Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70650 comments on the TurkishPress.com story from Aug 26, 2009, titled Atheists on the march in America. In it, TurkishPress.com reports that:

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TurkishPress.com.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#65500 Dec 4, 2012
One can easily enough stroll through and read all the times I have factually crushed you. Most recently I busted you on your... Sniff sniff I have less than a year to live because of this disease that can't be cured. So Nan why are you wasting time on topix if you have less than a year to live? Uh!! I was cured already so there!

:shakes head, sighs:

So now onto the newest screw up on your part, you were going to post the so called atheist doctrines. Any luck putting them together half wit?

It's ok if you need to email your preacher to get them again, we will just go ahead and laugh at your inevitable miserable failure to come.

No seriously anytime now.
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Like I can remember exactly what page it was on...out of hundreds of thousands of them? That's expecting too much.
OTOH, you could very easily prove the dimensions you claimed earlier. >:)
Show us proof or admit you are a liar.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#65501 Dec 4, 2012
There are a small number of scientists like the people at the DI who do as you are saying.
Gstspkr wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally, I would like them to objectively seek answers, instead of government funding to substantiate elitist political agendas. Unfortunately, the scientific method is only a tool to be thrown around while the real objective is the funding ie MONEY.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65502 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Common ancestry? You mean like the fish Coelacanth for example, supposedly extinct 70 million years ago and presented by evolutionists as a "transitional form" between marine and land creatures? It was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been caught about 50 times since? LOL!
Good example!

1.The modern Coelacanth is not the same as any fossil species. The species have changed over time.

2. The modern Coelacanth lives in deep sea areas which are unlikely to produce fossils that we can collect.

3. The theory of evolution does not *require* species to change over time. The change that species undergo is driven by changes in the environment. if the environment is stable, the species tend to be stable also.
There is no reason to believe that fish were radically different eons ago from what they are now. To suggest that they lived long enough in shallow water to turn gills into lungs is absurd hence the lack of transitional forms. Fish are fish. It was true then and it's true now.
We do have transitional forms from fish to amphibian. A good example is acanthostega.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#65503 Dec 4, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even more so, does every dead animal (or plant, fungus, etc) have an equal likelihood of becoming a fossil? Is the rate of fossilization such that we would expect a continuous record? Do the 'gaps' match what we know about fossilization in general and the likelihood of fossilization in various environments? Are species that live in environments that we would predict to higher rates of fossilization better represented in the record?
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D.-- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.

"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib. The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#65504 Dec 4, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Jesus waved around his magical fish billions of years ago and made the universe right?
Google up evolution human tailbone before you humiliate yourself further.
You're welcome half wit.
<quoted text>
“Known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent’ and ‘the Huxley of Germany,’ Ernst Heinrick Philipp August Haeckel is notorious as the scientist who perpetrated fraud upon fraud to promote the theory of evolution. He was the first person to draw an evolutionary ‘family tree’ for mankind. His frauds included descriptions and detailed pictures of protoplasmic organisms called Monera that never existed, a non-existent “speechless ape-man,” and illustrations and descriptions of a non-existent “fish stage” and "embryonic tails" in human embryos. Ernst Haeckel later partially confessed." -[Russell Grigg,“Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceipt,” Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March-May 1996), pp. 33-36

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65505 Dec 4, 2012
Yawn. And?
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
“Known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent’ and ‘the Huxley of Germany,’ Ernst Heinrick Philipp August Haeckel is notorious as the scientist who perpetrated fraud upon fraud to promote the theory of evolution. He was the first person to draw an evolutionary ‘family tree’ for mankind. His frauds included descriptions and detailed pictures of protoplasmic organisms called Monera that never existed, a non-existent “speechless ape-man,” and illustrations and descriptions of a non-existent “fish stage” and "embryonic tails" in human embryos. Ernst Haeckel later partially confessed." -[Russell Grigg,“Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceipt,” Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March-May 1996), pp. 33-36
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65506 Dec 4, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good example!
1.The modern Coelacanth is not the same as any fossil species. The species have changed over time.
2. The modern Coelacanth lives in deep sea areas which are unlikely to produce fossils that we can collect.
3. The theory of evolution does not *require* species to change over time. The change that species undergo is driven by changes in the environment. if the environment is stable, the species tend to be stable also.
<quoted text>
We do have transitional forms from fish to amphibian. A good example is acanthostega.
There are always two sides to a coin:

The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution, and not on observational evidence of the bones in fins or fish actually changing into tetrapod limb bones.

Dr. Colin Patterson, an eminent palaeontologist explains why have these fossils fail to qualify as missing links....

"As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."

In other words, fossils such as Acanthostega are regarded by some evolutionary enthusiasts as "missing links" not because they actually are, but because they are believed to be. If belief is all it takes to make a truth in your world, you should have no problem accepting the "belief" that the universe was created by a god.

TalkOrigins? You're kidding, right? That website is known as "the uneducated atheist's Bible." It's not only woefully out-of-date but seriously misleading.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65507 Dec 4, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Jesus waved around his magical fish billions of years ago and made the universe right?
Google up evolution human tailbone before you humiliate yourself further.
You're welcome half wit.
<quoted text>
I'll take this as a yes. Your parents do have tails. LOL!

