Fish With Trish: Cute, laughable, absurd...

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Cute, laughable, absurd...

What Evolutionists would have you believe...

Monkdog (poor thing looks cold)

Pitcow

Squaguar

Birdog

Chimpanther

squirpup

101 comments:

tammi said...: Haha ~ and eeeeeewwww, those are just disturbing!; April 16, 2009 at 4:50 AM
Logic Lad said...: Trish

Are you deliberatly trying to miss represent evolution or are you ignorant of the theory that you are so against.

Please explain which part of evolutionay theory supports these supposed hybrids

I could photoshop Moses smoking a joint and been pleasured by slave boys, it would not make the picture true, or be useful as an argument against biblical morality; April 16, 2009 at 6:56 AM
Reynold said...: You're not much for an honest representation of your opponents arguments, are you, Trish?

If you actually care to learn about what evolution really is, and what "evolutionists" really figure about it, you'd do well to actually look at what they actually say.

For example, Talk Origins Archive, the Transitional Fossils FAQ.

I doubt you will, though.; April 16, 2009 at 7:33 AM
Whateverman said...: No, this is what Creationists would have you believe. The theory of evolution makes no such claims.

Classic straw man, classic...; April 16, 2009 at 7:41 AM
ExPatMatt said...: Trish,

I'm glad that one of your labels for this post is 'silly'. For a moment there I thought you were seriously suggesting that these images bore some relation to the modern understanding of evolutionary theory!

Ha, imagine if people were actually stupid enough to believe that evolutionary biologists put any stock in this kind of stuff!

I mean, you'd have to be a real moron to misunderstand evolution to the extent that you think that a 'birdog' is viable species.

Thanks for the laugh Trish.

Wait.

You are kidding, right? You don't actually think that these creatures have anything to do with evolution, do you?

Do you?; April 16, 2009 at 8:21 AM
Taxandrian said...: Well, it certainly isn't more laughable or absurd than believing in and worshipping a God who kills babies.

Nice Photoshop work, tho.; April 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Quasar said...: I really hope ExPat's right here, Trish. I really hope this is a poor attempt at humour.

Here's a tip for your future humorous endeavors: convert your post to a single sentence. Your above post says "my opponents are stupid enough to believe in this!" That is not funny. That is an insult.

If I had posted the exact same thing you did, the message would have been "my opponents believe that I am stupid enough to believe in this!" That is funny: it is slightly self-depricating, it's an misrepresentation of my own opinion (rather than my opponents) and most importantly, it's completely out of character, so people know I'm joking.

I recently wrote an 'abridged' version of Genesis 1:1-3, but I made it very clear it was a joke, and most of the humour didn't stem from actual criticisms of the bible, but simply from making the characters a little bit nutso. Heck, I even managed to misrepresent the theory of evolution half-way through! Whereas you have prefixed this post with "What Evolutionists would have you believe..."

Let's apply a bit of logic:
Premise A) Almost all biologists can't possibly be complete idiots.
Premise B) Almost all biologists accept evolution.
Premise C) One would have to be a complete idiot to accept the version of evolution you display here.
Conclusion: The version of evolution you display here is not the version of evolution accepted by almost all biologists.

Also, if you're interested in the abridged version of Genesis, I'll send you a link. Be warned: there's a little bit of censored profanity (all in the name of humour, because it's funny thinking of the big guy using four letter words :D ).; April 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Fish With Trish said...: Heathe, sorry I accidently deleted your comment. Feel free to repost.; April 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Fish With Trish said...: Satire friends...just satire.

That's why it's under the label "silly".

Stay tuned, I might make you more upset with the ones I've got up my sleve. :-); April 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Quasar said...: Heath pointed out" I mean, come on, it is clearly a parody."

True, but a parody should be funny, and not mistakable with real critisism. Trish's post is not, and it has remarkable similarities with the entirely serious crocoduck claims made by Ray Comfort.

And if it comes to that, your parody is not funny either.; April 16, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Quasar said...: Satire friends...just satire.

That's why it's under the label "silly".Thank goodness for that. The similarities with Ray's crocoduck claims were making me wonder.; April 16, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: One thing that always saddens me about evolutionists (you can see it in the comments) is that you can’t touch there sacred cow. They cling to the idea that there must be another explanation as to how life came to be apart from God, that if you even slightly misrepresent there belief system they take offense. I mean, come on, it is clearly a parody.

