is your job to back up this claim.
When you ask an atheist for 'proof' of atheism, what you're saying is, 'I want you to prove that there ISN'T a purple teapot orbiting the moon.'
Can you not see why this is a silly notion? When you are the person making a claim, it is your job to back up said claim.
Without evidence for your claim, there is no reason to believe that anything you've said is anything more than something you may have made up.

The fact of the matter is that as a theist, you are claiming that a god exists, and as an atheist I'm saying I don't believe you because you have no evidence. Why should I be forced to disprove your claim when you cannot PROVE it in the first place? If you cannot put forth proof, then why should someone believe you? Would you not ask ME for proof if I claimed that a gigantic head of lettuce floats outside of space and time and grants me wishes? Would you not think it is silly for me to say, 'well prove Lettucy ISN'T real'.

There is no proof for your god outside of a holy text, or the realm of personal experience. And until there is, atheism is a perfectly valid position to hold. The only thing that the bible can prove is that the bible exists; it can no more prove that your god is real and that jesus was messiah than the koran can prove that your god is false and that jesus was just a prophet. And your personal experience is not proof of anything either - if it is my personal experience that I am Napoleon Bonaparte, does that make it true?
Theism claims responsibility for more than the creation of the universe. While I can't definitively prove there was no intelligence behind the creation of the universe, there is no evidence of divine intervention in the universe as we know it, and reality is contradictory to what is stated in holy texts.

Why Some People Resist Science and Logic

2007-06-03T09:55:00.000-07:00

Are you a Creationist?
Believe in ghosts? Astrology? Dowsing?
Pseudo-science of any kind?

Blame your brain and your parents.

This is a recent study conducted by Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg.

For those of you who'd prefer a synopsis and discussion of the study, please see here.

Some Weekend Fun

2007-06-02T17:58:00.001-07:00

More Craziness From Walton

2007-06-01T20:49:00.000-07:00

Oh goody, I've had a whole Frank Walton post dedicated to me.
You can read our email exchange and see his wonderful photo shopping skills >here.
You can see the post where a friend of mine, Ben, challenged Mr. Walton to finish the debate that he had started with me here.
You can see the debate that I'm talking about with Frank here.
You can see my reply that he deleted and insists is breaking his rules here.
Here's all of the information, I don't think it needs any commentary. Frank has proven time and again that he is quite able to make an ass of himself without any assistance.

How did I find out about this post?
Well, Mr. Walton emailed it to me, just to ensure that I would be able to see how witty he is.

Frank Walton has sent you a link to a blog:

All for you, Meaganpoo.

Blog: Atheism Sucks!
Post: Meagan Hopkins still carries a grudge
Link: http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/06/meagan-hopkins-still-carries-grudge.html

My email reply to Mr. Walton is the same reply that I will give to this whole silly mess;

Your pathetic attempt to get a rise out of me only further solidifies the position I asserted in my original post about you, Frank.

I pity you.

EDIT:

For those of you who are interested, the reason that I have deleted several comments is because they were either anonymous insults or made by 'Daddy Cool'.
I feel that I should inform you that 'Daddy Cool' is, in fact, one of Mr. Waltons many side accounts that he uses to fill out comments on his own blog or post insults on others.
For more on that, please see these links.
Read the comments section on both for Walton as Daddy Cool.

TLDR version:
"Most of the deleted comments (save one piece of spam) where made under a handle labled "Daddy Cool." This is who Mark was referring to with his comment "Frank Walton said... (posing as daddy cool)" At first I thought this identification was wrong, that Daddy Cool was actually someone trying to parody Walton, but then I saw him effectively admit to being Walton."

2007-06-01T08:41:00.000-07:00

Recently a theist on a forum I frequent posted with the idea that without a creator, our lives are meaningless. I strongly oppose the idea that our existence is 'useless' without a god to rule over us.
You can see his original post here.

My response:

The only difference, to me, between an atheist and a theist is that I don't believe in something just because I want to. I can't believe in god just because I want it to be true. I can't ignore science because the idea of a personal creator is a nicer one. I can't ignore the fact that there is no scientific evidence that points to the existence of a god.

If I ignore facts in favour of feeling, I am doing myself a disservice.

If I spend this life looking in vain towards an eternity with something I can't prove exists, then I am wasting the little time I have here.

I don't feel that my life is empty and useless without a deity in it. I am still a human, and a unique one amongst billions. I still have a voice to express myself, a family to love, and a whole species to be accountable to.

