Why Creationists Say There’s No Proof

I pulled this from Failed Clone of God. Does anybody recognize the artist?

No proof!

64 Responses to “Why Creationists Say There’s No Proof”

  1. ericsan Says:

    This one is brilliant, too:

    Teach both theories

  2. bipolar2 Says:

    ** Laughter kills the spirit of gravity **

    The almighty lords of dualism: Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, God, and Allah are moral equivalents of comic book super-villains. And their pulp fiction enjoys fanatical cult followings.

    When Nietzsche said, “God is dead” he added a gloss — “the belief that belief in the Christian God is unbelievable.”

    Whatever it takes, do it. Parodies — satire — nasty cartoons and comix — sexual innuendo. Laugh at every stinking piety.

    Expose the christo-frauds. Take away their tax-exempt status.

    bipolar2
    copyright asserted 2007

  3. genius835 Says:

    The problem with this cartoon is that the largest portion of “creationists” believe in the theory of evolution. Even the Vatican has stated on numerous occasions that there is legitimate proof that evolution did occur. I can’t understand why atheists are so quick in insulting religion without any understanding of the religion.

  4. Ron Britton Says:

    “Genius”:

    You are completely wrong. A creationist is someone who believes that God poofed everything into existence. Creationists either believe in a young Earth of 6000 to 10,000 years old (these are YECs, or Young-Earth Creationists), or they grudgingly admit the true age of the Earth, but think that God poofed humans and/or all other life into existence (either by magic or by manipulating evolution) (These are OECs or Old-Earth Creationists.).

    Catholics and mainline Protestants believe in evolution. They believe that God created the Universe (via the Big Bang) and set up the laws so that the planets would form and life (including humans) would evolve. They are not creationists.

    I can’t understand why some Christians are so uptight that they think that every time an atheist makes a statement that he’s “insulting religion”.

  5. Brian Says:

    genius835,

    More than half of this country, 150 million people, living in 21st century America, think the universe is only 6,000 years old. They think that people rode dinosaurs in saddles. They think that the light we see from distant stars was created in route so as to only give the appearance of the universe being billions of years old. It took the Vatican how many centuries to acknowledge that Galileo was right? I hope what I am about to say will help you to understand atheists better: I insult religion because it insults my intelligence. I insult and ridicule religion because that seems to be the only language believers recognize. Rational discourse is not something creationists are skilled at. Critical thinking is beyond their capacity. Polite, courteous discourse is impossible. These people refuse to open their eyes, and if they harmed only themselves, I could live with it. These people are actively attempting to undermine my children’s education with their bronze age nonsense. They want their mythology codified and enshrined in all our schools, and as an added bonus, they also want to run our personal sex lives for us. They want women to stop being so gosh-darned uppity. They want gays to go away. They want every single one of us to live in a state of fear and anger, all in the service of their imaginary god. Perhaps you don’t believe that I understand religion, that perhaps not all believers behave this way. Surely a few bad apples can’t ruin the whole basket, can they? But it is people, perhaps like yourself, warm and fuzzy in the thick blanket of religious moderation, that excuse people like Falwell, Dobson, and any other extremist you can mention. I understand the claims made by these religions. I understand the arguments. I reject them wholly and completely. Atheists don’t attack religion for the hell of it. We do it because religious belief has infested human society, and cause too much misery, for long enough.

  6. Aaron Says:

    Word up, Brian.

  7. truebeliever Says:

    Somewhere I read:

    I submit that we are all atheists. There are many gods that you do not believe in. Once you understand why you reject the gods that you do reject, you will begin to understand why I reject yours.

    I wish I could give the author of that thought the credit that is due, but I don’t remember who it was. :(

  8. Stuart Says:

    There is no actual proof of evolution. It is quite easy to disproove evolution. Think about a single bacteria-like cell, which is suposedly the first life on earth. What part of that cell do you think is not necisary for survival and replication? The cell cannot survive and replicate without all of it’s componants. This can only mean that all of the componants of the cell had to come to be simontainiosly. (AKA “poof into existance”) Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs went extinct 65 through 100 milion years ago, but scientists have found soft dinosar tissue. If you think that soft tissue can last 100 milion years, that is because you can’t comprehend 100 milion years, or you don’t understand decomposition. Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which states that all mater is moving twards entropy. Evolutionists say, “Give this matter a whole lot of time, and it will organize it’s self.” Any amount of logic will tell you that increasing the time will only increase the entropy.

  9. Stuart Says:

    Evolution is not a theory of science. It is a religion.