What does it matter anyway it is only by chance and millions of years these pictures happened and ended up on this website.

It was lucky that I kept a copy of the post. Not that what I have to say is all that important anyway.; April 16, 2009 at 6:13 PM
The Bad Dad said...: But are they edible? PUT IT IN MY STOMACH!!! Acts 10:9... Funny but serious stuff. You do good work Sister.; April 16, 2009 at 8:32 PM
profweather said...: Wow, you atheist/evolutionists sure are a touchy bunch. I've gotta second Heath on this.

Have you ever really looked at an elephant, or a giraffe, or a rhinoceros, or a pig. I mean really look at their design (er...I mean lucky chance of natural selection). They look funny and strange and weird. But you think they are not strange looking because you are familiar, since childhood, with their appearance (caused by shear randomness and infinite time, I'm sure).

Each of these species (elephant, giraffe, etc) has been uniquely created (er, evolved from the goo to the zoo) and they all look strange. So then why would a dogbird look strange?

And furthermore, why would you deny any bird the right to evolve a dog's head over x-number of millions (give or take billions...does it really matter how long?) of years.

Who is to say that humans would not evolve a trunk like an elephant in time because we see how well it works. That way we would not need to bend over. We could save (evolve) a few less muscles...which would save personal energy. Life would be easier. But then the “fat” police would get upset at us all becoming overweight to...so maybe not. Certainly we are not the end all of our own evolution.

Lighten-up!

P.S. What do I need to do to change (my DNA, or thinking, or personal will, or what) so that by, lets say, 1,000,000 A.D., ensures the human race will have a trunk like an elephant. And what would the elephant look like at that time also. (And would it still be called “A.D.” in one million years since that would refer to an obvious mythical Christ.)

Come-on guys. Can't you laugh at yourselves? :o); April 16, 2009 at 9:08 PM
profweather said...: Forget the elephant-trunk idea. That would not work either as we would all look like Republicans.; April 16, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Logic Lad said...: Trish, Prof et all,

I take you back to my comment about Moses, non of you can prove that he didn't enjoy a good toke and the company of young men, and yet if i posted such a picture you would be, rightly, upset that i was trying to score cheap points and be offensive, despite the fact that i suspect a lot of people would find it funny.

Have none of you heard of Po's law? i am afraid there are people out there, Ray being one, who have tried to use these exact type of images to debunk evolution.

If there was a sufficent evolutionary imperative to cultivate a bird with a dogs head then there is no reason that it could not happen, however, it would not be a bird with a dogs head, it would be a new creature that bore some similar attributes to a dog and a bird.

Prof

your human with a trunk, interesting, do you really think that not having to bend over would give us an advantage? i suspect the loss of flexibilty would be a distinct disadvantage, hence why we don't have trunks. We are certainly not at the end of our evolution but i doubt that trunks are going to feature any time soon, unless we get a lot better with our genetic engineering.

These pictures are strange and clever, and as such I am amused by them. but when you post something like this on a blog like this, you will get this reaction, exactly the one you where aiming for, so please don't act all surprised about the getting what you wanted.; April 17, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Whateverman said...: I'm able to laugh at myself, even though I come off s serious in internet discussion. The reason this particular post didn't result in chuckling is that it's indistinguishable from sincere Creationist dogma.

So, if I'm supposed to laugh at myself, that means Trish doesn't really believe the theory of evolution results in animals shown in the pictue. Right?

'Cuz *that* would be silly...; April 17, 2009 at 4:11 AM
k said...: This is from Worth1000's FAQ:

"You may not take even a single copyrighted image off of the Worth1000 website without our and our copyright holders' consent. This includes direct linking to images on our server (image leeching)."

Did you get permission? If not, you are a thief.

You didn't even provide a link to the site you stole these images from. Shame on you.; April 17, 2009 at 4:15 AM
ExPatMatt said...: Guys,

You see, you claim it's satire, but then go on to show that you actually don't know anything about evolution! (or satire)

It's people like Trish and Ray and AIG and their ilk who promote this ignorance and want it taught in schools; I'd say the dumbing down of education is a good reason to get 'touchy'.

It would be funny if we thought for a second that you actually knew what evolution was and were just playing around. But you quite clearly don't know (or care) what evolution actually is, you just know that it doesn't fit with your interpretation of the Bible and so it must be a lie.