I don't believe that my life has no meaning simply because I am not created by a divine being. I mean lots of things to lots of people, and so do you. I think that my personal actions; how I treat others, what I spend my life doing, what I try to accomplish - this shapes my life, gives me a purpose. As a social service worker, my main purpose in life is to love and care for those who have been rejected, forgotten and neglected by the rest of society. To these people, surely I serve a purpose, and I am more 'real' to them than any god.

I don't believe that humanity is lost, morally, without a god. I believe in the good in people. I put my faith into us, I know that although we are not perfect, we are a highly evolved species. We feel love and compassion for those around us, and were there not so many useless things to divide us(like religion), that we could truly do what is best for all of us. I base my hope for better times for humanity ON humanity, for surely it is the strength and ingenuity of our species that has allowed us to come this far already?

I don't want to believe in a god because I am afraid of death. And really, this is what deity worship comes down to. Every religion on this planet has one thing in common - eternal life. Death is a scary concept, and none of us want to die. But not wanting something to happen can't change the truth of it. We need to die; it is only through the death of our ancestors that we are alive now. Our planet is finite, and can't hold everyone who has ever lived. The atoms that are holding your body together dissipate when you die and go off to form other things in the universe - what could be more magical and awe inspiring than that? As Carl Sagan told us, we are all made of star stuff.

I believe that life is so much more precious because I don't believe in a heaven, because I know that this is my one shot and that I need to do everything in my power to make my short time here productive for myself and my fellow man. Why can you not see that we live on through humanity? Everything you do here has an impact on those around you. It is this impact that will be remembered and felt when you're long dead. What do you choose to do with this life?

You can close your eyes and wait for the next life to come along and be better than this one, or you can accept your limitations and realize that you are finite. Once you do that, you can begin to really live - for yourself, and for the rest of humanity.

Thoughts?
For you theists, if it turns out that there is no god, would you discount your life as meaningless?

Some of the Silliest Fundie Quotes You'll Ever See.

2007-05-27T14:37:00.000-07:00

Well, it's Sunday, and a day of rest for most, regardless of religious inclination.

I wanted to lighten the mood around here by posting some of the FUNNIEST quotations from a theist that I have ever seen.

Before I do, I want to thank all of the theists who contribute to my blog for not being this man. And no, I do not equate him with the majority of theists.

Without further ado - Coadie from the CARM forums:

"Science is powerful in supporting out presuppositions. When Colubus sailed to the Americas claiming the world was not flat, the two boats that sailed over the edge never had the opportunity to write about their flat earth theory and prove it was flat. Only the three that made it lived."

"Charles Darwin married a close relative and had many children with defects.
He died and was a mental case his last years"

"Why do you just rail against those that oppose Homosexuality? Why not reail against those that fire pharmicists for not prescribing baby killer drugs. Rail against those that destroy forrests by not allowing roads to be built for fire fighters. Rail against those that destroy the business of pig and chicken farmers.
Do you just rail full time against those that are Christians and don't want homosexuality to rule our world? How closed minded."

"Darwinism has no explanations on the differentiation of the genders and the development of sex organs. Every time they came up with a theory, it fell. Like a tiny man that entered the sperm and grew after fertilization."

"Men only know 8 colors. Woman was made after Adam and God could have easily done some minor upgrades."

If anyone is curious as to how I got these, check out Fundies Say The Darndest Things.

It doesn't matter if you're a theist or not, most of the quotes on that site are just plain silly and good for a laugh.

The Dangers of Teaching Belief as Fact

2007-05-24T16:46:00.000-07:00

I stumbled across across this article that details that latest legal battle betwixt evolution and creation/ID.
It describes how the parents of a group of Christian students who were privately schooled are suing the University of California. The University deemed that their private schooling did not provide the necessary pre-requisites required for admission into a science program.
While attending this private school, the students were taught literal creationism and were not exposed to the theory of evolution.

Of course, a private school has the right to teach whatever they want. However, the absurd thing is that the plaintiffs in this case don't seem to realize that the University has the same right. The University has the right to accepted or deny you based on their criteria, this is regardless of your faith. The University has a standard to uphold and making concessions and relaxing requirements based on the personal beliefs of applicants leads to an over-all decline in the quality of education. Essentially, what the plaintiff's are seeking is special treatment based on their religious convictions.

