United Nations On Free Speech = The Lose

I am sooooooo irritated at the moment that I don't have much to say (see the video below). Except, let the U.N. know how you feel, and if you do, be respectful when you do. But other than that, blaspheme every religion you can, cause that is protected speech........the first amendment, isn't it GREAT!! In matter of fact, I am going to blaspheme right now. I will be doing this by displaying a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed.

D



I LOVE FREE SPEECH!!!!!

I Knew It!!

I just knew that this was going to happen (see the story below) after a court ruled that vaccines DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM. The anti-vaxxers won't go away.........keep your children healthy get them vaccinated.

D

Reposted From: http://skepticdad.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/antivaccine-hail-mary/

Antivaccine Hail Mary!

David Kirby and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have tag teamed a pair of articles on the antivaccine friendly blog The Huffington Post. It’s no surprise that Kirby and Kennedy, both avid vaccine haters and “big pharma” conspiracy theorists, have chosen to dismiss the autism omnibus rulings as just another example of the secret vaccine court gaming the system for their pharmaceutical overlords. They directly imply that the vaccine court’s special masters are shills for “Big Pharma”, but then they double back and exploit a previous ruling that favors the arguments of the antivaccine fringe. There is a hypocritical double standard here that is so blatant that it barely deserves mentioning.

Last year, it was public knowledge that Bailey Banks, a 10 year old with “non autistic pervasive development delay” was awarded compensation because he was damaged by a vaccine. Children can be harmed by vaccines on rare occasions. That is why there is a court to compensate them.

We should put this in perspective, though. Vaccine haters are singling out singular examples of damaged children as propaganda tools to castigate one of the greatest medical discoveries of all time, our vaccines, which have cured numerous diseases and saved millions of lives. What if there was a group who demanded that seat belts be removed from all cars because they found a few instances where seat belts failed to save a life? How many people would die from preventable diseases if we were to eliminate the vaccine program? How many deaths would it take to justify this crusade to eliminate vaccines.

The antivaccine hive mind must be getting smarter because they are starting to anticipate the counter-arguments. They know that the vaccine court has never declared that vaccines cause autism. If I defend that truth, it looks like I’m dismissing the tragedy that happened to Bailey, but if I don’t defend the truth, they trick the public into believing that Bailey has autism. Yes, Bailey Banks has PDD (pervasive development delay) from an ADEM (acute disseminated encephalomyelitis), but he doesn’t have autism. The court ruling clearly states at the very top that Bailey had “Non-autistic pervasive developmental delay” (bold mine).

This is not a simple case. There was confusion among the doctors, disagreements of diagnoses, but there was a consensus that this child did not have autism:

Another pediatrician’s diagnosis noted that Bailey’s condition “seems to be a global developmental delay with autistic features as opposed to an actual autistic spectrum disorder.” Pet. Ex. 30 at 4.

Moving on to the alternative hypothesis/diagnosis of autism, Dr. Lopez distinguishes autism as a more generalized condition without a known etiology, and contrasted it to Bailey’s condition, which he says is clearly attributable to demyelination based on neuroimaging evidence. Tr. at 41-42.

Dr. Lopez also differentiated Bailey’s condition from autism, because Bailey has been affected in more than one developmental skill area; he clarified by stating that Bailey has “induced pervasive developmental delay…due to ADEM.” Tr. at 32. He noted that the conflation of designations resulted from a medical convention created for the sake of explanation to laymen, but that the two are not properly interchangeable, but actually quite distinct. Id. Speaking more directly, Dr. Lopez stated that “Bailey does not have autism because he has a reason for his deficits.” Tr. at 42.

I can find no literature relating ADEM to autism or pervasive developmental disorder, and by its nature ADEM is a primary demyelinating disorder of the nervous system….PDD is a problem with the neurons, not the white matter of the brain, so it doesn’t make sense that autistic children would have had a demyelinating disorder before. In fact, MRI scans [that] have been done repeatedly in children with PDD/autism don’t show demyelination, so there is no connection. Even if one believes the child has ADEM, there is no connection to the diagnosis of PDD.

So, how did “Non-autistic” turn into this:

Do you see the bracketed “pdd [autism]“? Funny, how “non autistic pdd” became “[autism]” when Jenny McCarthy put out the above advertisement. Did she think nobody would notice?

The frustrating part is that she will fool people, as she has done numerous times before. But, how desperate do you have to be to wedge your autism “big pharma” nutball conspiracy into a singular example of one boy’s unfortunate experience? It’s absurd and desperate.

Just what are they trying to prove? At this point, I think that Jenny, David, and Robert are all trying to validate the investment of time and energy that they wasted on a conspiracy theory that any scholar or scientist could have told them was complete nonsense.

Ethanol a Sin??

Sure glad I'm not a practicing Muslim, though I don't use ethanol either, so for me it's a wash. But this is just weird. A Muslim cleric has decided in his own opinion (I guess this isn't official doctrine) that buying or using ethanol is a sin. Check out the story below.

D

Reposted From: http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1019096_islamic-scholar-suggests-using-ethanol-powered-vehicles-may-be-a-sin

Islamic Scholar Suggests Using Ethanol-Powered Vehicles May Be a Sin

By John Voelcker, Editor-in-Chief, February 26th, 2009

Wow. As if the debate around using ethanol to fuel cars weren't already complicated enough, now an Islamic scholar has suggested that driving or even riding in a vehicle fueled by ethanol could be considered a sin for observant Muslims.

The opinion comes from Sheikh Mohamed al-Najimi, of the Islamic Jurisprudence Academy in Saudi Arabia. It is based on the part of Islamic law derived from a statement by the prophet in which dealing with alcohol in any form--including purchase, sale, transport, consumption, and manufacture--is strictly prohibited.

The sheikh urged that the issue of ethanol-powered vehicles should be studied by Islamic religious scholars, and stressed that the statement was not a fatwa but simply his own opinion. He noted that any ban would extend beyond Islamic countries to cover observant Muslims in other countries. This might include tourists, students abroad, and other groups.

