Atheists Threaten to Sue Over Sign

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The fossil record is concerning as well: It is held up as evidence of evolution much the same as these different creatures in the video are. At the same time it is acknowledged that this record is far from complete. Apparently fossils don't form that often. Yet at the same time each of these stages of evolutionary development supposedly take hundreds of thousands of years or even millions of years to happen. Now events like Mount St Helens don't occur every year or even every decade. Every hundred years would be my guess or at least every thousand years. In fact I'm certain that there would be several events within a thousand years that would form fossils. This makes sense because fossils are found all over the world. Yet unless you believe that the occurances of conditions that make fossils are more rare than the occurances of positive mutations you can't see the fossil record as anything more than a negative to the theory of evolution.

I have no idea what you're trying to claim with this paragraph. It doesn't make any sense. How on earth do you get from fossilization being a rare occurrence to the fossil record being a 'negative' to the Theory of Evolution?

[Traditional_Ale]

Calgaryborn:

The reason why it is okay for science to 'connect dots', even incorrectly is because science is a continually evolving thing in and of itself. Just look at the things we used to do in the name of medicine! Evolutionists are okay with putting together the best understanding they can of the subject at hand while accepting that it is flawed, has errors, and only over time will the truth emerge.

Creationism has the overtone that it comes from a book that 'connects dots' in telling people how even to think their thoughts, let alone live their lives. The idea of teaching this in schools is frightening, as it is simply another layer of brainwashing. I always hear the excuse that 'the kid can decide for themselves' but I don't think they can. If the kid comes from an already religious household, then goes to school and gets it even more (especially in the same building/setting as math, english, history, etc etc) then I would argue that it would be extremely biased in influence.

If the parents want their kid to learn about Creationism then it should be at home, or arrange for a Sunday School class. While I don't have children, if I do have some they will never ever attend a school that teaches Creationism, even as an option. All my friends, with or without kids (we're all in the 22-32 bracket) feel the same. It is a dangerous and slippery slope, Creationism.

[troutman]

If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?

Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ, 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms, the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ, and the February 1998 Post of the Month Missing links still missing!?.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by pylon

Yeah, I remeber reading an article on this once. Basically the stories in the bible were a giant game of broken telephone that took place over a couple thousand years, and they connected a lot of the dots, with all of these ancient cultures. Damn I wish I could find it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

...As to Christianity, isn't it basically a cobbled-together pastiche of assorted Middle East god myths with Greek influences? All sorts of historical holes. It's just plain and simple not only bad science, but bad humanities as well.

Originally Posted by pylon

Yeah, I remeber reading an article on this once. Basically the stories in the bible were a giant game of broken telephone that took place over a couple thousand years, and they connected a lot of the dots, with all of these ancient cultures. Damn I wish I could find it.

This is a horribly simplistic presentation of the development of biblical literature. While it is true that the individual books of scripture were pieced together from a wide range of sources and traditions, one must also recognize that this was rather commonplace in the ancient world. "Literature" in antiquity was not an artform. It functioned to provide important links to the past in an effort to maintain some sort of cultural and tribal continuity. For this reason, stories, poems, parables, songs, laments, laws and genealogies were copied and re-copied for conservation, but they also formed the bases for new literature that was introduced into communities as needs and circumstances changed.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

This is a crock.

• In the first place, crucifixion was invented by the Persians at some point in the mid-first millennium b.c.e. Any claims with regards to ancient Egyptian or Greek gods or heroes having been crucified prior to 600 or 700 b.c.e. is entirely false.
• Attempts to draw parallels between the virgin birth / baptism of Jesus and pagan gods tend to be very strained or non-existent. While I do concede that the virgin birth tradition attached to Jesus was probably influenced through contact with Greek religious traditions, this should not be at all surprising, given that myths were commonly borrowed and passed rather readily through cultural and religious boundaries.
• Jesus was NOT EVER presented in any Christian tradition as having been born on Dec 25. Christmas was adopted by the church for the official celebration of Jesus nativity, and as a result several elements of the Greco-Roman Saturmalia festival gravitated into the adopted Christian celebration. However, it is abundantly clear that throughout Christian history, the actual date of Jesus's birth remained a readily acknowledged mystery. The invention of Christmas had much less to do with commemorating the specific date of Christ's arrival, and much more to do with placating tens of thousands of new Roman converts into the recently State sanctioned religion.
• Attempted connections between the religious practices of Jesus, such as his baptism, the performance of miracles, or the basic teachings or even the organization of his ministry are incredibly strained. There was a great deal of "cross-seeding" between religions largely because most religions at some point or another stemmed from a common worldview. The point is that hundreds of religious leaders engaged in ritual purification, the assembly of followers, and the performance of miracles. Does that mean that they were all "copycats"? No. It simply means that ancient religion was much more homogeneous than we tend to imagine.