  10. Brian Says:

    Stuart,

    I am responding to you under the assumption that you really meant what you wrote, and are not “playing dumb”, you merely are dumb.

    I imagine you’ve not perused this site (or others like it) in anything other than a cursory manner, otherwise you might have seen repeated over and over logical, sound objections to the tired, worn-out litany of complaints you’ve trotted out for us to ridicule. Not only would you have not felt the need to waste your time and ours, but you might have “simontainiosly” learned something new about biology and the history of this planet. No, you saw a cartoon that pushed your buttons and you just couldn’t help yourself, could you?

    I’m not interested in rehashing Discovery Institute talking points, or attempting to distill the basic concepts of biology for you into a blog post. I would simply point out that there is no proof for God, there never has been and there never will be. You object to evolution because it contradicts your precious goddamned Bible, your sacred “Word of God”, your document of death and misery that has plagued humanity for far too long. You are smart enough to use a computer, so I charitably assume you are smart enough to absorb some basic fundamentals of science, but you simply choose not to as it would conflict with your moronic beliefs.

    I’m sorry (OK….not really) if you find this response unconvincing, perhaps even a bit insulting. I really don’t care. I’m tired of religious dullards like yourself lowering our species’ collective intelligence, so I don’t mind telling you to piss off, and take your evil, vile, malevolent, bloodthirsty, sinister, homophobic, sadistic, ogre of a god with you.

  11. Stuart is an idiot Says:

    Stuart, you sir are a grade A idiot regurgitating shit you can’t possibly understand if you think “componants” is spelled that way. (Hint: try not saying it with a GW accent and you will realize there is an e there.)

    1) The single cell “bacteria like” organism is made up of proteins and doesn’t procreate with another such creature. It splits. Furthermore the point you are trying to make is bullshit. The Sun takes the first element of the periodic table and through fusion turns it into the next, and again for the next. Most of the elements are created this way. Then you get to proteins and they build together again to make more and more complex systems. Legos to your little brain.

    2) The ’tissue’ that is left behind in fossils isn’t the original tissue genius. It is the salt (and other mineral) deposits.

    3) The tired old argument of the 2nd law from someone who doesn’t understand basic math, much less physics. The 2nd law only applies to closed systems which the Earth isn’t, and it has to do with a simultaneous progression towards 0 kelvin, again, not the right context for your little argument.

    4) Then you go on to mis-state what evolutionists say and think by stating the 747 gambit, that if given enough time a 747 would rebuild itself from a scrap heap. Again you have no knowledge of science whatsoever. Wow, big surprise from someone who believes in an old man in the sky who loves you but send his son as a human sacrifice. Someone who tells you to mutilate children’s genitals, someone who tells you you must stone disobedient children to death, hate people for their sexuality, oh yeah, and will burn your ass in fire forever for not recognizing how perfect perfect perfect he is.

    Good arguments. This is what happens when you don’t use your head. My parents were ministers so obviously evolution does work as I am quite a bit smarter then they are. :p

  12. Woobie Says:

    I think everyone in this “Evolution” vs “Creationist” argument is grabbing the baseball bat a little too far up the handle… Mendelian Genetics is something we can all grasp, is it not…? Two parents who have XX and XY characteristics will have a greater chance of having offspring with XX characteristics than XY and so on… If Evolutionists want to play dice, why not argue it that way… and yes, God does roll dice…

  13. Bunkie Says:

    Woobie
    “Two parents who have XX and XY characteristics…” All this time I thought that only the female parent would have XX characteristics and only the male parent will have the XY characteristics. Offspring would then have a shot at being XX, XX, YX or YX. Seems equal.

    “and yes, God does roll dice…” I thought god didn’t approve of gambling?

  14. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I think Woobie is asserting that all genes (for example this subset of XX and XY) just sort of mix up in a pool of sludge and a random (God rolls some dice, I guess) pair emerge from it. So by his logic, since you have three X’s and one Y, there should be a higher chances of the X’s bonding together.

    Except that’s not how it works since both the egg and sperm each only contain HALF of the parent’s genome, so the only possible combinations are Mother-X, Father-X and Mother-X, Father-Y. Roughly 50%. As seen on teevee. And in real life.

    Gender is not a recessive trait. lol.

    And to think for centuries men used to blame their wives for not “giving them a son” when it was their own damn fault. :-)

  15. Parrotlover77 Says:

    * Roughly 50% because there are very rare cases of combinations like XXY, and so on.

  16. Ron Britton Says:

    Actually, there are roughly 3% to 5% more boys born than girls. My recollection is that the male sperm swim faster. I don’t know if that is still the favored explanation.