These are the unfortunate consequences of a faith based education. These students, who may have been given very little choice as to where they were educated will now be barred from the top schools in America simply because of the religious convicts held by their parents. These kids, whom under other circumstances, may have had a brilliant future in science will now be punished for their parents poor choices. They were given an education based around their parents beliefs rather than on what would have been best for the child.

I honestly don't understand how the plaintiffs could have expected any other outcome. Did they really believe that the University wouldn't check to see what kind of classes the kids been taking, or the textbooks they'd been using?

2007-05-23T22:01:00.000-07:00

Item of note:

Because I have now received several nasty posts from anonymous users I have enabled comment moderation.
I will NOT refuse to post your comment simply because I do not agree with what you have to say, so feel free to continue posting and debating, and all that good stuff.

Misconceptions About The Theory Of Evolution

2007-05-23T04:37:00.000-07:00

What is Science?

Statistically, the American public doesn't understand what science is, or how it works, which is why I include this.
Science is a particular branch of knowledge that deals with how humans categorize, study and view the world.
Science is a system that is free from passion; what I mean is that it is a rational, methodical process that does not allow personal feelings to come into play.
Any and every scientific law or fact has been tested using the scientific method.

What is the Scientific Method?

The scientific method is comprised of several separate steps. The most important of which are Hypothesis, Test, Conclusion, Falsifiability and then the experiments are subject to Peer Review.

Hypothesis is an idea about how something works. The scientist sees a natural phenomena and postulates an idea as to how said phenomena could work.

Test is when the scientist gathers evidence that would support the hypothesis. This is achieved through scientific experimentation in a controlled laboratory setting and a lot of research.

After testing, the scientist arrives at a Conclusion. In a conclusion the scientist verifies that the collected evidence supports his/her original hypothesis. If the evidence does NOT support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is thrown out. It can also be revised, but if it is, the scientist must go back to step one.

Falsifiability.
For an assertion to be falsifiable, one must be logically able to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. Remember, 'falsifiable' doesn't mean 'false'. For more on Falsifiability.

Peer Review occurs when the scientist has concluded that his evidence supports his hypothesis. He then submits his findings to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Then, accredited scientists worldwide attempt to disprove the original hypothesis. If the hypothesis can not be disproved by any scientist in the world, then the hypothesis becomes a scientific theory.

What is a Scientific Theory?

A scientific theory is something that has been proven true multiple times by using the scientific method.
The misconception is that when you use the word 'theory' in layman's terms, it means 'idea you made up'. However, when it is used in a scientific context, the word 'theory' takes on a much more serious meaning.

Theory, when used in a scientific context is an explanation that best fits all of the evidence available. A theory can take years to prove, and it must be agreed upon by the scientific community.

The reality is, that if evolution were erroneous, then it would have been thrown out again years ago. Scientists don't play favorites with their theories. In example, Newton's laws of Gravity were revised by Einstein when they were found to not adequately explain gravity in many adverse situations; this was Einstein's theory of relativity.
Gravity is "only" a theory.
Heliocentrism is "only" a theory.
In general, a theory is a collection of smaller scientific facts that are placed together to allow for an explanation of a larger topic.

Theory refers to a "logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts." - National Center for Science Education.

What is the Theory of Evolution?

The theory of Evolution is held up to the same level of scrutiny that any other scientific finding is subject to. Perhaps more, due to its controversial nature.
It is erroneous and kind of foolish to assert that the same scientific method that brings us flight, electricity, open heart surgery, space travel, the internet(I could go on like this) - was CORRECT about all of these things, but completely wrong about the theory of evolution.
The fact of the matter is that if there were compelling evidence against evolution, the theory would have been discredited and thrown out. For all of the criticism evolution has received from theists, not one piece of evidence has ever been able to discredit evolution, and they've been trying for 150 years.
Modern biology(ie medical science) is based on and dependent on the theory of evolution.