And hey, if it's a lie, why bother learning anything about it, right?

Trish,

I will seriously bend my knee and accept the gift of salvation that Jesus offers if you can demonstrate the following;

a) how this post qualifies as 'satire'
b) why the images in this post misrepresent evolution, and
c) what evolution actually states with regards to transitional forms.

Ball's in your court, how much do your really care about my salvation?

Regards,; April 17, 2009 at 7:25 AM
Reynold said...: Quasar said, quoting Trish:

Satire friends...just satire.

That's why it's under the label "silly".Thank goodness for that. The similarities with Ray's crocoduck claims were making me wonder.Yeah, Ray's known for passing this stuff off as real and since you seem to be affiliated with his ministry, I was wondering...

I guess I fell for Poe's Law.; April 17, 2009 at 7:39 AM
k said...: Profweather, it's tough to lighten up and laugh when you use phrases such as "lucky chance of natural selection."

It shows a *profound* lack of understanding of the topic.

Imagine if atheists said things like, "Christ created the Easter Bunny to absolve us of our sins..." and they meant it in all seriousness...!

Wouldn't you get a bit worked up and tell them they have it all wrong? When you say things like "lucky chance of natural selection," it's like fingernails on a chalkboard because it is so terribly wrong. It's a kindergarten-level (mis)understanding of Darwinism.

Look, I read the bible, please read some intelligent works about Darwinism before speaking of it again (and actual books, not some anti-Darwin Chick tract). You'll present a much better argument if you come from an educated point of view.; April 17, 2009 at 9:44 AM
The Murphy's said...: ExPattMatt,

"Trish,

I will seriously bend my knee and accept the gift of salvation that Jesus offers if you can demonstrate the following;

a) how this post qualifies as 'satire'
b) why the images in this post misrepresent evolution, and
c) what evolution actually states with regards to transitional forms."

I know you want Trish to answer these questions, but I wanted to say for what it is worth that evolution has been misrepresented here and there's room for evolutionists in the Kingdom of God..follow the ling......http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html#christians_evolution; April 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Cheers, The Murphy's, but you spelled my name wrong, so no dice. ;)

I'll check out the link.

Regards,; April 17, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Wow I've never had that happen before, someone with the same name as me posting on the same blog, especially when I disagree with some of the things said by them.; April 17, 2009 at 6:41 PM
The Murphy's said...: Sorry ExPatMatt! My typing error just caused your salvation, oh man! Just kidding....

Yea, tell me what you think about the link.....; April 17, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Fish With Trish said...: Ryan, only those that have been born again will enter the Kingdom of God. So I guess it depends what your definition of Kingdom of God is.; April 17, 2009 at 11:37 PM
joelsplace said...: Satire defined from Wiki "In satire, human or individual ... follies, .. or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement"
Seems that Trish hit it perfectly. She is using humor to show how silly the religion of evolution is and she really does want you to improve by coming into the light by believing the truth.; April 18, 2009 at 12:17 AM
joelsplace said...: ExPatMatt
I gave you a) so why don't you explain b) and c) since you have the problem with how the religion of evolution is being presented? I wouldn't ask you to explain or defend God since you don't believe.; April 18, 2009 at 12:21 AM
The Murphy's said...: Trish,

My definition of The Kingdom of God is different than yours I am sure.

Also, why cant you relent your stance on evolution and compromise with ExPatMatt?

Ryan; April 18, 2009 at 1:53 PM
beleth said...: Joelsplace, that's exactly what makes these pictures not satire -- they are not holding evolutionists' true shortcomings up to ridicule, since creatures like that are not something an evolutionist would believe would come about either.

To be satirical towards opponents, one must be satirical about what they really think, not about what no one really thinks.

Trish, if you really meant for those pictures to be taken humorously (and I have no reason to think otherwise), then I'm sure you will understand and forgive the evolutionists who saw those pictures and, because other Creationists used similar arguments seriously, thought that you were being serious too.; April 18, 2009 at 6:18 PM
k said...: Fish with Trish wrote:

"only those that have been born again will enter the Kingdom of God."

Even those that steal? (Stealing is stealing, even if it's only breaking copyright laws).

Oh, yeah, I forgot, you guys just ask for forgiveness, and then you're in good with your god again.