  17. koyote ken Says:

    Stuart,

    “There is no actual proof of evolution”. Really? Try reading a book sometime, moron. (other than your precious Bible). Biological Evolution is one of the most rock-hard, bullet-proof theories that exists today. Hundreds of thousands of experimental proofs to its credit over the last 140 years with more and more evidensed each day. Science will (thankfully) continue to prove your ignorance for years to come. Unfortunately, people of reason and science need to continue fighting against ignorant, unevolved robots like yourself.

    It never ceases to amaze me that we ARE STILL debating the Scopes Monkey Trial in the 21st. century. Enjoy your fairy tales. But keep them to yourself. It’s when fundies like you kill their own children by offering nothing but “prayer” when science could have easily saved them that I get pissed. Screw you and your stupidity; I’m starting to fight back.

  18. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Ron – Interesting. Didn’t know that! I thought it was more like a 1% difference — basically just the amount of difference expected when flipping a coin X number of times. Fascinating. I wonder what the modern explanation is, myself now! I’ll have to do some research.

    Anyway, the origianl point still stands as a far cry from the 4:1 ratio Woobie was asserting would be true if not for God’s magical gender dice.

  19. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Here’s an intersting article I just found on the google about that very topic. Fascinating stuff.

  20. Ron Britton Says:

    Parrotlover:

    That was an interesting article, but it didn’t give a reason for the higher number of boys. Whatever the physical mechanism, the reason for the disparity is almost certainly evolution. As the article said, men are the weaker sex. Nature apparently makes up for that not by making men stronger but by making more of them.

    Also notice that older mothers had fewer boys. That is almost certainly evolution as well. In a population where women are reproducing late, that would increase the likelihood of there being enough women in future generations to perpetuate the species.

    The most “amusing” part of the article (in that the logic parallels American fundies) is the Chinese response to their disparity (which, BTW, is probably due to infanticide):

    “The numbers mean that some people will never have their needs for a spouse met, so they move into dangerous territory.”

    Presumably that means they’ll turn gay. It’s just like the American fundies seem to think that all men are fragile heterosexuals. All it takes is one exposure to gay porn or one gay guy in their army barracks to turn the whole lot.

  21. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I didn’t get that meaning from that article. I took “dangerous territory” as that they may take extreme measures to get a mate, like murdering the husband of somebody they were infatuated with as an extreme example. Or perhaps they meant there may be dangerous psychological damage to those who never find love. But I guess the wording was so ambiguous anything could be read into it, really.

    Although I’m sure fundies fear that outcome, I don’t know if that would happen necessarily with humanity. I can say for myself that if there was literally not enough women and I didn’t have one, I’d probably just get to know my hand and internet pr0n a little better. I don’t see myself switch hitting. lol

    But that’s a reasonable evolutionary explanation for homosexuality and bisexuality. If you can’t find a mate due to less population and you have physical and emotional pressures that need to be met, that makes perfect sense. It doesn’t preclude you (especially for humans) from spreading your seed and passing the trait onto the next generation.

    I’ll have to look more information up again when I’m not wasting time at work. lol And to think I never would have known this if I hadn’t visited Bay Of Fundie. This site turns into a science class every once in a while. :-)

  22. Parrotlover77 Says:

    But then again, homosexuality is rampant in prison, although some speculate it’s more of a “control” thing than a physical needs thing. But none the less, in an all male populous, homosexuality (at least physical homosexuality, as opposed to “relationships”) certainly does emerge for a subset of the population.

  23. Ron Britton Says:

    Homosexuality in prison (aside from control) is because there is absolutely no other option. In an open population, things such as prostitution would pick up the slack. There would probably also be more marital infidelity. We are already prone to that as a species.

  24. windarr Says:

    This is in reply to the illogical rantings of coy-oat kenn:

    “There is no actual proof of creation”. Really? Try reading a genetics book sometime (other than your precious Origin of Species – wheich never once mentioned the O of S). Creation science is one of the most rock-hard, bullit-proof models that exist today. Hundreds of thousands of experimental evidences point to its credit over the last 100 years with more and more evidensed each day. Creation science will (thankfully) continue to prove your ignorance for decades to come. Unfortunately, people of reason and science need to continue fighting against ignorant, unevolved darwinian robots like yourself.
    It never ceases to amaze me that we ARE STILL debating the Scopes Monkey Trial in the 21st. century. Enjoy your darwinian fairy tales. But keep them to yourself. Secular fundies like you censor extra-biblical models of origins in our taxpayer-paid public schools. It is sad that children are taught they came from hydrogen.