The pros and cons of ethanol as a vehicle fuel are far too lengthy to cover in this post, so we're offering just a few high points here.

PROS:

- Ethanol can be made from various plants that pull carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, so burning it just returns that CO2 to the atmosphere, cutting net CO2 emissions.

- Plants can be grown in the United States, so vehicle fuel could be domestically produced, displacing imported petroleum.

- Ethanol blends with gasoline, as in the E85 that's sold at a few hundred Midwestern gas stations.

CONS:

- Producing ethanol from corn, as we do in the US, is the least efficient way to "grow fuel". The sugar cane used in Brazil provides twice as many gallons per acre, and the real productivity lies in other forms of biomass like switchgrass--none of them anywhere close to volume production.

- The "wells to wheels" energy balance of ethanol needs to be carefully assessed, since industrialized agriculture emits large amounts of CO2 and ethanol distilling uses lots of fresh water.

- Ethanol has to be sold within about 300 miles of where it's refined, and must be trucked rather than sent through petroleum pipelines.

- The "Flex-Fuel" vehicles produced by domestic carmakers are considered by many analysts a scam to meet CAFE mileage laws via additional credits for flex-fuel ability. Most of those vehicles will only ever burn gasoline, and many owners have no idea their cars can run on E85.

The ethanol debate will rage for years to come, but clearly this new wrinkle adds yet another concern for drivers who are also observant Muslims.

Fundies Say The Darndest Things

Check out this website. It is essentially just a bunch of quotes from fundamentalist religious folks who hopefully had been drinking too much. Unfortunately, I think some of them are sober and for real. Aside from those whose quotes are serious, it is funny stuff. Below I will list some of my favorites.

D

1) One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]

2) I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!

3) I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie

4) There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least.

5) [Talking about an eleven year old girl who was raped and then buried alive]

god was sacrificing this child as a way to show others the light. much as he did his own child. what a beautiful gift he has given us.

6) I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don't really care how God did what He did. I know He did it.

7) If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right.

8) Apes are just creatures twisted by Satan to mock Jesus by giving EVILolition credibility. Further more they are naturally lust crazed for human women. Since they are not natural creatures they should be exterminated forthwith as the tools of evil they are.

9) God revealed to me two things about the timing of the rapture. God specifically told me 2007 was the year, because I was only going to have from 3 to 3 1/2 years to spread the message after my book was published.

10) Masturbation can sometimes be wrong and it can sometimes not. If you masturbate thinking about how pretty the flowers are and how you want a puppy, essentially that's not wrong. But most times, that is not the case. I believe that when one masturbates a high percentage of the time they are fantasizing about a sexual partner therefore making masturbation lust. Lust, as the Bible states, is a sin. But masturbation is something that people in general should stay away from because it's hard not to lust whilst doing it.

Jim Gaffigan: Holidays

Ray, Ray, Ray..........

Ray Comfort has posted a fictional letter from a 17-year old, this is hilarious......

“Mom, dad, after my first semester at college, I have to tell you that I don’t believe in God anymore. Science has proven evolution to be true. The Bible is a book of fairy tales. There is no absolute right and wrong. I know this goes against your values, but I now believe in gay marriage and a woman’s right to choose. I don’t want to hurt you, but I have to be open and honest with you--I’m moving in with my girlfriend. This doesn’t change my love for you, and I hope you feel the same about me . . . .”

A 2007 survey in the U.S. showed that the number of 18-25 year olds who were atheist, agnostic or nonreligious had increased from 11 percent in 1986 to 20. [1]

[1] HumanistNetworkNews.org, Jan. 24, 2007

Who would have thought that being a critical thinking, atheistic, pro-choice, pro-civil rights, tolerant, respectful, and an honest person was such a bad thing?

D

Penn And Teller's Bullshit: The War On Porn

If you are going to watch this P&T Bullshit episode, I must warn you that there is nudity and adult themes in this episode. If you are younger than 18 (and live in America) or do not want to see adult nudity then please go here. Once again, this episode contains adult themes and nudity, if you do not wish to view or will be offend by such content then please go elsewhere. This episode of P&T is meant to reinforce my previous post about the PTC. Thank you for your compliance.

D

The PTC Is Your Enemy

Do you feel like you have the right to watch whatever you like, be it movies or t.v.? Do you think all people have the right to consume whatever content they like? Do you feel that government and special interest groups don't have the right to censor what you see? Are you tired of special interest groups and government deciding what you can hear and see without any data to support the dangers to society that they claim exist? If you said yes to any or all of these, then you will want to check out the Parents Television Council. If you care about your viewing freedoms and the first amendment, you will realize that these people are your enemy.

The PTC is a special interest group that wants to "clean" up television because they claim that violent or sexually tantalizing material is dangerous to society. T.V. is to blame for teen pregnancy, AIDS, abortion, teen violence, teen sex, and so on. But when pressed the PTC can't give you one study of how T.V. causes any harm to society as a whole. Usually the recourse to this is that the PTC uses the "children excuse". "Oh, what about the children, they shouldn't be exposed to such sexual themes and being exposed to those themes harms children." Once again, when pressed the PTC cannot offer any peer reviewed studies on how sexuality on T.V. harms children.

Why won't the PTC just change the channel, turn off the t.v., use the V-chip (which is in all televisions now), use a cable lock box and so forth? It's because they want everyone to submit to live in their very own mickey mouse imaginary fluff world where teens don't have sex and there are no gay people. This leads us to the real issue, if society really had a problem with programing on t.v., why is the Janet Jackson nipple "slip" the most TiVo'd clip ever? It's not just the immoral majority that wants to see this stuff, it's the very crusaders who want to take this viewing freedom away from you. The marketplace has spoken, they want to see shows with sexual and violent themes. And these themes may actually end up being toned down to become more realistic if groups like the PTC weren't trying to censor television. One extreme begets another.

I know, the PTC says it's not out to censor t.v., it's only here to warn you the consumer of what is family appropriate. But according to this news article, that's not what they really want to do:

The Parents Television Council is filing an indecency complaint with the FCC and urging its members and "concerned citizens" to do the same after a three-minute strip club scene featuring a lap dance aired on CBS's Two and a Half Men.