So, if/when you ask forgiveness, do you have to take down the images you've stolen? Or is it all cool if you make no efforts to right your wrongs?; April 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Anonymous said...: joelsplace,

I know you did it to provoke, and did not want to disappoint you:

Evolution is not a religion, but a natural phenomenon.

Happy?

G.E.; April 18, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi Trish,

Ryan, only those that have been born again will enter the Kingdom of God. So I guess it depends what your definition of Kingdom of God is.Really?

I thought it was those who believed and accepted Jesus' gift ... so, if I accepted and believed Jesus' gift of life, yet still consider evolution an excellent theory, would I make it or not? Does born again mean biblical literalist?

I am asking in all honesty. I do not want to end up misrepresenting your beliefs.

G.E.; April 18, 2009 at 6:33 PM
BathTub said...: How about you start by making sense of the term Religion of Evolution?; April 18, 2009 at 7:44 PM
FrodoSaves said...: ExPat makes an extremely good point. Part of satire is demonstrating that you understand the thing it is you are mocking. Profweather for one demonstrates his ignorance by calling it "the lucky chance of natural selection." Joelsplace too shows his misunderstanding when he calls evolution a "religion", as well as a serious inability to use a dictionary (which is a shame after he got off to such a promising start by defining "satire" for us all).

I'm of the opinion that you posted this in all seriousness and fell back on the claim it was satire when Reynold, Whateverman, ExPat and others pointed out how nonsensical your point was.; April 19, 2009 at 1:27 AM
joelsplace said...: Evolution is a religion of faith in a system that exchanges the obvious truth of an intelligent creator for a fantasy with no rational source or explination.
I do appreciate that most of you refer to evolution as a theory. Most evolutionists I've run across present it as fact. What do you do with the scientists that say evolution is rediculous? I ran across a self proclaimed evolutionary expert a few years ago at NTSU that told me there was all kinds of evidence for evolution including transitionary forms. He had a large library of books on the subject so I asked him to show me. We spent a lot of time sifting through his books and he was shocked to find that none of them had any evidence. I gave him a week to come up with something and he couldn't. No, he didn't "convert" to a new belief but at least he admitted that evolution was just a belief.
Thanks for asking. Joel; April 19, 2009 at 11:57 AM
joelsplace said...: I am attempting to provoke thought and conversation and will attempt to address all the previous comments later tonight. I'm using my phone now. Thanks, Joel; April 19, 2009 at 1:08 PM
The Murphy's said...: G.E,
You said:

"I thought it was those who believed and accepted Jesus' gift ... so, if I accepted and believed Jesus' gift of life, yet still consider evolution an excellent theory, would I make it or not? Does born again mean biblical literalist?

I am asking in all honesty. I do not want to end up misrepresenting your beliefs."

Hey G.E., I know you are addressing Trish, so sorry to butt in. But I wanted to throw my two cents in on this.

Yes, you can believe evolution is a excellent idea, and still make it. God is not gonna say "oh man, an evolutionist and a free thinker,ahhhhh!" haha. God judges man on # 1 his heart(not like the beating one, but who you are on the inside that cant be faked on the outside) and # 2 on who man says Jesus is and was. Being born again doesn't mean you have to be a biblical literalist, it actually means you are becoming like a baby again, learning anew what this life is all about and reshaping it as you follow Jesus and learn from Him. Its not a set of rules, regulations, laws, etc! I could care less if "Christianity" imploded on itself, because Jesus wasn't a Christian nor was He trying to start a Religion, He was showing man that The Kingdom of God was here, thats why He was so counter-cultural(He wouldn't fit into the neoconservative/religious right of our day, thats for sure!). Yet what He did call men to do is to follow Him, and yes following Him does include belief and faith and honesty in Him, but it doesn't require you to check your brain or reason at the door when you decided trying to follow Him. I don't know if you've ever read the New Testament or not, but Jesus hung out with those that the ultra religious couldn't stand, he hung out with the sinner, prostitute, poor, tax collectors, etc. Not so He could yell at them and tell them they were going to hell, but to show them there is a better way to live this life here and now, and that way was to follow Him and learn from Him. Not betterment meaning riches(Joel Osteen,haha) or not having hard times in life, but better meaning there is more to life and eternity than just a set of rules, there is an actual living relationship you can have with God. Yes, there is the promise of salvation or heaven, but Jesus is also concerned with you here and now.

