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.

postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65520 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.
Evolutution has never been observed and it never will. If evolution were true - transitional evidence should be abundantly available in fossilized forms. Period. The fact that paleontologists and anthropologists have been looking for them ever since Darwin fabricated his bogus theory says they don't exist.
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>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".
There is a big difference between environmental adaptation within a species and evolution involving transitional forms from one species to an entirely different one i.e. lizards to birds. Fish might adapt to pesticides in their watery environment over a period of time, but they are not going to sprout wings and tail feathers and fly out of a lake!
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>The insistence on "transitional fossils" is nothing more than a strawman fallacy created by creationists.
And it is also the embarrassing bane of evolutionists who can't find the necessary fossils to prove their theory.
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I've heard some silly excuses from you atheists about the lack of fossil evidence, but this one takes the cake. LOL!
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>Look at the platypus or the walking catfish or countless other animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomic ranking system.
Mother Nature is chock full of remarkable examples of creatures that don't fit science's assessment of reality. But this doesn't change the fact that a platypus was a platypus when it first appeared, and it still is.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65521 Dec 4, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Already addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1...
<quoted text>
I guess you missed these transitional forms:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.h...
Johnny come lately.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65522 Dec 4, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You atheists are a riot. You revere scientists, but only when they agree with your half-baked unsubstantiated notions.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65523 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
You atheists are a riot. You revere scientists
I revere those who practice good science.

Creationists don't practice any science.

So I have no reason to revere them.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65524 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutution has never been observed and it never will. If evolution were true - transitional evidence should be abundantly available in fossilized forms. Period. The fact that paleontologists and anthropologists have been looking for them ever since Darwin fabricated his bogus theory says they don't exist.
<quoted text>
There is a big difference between environmental adaptation within a species and evolution involving transitional forms from one species to an entirely different one i.e. lizards to birds. Fish might adapt to pesticides in their watery environment over a period of time, but they are not going to sprout wings and tail feathers and fly out of a lake!
<quoted text>
And it is also the embarrassing bane of evolutionists who can't find the necessary fossils to prove their theory.
<quoted text>
I've heard some silly excuses from you atheists about the lack of fossil evidence, but this one takes the cake. LOL!
<quoted text>
Mother Nature is chock full of remarkable examples of creatures that don't fit science's assessment of reality. But this doesn't change the fact that a platypus was a platypus when it first appeared, and it still is.
There are thousands of fossils which support evolution. But even if there were only 1, it would be 1 more than any evidence for any magical **poof** from some invisible supernatural sky being.

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy and DNA shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!"

But the real bottom line is that it doesn't matter how much evidence there is for biological evolution. Our current understanding for how biology works allows us to make testable predictions about biology. This one ability has greatly improved food production, animal husbandry, and human healthcare.

The only thing that could EVER remove our current theory of biological evolution from scientific consideration would be the ability to make more accurate testable predictions.

If you can't offer that, you've got nothing. In fact you've got less than nothing. All you're doing is whining about stuff you apparently don't understand.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65525 Dec 4, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
There are thousands of fossils which support evolution. But even if there were only 1, it would be 1 more than any evidence for any magical **poof** from some invisible supernatural sky being.
Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy and DNA shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!"
But the real bottom line is that it doesn't matter how much evidence there is for biological evolution. Our current understanding for how biology works allows us to make testable predictions about biology. This one ability has greatly improved food production, animal husbandry, and human healthcare.
The only thing that could EVER remove our current theory of biological evolution from scientific consideration would be the ability to make more accurate testable predictions.
If you can't offer that, you've got nothing. In fact you've got less than nothing. All you're doing is whining about stuff you apparently don't understand.
The only reason you give Darwinism any credence is because the whole silly notion excludes a creator, and to call yourself an atheist, you must mindlessly reject gods at every turn and corner. But obviously you doubt, or you would not feel compelled to defend your disbelief on public forums like this. To say absolutely that God does not exist, one would have to be omnipotent himself, he would have to know ALL things and based on the caliber of your posts, you fall dismally short of the target.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65526 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
The only reason you give Darwinism any credence is because the whole silly notion excludes a creator
Imagine if someone said "The only reason you give the Germ Theory of Disease any credence is because the whole silly notion excludes disease being caused by demons."

That's how I see your statement.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65527 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
The only reason you give Darwinism any credence is because the whole silly notion excludes a creator, and to call yourself an atheist, you must mindlessly reject gods at every turn and corner. But obviously you doubt, or you would not feel compelled to defend your disbelief on public forums like this. To say absolutely that God does not exist, one would have to be omnipotent himself, he would have to know ALL things and based on the caliber of your posts, you fall dismally short of the target.
But that is NOT the atheistic position. That some strawman caricature someone has fed you, and it's a total fallacy.

Literally a-theism is "without theism". More accurately it is "without belief". It is most definitely NOT a substitution of one belief for another.

