Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[WingsOfEagles07]

Response:

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

This is what the site has said, and Like i said before in my paragraph, you all rely on others for information and have belief in it with no basis. Seems Logical (Sarcasm).

Okay Note, Richard Dawkins is one of the popular Evolutionists now this information I posted about his debate was in 1997, and He did not know the answer, so he did not know this, whenever the answer to this question was proved ("supposively") 2 years before time the earliest being 1995. Seems odd and unreasonable to make such a claim.

As to the question of the human tailbone, anatomists tell us that the tailbone serves a very important function in the human physiology. The coccyx (tailbone) is the point of insertion of several muscles and ligaments including the one which allows man to walk completely upright. Without a tailbone, people could not walk in a completely upright manner, dance a ballet, perform gymnastics, or stroll down the street with their arm around their spouse. Hardly a useless, leftover, vestigial feature! The human body is designed for maximum versatility. It is far more versatile than the body of any other creature. What other animal can perform the range of movement required for activities as diverse as ice-skating, pearl diving, skiing, and gymnastics. This range of movement would be impossible without the tailbone.

 

[Rasta]

This is what the site has said, and Like i said before in my paragraph, you all rely on others for information and have belief in it with no basis.

This coming from the guy who believes in claims made by men who herded sheep in the bronze age.

Okay Note, Richard Dawkins is one of the popular Evolutionists now this information I posted about his debate was in 1997, and He did not know the answer, so he did not know this, whenever the answer to this question was proved ("supposively") 2 years before time the earliest being 1995. Seems odd and unreasonable to make such a claim.

The video is a hoax, created by liars who seek to support their position through deciet.

As to the question of the human tailbone, anatomists tell us that the tailbone serves a very important function in the human physiology. The coccyx (tailbone) is the point of insertion of several muscles and ligaments including the one which allows man to walk completely upright. Without a tailbone, people could not walk in a completely upright manner, dance a ballet, perform gymnastics, or stroll down the street with their arm around their spouse. Hardly a useless, leftover, vestigial feature! The human body is designed for maximum versatility. It is far more versatile than the body of any other creature. What other animal can perform the range of movement required for activities as diverse as ice-skating, pearl diving, skiing, and gymnastics. This range of movement would be impossible without the tailbone.

So you should thank all of your ancestors that had tails.

 

[Super_Rational]

1.)Have you forgotten Christians run on faith?

I understand faith, & this where atheists depart from christians. Christians want to believe it without evidence. Atheists think it is dishonest to do so & contradictory to how we normally behave when asked to believe something without good reason (evidence).

Where is the evidence that God does not exist?

Call it "evidence" if you will, but it's purely the lack of evidence for a god plus good natural explanations for phenomena behind why I am an atheist.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Ummm, no, Show me the proof that we had tails..

 

[2 King]

Rasta, I asked:

Do you doubt that the Gospels are valid?

You replied:

Yes.

We know they were written by eyewitnesses because they speak in the first person, recounting the events, describing accurately events verified by history related to the time of the gospels, etc.

 

[Rasta]

Ummm, no, Show me the proof that we had tails..

I didn't say we had tails. You need to pay attention to detail young one. Perhaps that explains your current position?

 

[Super_Rational]

Ummm, no, Show me the proof that we had tails..

Oh boy...Humans never had tails. Key word is humans.

 

[Rasta]

We know they were written by eyewitnesses because they speak in the first person, recounting the events, describing accurately events verified by history related to the time of the gospels, etc.

False. This is not knowledge. This is a belief. The facts suggest otherwise.

 

[2 King]

False. This is not knowledge. This is a belief. The facts suggest otherwise.

Blind man's bluff? You should study this before you erringly make your assertions. I can tell that you have not seriously looked into the issue. Herod is real, the two high priests, etc., verified in history. Now, I have given you evidence consistent with what you required, and yet you reject it.

 

[Super_Rational]

False. This is not knowledge. This is a belief. The facts suggest otherwise.

Should someone queue Josesphus & the others?

 

[Rasta]

Blind man's bluff? You should study this before you erringly make your assertions. I can tell that you have not seriously looked into the issue.

No, I assure you I have. In depth. I would love to "go there".

Herod is real, the two high priests, etc., verified in history.

I'll give you Herod. Which two high priests do you reffer to?

Now, I have given you evidence consistent with what you required, and yet you reject it.

So if I make up a story, and I insert President Obama's name into it, will my story become true in 2,000 years?

 

[Rasta]

Should someone queue Josesphus & the others?

If you want, sure.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Human tails and fairy tales





Irvin W of Manitoba, Canada was unsettled by a report he encountered from the notorious anti-creationist TalkOrigins website, about humans with tails—movable tails allegedly replete with vertebrae and muscles. Andrew Lamb replies.