In the end, this Zeitgeist inspired garbage is a product of conspiricy theorists with a very poor sense of ancient history, and sloppy research abilities. Any supposed connections they seek to make are well after the fact, imagined, and not in any sense part of the historical record. What is happening here is more along the lines of anachronistically reading Christian traditions backwards onto more ancient religions.

[SeeBass]

^^ I agree atheists should stop making stuff up that has no true historical fact or evidence. It is amazing the lengths people will go to in an effort to support their agenda.

[Traditional_Ale]

^ Wouldn't true atheism be a complete and total lack of an 'agenda'?

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

^ Wouldn't true atheism be a complete and total lack of an 'agenda'?

Do you need me to type in green?

[peter12]

God, I love it when Textcritic gets all criticky in these threads.

[calgaryred]

holy #### did this thread go off topic

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by driveway

I have no idea what you're trying to claim with this paragraph. It doesn't make any sense. How on earth do you get from fossilization being a rare occurrence to the fossil record being a 'negative' to the Theory of Evolution?

My arguement is that although fossilization is rare it is not rare comparable to the supposed rates of evolutionary change. Mount ST Hellens is a modern example of conditions being right for fossilization. Although not all eruptions or movement of land produce condition conductive for fossilization it is reasonable to assume several have in the last 1000 years. Now multiply that by how many such occurances have taken place since the last visible changes in species. Then figure out how many occurances of fossilization should have occured between that time and the next visible change in history. My argument is that if evolutionary development is true(in the vast time frame given) there should be no missing links. In fact all stages of development should be well represented. Not only must the evolutionist imagine a connection between these different fossilized species but, they also must imagine links between them which are not found in the fossil record.

The fossilized record tells us of species that are today present and many others that are extinct. That we all can agree on. I don't believe it tells us about the evolution of species because if it did that picture would be complete within the record. There would also be more fossils and they would represent every era well.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...My argument is that if evolutionary development is true(in the vast time frame given) there should be no missing links. In fact all stages of development should be well represented.

Do you have some actual numbers to support your argument? You are drawing conclusions about how many fossils we are "supposed" to find from a data-less proposition that volcanic eruptions provide perfect conditions for fossil preservation. I'm curious to know from actual studies how many fossils we should expect to have, given this proposal.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...Not only must the evolutionist imagine a connection between these different fossilized species but, they also must imagine links between them which are not found in the fossil record.

What links are those specifically? Can you provide some examples of such products of overactive imaginations?

I suppose that this might stand to reason only if the fossil record was the only piece of evidence marshalled in support of evolution. It is not. One of the most persuasive components of the theory and its explanatory power is in the massive accumulation of different pieces of evidence from different disciplines inside biology as well as from other scientific fields. Perhaps the most convincing bits of evidence have come to light only more recently through discoveries made in the field of genetics. Even if biologists ignored the fossil record, there is still ample evidence to support evolution.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The fossilized record tells us of species that are today present and many others that are extinct. That we all can agree on.

In its most rudimentary form, I suppose so. But when the individual species uncovered in the earth are plotted geographically and statigraphically, the picture is much more colourful and complex than you have suggested. One of the most interesting things about the fossil record is what it tells us about the distribution of the species.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't believe it tells us about the evolution of species because if it did that picture would be complete within the record. There would also be more fossils and they would represent every era well.

Again, where is your data to support this claim? I am a science light-weight, but surely there are studies and models that have been written and constructed to demonstrate precisely what we ought to expect from the record.

This begs the question first of your sources, and I would warrant more importantly, of your motivation.

I have found in my interaction with people on this topic that those who are more steadfast in their rejection of evolution do so not because they find the science unconvincing. Rather, they do so because they find the idea unpalatable. I suspect that I already know the answer in your case, but do tell: what is it about evolution that you find so objectionable?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is a horribly simplistic presentation of the development of biblical literature. While it is true that the individual books of scripture were pieced together from a wide range of sources and traditions, one must also recognize that this was rather commonplace in the ancient world. "Literature" in antiquity was not an artform. It functioned to provide important links to the past in an effort to maintain some sort of cultural and tribal continuity. For this reason, stories, poems, parables, songs, laments, laws and genealogies were copied and re-copied for conservation, but they also formed the bases for new literature that was introduced into communities as needs and circumstances changed.