The episode at issue aired on Monday, Oct. 20, at 9 p.m. in the Eastern and Pacific time zones/8 p.m. in the Central and Mountain time zones.

PTC said the strip club scene featured the main character attempting to have a conversation with his nephew's former teacher turned stripper while she gives his brother a private lap dance. The stripper grinds on his brother's lap eliciting moans and cries of "yes, yes, yes" before the scene ends.

"We believe that the patently offensive sexual content in this episode of Two and a Half Men crossed the broadcast indecency line," said PTC President Tim Winter. "Rather than airing the program after 10 p.m., and rather than assigning a content rating that accurately reflects the material contained within the episode, CBS chose to air it when millions of children were in the television viewing audience, and they deemed the material to be suitable for 14-year-olds."

PTC said the length of the scene made it "in no way ‘fleeting' or accidental; rather, it was specifically written into this scripted program."

"In addition to our indecency complaint," Winter added, "we are urging parents to contact the FCC to let them know enough is enough from CBS. We will also be contacting advertisers that appeared in the episode to ensure they are aware of exactly what type of content they chose to associate with their hard-earned corporate brands."

(Source: http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2008/10/22/daily.7/)

The PTC doesn't think that you have the power to decide what you can and cannot watch. They don't think that you can be a parent to your child and so they need to make t.v. conform to their moral standards. Sexual and violent themes on t.v. give you a chance to communicate with your children about sex and violence. The PTC wants you and everyone else to live in a world where parents feel comfortable instead of a world where children and parents have lines of open communication about taboo subjects such as sex.

And finally, Dr. Marty Klein makes a great point in his book, "America's War on Sex":

"And there is one more point to be made about the alleged harm of sexual imagery on radio and television. Western Europe has been running the experiment America refuses to, for decades. Western European radio and television feature words, themes, and pictures (including nudity) that are prohibited to American audiences and broadcasters. According to the predictions of America's moral crusaders, Europe should therefore be a cesspool of sexual perversion. But it's the opposite. (see table below)

It's what parents are always telling their eight-year olds: "I know you're afraid, but that doesn't mean there is something to be afraid of."

Teen birth and abortion rates, by country

Nation/Teen Birth rates/Teen abortion rates (per 1000 women ages 15-19)

United States / 48.7 / 27.5

Netherlands / 4.5 /4.2

Germany /12.5 / 3.6

France / 10.0 / 10.2

Don't let your rights be taken away, stand up against these "moral crusaders". Decide what is right for you and your family, don't let special interest groups like the PTC decide for you.

D

Astrology

It has been brought to my attention that I have not covered any astrology here yet. Well, the time is now. We all know a bit about astrology and when asked most of us could probably name our star sign (Libra...). Who while reading the news paper or standing in line at the grocery store hasn't looked at the horoscopes. I bet for most of us this is just a silly exercise in entertainment but there are those who take such things seriously. But how serious can you take such a thing, after all the horoscopes are located next to the comics (hello?!?). Still there are those that do and they often will go pay for an astrology consultation. It's kinda like going to a psychic except instead of talking to the dead (yeah right) astrologers babble on about how celestial bodies influence your life.

Of course there is no evidence that stars being in a certain position have any bearing on your or anyone's life. How could it? Does it have something to do with gravity? If so, the gravitational pull from stars millions of light-years away is well................negligable............like you wouldn't notice it at all......and it would be impossible (or almost) to measure.

So, I now direct you to someone who knows something about this and runs a fantastic website, The Skeptics Dictionary (Robert Todd Caroll the owner of the site also wrote a book by the same name). At his website you will find all the bunk you ever wanted to know about, from astrology to zombies (yes, zombies!). I would also like to send you over to another great resource, whatstheharm.net. This is another great site and it explains the very real potential harms of pseudo-science, astrology, cults, and so on.

Until Next Time............
D

Penn & Teller's Bullshit: Feng Shui/Bottled Water

107 Feng Shui - Bottled Water
by weep555

Saturday Movie: Jesus Camp

MORE AT ATHEISTNATION.NET

Why People Believe Weird Things

This is an awesome talk given by Michael Shermer on why people believe weird things. It's a shorty but a goody!

D

Ray Wants Attention For His New Book......I Will Feed Him Eventhough I Know I Shouldn't

Watch this:




THIS IDIOCY MAKES ME WANT TO.......




That's right, I want to set a monk on fire..........no not really, though it does make me want to set myself on fire. I am just befuddled by Kirk and Ray's logical prowess. How does someone go about making a cow?!?!? Wait, not only do I not know how to make a cow, I have found out that I am an atheist because I want to live by my own rules. Who would've known? I guess I should stop rebelling against this god that I supposedly know exists and get on the right track. After all, that hell that I don't believe exists (though according to Kirk and Ray's logic, I must know it exists) is where I am going to end up if I don't straighten up and fly right. That's right folks, I know that an all knowing, loving, and powerful god exists, but I am choosing to reject such a being so that I can party down here on earth while I'm alive. Forget the burning forever and ever.......WOOOOOOOOOOOO LET'S PARTY!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! (banging head against desk....)

D

I Am Hooked On This Song!

The Band: The Dining Rooms
The Song: Pure And Easy

Evolution: A PBS Series

This series explains evolution and it's history and it makes evolution accesible to everyone. I do warn you, it is a tad bit long (each part is an hour long), but well worth the time!

D

Part One



Part Two



Part Three



Part Four



Part Five



Part Six



Part Seven

Only 2 Out Of 5......Really?

According to recent Pew and Gallup poll surveys (see story below), only 40% of Americans accept the theory of evolution. The only good to point thing about these results is that they are holding steady from previous years. That is also one of the bad points as well. I guess I am just glad that the numbers aren't dropping. Why is this so? My guess is:

1) People not being educated properly on the issue of evolution (We are not communicating it well enough to the public!).