I know Trish and others wont agree with me on these points, but I wanted you to know that following Jesus is more than all of these evolution debates, He wants your heart.; April 19, 2009 at 2:21 PM
joelsplace said...: FrodoSaves,
I guess that evolution being a religion is somewhat open to opinion but I don't call it that without some good reasons. Let's look at Wiki again "The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction."
1)Communal faith fits
1)Group rituals might not
3)Shared conviction certainly does
So we have two for sure and one maybe. Looks like a religion to me. You are free to disagree.
I see a lot of "we don't believe that" but no "we beleive" in these posts.
Reynold,
I spent some time digging around on Talk Origins and couldn't find any evidence at all - just a bunch of talk.
Have you ever read Michael Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis? He is a scientist that rejects God and evolution. Joel; April 19, 2009 at 6:22 PM
BathTub said...: Well joelsplace you aren't off to a good start with your fact/theory fallacy.

Here is a tip to get you started.

Go to the creationwiki.

Yes, I an Atheist, am suggesting you visit a creationism page.

Look up Arguments Creationist Should Not Use.

And here is the tip.

Don't use them!

It will save you so much time in these discussions.

Now you need to define exactly what you mean by transitional form, I find that people like Ray use this term very dishonestly and are not using it the same way it's normally used. Presuming you are also ignoring that every living creature is a transitional from.

Here is another tip, the Theory of Evolution doesn't require a single fossil.

Not a single one.

Lack of a particular fossil is not an issue for the theory. But here is the kicker, fossils could DISPROVE the theory. You just need to find them out of order than they are predicted to appear in the Geologic Column (yes which does exists, and yes you can see the entire thing in many places around the earth). As the fairly famous quote goes when British scientist J.B.S. Haldane, was asked what would constitute evidence against evolution, he said, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"

Evangelical Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project Francis Collins has said that the Genetic Evidence for a Common Ancestor is so overwhelming and conclusive nothing else is needed.

Darwin didn't base his theory on 'the fossils', he didn't have access to the fossils we have today. He based it on what was observable for him. He also outlined ways that the theory could be falsified, and general problems with his theory. And 150 years it's still standing and it's stronger than ever with each new line of science that has appeared on the scene.

2 Examples.

Genetics/DNA wasn't known about, but was needed for evolution to work. Discovered, and is essentially the strongest possible evidence for Common Decent you could get.

Plate Tectonics. Another very new line of science that explained some problems and that people had no idea about in Darwins time. You might be quite surprised at how new this whole field is.

There are multiple independent lines of evidence for evolution.

Wikipedia gives a good outline, but here are the general lines of evidence.

# 1 Evidence from genetics
# 2 Evidence from paleontology
# 3 Evidence from comparative anatomy
# 4 Evidence from geographical distribution
# 5 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
# 6 Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance
# 7 Evidence from studies of complex iteration
# 8 Evidence from speciation
# 9 Evidence from interspecies fertility and modifications; April 19, 2009 at 6:42 PM
profweather said...: G. E.

Just like you had no say in your natural birth, you have no say in your second birth (being “born again”). A person is made alive in Christ (born again) when he/she humbles him/herself before a 100% just, 100% Holy, 100% loving God. Humbling oneself involves, among other things, a recognition that one is a sinner and condemned to Hell for breaking God's moral Laws.

We have all broke those laws, We've all lied, stolen, blasphemed God's name, disobeyed our parents, looked with lust at someone making us an adulterer at heart, hated someone making us a murder at heart, coveted , made god's (idols) to suite ourselves, and failed to love God with all our heart soul and mind.

We all deserve God's fierce wrath for our own sins (which are beyond count). Yet, God demonstrated His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. God placed sin on Christ and crushed Him so God would not need to crush us for our sins in Hell forever. Christ willingly took sin upon Himself to pay the debt we owed God for our sin. Jesus died, was buried, and rose again three days later. He was seen alive by over 500 people then ascended into Heaven. He is now seated on the right side of God in Heaven and He will return again someday. Therefore, God remains Just (He punished sin on Christ) and the Justifier (He credits Christ's righteousness to us).