Evolution works off of at least 3 independent processes, and when taken together form what we mean by 'evolution'. These are replication, variation and selection, and they are all observable facts.
a> Replication is simply reproduction. Everything alive in nature reproduces, from the orchid to the oyster to the human.
b> Variation- How things change from the parent to the offspring.
-"shuffling": involves the various genes in male and female sex cells after these cells combine. The 'shuffling' puts together new gene combinations, thus making the offspring different from their parents(You have brown hair, your mother doesn't, etc).
-Mutation: rare changes in genes, usually inherited. Can occur as copying errors in early stages of cell reproduction. Mutations can be neutral, harmful or beneficial to the organism.
Yes, variations are random, but to deny they exist is an exercise in tedium.
c>If you've followed so far, you'll realize that things reproduce, and when they reproduce their offspring can be different from the parents in many ways, both good and bad. Some of these changes, say better eyesight, can be beneficial to the organism in question. Now we're down to Selection.
-Natural Selection is where these variations get tested. If a certain variation gives that individual a higher chance of survival, the odds increase that this individual will live long enough to reproduce and pass along this new trait. Natural Selection is not random. It does not 'decide' to let a particular variation get passed along to new generations en masse, rather it only allows that the beneficial variations do. To state that such a process is 'random' is to misunderstand it entirely. What can be random about only allowing beneficial deviations to pass en mass to future generations?
-Sexual Selection involves members of one sex preferring certain characteristics in the opposite sex and then choosing a mate based on those characteristics. How is this random? The preferred characteristics are the ones that are passed on because those are the animals that mate.
Put all of those things together, and that's how evolution works.
Once again, each and everything I've listed is an observable scientific fact.

Micro-evolution: small changes within a particular species.
Macro-Evolution: small changes that, over thousands or millions of years can lead to new species.

For more information.

Questions for any IDers/Creationists that may happen to read my blog.

2007-05-22T05:57:00.000-07:00

Why do you oppose the theory of evolution? I don't mean why do you think it's wrong, I mean why do you personally dislike the theory?

What is your interest in disproving this theory? What do you think disproving this theory will accomplish?

Would you still oppose the theory of evolution if it did not conflict with your theistic beliefs?

Are there other scientific theories that have nothing to do with evolution or the big bang that you oppose? Do these theories have any negative theistic implications?

There are scientific theories that are far more controversial, why do you not debate those?

If anyone has the time to answer these, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Why I Can't Take Frank Walton Seriously.

2007-05-18T05:32:00.000-07:00

For those of you not aware, Frank Walton pens a blog cheekily entitled "Atheism Sucks", on which he claims to discuss issues relevant to theism and explore the arguments that atheism presents.

Much like the title of his blog, Waltons tactics are rude, shrill, juvenile and make his points, valid or not, incredibly hard to take seriously.
I first stumbles across his site months ago when I was searching for atheist links. I was initially intrigued by the name, and then floored by the sheer volume of posts that this one man had created about a group called the Rational Response Squad.
I had never heard of said group, and held no initial allegiance to them(I admit I have since become a member), but even as a bystander I was appalled by the tactics that Mr. Walton employed in regards to these people. Every single post that he made about them was nothing more than one gigantic ad hominem attack. It was trash talking, the kind of thing I haven't heard the likes of since grade 11 gym class.
Now, I will admit, that during debates with theists I have, on occasion said things that perhaps I shouldn't have, but honestly, I would never attempt to make a point about something or someone based on personal attacks alone.

It was because of this rampant hatred of the RRS and the hundreds of posts I read by Frank that I eventually Google'd the RRS, and after judging for myself, joined their forums. Ever since then, my comments on Frank's blog are pretty heavily moderated.

Frank's always bawling about debates. He wants to debate this person or that person. But Frank can't seem to act civil to anyone long enough to SET UP a debate, and has trouble keeping opponents. However, Frank often walks away or censors real debates on his blog in the comments section. The first time that I had ever attempted to debate Frank was here. If you read down to the bottom, it would appear that he got the last word and I merely gave up.
Not so.
The 32nd comment, my rebuttal to Frank sat there for almost a week. I asked Frank a few times whether or not he planned to answer my questions and refute my explanation of evolution or not. The next day, my comment was deleted off of Frank's blog, and he's never given me an explanation as to why.
I can tell you why, though. It's because Frank couldn't properly refute all of my queries, and so, instead of conceding a point, he just deleted the entire thing.

Why would someone who is so keen to debate atheists simply walk away from an on-going debate? Seems slightly hypocritical when you read Frank's rantings about all the atheists who have resisted debating him when challenged.

Recently, Frank has been squealing louder, his comments getting shriller, his commentary getting crueler, and his censorship of his comments section definitely leaves something to be desired. I was giving his blog a once over this evening and came across this post. I'm sorry, but what, exactly does someone's attractiveness or sexuality have to do with their intellectual capacity? And since when is asserting someone is a 'gay-looking pretty boy' a refutation to an argument? Why is this even part of your commentary? How can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't even discuss someone's point without degrading them in anyway that you possibly can. I tried to post a comment on this particular article:

"You must be insecure in your masculinity, Frank.