  25. Ron Britton Says:

    Windbag:

    Try reading a genetics book sometime (other than your precious Origin of Species – wheich never once mentioned the O of S).

    Really? You obviously haven’t read Origin of Species. It is not a genetics book, a science that was unknown in Darwin’s time. However, the book does indeed explain how species evolve. In any event, that book is quite old. Try reading any of the thousands of evolution books that have been published since. They do an even better job of explaining the origin of species. Apparently you need a remedial education in this department.

    Creation science is one of the most rock-hard, bullit-proof models that exist today.

    Please explain what “creation science” is. What are its theories, and what is the overall model of the origin of species that it proposes?

    Hundreds of thousands of experimental evidences point to its credit over the last 100 years with more and more evidensed each day.

    Please provide a few examples of these.

    Creation science will (thankfully) continue to prove your ignorance for decades to come.

    The only ignorance creation science has demonstrated to date is your own.

    Unfortunately, people of reason and science need to continue fighting against ignorant, unevolved darwinian robots like yourself.

    You seem to be confused. People of reason and science do not use the Bible as a science textbook.

    It never ceases to amaze me that we ARE STILL debating the Scopes Monkey Trial in the 21st. century.

    Finally! Something we can agree on, although I am surprised that you recognize that this is the 21st century.

    Enjoy your darwinian fairy tales.

    Nobody around here has any Darwinian fairy tales. Evolutionary theory moved beyond Darwin decades ago.

    Secular fundies like you censor extra-biblical models of origins in our taxpayer-paid public schools.

    “Secular fundies” are extremely rare. I covered that topic in an article a few months ago. Use the search function to find it (that is, if you’re capable of doing any actual research yourself).

    Please tell us more about these extra-biblical models of origins. I’m afraid I’m the product of taxpayer-paid public schools. Also please provide proof that these models are being censored from the schools. Of course, in order to prove this point, you must first demonstrate that these extra-biblical models are in fact legitimate science. If they aren’t legitimate science, that’s the reason they aren’t taught in the schools.

    It is sad that children are taught they came from hydrogen.

    That’s a new one on me. Please tell me how this is supposed to work. I guess my public education failed to tell me that particular “lie”.

  26. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Well, Ron, if you go back in time long enough, before heavier elements were created by stars, all (most) atomic matter in the universe was, indeed, hydrogen. So, if you wanted to track back in time where the matter in your body came from, sure… it was once probably mostly all hydrogen. This excludes various exotic particles and energy which surely figured into the equation somewhere along the line.

    Not sure how that relates to speciation, though…

  27. Ron Britton Says:

    if you go back in time long enough, before heavier elements were created by stars, all (most) atomic matter in the universe was, indeed, hydrogen.

    That actually was my guess, but it seems pretty absurd to say that we’re teaching kids that life started with hydrogen. Life started with the first organic molecules, which didn’t appear on Earth until about 11 billion years after the Big Bang. Kind of a stretch to claim that hydrogen was the immediate precursor to life.

    That’s like saying that your trip to the grocery store this morning started when our ancestors migrated out of Africa.

  28. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Lol exactly. He’s probably upset that children are taught that stars are factories for heavier elements and since that’s a sciencey topic he doesn’t like, it MUST be a part of evolution!

  29. Zandovise Says:

    Please read “The Creation-Evolution Controversy” by Dr. R. L. Wysong, a scientist. It throws new light on evolution and how it was used by the Creator to initiate life. And, worst-of-all, it uses SCIENCE to prove INTELLGENT DESIGN! Now, let the flames begin . . .

  30. Ron Britton Says:

    Zandovise:

    No, I am not going to read your silly book. This comes up every few months. So you’re telling me that in all of the millions of pages of creationist propaganda on the Web, nobody has reproduced his claims? Because everywhere I go, and I do mean every single creationist web page that I have ever seen, I see the same tired, old, and long-disproved creationist claims.

    Yet somehow, this guy has figured it all out, with proof and everything, yet he keeps all of the details secret in his book. The only people who are allowed to see the proof are those who read the book. And those people are sworn to secrecy, never to reveal the Truths that have been revealed to them.

    So, no, I am not going to go off on some wild goose chase to read your silly book.

    If you have any real proof of creationism, post it here (or elsewhere on the web and give us the link).