However, His forgiveness is not automatic. One must realize they are a sinner, deserving Hell and God's fierce wrath towards the sinner. This is NOT an intellectual acknowledgement of sin. It is a humbling of oneself to a point of being sorrowful (not just sorry) for your sins against God. It should lead one to cry out to God “Have mercy on me a sinner.” At this point the sinner should repent and trust in Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross and God makes a person “born again.” God grants eternal life to the sinner so that Christ might bring us into God's presence for eternity.

Many atheist have heard that one must accept Christ. That idea is not in the Bible, The Bible say we must have repentance toward God and faith toward Christ. We can't accept Christ. It is Christ who must accept us. We are sinful, He is sinless. We receive His forgiveness.

Many atheist have heard it said (or have said themselves) a prayer asking Jesus to come into their heart. And Murphy was right. He IS wrong in his view of what God did. There is no “God-shaped” hole in mankind with God begging and pleading to come in and fill (or giving Jesus your heart). That is also not found anywhere in the Bible. There is no verse that states the same nor is there an example of that anyone in the Bible saying such a prayer. Salvation is always “repentance and faith.” It is the kindest offer you will ever get. Your sin in exchange for Christ's righteousness through repentance and faith.

It is the “humbling” of oneself that always trips up the atheist. They think they are pretty good (kind compassionate, etc) and that makes them think they are okay. However, they compare themselves to each other (or Christians) and not to the judge's standard; who is God. Humbling oneself will be the hardest thing in anyone can do. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.; April 19, 2009 at 7:20 PM
FrodoSaves said...: BathTub,

Thanks for pointing out that list on Creationwiki. I think I'll refer people to that in future.

-----

joelsplace,

You're missing the most obvious element in the definition of 'religion', which is that it must make some claim on the human spiritual experience. Religions also (always, as far as I know) make normative moral claims, and usually involve a supernatural element.

The two so-called 'fits' you identify, 'communal faith' and 'shared conviction', are to a large extent synonymous. Furthermore, they could be said to fit a whole raft of groups delineated purely on the basis that they share the same beliefs. Political parties, pressure groups, non-governmental organizations, charities, even role playing fantasy geeks all co-identify on the basis of shared beliefs. Now if you're happy to call the Democratic Party, the milk lobby, Amnesty International, MSF, and fantasy gaming religions, then yes, you could apply that to evolutionary theorists. But you'd rob the word of any significance.

Moreover, you're conflating the word 'belief' with the concept of religious faith. They are clearly distinguishable on the basis that belief per se may result following an examination of some evidence, and that religious faith typically involves belief regardless (and usually in spite of) the evidence. Yes, scientists say 'I believe...', but when they're referring to evolutionary theory, they're not saying 'dogma requires that I hold the following...'

There is a difference. I truly hope you can see it.; April 19, 2009 at 7:56 PM
BathTub said...: FrodoSaves, Answers in Genesis also has a very similar page, including interesting enough something they accept is an outright Error/Contradiction in bible. I wonder how Ray would respond to that.; April 19, 2009 at 8:08 PM
The Murphy's said...: Profweather said:

"And Murphy was right. He IS wrong in his view of what God did. There is no “God-shaped” hole in mankind with God begging and pleading to come in and fill (or giving Jesus your heart). That is also not found anywhere in the Bible."

Sorry G.E., but Profweather is wrong....here are some verses....

"But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” " (Matthew 22:34-40, ESV)

"Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you." (Acts 8:22, ESV)

"But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed," (Romans 6:17, ESV)

"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9, ESV)

"For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." (Romans 10:10, ESV)

"And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”" (Galatians 4:6, ESV)

"Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ." (Philemon 20, ESV)

I can keep going.....; April 20, 2009 at 7:43 AM
ExPatMatt said...: Well, I gave you the whole weekend, Trish, and nothing; I guess you don't really care about my salvation at all!

Just kidding, I'm sure you were busy and/or thought I wasn't serious in my proposal.

I was, by the way, and the offer still stands.

By way of a reminder, I asked;

a) how this post qualifies as 'satire'
b) why the images in this post misrepresent evolution, and
c) what evolution actually states with regards to transitional forms.

Now, Joelsplace made a valiant effort, but didn't really address a) at all. Sure, he gave a definition of satire, but he didn't show how this post qualifies.

As for b) and c), I have some thoughts.

Trish.

Either you don't actually know why/how this post misrepresents evolution or you do. (or you don't care!)

If you don't know and you admit it, you forfeit your ability to critique evolution in the future.