2) For some, religion can't coexist with evolution. So, those with a strict literal interpretation of holy books will not accept evolution (or any other ideas/theories/facts that contradict their world view)

3) Because of number 2, the doors are open wide for those in power to misrepresent evolution (often, science in general).

4) Some people just don't care either way.

What to do? Number one is starting to get fixed. Lawrence Krauss, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, P.Z. Myers, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer and many others are now reaching out to the public to make evolution (science in general) more accessible to the public. Number two and three are a bit tougher. This is in part because you are challenging someones world view. People who are religious are very guarded about their beliefs. I think this is due to the fact that they don't just accept those ideas or beliefs and that's it. Those ideas/beliefs become apart of their identity. When this happens, challenging their ideas/beliefs quickly becomes very sticky situation. But as we have learned from history, just believing something doesn't make it right. At one time, people believed that the sun revolved around the earth, some did because the bible says it does (or at least was interpreted that way). That belief didn't change the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.

So, where do you fit in here? If you already accept the theory of evolution, are you explaining it clearly to those you converse with? Or are your religious beliefs conflicting with science? If so, they don't have to. Ken Miller (Orthodox Catholic and Cell Biologist at Brown University), Francis Collins (Evangelical Christian and former head of the human genome project), David Sloan Wilson, and others have written books on how they reconcile their personal belief in god with evolution (science). If you do fall into number two from above, have you been getting your information exclusively from Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, and so on? Try getting some accurate info from some of the folks I have listed here or go to a website like talkorigins.org (which happens to be down at the moment!! but there are others like PBS).

D

Reposted From: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491345,00.html

A new poll released just in time for Charles Darwin's 200th birthday found that only 39 percent of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," and just 24 percent of those who attend church weekly believe in that explanation for the development of life on Earth.

The Gallup survey, released Wednesday, found a quarter of those polled do not believe in evolution, and 36 percent said they don't have an opinion either way.

Another survey by the Pew Research Center got similar results.

The Gallup poll of 1,018 American adults found strong ties between education level and belief in the theory of evolution.

"Among those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on Darwin's theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they believe in it," Gallup found. "For all other groups, and in particular those who have at least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief."

Just 21 percent of respondents who had up to a high school level of education believe in evolution, compared with 74 percent of those with postgraduate degrees.

Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief, wrote that attitudes were shaped to an even greater degree by religion.

"Previous Gallup research shows that the rate of church attendance is fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that this relationship is not owing to an underlying educational difference but instead reflects a direct influence of religious beliefs on belief in evolution," he said.

Among weekly churchgoers, only 24 percent said they believe in evolution, while 41 percent do not and 35 percent have no opinion.

Inversely, 55 percent of those who seldom or never attend church expressed belief in evolution, while 11 percent do not, and 34 percent have no opinion.

In god we trust?

There is a poll on the MSNBC website asking whether "In god we trust" should be removed from U.S. currency. The two options to answer this question are:

Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. (Currently at 15%)

Or

No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.
(Currently at 85%)

Full disclosure, I am an atheist and I have a rather strict interpretation of the constitution. So, of course I am going to answer a resounding YES!! to the above. But even if you believe in god, you may want to say yes to the survey. Why?

In order to answer NO to the survey you have to ask yourself one question. According to the 1st amendment, does the U.S. government have the right to place this motto on our currency:

"In NO god we trust"

If you answered no, the government has no right to place that motto on our currency, then what gives government the power to place "In god we trust" on our currency now? Often there is a retort to this question like:

Well, over 90% of the people who live here (The U.S.) believe in a god.

At one time the majority of citizens in the U.S. also thought it was wrong for women and minorities to vote. A majority agreeing with a proposition does not make that proposition right. But let's say that there was an atheist majority in this country. Would it be right for the government to put "In no god we trust"? Of course it would NOT. The first amendment is there to guarantee government neutrality when it comes to matters of religion. You may worship or not, and the government cannot promote that you do either.

The founding fathers had some wonderful ideas, and the 1st amendment is probably one of the greatest socio-political ideas ever. The constitution was framed the way it was because the founding fathers had seen what happens when:

Governments limit speech, press, assembly, the right to bear arms and the ability of it's citizens to petition their government.

They also had seen what happens to governments who become intertwined with religion (For good examples of why theocracies are bad, look at the Middle East!!). They easily become theocracies which are the worst kinds of totalitarian governments. Religious belief is said to be personal, a matter which is a private and private, is how religious belief should remain.

D

Thanks to Ali for getting us to think today!

P.S. Ali has the comments turned off on her site (as she doesn't want what will be a very sticky debate going on). You may feel free to air your rantings here. All I ask is that everyone stay away from the ad homs. (the name calling and whatnot). If you can't follow this rule then you will be booted!!

Friday The 13th

Happy Friday the 13th everyone! Below are some interesting facts (all from wikipedia) about the 13th, so, check them out. Have a great day, and watch some horror movies!!

D

The fear of Friday the 13th is called paraskavedekatriaphobia,^[1][2] a word derived from the concatenation of the Greek words Paraskeví (Παρασκευή) (meaning Friday), and dekatreís (δεκατρείς) (meaning thirteen), attached to phobía (φοβία) (meaning fear). This is a specialized form of triskaidekaphobia, a simple phobia (fear) of the number thirteen, and is also known as friggatriskaidekaphobia. The term triskaidekaphobia was derived in 1911 and first appeared in a mainstream source in 1953.^[3]

In numerology, the number twelve is considered the number of completeness, as reflected in the twelve months of the year, twelve signs of the zodiac, twelve hours of the clock, twelve tribes of Israel, twelve Apostles of Jesus, twelve gods of Olympus, etc., whereas the number thirteen was considered irregular, transgressing this completeness. There is also a superstition, thought by some to derive from the Last Supper or a Norse myth, that having thirteen people seated at a table will result in the death of one of the diners.^[5]


The Superstitions Origins:

1) Friday has been considered an unlucky day at least since the 14th century's The Canterbury Tales,^[3] and many other professions have regarded Friday as an unlucky day to undertake journeys or begin new projects. Black Friday has been associated with stock market crashes and other disasters since the 1800s.^[6][9] It has also been suggested that Friday was the day that Jesus was crucified. ^[10]

2) The actual origin of the superstition, though, appears also to be a tale in Norse mythology. Friday is named for Frigga, the free-spirited goddess of love and fertility. When Norse and Germanic tribes converted to Christianity, Frigga was banished in shame to a mountaintop and labeled a witch. It was believed that every Friday, the spiteful goddess convened a meeting with eleven other witches, plus the devil - a gathering of thirteen - and plotted ill turns of fate for the coming week. For many centuries in Scandinavia, Friday was known as "Witches' Sabbath."^[11]

3) The Knights Templar were a monastic military order founded in Jerusalem in 1118 C.E., whose mission was to protect Christian pilgrims during the Crusades. Over the next two centuries, the Knights Templar became extraordinarily powerful and wealthy. Threatened by that power and eager to acquire their wealth, King Philip secretly ordered the mass arrest of all the Knights Templar in France on Friday, October 13, 1307 - Friday the 13th.^[4]

Darwin Misunderstood (SciAm Article)

Reposted From: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=darwin-misunderstood

A Skeptic's Take on the Public Misunderstanding of Darwin

On the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday two myths persist about evolution and natural selection

By Michael Shermer

On July 2, 1866, Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection, wrote to Charles Darwin to lament how he had been “so repeatedly struck by the utter inability of numbers of intelligent persons to see clearly or at all, the self acting & necessary effects of Nat Selection, that I am led to conclude that the term itself & your mode of illustrating it, however clear & beautiful to many of us are yet not the best adapted to impress it on the general naturalist public.” The source of the misunderstanding, Wallace continued, was the name itself, in that it implies “the constant watching of an intelligent ‘chooser’ like man’s selection to which you so often compare it,” and that “thought and direction are essential to the action of ‘Natural Selection.’” Wallace suggested redacting the term and adopting Herbert Spencer’s phrase “survival of the fittest.”

Unfortunately, that is what happened, and it led to two myths about evolution that persist today: that there is a prescient directionality to evolution and that survival depends entirely on cutthroat competitive fitness.

Contrary to the first myth, natural selection is a description of a process, not a force. No one is “selecting” organisms for survival in the benign sense of pigeon breeders selecting for desirable traits in show breeds or for extinction in the malignant sense of Nazis selecting prisoners at death camps. Natural selection is nonprescient—it cannot look forward to anticipate what changes are going to be needed for survival. When my daughter was young, I tried explaining evolution to her by using polar bears as an example of a “transitional species” between land mammals and marine mammals, but that was wrong. Polar bears are not “on their way” to becoming marine mammals. They are well adapted for their arctic environment.

Natural selection simply means that those individuals with variations better suited to their environment leave behind more offspring than individuals that are less well adapted. This outcome is known as “differential reproductive success.” It may be, as the second myth holds, that organisms that are bigger, stronger, faster and brutishly competitive will reproduce more successfully, but it is just as likely that organisms that are smaller, weaker, slower and socially cooperative will do so as well.

This second notion in particular makes evolution unpalatable for many people, because it covers the theory with a darkened patina reminiscent of Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s “nature, red in tooth and claw.” Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin’s “bulldog” defender, promoted this “gladiatorial” view of life in a series of popular essays on nature “whereby the strongest, the swiftest, and the cunningest live to fight another day.” The myth persists. In his recent documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein linked Darwinism to Communism, Fascism and the Holocaust. Former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling misread biologist Richard Dawkins’s book The Selfish Gene to mean that evolution is driven solely by ruthless competition, both between corporations and within Enron, leading to his infamous “rank and yank” employee evaluation system, which resulted in massive layoffs and competitive resentment.

This view of life need not have become the dominant one. In 1902 the Russian anarchist Petr Kropotkin published a rebuttal to Huxley and Spencer in his book Mutual Aid. Calling out Spencer by phrase, Kropotkin observed: “If we... ask Nature: ‘who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?’ we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest.” Since that time science has revealed that species practice both mutual struggle and mutual aid. Darwinism, properly understood, gives us a dual disposition of selfishness and selflessness, competitiveness and cooperativeness.

Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, the same day as Abraham Lincoln, who also struggled to reconcile our binary natures in his first inaugural address on the eve of the Civil War: “The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Darwin Misunderstood".

Happy Birthday Darwin!

Darwin turns 200 today!

It's All A Cycle

I want to take a moment and breathe. I would like to dedicate this song to the comment poster I mentioned earlier (see the Kinks post). Even though this particular song has been played over and over again, it still gives me a "spiritual" feeling, I feel at one with the cosmos when I listen to it(not to sound too hokey). It gives me hope and I want to share that. Enjoy the song/video, and take the time to just breathe.

D

P.S. I will be putting the lyrics below.

The Band: Live
The Song: Lightning Crashes



"Lightning Crashes"

lightning crashes, a new mother cries
her placenta falls to the floor
the angel opens her eyes
the confusion sets in
before the doctor can even close the door

lightning crashes, an old mother dies
her intentions fall to the floor
the angel closes her eyes
the confusion that was hers
belongs now, to the baby down the hall

oh now feel it comin' back again
like a rollin' thunder chasing the wind
forces pullin' from the center of the earth again
I can feel it.

lightning crashes, a new mother cries
this moment she's been waiting for
the angel opens her eyes
pale blue colored iris,
presents the circle
and puts the glory out to hide, hide

The Kinks

One of my comment posters here pointed me to a Kinks song that he wanted dedicated to the "Hell" people. I am assuming he is referring to the extreme folks of the "Hell House" movie and their ilk. He didn't ask to have it dedicated here, but..........I want to! The song is "Alcohol", and this particular video is a live performance in New York City. So, ladies and gentlemen.....I present to you.............THE KINKS!