  31. Brian Says:

    Zandovise,

    In order for any of us to even begin to consider your precious “intelligent design” scheme, you must first persuade us that there is even a designer somewhere out there in the first place. It seems to me that any argument about religion is rendered moot once one has determined that the existence of a god is extraordinarily unlikely. Your position on the supposed impossibility of life arising and diversifying naturally is only a tactic to prop up and defend the absurd claim that a god does in fact exist.

    That really is the root of all this evil, isn’t it? Creationism, threats of eternal damnation, promises of eternal redemption from some imaginary sin—they’re all part of the greatest scam in human history, and you’re credulous enough to swallow it whole. You buy into bogus ideas like ID because you think it reinforces your comforting fantasy about a god, which you cling to ferociously because to do otherwise would force you to consider your own mortality and eventual oblivion. You won’t open your mind to all that science and reason has to offer because you are afraid of what you might give up in the process.

    God is a man-made fiction. If you were really serious about advancing corny ideas about intelligent designers, you would be well-advised to begin with the designer. Come up with something irrefutable, something that theologians for millennia have failed to do. Once you’ve done that, then we can argue the merits of evolution and intelligent design.

  32. Zandovise Says:

    Hi Guys,

    Sworn to secrecy? Wow! Sorry to disappoint, however, there is no “secret society.” I picked it up a the local shop for $12.95. Very interesting that when your arguments are disputed you have to resort to outright lies. I mean anyone can order the book, it is ISBN: 0-918112-01-X or 0-918112-02-8 and published by Inquery Press. Anyone can order it.

    I’ll admit that it is a bit challenging to read through if you haven’t had a class or two of chemistry, biology or physics. The evidence is sourced well and as I was a skeptic when I started the book, by the end I could no longer refute it. I can tell by your reactions and the length of such, that you are very, very insecure about this threat to the Darwinist fantasy, however, the two are compatible. It just takes an open mind.

    I would encourage you to read it so you know both sides of the argument. That way you can prove your points also. Here is a very simple question: How can an ORGANISM as complex as a single-cell, a SINGLE-CELL suddenly arise out of simple INORGANIC atoms?

  33. Ron Britton Says:

    Zandovise:

    I am not in the slightest insecure. The length of my answer was to try to explain to people like you who keep coming by here claiming to have the answers. Put up or shut up.

    If you were capable of comprehending written English, you would have understood what I wrote very clearly. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You have provided none.

  34. Zandovise Says:

    [Deleted by admin for violation of comment policy.]

  35. Parrotlover77 Says:

    How can an ORGANISM as complex as a single-cell, a SINGLE-CELL suddenly arise out of simple INORGANIC atoms?

    The google tells me
    http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=the%20first%20cells

    More than one theory. Now go outside and play.

  36. Zandovise Says:

    OK. So we have a theory on the origin of cells regarding the assembly and combination of polynucleotides. Sounds nice. One little flaw, organic cell particles orbit to the LEFT while inorganic particles orbit to the RIGHT. This is why your body absorbes vitamin C more efficiently from an orange than a pill. The pill is a chemical combination of inorganic molecules while the orange is organic. You absorb 100% of the orange and only about 20% of the chemical equivalent. Inorganic atoms cannot suddenly turn organic. If this were true, how come science cannot duplicate it under any circumstances?

  37. Ron Britton Says:

    As I told you in my post above, every single creationist claim has been thoroughly debunked! If this chirality argument is your idea of some new secret information that’s available in that book, I refer you again to what I wrote about above. I don’t need to read your silly book; I’ve already seen everything it says on the web.

    If you’d learn how to use the internet as a research tool, you would have easily been able to find out that the chirality argument is nonsense. The topic is explained in this TalkOrigins article.

    Please double-check your facts before embarrassing yourself yet again.

    P.S. The comment policy is explained on the About page. It explains why I’ve been deleting your more retarded comments.

  38. Zandovise Says:

    Good article! Again we run into that old problem of “may have” and “probably” and yet man kind still cannot duplicate them experimentally. Now, we can find a few serine forms that can MIMIC the process, yet they are still INORGANIC chains, not functioning, reproducing life. The right handed bacteria use the right orbitals for FUNCTIONS not ESSENTIAL to LIFE.

  39. Zandovise Says:

    All right, read your “About” page. This is your site so I can respect that. Good policy. Nice discussing with you, even if it does get a bit heated. A good argument makes both sides think and you are correct about producing evidence. This will be a challenge, but I have to try! :)

  40. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Zandovise – Based on your rants here, I’m pretty sure “organic” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    Look it up.

  41. Sarah Says:

    Ok…just reading this pissed me off so here I go: FUNDIES, GET A F—ING CLUE!