Spooky campfire stories compiled by ad hoc committees. Gotcha.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

My arguement is that although fossilization is rare it is not rare comparable to the supposed rates of evolutionary change. Mount ST Hellens is a modern example of conditions being right for fossilization. Although not all eruptions or movement of land produce condition conductive for fossilization it is reasonable to assume several have in the last 1000 years. Now multiply that by how many such occurances have taken place since the last visible changes in species. Then figure out how many occurances of fossilization should have occured between that time and the next visible change in history. My argument is that if evolutionary development is true(in the vast time frame given) there should be no missing links. In fact all stages of development should be well represented. Not only must the evolutionist imagine a connection between these different fossilized species but, they also must imagine links between them which are not found in the fossil record.

The fossilized record tells us of species that are today present and many others that are extinct. That we all can agree on. I don't believe it tells us about the evolution of species because if it did that picture would be complete within the record. There would also be more fossils and they would represent every era well.

[Thor]

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

...Before you can speak intelligently about the history of the human species, you must read this and this. Until then, I will continue to assume that you have a poor grasp of this topic...

So, here I am at home with the flu, and while my work is never at all physically demanding, I find that when I am sick, my brain refuses to work. Thus, in moments such as these, I surf my favourite blogs and youtube channels, and between yesterday evening and this morning, I stumbled onto AronRa's youtube channel after nearly seven or eight months since my last visit.

I had once posted in an evolution / creation discussion thread that his "Fourteen Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" was required viewing for anyone interested in this ongoing issue, and he has since more recently updated this exhaustive resource with a two-part fifteenth episode. When I made this post a few weeks ago, I don't know why I failed to link this exceptional work; in any case, the link is included below, and really should be viewed by the respondents in this thread:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

On a related note, debunking creationism is becoming something of a hobby of mine; I think largely because of my close connection to many of its proponents. I read what I can about the subject, and I also spend (probably too much time) perusing the internet for additional resources. I don't know if this has been posted before, but I recently found a very, very good critique of creationism on youtube: It is a series of fifteen ten-minute videos produced by a geosciences major at the University of Texas who calls himself "AronRa". his attack is positively withering, and should be considered essential viewing for anyone who ever doubted the strength of Darwin's theory.

So, back to the topic at hand. I had just noticed yesterday evening that AronRa has a more recent series of videos entitled Falsifying Phylogeny, in which he builds a case more specifically against the tired argument that there are unbreakable boundaries between species that prevent large-scale changes anticipated by evolution. Such an argument was forwarded by Shades in an earlier post:

Originally Posted by Shades

No, they haven't Photon. Real species boundaries have never been breached, especially in nature.

AronRa's critique of this argument in six video instalments is positively withering, and should also be required viewing for anyone who wishes to gain a more comprehensive understanding of biology. I would especially recommend Part Six: "Phylogeny Challenge", but it is all very, very good.

[Thor]

Since shades seems no longer interested in the evolution discussion, maybe he's will to respond to his statements about his biblical understanding and views on Christianity.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Thor

Since shades seems no longer interested in the evolution discussion, maybe he's will to respond to his statements about his biblical understanding and views on Christianity.

I would be all over this, but I doubt it. I had challenged him to support his assertion in an earlier post that "atheists, and many theists (or former pastors posting in this thread) are ignorant of the true teachings in the Bible." While I absolutely agree that the Bible is badly misunderstood by the vast majority of the population, I do suspect that Shades's impression of the "true teachings in the Bible" are nothing more than anachonistically formulated cultural and social assertions imposed upon the textual artifacts to conform to traditionally ascribed theological ideals.

Besides, the "true teachings" of the Bible is itself a misnomer. Such a thing could not possibly exist amid the plurality of biblical literature, and the even larger pool of opinions imposed upon its meaning. "Biblical truth" is constantly changing, although almost certainly the vast majority of Christians (and Jews) will continue to ignore this reality.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would be all over this, but I doubt it. I had challenged him to support his assertion in an earlier post that "atheists, and many theists (or former pastors posting in this thread) are ignorant of the true teachings in the Bible." While I absolutely agree that the Bible is badly misunderstood by the vast majority of the population, I do suspect that Shades's impression of the "true teachings in the Bible" are nothing more than anachonistically formulated cultural and social assertions imposed upon the textual artifacts to conform to traditionally ascribed theological ideals.

Besides, the "true teachings" of the Bible is itself a misnomer. Such a thing could not possibly exist amid the plurality of biblical literature, and the even larger pool of opinions imposed upon its meaning. "Biblical truth" is constantly changing, although almost certainly the vast majority of Christians (and Jews) will continue to ignore this reality.

You know any Engrish Mr T?