D

Ken Miller On Evolution

Evolution Rocks

The Genius of Charles Darwin (with Richard Dawkins)

Part One



Part Two



Part Three

Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - A Refutation (From Skeptic Blog)

Reposted from: http://skepticblog.org/2009/02/09/ten-major-flaws-of-evolution-a-refutation/#more-1188

Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - A Refutation

by Steven Novella, Feb 09 2009

February 12th is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. This year is also the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of the Species - arguably one of the most important scientific publications ever. In honor of Darwin’s idea and the subsequent scientific triumph of evolutionary theory, I am posting my refutation of a popular creationist internet meme. Creationists love to imagine that they have dismantled evolution or discovered it’s “major flaws,” however they only succeed in exposing the major flaws in their understanding of evolution and ability to reason.

TEN MAJOR FLAWS OF EVOLUTION - REVISED
by Randy Alcorn (with additional editing by Jim Darnall). I wrote the following article many years ago, but it needed to be thoroughly revised and updated. Thanks to Jim Darnall for adding some important new information.

1) The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.

This statement is not an argument at all, but merely an assertion. It is simply asserting what appears to be the point of this list of supposed arguments – that evolution through natural forces is impossible. But it contains many implied claims. It refers to irreducible complexity and gives the examples of vision and blood clotting. It does not address the century and a half old refutation of this argument – that biological systems could have evolved from simpler systems that were functional but served a different purpose from their current one. Further, all the examples (stated here and elsewhere) of supposed irreducibly complex systems have been shown to have simpler antecedents.

The statement also implies that evolution is “random.” This is false. Mutations are random, and variation may be random, but natural selection is decidedly not random, and therefore evolution is not random. Evolution is the non-random survival of those traits that provide an advantage to survival and reproduction in the current environment. Evolution is a designing force.

The watch analogy is not valid because a watch is an inanimate object. Biological evolution occurs within systems that are self-reproducing and contain variation and differential survival and reproduction. Life can use energy to grow, reproduce, and therefore evolve. Watches do not.

2) The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human’s DNA. While we’re waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we’re ignoring those built into us.

Information science does NOT say that all complex information has an intelligent source. In fact, it has been shown that complex information can emerge spontaneously out of blind and natural processes following relatively simple rules. Creationists abuse information theory by making claims about information without ever defining the term. They then drift as needed from one definition to another in order to make false analogies – like the one here about SETI.

Here is a detailed refutation by Jeffrey Shallit of information claims by ID proponents. Here I deal with the SETI false analogy.

3) No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from “amoeba” to “man” would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.

All mutations increase genetic information (again we see the misuse without proper operational definition of the term “information”). If you start with one version of a gene and then it mutates in one offspring but not in another – now you have two versions of that gene. That represents an increase in information. Also, entire genes may be duplicated in the reproductive process. If you start with one copy of a gene and end up with two copies – that is an increase in information. This is especially pertinent to evolution, because one copy can continue to perform its original function while the redundant copy is free to mutate and evolve a new function.

The statement that such increases in the raw amount of information actually represent “preprogrammed variation” is nonsensical. This is a meaningless statement that has no bearing on information. How, exactly, are new mutations “preprogrammed.” If this statement is meant to refer to recombination – the formation of new combinations of genes without mutations – that absolutely increases information by increasing variation, which is the raw material for natural selection.

The idea that natural selection removes variation from the gene pool is true but a non sequitur. Mutations, duplication, and recombination increase information and increase variation and then natural selection causes differential survival of that variation which is better adapted to its niche.

Here is an article by me further discussing the abuse of information theory by creationists.

4) Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or “the least energetic state”). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.

I can see by the above paragraph that at least the author is making the attempt to account for prior criticisms of the “violates the second law of thermodynamics” argument, but in so doing he has simply included more misconceptions, factual errors, and logical fallacies. In this extremely confused statement, however, are the kernels of truth where the correct analysis lies. The author admits that “local order can increase, but at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere.” If I set aside the fact that the author is grossly oversimplifying thermodynamics and falsely equating entropy with disorder, the statement is essentially correct. What this means is that the biosphere of the Earth can experience a local increase in order because it is being more than offset by a decrease in thermodynamic order (an increase in entropy) in the sun. The sun is burning through its fuel and spewing energy at the earth. The entropy of the sun-earth system (and the universe as a whole) IS increasing, but there is nothing in thermodynamics that states that the Earth cannot use energy from the sun to create a local decrease in entropy.

The author has a glimmer of awareness of this fallacy, which is why he anticipates and tries to refute this argument by stating that “Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction.” This is a gross misdirection. Biological systems on the Earth are not just being cooked by “raw” (whatever that means) energy. Biological systems use solar and other energy in a very directed and purposeful way. They use energy to grow, reproduce, and evolve. Energy by itself may not be able to generate information, but a biological system that can use energy in the processes of life can.

An acorn can grow into an oak tree. According to the author, energy could only cook an acorn.

Here is a longer article by me on the second law of thermodynamics.

5) There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms (”missing links”) required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized “kinds.” Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

The “there are no transitional forms” argument is a simple lie – and a lie that is getting more bold and desperate as more and more fossils are discovered. In reality – all species are transitional. Transitional does not mean some impossible monster or bizarre hybrid (like Kirk Cameron’s ridiculous crockoduck). Transitional just means that one species can be seen to bridge two other species (morphologically, genetically). All the transitional species can both be extant, or the transitional species can be ancestral to the other two, or three species may lie in a temporal sequence.

The notion that the categories of living things can be cleanly divided into “kinds” (without, by the way, ever defining what a “kind” is) is patently wrong. The categories of life are frustratingly fuzzy – precisely because evolution is a chaotic process. Are duck-billed platypus mammals? What about fish with lungs, are they fish or terrestrial vertebrates. The notion that dogs are dogs is nonsensical, because there is no objective demarcation line. What about wolves, coyotes, hyenas, foxes, etc.? There is no objective place to draw a line and proclaim that you have a “kind.” There is rather a branching order of relatedness.