    You can reference all the ID (creation) books you want…but don’t you think that that kind of scientific breakthrough would at the very least make the news? I mean, if someone had REALLY proved ID, wouldn’t all the churches be jumping onto it instantly (as they do with everything, possible believers, liberals, money, etc) and shoving it into the faces of the scientists?

    You don’t need half a brain to use simple logic such as this.

    Seriously…if ID had been proven, would there still be a so called ‘controversy’ (Although it’s only been given that name because people are too thick-skulled to give up their own personal beliefs to bother picking up a textbook and, GOD FORBID, actually learn something!)

    Evolution has holes as do most scientific theories (We can never truly recreate things in a lab as they were way back when…and no, we can’t fill in every single friggin gap in the fossil record..but then again, we really don’t need to). Scientists don’t claim anything as fact, but as a method that WORKS. If evolution did not work, it would have been tossed out decades ago (especially if all the breakthroughs in genetics didn’t link up). Scientists simply do not keep theories that don’t fit the scientific method, previous properly tested theories, and discoveries made in the future…that is how SCIENCE works.

    However, the only reason creationism has survived for so long is due to ignorance, which unfortunately for us, spreads a lot faster than knowledge.

    Well I’m done for the night!

  42. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Although possibly technically correct, I’m not sure I like the “evolutions has holes like…” statement, Sarah. It sort of feeds into the fundies wet dreams of naturalists admitting evolution was a mistake. I think probably a better way of wording it is, “of course the current working theories of evolution does not yet explain every nuance of evolution.” Something like that. Remember many fundies are simply quote miners and that quote is ripe for the mining! Who needs context when you it sounds so much worse out of context!!!?

  43. Sarah Says:

    Ah, sorry Parrot, what I meant is that we can’t properly recreate every single fossil that didn’t show up in the record and such. I didn’t mean holes as in the theory itself. Probably should have made that clearer.

    If they ever do quote mine me, I shall tell them to reread it and put it in context and if they fail to do so, I’ll advise them to retake their basic high school English class. ^^

  44. Zandovise Says:

    Hi Parrotlover77,

    Thought I’d swing by here again and see what you know-nothings were up to. You must be an attorney as you have to change the meaning of “organic” to fit your definitions to win the argument. For you I have the definition of organic from the Merriam Webster Dictionary of 1946, before persons like you decided to “expand” the meaning to fit your limited perspective.

    Organic: 1. Of or pertaining to an organ or a system of organs; specif., pertaining to the internal organs of the body (not something political). 2. Having a systematic co-ordination; organized (no this is not in the evolutionary sense). 3. Pertaining to, or derived from, living organisms, exhibiting characters peculiar to living organisms. (uh-oh!) 4. Pertaining to or designating that branch of chemistry which treats the compounds of carbon (the basis of life).

    Your arguments on this site are not actually to prove evolution. Your arguments are to deny Christianity. This is your fundamental flaw, you see, we Hindus, along with Buddhists, Muslims, Shintos and Jews also believe in intelligent design. Science, real, honest science proves it. You can twist your arguments all around, however, you cannot prove evolution and still man cannot create a living organism from inorganic material. I doubt any of you possess even an associates degree in biology or chemical biology. My source is also Hindu, posseses a Ph.D. in Biological Chemistry and believes in Intelligent Design. Scary, huh?

    Have a nice day!

  45. Parrotlover77 Says:

    It may come to surpise you that Merriam Webster is not a biology textbook.

  46. Ron Britton Says:

    I don’t know what Zandovise thinks he’s proving with his comment. Definition 4 is the correct definition in this context, and it has been for well over a hundred years. Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon. That’s how it is used in all of the above comments, at least by everybody but him.

  47. J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Says:

    Sorry Zandovise, that just won’t cut it here.You actually have to provide proof here to support (Un)Intelligent Design.Those EVIL-utionists always demanding proof!Can’t they ever learn to put blind faith in something.

    And sorry. Buddhists!I’m pretty sure that they don’t care how the world began.

  48. Prove This Wrong Says:

    There are plenty of reasons for discredting evolution, it is a religion and certainly not scientific fact.

    Amongst many of the reasons argued by the evolutionists in this discussion (many of which just said read an evolution book), someone tried to argue that the elements were formed as the sun’s hydrogen atoms performed fusion and devolped the next element in the periodic table.

    it has been scientifically proven that fusion from hyrdogen and its following elements cannot progress beyond iron (Fe).

    evolutionists, the burden of proof is on you. otherwise, i can’t understand why we are still led to believe a theory of which every single scrap of “proof” and “evidence” has been scientifically discredited

  49. Ron Britton Says:

    Wrong:

    Apparently you didn’t see the cartoon at the top of this page.