If you do know and you admit it, then you forfeit your ability to ridicule evolution in the future.

I think that's why you haven't answered but, as always, I'm happy to be show wrong.

So, what's it to be, Trish?; April 20, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Tanks Ryan (Murphy) and profweather,

I take that, then, there are different interpretations according to the Christian I would as this question to.

However, prof, it would seem that you added lots that were not implied in my question, nor in Ryan's answer. Such as Christ, or Jesus, beggin for our acceptance. Not at all.

Also, I do not know if I should take your answer to mean that there is no way I would become a Christian, since Jesus will not accept me. Which is kinda funny, given that God is supposed to be "good". If you eliminate that word (God being "good"), to say God is whatever he wants, then you will have a more consistent belief system (of course God defined good is kinda he same, but leaves us empty handed regarding moral values being part of his nature, and all of that).

Anyway, thanks again.

=====

Hi again Joel,

1)Communal faith fits

Nope, it does not fit. We share results, we weight the evidence, and we decide. It is not shared "faith."

2)Group rituals might not

Unless you want to force the sharing of results as a "ritual."

3)Shared conviction certainly does

Only if you want to force the word "conviction" to mean "let us see what the evidence suggests."

there is no growing disbelief within the scientific community. Only those who do not know the evidence would deny its existence. I wonder what kind of person was that who you mention. I know the evidence, the many lines of evidence. You do not even need tons of books on evolution, and all the books do contain evidence. maybe your friend was too much of an amateur. I do not know. But I go to tons of conferences, and not a single time have I heard anybody saying that they do not "believe" evolution. Nor have I heard a single one saying that there is no evidence (given that there are lots of lines of evidence this is not surprising).

The only one time I heard somebody talking about creationism was one guy telling another about how the creationists were misrepresenting his results.

I am a scientists, a biologist. So, do not try and give the wrong impression about what we know and think. It is false. We do not deny obvious evidence. Any biologist who does, must be someone working on a very unrelated field, or plainly the ignorant type.

G.E.; April 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Reynold said...: profweather:
It is the “humbling” of oneself that always trips up the atheist. They think they are pretty good (kind compassionate, etc) and that makes them think they are okay. However, they compare themselves to each other (or Christians) and not to the judge's standard; who is God. Humbling oneself will be the hardest thing in anyone can do. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.Wrong. We look at the actions taken by your alleged diety, and realize that he's more brutal than anyone but the most sadistic human dictators. Does that refute his actual existence? No, but it does refute at least one of his supposed traits that Matthew tells us to measure up to, that of being "perfectly good".

Atheism has got nothing to do with pride or humility. It has to do with the lack of evidence for your (or any other deity) and the multiple lines of evidence that show the factual errors in so-called "holy books".; April 20, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Melanie said...: Trish, I laughed at your original post but some of the comments were even funnier. That, and the NUMBER of them. lol :); April 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Anything worthwhile to add to the discussion Melanie?

Nope, didn't think so.; April 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM
The Murphy's said...: Come on Melanie, your gonna laugh at the atheist? Thats why they don't take "Christians" seriously because we laugh and avoid their important questions.; April 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM
The Murphy's said...: You are right G.E. There is a difference between me and Prof. I believe God is good and merciful, Prof is most likely a Calvinist, and believes God chooses who will and wont go to heaven.

I am not perfect by any means in my beliefs and I don't have it all right or down, but I do believe and have submitted my life to Jesus and I am trying to follow Him daily, thats all that is required of any man, to have a mustard seed of faith and believe, it doesn't require a whole lot, like I said before, just your heart. Jesus can handle doubters, but He has a whole lot to say about those that think they are holy!

To someone as intelligent as yourself that might sound really dumb and without evidence or proof, but I guess that is faith, or believing in something bigger than yourself.; April 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM
profweather said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; April 20, 2009 at 2:29 PM
profweather said...: @ Murphy,

As a Christian do you feel yourself to be a depraved creature, so depraved that you would have never thought of turning to God, if God had not put it into your heart?

Do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Supposing you were first saved by Christ, are you to somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

Allowing that you are saved by the grace of God, are you not in someway or other to keep yourself by your own power?

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to persevere you until the day you die and go to Heaven?; April 20, 2009 at 2:48 PM
The Murphy's said...: Profweather:

I am not a Calvinist, so why would I ascribe to TULIP, nice trick though.