The fossil record has served to fill in the morphological gaps between extant species, as evolutionary theory predicts. We have discovered early mammals that are part reptile and part mammal, early birds that are still half theropod dinosaur, early terrestrial vertebrates that are still part fish (Tiktalik). We have discovered walking whales (Ambulocetus) that are only half-way adapted to aquatic life. We have even discovered numerous hominid species that are a mixture of modern human and ape ancestor features. Only the willfully blind can deny the transitional nature of these fossil species.

6) Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the “missing link” (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn’t come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones.

This is a monster straw man. The evidence for the transitional status of hominid species is not dependent upon the artists’ reconstruction or interpretation of what these species may have looked like. That is a monumental bit of scientific illiteracy. Paleontologists have published countless careful and detailed anatomical analyses of the fossils. They clearly show transitional ape-human species. The species that have been clearly established are not based upon mixed ape and human fossils, but multiple specimens collected and documented in such a way as to prove they are one species.

What creationists do with any such sequence is simply take the first half and declare them members of the ancestral group (in this case apes) and the second half and declare them members of the derived group (in this case humans). They have done the same for dinosaurs and birds. But this is just misdirection through labeling. Calling a Homo erectus a human will not change the fact that it has features not seen in any modern human, and has a brain capacity for its size that is comfortably between that of modern humans and modern apes. That is the very definition of transitional.

7) The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions. Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It’s common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don’t fit their expectations. What’s not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.

This is nothing more than a collection of unreferenced false assertions. The reality is that dating methods are very accurate and reliable. There are error bars, like everything in science, but multiple methods can be used on multiple samples and an average can be taken to make a very accurate estimate of the ages of various rocks, strata, and fossils. Dating methods are generally in very good agreement. Typically what creationists do is say that because one dating method yields a result of 3 billion years and another of 2.5 billion years – the two dates do not agree (again, without defining what that means - agree to what degree?) and therefore argue that the true age could be thousands of years. That there may be problems with some samples does not invalidate the dating of all samples. For example, moon rocks taken from the highlands (which geologically likely represented the oldest lunar crust) have been dated to about 4.6 billion years old, and none of the processes discussed above have been present during that time on the moon.

Also, much more than our dating methods for rocks points to an ancient Earth and universe. All of cosmology, astronomy, stellar science, physics, etc. points to the same timescale for the age of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe.

More information of dating methods.; And here.

8) Uses continue to be found for supposedly “leftover” body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That’s been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It’s worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed ( e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.

The existence of vestigial organs is not an essential line of evidence for the fact of evolution, but it is further evidence for evolution. It is true that conclusions about the lack of utility of an organ are always tentative and can be overturned if a use is discovered. It is probable that few organs or structures will be found to be totally useless, for such structures tend to be quickly selected against and removed.

It is funny that the author brought up the subject of blind cave species that still have vestigial and useless eyes. (Eventually such species lose their eyes entirely, but species recently adapted to the dark environment of caves still retain vestigial eyes.) In a laughable non sequitur the author admits such structures are vestigial (even though his premise was that there are no vestigial organs) but then changes criteria mid-stream to say that vestigial organs are only evidence of “devolution” not evolution. What is “devolution?” This is based on a misconception of evolution – that it must produce greater complexity. Evolution only adapts creatures to their local environment, and there is nothing that states that such evolution cannot produce a simplification or elimination of structures if that is what is advantageous.

So the author admits vestigial organs exist, and that they are evidence of evolution, but then dodges the whole issue with an ignorant misconception about the nature of evolution.

I will also point out that genetic analysis has given us another window on vestigial parts -namely vestigial genes. For example, chickens, who do not have teeth at any part of their life cycle, still retain the vestigial genes for teeth that can be reactivated. Chickens with inactivated genes for teeth - it doesn’t get more vestigial than that.

9) Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

This paragraph proves that no argument is so bad or often disputed to be discarded by creationists. Evolution is NOT about the origin of life but the subsequent change in life over time. It is not even dependent upon the naturalistic origin of life. They are completely separate scientific questions.

But that non sequitur aside, it is also ridiculous to compare the quaint notion of “spontaneous generation” with the science of life origins. It is true that we do not yet have a complete model of how life arose (lack of knowledge does not render something impossible – that’s the unknown equals unknowable logical fallacy). But we have figured out many interesting pieces to the puzzle – amino acids are readily made and are abundant, for example. The raw material of life was abundant on the early Earth, as was energy for organic chemical reactions.

The only thing that really would have had to happen spontaneously is the formation of a molecule that could make crude copies of itself. That’s it – that is enough to get a foothold in evolution. The rest is not random, but the very non-random accumulation of improvements by evolutionary processes.

10) Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.

The author – like all prominent creationists – has proven himself to be a master of the non sequitur. The pattern should be entirely clear, now. Start with one criterion then subtly shift to another. The paragraph starts out talking about probability, and then after essentially proving the case for evolution by acknowledging that time (and multiple opportunities, I would add) does render low probability events probable, he then shifts to another point entirely. So then we discover that his real premise is that evolutionary change is inherently impossible (a point that has nothing to do with probability). But this is just asserting his premise – the point he is allegedly trying to prove. Evolution does not require coins to sprout legs.

11) The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn’t mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word.
by Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2229 E. Burnside #23, Gresham, OR 97030, 503-663-6481, http://www.epm.org

Ah – the last refuge of the truly desperate. Unable to provide a single cogent argument against evolution the author tries to do away with all historical sciences. Since no one was around millions of years ago, the lame argument goes, we can never scientifically explore the past, and so we must rely upon faith. This is the ultimate moving back of the goalpost.

But science is not limited to direct observation. We can scientifically infer what happened in the past by the traces it has left in the present. Life itself is a record of its own history. The past is recorded in our genes, in our anatomy, and our development, and in our physiology. It is recorded in the fossils that our ancestors left behind.

But to get more directly to the point – the core quality of science is that it makes testable predictions. Evolutionary theory makes many testable predictions about what we should find when we look at the world – and so far it has passed every predictive test with flying colors.