How do you respond to people that try to prove human evolution by their tailbones that protrude from the backside. At the following URL: [deleted in accordance with CMI feedback rules] there is an x-ray of a baby with a mutated tailbone that is apparently longer than a normal spine. This x-ray does not really show what part is visible protruding from the body but is there a good rebuttal for this argument? The picture of the "Whale leg" bones on this page does not seem to me to be evidence because the bones could have come from some other animal while the picture of the dolphin with flippers can be easily shown to be a non information gaining mutation.​

Dear Irvin
Thank you for your email of 27 August, submitted via our website.

How do you respond to people that try to prove human evolution by their tailbones that protrude from the backside. At the following URL: [deleted in accordance with CMI feedback rules]​

Much of the material on the TalkOrigins website is either woefully out-of-date, or severely misleading, or both. For a typical example, see our article Evolution by fiat or Faith, which deals with a meretricious century-old claim about speciation in evening primroses. The particular webpage1 you referred to is a case in point, having not merely interpretations with which we disagree, but information that is out of date, and facts that are presented in such a way as to almost certainly leave the reader with a wrong impression. TalkOrigins is a source of many of the spurious objections that witnessing creationists continually encounter. As one put it, most evolutionists use the TalkOrigins website as their ‘Bible’. Creationist refutations of many of their claims are available on theformer atheist TrueOriginshttp://creation.com/redirect.php?http://www.TrueOrigin.org website.

there is an x-ray of a baby with a mutated tailbone that is apparently longer than a normal spine.​

In fact that x-ray shows a normal healthy spine, as admitted in the original research paper by Bar-Maor et al. from which that x-ray image (Figure 3 in the paper) was taken. Doubtless other readers of that webpage will have gained the same incorrect impression that you (and I, at first) got, namely that there exist people whose coccyxes (or ‘tailbones’) are longer than normal and form the core of a protruding and movable appendage, i.e. a functioning tail. This turned out not to be the case. And as a modern embryology textbook notes, ‘Rarely a caudal appendage is found at birth. Such structures are of varied origin (some are teratomata); they practically never contain skeletal elements and are in no sense tails.’
Caudal appendages occur in around 1 to 3 people per thousand. Most consist of skin and fatty tissue, and are located 1.5 centimetres from the midline of the back. Many are removed surgically shortly after birth.
The Bar-Maor paper discusses three patients, all children:

• Child 2 was a three-month old baby, with a coccyx of three vertebrae, plus a soft caudal (lower back) appendage a few centimetres long lying flush against the body. There were ‘no pathological findings’ (i.e. no disease or pain) and the coccygeal vertebrae were ‘well-developed’. For cosmetic reasons, the parents had the appendage surgically removed.
• Child 3 was a six year old girl. She also had a coccyx of three vertebrae, plus a soft caudal appendage. The researcher described her condition as being the same as that of Child 2, so her caudal appendage was presumably also a few centimetres long, and lying flush against the body, and her coccyx healthy and well developed. There was no pain and no cosmetic complaint, so surgery to remove the appendage was not undertaken.
• Child 1 had a long coccyx consisting of five vertebrae, but no caudal appendage, i.e. no ‘tail’. He was prone to occasional pain at the base of his spine, especially if he had been sitting on hard concrete surfaces. Surgical shortening of his coccyx was considered, but not undertaken, because his parents felt their son’s symptoms were not sufficient to warrant surgery.

This x-ray does not really show what part is visible protruding from the body but is there a good rebuttal for this argument?​

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Human tails and fairy tales

Refutes Talk Origins, Check your information Rasta

 

[2 King]

No, I assure you I have. In depth. I would love to "go there".

In the words of a famous Agnostic, "Whatever floats your boat"

I'll give you Herod. Which two high priests do you reffer to?

Caiaphas, Ananais?

So if I make up a story, and I insert President Obama's name into it, will my story become true in 2,000 years?

Of course not. But that does not invalidate the Gospel accounts.
So, you assume the Bible is historical fiction and ask a question based on that assertion? That is begging the question. Just because your presupposition won't allow you to accept the resurrection, does not negate its reality.

 

[Super_Rational]

Human tails and fairy tales

Refutes Talk Origins, Check your information Rasta

Why does "fallible human opinion" always refer only to work which disagrees with creation "scientists?" Why do they not consider their own work by "fallible humans?"

I'm referring to the disclaimer on creation.com...Last paragraph. Where they clearly reveal that science must fit the bible. Is that not textbook bias?

creation.com disclaimer

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

No, this is not textbook "bias"..The reason it's applied to Evolutionists is because the Evolutionary theory goes against GOD' Authoritive design of the Universe and the complexities therein. There is Evidence for Jesus, and this "evidence" is not just with creation itself, but the prophecies already fulfilled that the bible claims of, and the some prophecies are being fulfilled as we speak, and later to come also.

 

[JGG]

No I want to here answers I just want to here the answers of what the questions I state. You all do not answer the questions I have to ask, and whenever you state a Reply back to mine you say I do not understand Evolution

Frankly, when you asked about the evolution of the eye and brain, I sent you some basic links to the evolution of the eye, and the evolution of the hippocampus. Now honestly, did you read them, or did you go to Creation.com to find more questions that you thought would stump us?