  50. Another Steve Says:

    Hi “Prove This Wrong”

    Typical fundie half information. You know enough about fusion to know that there is an “Iron line” above which standard fusion can’t take place. If you know about the “Iron line” I find it hard to believe that you don’t know about little hard to notice events such as super nova.

  51. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Steve – All of that is moot anyway because he’s using physics (incorrectly) to descredit biology. Talking about the “iron line” to disprove evolution makes about as much sense as using the bible to disprove… oh, wait… nevermind.

  52. Another Steve Says:

    Parrotlover77

    Sorry, this is sort of a hot button issue for me. I find the whole notion of nuclear synthesis to be one of the most beautifully elegant components of modern cosmology. The fact that it plays right into radiometric dating (and many other powerful pieces of evidence for a naturalistic origin of the universe) only makes the picture clearer as far as I’m concerned.

    Beyond your (humorous and correct) observation, I’ll point out that “Prove This Wrong” is almost certainty one of the typical post and run fundie kooks. He’s gone never to come back, and arguing with his ilk is a waste of electrons.

    That said: It felt good for a minute there.

    Cheers

  53. Ron Britton Says:

    It’s beneficial to refute their claims, even though the original poster will never see it. Other people will read it and wonder. I had never heard of the iron line. I surprised that they’re still able to come up with claims I haven’t heard yet.

  54. Parrotlover77 Says:

    It doesn’t surprise me so much. When everything they claim is thoroughly refuted by even lay-people such as myself, out of necessity they have to find something new that might trip some of us up for a few minutes since it’s outside our sphere of knowledge. Thankfully, in this case, we had Another Steve to quickly and succinctly discredit the bogus garbage spewed forth by the fundie. My dumb joke didn’t contribute anything to the argument, but it felt good to post it, never-the-less. :-D

  55. Sue Blue Says:

    Hi, all – I’ve been gone awhile (busy with school). It’s good to be back! It’s especially good to see the fine, well-thought-out arguments made for reason and science by Ron, Brian, Parrotlover, Sarah and others. And it always gets my fingers itching to type when I read the jaw-droppingly moronic fundie posts!

    For instance, this “Zandovise”. Better spelling and punctuation than some fundies, but still – WTF?? “Organic cell particles spin to the left, while inorganic particles spin to the right” – ?!!? Okay, I just finished a majors Biology course (2 years of the subject), and nowhere did I ever hear of, much less see, any spinning “cell particles”. Organelles of cells do move around in the cytoplasm (visibly) but by no stretch of the imagination can they be said to spin. No electron microscopy that I’m aware of has revealed any spinning particles in any cell. Are you talking about ATPase in the electron transport chain, Zandovise? It’s a rotary “motor” that uses the hydrogen ion gradient in the mitochondrial matrix to power ATP production. Or maybe you’re talking about electrons. Well, electrons don’t really “orbit” the atomic nucleus – it’s more of a cloud – so they’re not “spinning”. I’m assuming everyone who’s taken inorganic chemistry or elementary physics knows that. Real courses from real schools, that is – not creationist home-school classes or Liberty University crap.

    Sorry about the diatribe – I just couldn’t resist. I just can’t get over what passes for “education” in some circles these days.

  56. Sue Blue Says:

    To add to the above – my husband has just informed me that – since nuclear fusion could not have formed the heavier elements, and supernovae are just optical illusions misinterpreted by astronomers and physicists – all the heavier elements beyond Fe must have been farted out of the ass of God. This is the only explanation, according to the Flip Wilson Church of What’s Happening Now. Word.

  57. Another Steve Says:

    Sue Blue

    Not only are supernovae optical illusions, they are also: radio, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray, and gamma-ray illusions as well. What a clever god the fundies worship!

    Or, maybe the devil makes supernovae to make us doubt our faith.

    When I talk to fundies, I’m frequently reminded of the Charlie Brown comic where his kite is up in the tree, and he’s got his head down against it’s trunk. The thought bubble over his head is filled with scribbling.

  58. Bart v.d. M. Says:

    And thus it is that with cunning evil Satan tried to destroy the faith of the faithful and seduce the holy man into godless deeds, and he destroyed the stars also.
    —Hypotheticallenisis 1:16

    Wow, if the devil creating supernovae isn’t even mentioned in the Bible, I guess it shrinks into nothingness compared to the fact that he is trying to rob our faith from us, he manages so well! I’m convinced now! The Bible is the only truth!