I don't think I've ever heard my fiancee start a critique of someone's intellectual position by speculating on his sexual preference.

I've never seen anyone, on either side of this debate use half as many ad hominem attacks as you do.

Have you ever considered that people would take what you have to say more seriously if you could keep your emotional reactions and inflammatory antics out of it?"

My comment has not been approved, but between the time I submitted it and now, this 'anonymous comment' HAS been approved:
"Hello butt boy Constantine,

Let's do a little roleplay.

Let's say I'm making a claim about the origin of the universe to you, and that you're seeing if it's rational.

I say that the universe was woven together out of nature from nothing.

My evidence of this is the second law of thermodynamics - the universe had to come from SOMEWHERE, and I actually found a written testimony lying on the street written by evolved monkeys.

What would you say to that, gay boy? You'd probably say, "Uh, duh, I need no explanation."

You must be on crack, butt boy."

You can't take a politely worded suggestion, albeit a form of criticism, but you would allow open homophobia and bashing? I'm not one for censorship, but I personally would DELETE that "anonymous comment" from my blog. Do you know why? Because ad hominem attacks have ABSOLUTELY no place in rational discourse.

I may not LIKE Frank Walton, and believe me, I don't, but I would NEVER stoop to his level and base my critique of his arguments on personal attacks.

If you've read Mr. Walton's blog, you'll see all kinds of straw man arguments and fallacies about how terrible, rude, and nasty atheists are. However, I will assert that if there are atheists that are anything but nice to Frank it'd be because he's reaping what he's sowing. Disrespect, rudeness, callousness and hatred of your fellow man is bound to get you more of the same in return, and it doesn't lend your ideas any credibility.

No one takes the crazy, homeless guy shouting obscenities on the street corner seriously for the same reasons all intelligent people will dismiss Frank Walton; because after you get over the initial shock value of this bad behavior you realize that this is just the empty ramblings of a poor, sad, small-minded man.

Reasons for Opposing Theism

2007-05-15T19:48:00.000-07:00

A few things I'd like to expand on.

First of all, I don't 'dislike' or look down on theists as a whole. I accept and celebrate the fact that we are just people and that we have differing points of view. It would be erroneous and unfair of me to state that my views are more 'right' or 'reasonable', and you won't ever see me say that. My views are just what make the most sense to me based on the evidence presented and my experiences with it.

I dislike when theists who use their faith and religion to rationalize bad behavior. Take Fred Phelps and his horrible church that protests outside the funerals of dead soldiers, take the religious extremists who crashed planes into buildings, or phony faith healers who prey on the sick and dying. These people are hiding behind their freedom of religion, and using it in ways that I don't think are exemplary of main stream religion. Not only do these people give religion a bad name, they're using religion to further their personal agenda - which is unethical regardless of perspective.

Speaking of personal gain, I dislike when theists who attempt to rationalize otherwise unfounded political points using religion. The MAIN arguments against such things as gay marriage, gays in general, abortion, abstinence, ect all have to do with religion. The stigma against these things is founded in religious doctrine. I'm not saying I support(or don't support) all of these hot button issues, but your personal religious beliefs cannot be grounds to pass legislation.

Lastly, my biggest problem with theists is the one that I think deserves the most attention - religion vs. science.

I sincerely believe that using science to understand the world and improve our lives is the key to our species continued survival.
I find it personally offensive when a religious leader would - either knowingly or unknowingly - distort or vilify science as a corrupt institution or a way of thinking. This image of science is passed on to their followers and as a result, that will be their only exposure to it, which in my opinion is doing themselves and others a huge disservice.
The best example that I can think of for this would be the theory of evolution. The scientific community asserts that evolution is the best working explanation of how we got here. It upsets me that people would dismiss this theory out of hand simply because of the negative theistic implications that it can have.
I am not stating that evolution disproves a god, but some people seem to think that it's either creation or evolution, and there's no compromise.
In the day and age when we are seeing legislation attempting to take an accredited scientific theory out of the science classrooms simply because certain theists don't like it, you can understand why people like me begin to take issue with theism.

To be clear, and fair, I do not believe that most theists are crazy fundamentalists who are out to enforce their beliefs using any means possible, but you must agree that there are those who seek to do so. It is those theists that I take issue with.