You claim that there is a god. As an atheist, I simply doubt YOUR claim made without evidence. And that's really no different than what you do with anybody else's "god" claim. When a Hindu person claims that Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma exist, you doubt their claim and ask for evidence ... real, independently verifiable evidence.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65528 Dec 4, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine if someone said "The only reason you give the Germ Theory of Disease any credence is because the whole silly notion excludes disease being caused by demons."
That's how I see your statement.
Scared of demons. Thought so. No god, no sin, no hell, is that it?
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65529 Dec 4, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
But that is NOT the atheistic position. That some strawman caricature someone has fed you, and it's a total fallacy.
Literally a-theism is "without theism". More accurately it is "without belief". It is most definitely NOT a substitution of one belief for another.
You claim that there is a god. As an atheist, I simply doubt YOUR claim made without evidence. And that's really no different than what you do with anybody else's "god" claim. When a Hindu person claims that Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma exist, you doubt their claim and ask for evidence ... real, independently verifiable evidence.
Word games. Without theism means without a belief in God. But why all the hostility? Reread your Bible rant - post (#136) on a forum discussing myths about atheism.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65530 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!
So what? There is no reason a transitional form can't still be alive. You seem to think there is some purpose or pattern to evolution. There is not. It's driven by random mutations.
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. Fish are fish. It was true then and it's true now.
Ever consider studying the subject?
We have a good reason to believe in evolution, we are here.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65531 Dec 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? There is no reason a transitional form can't still be alive. You seem to think there is some purpose or pattern to evolution. There is not. It's driven by random mutations.
<quoted text>
Ever consider studying the subject?
We have a good reason to believe in evolution, we are here.
Nothing is random, least of all consciousness which is far more mobile than you will ever comprehend. You are wrong. You are both here and there. We are all multidimensional. There are channels of interrelatedness, connecting all physical matter - channels through which consciousness flows.

The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after another, while physicists realize that all events are simultaneous. Archeologists merrily contine to date the remains of "past" civilizations, never asking themselves if the past they record is the one relative to their point of perception.

There is more in heaven and earth, Gomer, than is dreamt of in your feeble philosophy.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65532 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is random, least of all consciousness which is far more mobile than you will ever comprehend. You are wrong. You are both here and there. We are all multidimensional. There are channels of interrelatedness, connecting all physical matter - channels through which consciousness flows.
The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after another, while physicists realize that all events are simultaneous. Archeologists merrily contine to date the remains of "past" civilizations, never asking themselves if the past they record is the one relative to their point of perception.
There is more in heaven and earth, Gomer, than is dreamt of in your feeble philosophy.
Then tell me next Friday's CA lottery's MegaMillion numbers.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65533 Dec 4, 2012
Or tonight's.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65534 Dec 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then tell me next Friday's CA lottery's MegaMillion numbers.
The time is not yet for you to live in the lap of luxury. You have many lessons to be learned.
Thinking

UK

#65535 Dec 4, 2012
Tell me what I suppose.
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but what you see is not what you suppose.
Thinking

UK

#65536 Dec 4, 2012
Maybe they just like violence and stupidity.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Isn't it sad how hard they work to remain enslaved to the superstitious beliefs of ancient Palestinians?
<quoted text>

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65537 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
The time is not yet for you to live in the lap of luxury. You have many lessons to be learned.
IOW, you can't come up with the winning numbers. Called you on your BS.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65538 Dec 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
IOW, you can't come up with the winning numbers. Called you on your BS.
You were expecting signs and wonders, perhaps? LOL! If you want answers - get in touch with the knowledge of your own subjective self.
Independent

Alice, TX

#65539 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No such thing as random, we perceive randomness because we lack the complex computations required to identify the patterns in everything, our computers do that better now. But atomic reactions, chemical reactions, are structured based on the atomic structures, that's not even close to conscious reaction, it's the same as what happens when you drop a ball.
You should really try to explain how a human eye or any eye evolved. It is so complex and irreducible complexity comes to mind here. What came first? The brain or the eye? Can't have one without the other for evolution to succeed. They have to continually 'evolve' together and the species needs to not become extinct for the concept of vision to prosper. Then you have the issue of different classes of creatures, whom are not even related, also "evolving" vision. The odds are astronomical, there fore we are all created by a creator. Evolution has the same chance of becoming, as a tornado tearing through a junkyard and when everything has settled, there is a Boeing 747 airliner, full of jet fuel, waiting for a pilot. A beautiful butterfly in all it's grandeur , requires a creator, as does an intricate pocket watch. Life cannot simply evolve because with time anything is possible, if that were the case, then the planets in our solar system that are not gaseous, would have had some sort of life thriving on each and everyone of them, but as far as we know, they don't.

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 In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 38 min -Stray Dog 47,784
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 46 min -Stray Dog 247,316
Proof of God for the Atheist 2 hr emperorjohn 102
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr thetruth 12,563
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... 5 hr thetruth 59
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 13 hr Amused 5
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... Sat thetruth 19
More from around the web