    On a less sarcastic note, Sue Blue:

    I think Zandovise refers to the right-handedness (they are right-, not left-handed) in the helical structure of the chain of amino-acids a protein consists of (the protein’s secondary structure, the alpha-helix). Pretty weird he calls that an ‘orbit’ because it’s actually more like a spiral, but it’s the only logical explanation I can find.

    Now, I don’t know enough about the advantages of right versus left-handed proteins, but I think the fact that organic molecules (except for bacteria apparently) solely consist of the right-handed ones is a pretty neat example of evolution. If you want your cell to function properly you don’t want anything from outside messing it up, so it’s logically to your advantage to have a clear distinction between particles that belong to the cell and particles that don’t. Therefore, any cell that had less of such a distinction, by having more relatively much left-handed particles and only a little bit more right-handed ones, are easily screwed by a cut in the membrane, and they won’t end up being selected by nature. In the end, because micro-evolution CAN be extended to macro-evolution, you only have right-handed molecules left, pardon the pun.

    It’s only logical.

    (Marvel at my cunningness, I have tricked the fundies by spouting a fake Bible verse into seeing the evidence for evolution! Mwuhahaha!)

  59. Another Steve Says:

    We’re forgetting the rules of fundie evidence. Remember before any document can be accepted as part of the official cannon of made-up, wishful thinking it must declare divine inspiration…

    This thread officially claims divine inspiration.

  60. Bart v.d. M. Says:

    While we’re talking about divine inspiration, did you know that spiritual experiences can be induced by Temporal Lobe Epilepsy? It somehow relates to the molecule dimethyltreptamine, which has been shown to give you a divine feel an hallucinations.

    So there’s too probable explanations for Jesus’ behavior around now: he either outrightly lied or he had a disease in his head.

  61. Parrotlover77 Says:

    jesus was a lucky bastard. i had (or have since it could recur at any time despite being seizure free for 20 years) temporal lobe complex partial seizures. it was frightening as hell. so traumatic were my hallucinations that it scared me from ever doing drugs ever (not a bad thing) because i was worried about having another seizurific bad trip!

    i can buy that explanation thoguh. if i was born 100 years ago, i would have been thought to be possessed. the experience is very real…

  62. Sue Blue Says:

    Bart – you could be right about Zandovise’s intent with the “spin” thing, but he’s too vague and just comes off as crazy. It’s my understanding that the alpha helix, the beta-pleated sheet, as well as the tertiary and quaternary protein structures, are the result of the molecular bond angles between the individual amino acids, not any form of magical intervention like Zandovise is implying. Then there’s the whole “isn’t it wonderful that this system (whatever the system may be) just happens to work out so well?” line of thinking. I’m reminded of a biology teacher of mine who, at the end of one class, chirped out something about “it’s just so cool that our planet just happens to have the right conditions for life”. I cringed, but said “Couldn’t it just be that life evolved to fit the conditions, not the other way around?”

    PL – that must have been scary! I once saw eyes staring out at me from way up in a tree (human eyes) at an impossible angle. Scared the hell out of me; I thought it had to be some sort of supernatural monster. Turned out it was just an optical illusion caused by the pattern of light and leaves, but it had me going for awhile. I can’t imagine how scary it would be to suffer from hallucinations – especially if you don’t know they are hallucinations.

    Some of my family are Seventh-Day Adventists. The Adventists’ founder was a woman, Ellen G. White, who was whacked on the head by a rock as a child, spent time in a coma, and claimed to have visions of Christ after she recovered. These days she would have been diagnosed with brain damage, but back in the 1840s, it was chalked up to the divine – and there you are.

  63. RC Says:

    Kinda off topic…

    sorry to be a spelling nazi, but it’s dimethyltryptamine , not dimethyltreptamine.

    DMT, for short. The stuff occurs naturally in all kinds of organic material, as well as in the brain in a smallish amount. It doesn’t take much of this stuff to induce strong hallucinations, and in reality, it’s the cause of near death experiences. It can be injected or smoked, and the experience is reported to be something like “load universe into cannon, aim at brain, fire”

    More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine

    If we could get over our stupid puritanical drug law BS, and actually research psychedelics and other psychoactive substances, we might actually unlock many secrets of the brain and neurochemistry. And maybe, finally, remove the God complex from our species for good.

    Thanks….

  64. Mr. Vorhias Says:

    Dear “Prove This Wrong.”

    SOURCE OR GTFO.

    Thank you.