Considering the questions that were part of that cut-and-paste-fest, it's obvious you just don't understand the basic concepts of evolution. How are we supposed to answer your questions on the intricacies of a theory you don't even know the basics of?

Truthfully, I don't have the patience to read the rest of your run-on sentence, let alone the run-on paragraph.

... because you do not know what else to say because you know that you cannot for such things because you know you only account for what Actual Experts say and claim because they have the name "Scientist". You all also have no basis for such claims you all make, You all put your faith into something that man states is true. you all have no basis for much of all of your claims, Which is counted as a Fallacy. You all have no basis for having any kind of moral code whatsoever, In order for scientists to do science they have to assume the preconditions of intelligibility but this means evolutionsists are inconsistent with their reasoning and logic, because the preconditions of intelligibility come from the biblical creation worldview and does not make it applicable to the evolutionary worldview because it makes them Arbitrary to their own belief system. Inside the uniformity of nature they assume the Future is like the past, This they cannot state a logical explanation reason for this belief and be rational and internally consistent within their evolutionary worldview. Scientists have to assume these preconditions, They have to assume that their memory and their senses are true. We suppose that our eyes, ears and other senses reliably report the details about the universe in which we live, Without this assumption, science would be impossible. We could draw no reliable conclusions from any experiment if our observations of the experiment are unreliable. If our sensory experiences are merely illusions, then science would be impossible. We all also presume the laws of logic that givern correct reasoning.How could we prove that there are laws of logic? We would have to first assume them in order to begin in a logical proof. Therefore, laws of logic constitute a precondition of intelligibility. they must be assumed before we can even begin to reason about anything including reasoning about the laws of logic themselves. In a biblical creation worldview, these preconditions make sense; they are perfectly compatible with the Bible. We would expect our memory and senses have been designed by GOD for many different reasons including the Complexity of the Brain,Eyes and Ears. A logically correct worldview must provide these preconditions of intelligibility because without them we could not know anything about the universe. These only make sense in the biblical creation worldview and both creation and evolution must assume these preconditions in order to do any kind of science, this means the Evolutionists has to be inconsistent within their worldview in order to make an argument against creation...So I ASK ONCE AGAIN! Just As Richard Dawkins couldn't answer, "Can You give an Genetic Mutation or Evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the Genome?" He is one of the people who give You all your information about Evolution and he could not even answer and the answer he did give was not even related to the question asked to Richard. Again he did or said what you all told me and 2 King, When we state something or say something, That you do not have an answer for you say, You do not understand evolution or you do not understand this or that process, Well, Richard told those creationists, "There is a popular (Misunderstanding)" Right there he is judging the people who state something that is hard to comply with therefore as a rescuing device they result to, you do not understand evolution or this or that! You all do not answer my Questions. Now Give me some answers.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Frankly, when you asked about the evolution of the eye and brain, I sent you some basic links to the evolution of the eye, and the evolution of the hippocampus. Now honestly, did you read them, or did you go to Creation.com to find more questions that you thought would stump us?

Considering the questions that were part of that cut-and-paste-fest, it's obvious you just don't understand the basic concepts of evolution. How are we supposed to answer your questions on the intricacies of a theory you don't even know the basics of?

Truthfully, I don't have the patience to read the rest of your run-on sentence, let alone the run-on paragraph.

1. I did not "ask" about the evolution of the eye, I said, "How could it have evolved?" As in a Statement-question form, Like an exaggeration. Oh and I do not pur-pose questions from creationist websites, I make my own questions, and to say I get them off websites would be lying on your part, Just because I ask a question its off a website? The only part I cut and pasted on the eye part was the part in the "Italics" .. Okay and since I already know about the basics of evolution why don't you tell me them since, all the answers you guys have for a statement that you can't answer to is, " You don't understand it." Well Tell me them super brains. (Exaggeration - Just so you guys know)

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Frankly, when you asked about the evolution of the eye and brain, I sent you some basic links to the evolution of the eye, and the evolution of the hippocampus. Now honestly, did you read them, or did you go to Creation.com to find more questions that you thought would stump us?

Considering the questions that were part of that cut-and-paste-fest, it's obvious you just don't understand the basic concepts of evolution. How are we supposed to answer your questions on the intricacies of a theory you don't even know the basics of?

Truthfully, I don't have the patience to read the rest of your run-on sentence, let alone the run-on paragraph.

1. I did not "ask" about the evolution of the eye, I said, "How could it have evolved?" As in a Statement-question form, Like an exaggeration. Oh and I do not pur-pose questions from creationist websites, I make my own questions, and to say I get them off websites would be lying on your part, Just because I ask a question its off a website? The only part I cut and pasted on the eye part was the part in the "Italics" .. Okay and since I already know about the basics of evolution why don't you tell me them since, all the answers you guys have for a statement that you can't answer to is, " You don't understand it." Well Tell me them super brains. (Exaggeration - Just so you guys know)

Oh and also you stated that I get my questions & Information off of Creationist sites, well how about you guys? you guys post links to Wikipedia and most of all (Talk Origins) ..