I have no illusions of 'ending' theism, or de-converting a bunch of people. And truly I tell you that I take no issue with one who has personal faith and personal belief and leaves it at that. I have no problem with the theist who doesn't allow their theism to close their mind to issues that are outside the scope of or may be in conflict with their religion.

The Human Ego.

2007-05-11T07:58:00.000-07:00

Let's review the facts here.

The universe is vast. It is so vast that in fact that we believe it to be INFINITE; constantly expanding, always growing, getting bigger every second.
When the big bang occured, everything started to expand, and whatever caused that first movement started something that will seemingly never stop. How do we know the big bang occured? Well, just one example from many, cosmic radiation. We've got fallout from the explosion, it's floating around out there in space, and we can detect and measure it.

There are billions of stars, billions upon billions planets.

See that pale blue dot?
That's us, that's where we are.
We are not the center of the universe.
The odds of our planet being the only one to hold a form of life is miniscule.

Let's talk about what theists believe.
If you're a theist you believe that god created this universe.
You believe he created this planet for us to live on. And of course the sun that we revolve around.
You believe he then filled this planet with life forms, plants and animals and us. And I suppose he'd have to create oxygen and other atmospheric gases, and bacteria, and ameobia, and all manner of things he just neglected to mention in the bible.
You believe that he created you. You specially. You with a purpose.
You believe that you can talk to god, wherever he may be, and that he listens to you, and may occassionally give you the things you want or need.
You believe that god has marked you as special out of the billions of other organisms and people that populate this planet. Lets make no mention of the billions of other organisms that could exist elsewhere.
You believe that your god knows every hair on your scalp and every thought in your brain. Everything you ever do, he knows, no matter where you are he's always with you.

When it's laid out for you like that, doesn't it seem kind of egotistical? Doesn't it sound kind of silly, or improbable?

Here's a question.
If god created this planet for us, and put us on it, what is the purpose of all of the billions of others stars and planets?
Technically, all we need to exist is this planet and our sun. We don't NEED Mercury, Saturn, Mars, Uranus to exist. We don't even need our moon. Humans have existed for about 10, 000 years, and we're still years away from even getting to Mars, a two year voyage(we don't have the technology, yet).
The universe is infinite. That means that we will NEVER be able to see or visit all of it.
If we are the epitome and center of gods creation, then what's the deal with the rest of this stuff?
It's of no use to us, it serves no purpose.

If you think that perhaps god has created other life in other places, then that doesn't make us very special, does it?

A religious, or egocentrical view erroneously places YOU at the center of the universe.

A quote from the late, great Carl Sagan:

"... Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand."

The Death of an Atheist.

2007-05-11T07:05:00.000-07:00

When I Die

by Stefan Thomas

When I die, my spirit will live on in my ideas and my life's work. Because these are my contributions, no matter how small they may seem, to the great endeavors of humanity.

When I die, my heart will live on in the people I held dearest. My love of humans and of course, my family and my close friends will always be a resource to them and they will continue to pass it on for many generations to come.

When I die, my body may decay, but it's molecules will continue to exist and will take part in the wonderful cycle of life again and again for many more years than you and I can imagine.

I don't need to believe in a heaven to know that I will live forever.

The atoms that have combined together to make your body now will eventually combine together to make other things, just as before they were you, they were something else.

The difference between theists and athesist.

2007-04-19T14:19:00.000-07:00

To me, there's only one major difference between an atheist and a theist.

Both of us truly wish that a god existed. What a wonderful and comforting thing it would be if a deity was real! I would never have to fear death(if I did every weird little thing the deity told me to), because I would live forever with god. I would never have to feel alone because said deity would always be watching over me. I would never have to feel badly about things in my life, it's all part of god's plan for me!

I understand all of these feelings and longings and wants, I am a human, just like you, and subject to all of the mental and emotional weaknesses that anyone else is. I had even said after the Virgina shootings that I 'wished' I believed in a god so that I could find comfort in the fact that all of those young adults who were brutally murdered wouldn't be 'really' gone; they would be with a god.

The only difference, to me, between an atheist and a theist is that I don't believe in something just because I want to. I can't believe in god just because I want it to be true. I can't ignore science because the idea of a personal creator is a nicer one. I can't ignore the fact that there is no scientific evidence that points to the existence of a god(and actually the probability is very low, in fact).

If I ignore facts in favour of feeling, I am doing myself a disservice.

If I spend this life looking in vain towards an eternity with something I can't prove exists, then I am wasting the little time I have here.