What does creationism predict? It depends on how you formulate it, but in practice, it predicts nothing because any possible observation can be interpreted as the unfathomable and unlimited will of the creator. What we can say about an alleged creator by looking at life is that, of all the possible designs and patterns for life a creator might have chosen, they appear to have chosen to create life to look exactly as if it had evolved.

So the ten (really 11) major flaws in evolution turn out to be major flaws in the understanding of evolution, the logic, and the intellectual integrity of creationists. And this is really the best they have.

Happy Darwin Day, everyone.

Dave Declares Darwin Week This Week!!

Darwin Day is coming this week on Thursday the 12th. This year celebrates Darwin's 200th Birthday and the 150 anniversary of the first publishing of "On The Origin Of Species". So this week I will be providing articles, videos, and anything else I can get my hands on right here! Stay tuned all this week, and if you have anything to add.......send me the link so I can add it. Let's have a great Darwin Week!!

D

Letting Go Of God (Song)

How to Discredit the Theory of Evolution (Not Really)

This is just hilarious because it is the same inane, non-sensical and illogical debating points/tactics that creationists use.

Enjoy,
D

Reposted From: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=wright_29_2

How to Discredit the Theory of Evolution Advice for believer Christian Wright

CHRISTIAN WRIGHT

If ever you find yourself in a debate with an evolutionist, be aware that your opponent might attempt to seduce you with “facts” and “science.” He* will point toward a variety of “evidence,” and state that the community of “real” scientists around the globe overwhelmingly believes that the theory of evolution is a fact.

You must resist!

Instead, commit yourself fervently to spreading the truth of Creation—even though most evolutionists obviously don’t want to hear it. That’s okay. Remember that every minute you can keep an evolutionist busy in a debate is another minute in which he can’t be spewing his foul mistruths to those who might believe him. In that sense, even though it might appear to be a waste of time, you are, in fact, doing God’s work.

Of course, before you enter into this sort of discussion, it pays to be prepared. You have a duty to present the case for Creation in a sensible, logical manner. To that end, below are a few talking points that can help you achieve a resounding victory.

However, before we continue, a quick aside: there are some Christians who insist that Creation and evolution are somehow compatible, that they can coexist peacefully, side by side, in a melding of God and science. If you buy into that misconception, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But keep in mind that this view is akin to denouncing Genesis altogether, and, as a result, you will burn for eternity in the fire of a thousand suns.

Now that we have that unpleasantness out of the way, here are several rebuttals that will help you prove the case for Creation.

• Point out that evolution is just a theory.

This will really upset your opponent and throw him off balance. He will respond by saying that the word theory as it is defined in the field of science is quite different than the everyday usage of the word. Ridicule this foolish rationalization by asking if the word dinosaur has two different meanings. Say that, as far as you’re concerned, theory has the same meaning as guess or hunch. Would they call it a “theory” if it were really true?

• Mention Darwin’s deathbed conversion to Christianity.

Say that the father of evolution recanted everything. Say that he finally saw the light and realized that all of his work had been heresy. He accepted Christ and is now in the loving arms of God. Your opponent won’t like hearing these things, and he’ll deny them bitterly. He’ll say that this “conversion story” is nothing but an unfounded rumor that has circulated for a hundred years. But since evolutionists are so big on proving things, ask if he has any evidence to deny your claim. You’re right until he can prove you wrong.

• Insist that humans couldn’t have come from monkeys.

Evolutionists will agree with you on this one. They’ll say, instead, that man and monkeys came from a common apelike ancestor, but this ancestor wasn’t actually a monkey. To rebut this, all you have to do is whip out some pictures of these common ancestors. Anybody can plainly see that they are monkeys. They’re covered in hair! As a coup de grace, say that if we teach our children that they came from monkeys, they’ll act like monkeys. How could anyone argue in favor of children who behave like monkeys?

• Ask how life could arise from nothing.

Life just sprang up from the mud on its own? Poppycock! The only feasible explanation is a Creator. Any logical mind can see that. Your opponent will start ranting about something called “abiogenesis,” which, admittedly, isn’t easy to understand. But that’s a point in your favor! After all, isn’t the idea that God created everything much easier to follow? Of course it is! And that is all the proof you really need. At this point, if he still has his wits about him, he’ll likely say that the origin of life is a different topic—that evolution doesn’t concern itself with the beginnings of life, only the changes in the inherited traits in a population of organisms over time. Which means you can scorn him for being evasive.

• Claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Even if you don’t understand this particular law, it’s a good thing to throw into the conversation. If he attempts to explain how you’re wrong, just shake your head and say, “Good try, but I’m not buying it.”

• Remind him that a bacterium can’t turn into an elephant.

The theory of evolution includes something called “macroevolution,” which attempts to explain how new species can form from old ones. It claims that simple life-forms can turn into more complex life-forms, but it takes millions of years and involves all sorts of strange mutations. Imagine how ridiculous that is! This phenomenon has never been observed, and isn’t science about observation? Macroevolution is just too hard to comprehend, so how can it possibly be true?

• Question the gaps in the fossil record.

Ask him why scientists haven’t discovered transitional forms, especially fossils that prove the emergence of new species from old ones. Your evolutionist friend will say that you are wrong, that we have found examples of such fossils. Simply say, “Got one on you?” If he drags you to a computer and shows you a purported example, remind him that it would be easy for a trickster to create a fake fossil. In fact, this would be a good time to point out that God might have created all of these so-called fossils in an effort to test our faith.

• Turn the tables on him.

Make sure you call his beliefs “dogmatic” before he gets a chance to use that label on you.

• Cite the ultimate source of evidence: the Bible.

Tell him that all he has to do is read Genesis and he’ll see that God was behind all of Creation, not something called “evolution” with its voodoo systems of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest.” The truth is right there in scripture, available to anyone who is willing to read it with an open mind. Evolutionists might argue that there is a mountain of evidence in their favor, but remember that faith can move a mountain.

Christian Wright is the alter ego of an author and essayist living near Austin, Texas. While some might consider his religious views offensive, unwelcome, hypocritical, and possibly even oppressive, he feels that it is his sacred duty to share them with anyone who will listen—and many who won’t.