On the one hand, you condemn the Christian version of creation as a lie and on the other, you support your conclusion with myths about embryonic tails and life springing from dead matter and worse, you expect to appear credible! You are not just confused - you're deluded.
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#65508 Dec 4, 2012
We can see those "embryonic tails". They're fact.
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take this as a yes. Your parents do have tails. LOL!
On the one hand, you condemn the Christian version of creation as a lie and on the other, you support your conclusion with myths about embryonic tails and life springing from dead matter and worse, you expect to appear credible! You are not just confused - you're deluded.
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#65509 Dec 4, 2012
You lack any edge.
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
There are always two sides to a coin:

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#65510 Dec 4, 2012
Thinking wrote:
We can see those "embryonic tails". They're fact.
<quoted text>
Yes, but what you see is not what you suppose.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65511 Dec 4, 2012
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but what you see is not what you suppose.
As in the theory of vestigial organs, which includes things that look like tails, egg yolk sacs and the suggestion of fish gills. This supposed evidence of man’s evolution from animals is utterly false and for a very logical reason. One cannot identify organs totally lacking in function.

In the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionist biologist S.R. Scadding states:

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65512 Dec 4, 2012
Isn't it sad how hard they work to remain enslaved to the superstitious beliefs of ancient Palestinians?
Thinking wrote:
We can see those "embryonic tails". They're fact.
<quoted text>

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65513 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
There are always two sides to a coin:
The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution, and not on observational evidence of the bones in fins or fish actually changing into tetrapod limb bones.
...
Do you really think evolution happens within an individual animal such that it could be "observed" actually changing? That's insane and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

But we don't even need to look at Acanthostega to consider "transitional" animals. ALL animals are always under environmental pressure to change and are ALWAYS "transitional". Even the one that don't appear to change much ove rdeep time are still by definition "transitional".

The insistence on "transitional fossils" is nothing more than a strawman fallacy created by creationists.

The very idea of "species" is a human categorization to make study of biology easier -- we made the word up. Animals themselves could care less how we try to divide them into discrete categories.

Look at the platypus or the walking catfish or countless other animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomic ranking system.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#65514 Dec 4, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think evolution happens within an individual animal such that it could be "observed" actually changing? That's insane and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
But we don't even need to look at Acanthostega to consider "transitional" animals. ALL animals are always under environmental pressure to change and are ALWAYS "transitional". Even the one that don't appear to change much ove rdeep time are still by definition "transitional".
The insistence on "transitional fossils" is nothing more than a strawman fallacy created by creationists.
The very idea of "species" is a human categorization to make study of biology easier -- we made the word up. Animals themselves could care less how we try to divide them into discrete categories.
Look at the platypus or the walking catfish or countless other animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomic ranking system.
OK, I accept that you make things up.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65515 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
There are always two sides to a coin:
The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution, and not on observational evidence of the bones in fins or fish actually changing into tetrapod limb bones.
Incorrect. The features of the acanthostega identify it as transitional. Perhaps you don't know what it means to be transitional?
Dr. Colin Patterson, an eminent palaeontologist explains why have these fossils fail to qualify as missing links....
"As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
In other words, fossils such as Acanthostega are regarded by some evolutionary enthusiasts as "missing links" not because they actually are, but because they are believed to be. If belief is all it takes to make a truth in your world, you should have no problem accepting the "belief" that the universe was created by a god.
A misunderstanding of Patterson's point. We never *know* exact ancestry from the fossil record. We do not know if one particular species is ancestral to another, later species. The information we have is simply not detailed enough for that determination. BUT, we can and do have enough data to say which *families* are ancestral to which later families. To be transitional means to be related to the actual ancestors closely enough that the family ancestry is established.
TalkOrigins? You're kidding, right? That website is known as "the uneducated atheist's Bible." It's not only woefully out-of-date but seriously misleading.
I didn't mention talk.origins at all. While it is a source of a lot of good information, it *is* out of date in many ways. The subsequent research, though, has only verified evolution, not shown it wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65516 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
As in the theory of vestigial organs, which includes things that look like tails, egg yolk sacs and the suggestion of fish gills. This supposed evidence of man’s evolution from animals is utterly false and for a very logical reason. One cannot identify organs totally lacking in function.
In the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionist biologist S.R. Scadding states:
"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."
Again, a misunderstanding of Scadding's point. Vestigial organs do not give any *special* evidence of evolution above and beyond the fact that they are homologous organs. But homology itself *does* give evidence for ancestry and hence, of evolution.

From the same paper of Scadding:

"Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs.... While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument ... asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution."

"Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality."

Perhaps you should attempt to actually understand what an author is claiming before making the assertion that they agree with your argument.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65517 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
Common ancestry? You mean like the fish Coelacanth for example, supposedly extinct 70 million years ago and presented by evolutionists as a "transitional form" between marine and land creatures? It was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been caught about 50 times since?
Already addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1...
postscript wrote:
There is no reason to believe that fish were radically different eons ago from what they are now. To suggest that they lived long enough in shallow water to turn gills into lungs is absurd hence the lack of transitional forms.
I guess you missed these transitional forms:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.h...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65518 Dec 4, 2012
Prove it.
nanoanomaly wrote:
Why should I be expected to prove anything to you if scientists don't have to?
Because your claim wasn't a scientific claim.
nanoanomaly wrote:
I remember what you spewed, that's good enough for me.
In other words, you can't produce any evidence to support your claim. Yeah, no surprise there.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65519 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution
No, Acanthostega is evidence in *support* of common descent.
postscript wrote:
Dr. Colin Patterson, an eminent palaeontologist...
The same Patterson who wrote: "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes..."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 16 min Insults Are Easier 245,138
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 40 min ChristineW 11,012
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr karl44 20,672
John 3:16 3 hr Shizle 97
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 4 hr Anonymous1386 22
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 7 hr Thinking 19
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 17 hr ChristineW 14,668
More from around the web