Ryan; April 21, 2009 at 6:18 AM
profweather said...: Murphy,

You found me out. I guess the first "As a Christian..." stumped you. Just checking.; April 21, 2009 at 10:27 AM
stranger.strange.land said...: Trish,

You know, I've never been a big fan of pictures that combine two kinds of animals. Not even cartoons.

"Puffin-cat," on the other hand, I LOVE.

Craig; April 21, 2009 at 5:11 PM
The Murphy's said...: ExPatMatt:

My cat is puffincat!

Ryan; April 22, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Fish With Trish said...: ExPattMatt said, "I will seriously bend my knee and accept the gift of salvation that Jesus offers if you can demonstrate the following;

a) how this post qualifies as 'satire'
b) why the images in this post misrepresent evolution, and
c) what evolution actually states with regards to transitional forms."

My answers:

a) Joel’s place did a fine job here for explaining this. Joel’s place said, “Satire defined from Wiki "In satire, human or individual ... follies, .. or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement" Seems that Trish hit it perfectly. She is using humor to show how silly the religion of evolution is and she really does want you to improve by coming into the light by believing the truth.” That’s why I posted these pictures and that’s why they are satire.

b)Joel’s place did a fine job of asking the question to ExPattMatt on b and c. Joel’s place said, “since you have the problem with how the religion of evolution is being presented?”

c)Joel’s place did a fine job of asking the question on b and c. Joel’s place said, “since you have the problem with how the religion of evolution is being presented?”

Waiting for some answers to b and c, from ExPattMatt.

Thank you, please enlighten us.; April 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM
BathTub said...: Well guys I am really dissapointed, I though we had a live one on the line with joelsplace,....

Guess not. Ah well back to the baby eating, I mean er, work, back to work, yeah that's the ticket.; April 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM
stranger.strange.land said...: @The Murphy's

"Meh"

Craig; April 22, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Fish With Trish said...: ExPattMatt, I meant to finish b and c of Joel's place. Sorry about that.

Here it goes my answer and the question back to you for b and c:

b)Joel’s place did a fine job of asking the question to ExPattMatt on b and c. Joel’s place said, “since you have the problem with how the religion of evolution is being presented?” I wouldn't ask you to explain or defend God since you don't believe."

c)Joel’s place did a fine job of asking the question on b and c. Joel’s place said, “since you have the problem with how the religion of evolution is being presented?”I wouldn't ask you to explain or defend God since you don't believe."

Waiting for some answers to b and c, from ExPattMatt.; April 22, 2009 at 4:35 PM
joelsplace said...: On faith - What I believe has many witnesses and is recorded for me. There aren't any witnesses for evolution. I don't deny that God created living things with the ability to adapt to some situations. I don't believe that anything ever develops something like an eye when it didn't have one to begin with. Most "evidence" I see is more of an argument for intelligent design than for evolution. GM builds cars. They don't build some with computers and others with wind up clocks. They design them in similar ways. God uses DNA so why wouldn't it show similarities? If I built a car and a motorcycle they would probably share some parts in common but that wouldn't mean that they built themselves.
On the fact/theory - turn on PBS sometime and watch a nature show of any kind. They have a hard time making a complete sentence without presenting evolution as fact. What would an intelligent designer need to create to have you believe it? We have some pretty crazy animals out there that seem to be just to prove intelligent design as if the complexity of it all isn't enough. If I didn't know God and took an honest look around the world I believe I would come up with the opposite conclusion from yours. I can see how generations of rats living in darkness could lose their vision because it wouldn't hinder their breeding but I've seen lots dead earthworms on the driveway after a rain that haven't developed gills to survive the water or legs to get off the driveway or whatever it is they need to survive.
I guess no one is going to address Michael Denton's book?
I hope this addresses most of what's been asked of me. I've been working late all week and haven't had a chance to post until now. Thanks for the responses, Joel; April 22, 2009 at 8:53 PM
BathTub said...: Aw man, all that build up and wait, I bait you into responding,... and that's it?

Such an Anticlimax.

You really don't get the fact/theory thing do you? Colloquially it's pretty fine to say evolution is a fact. That's pretty on par with saying 'Scientifically' The Theory of Evolution. They are basically the samething. Something doesn't get to be a Theory if it's not a working solution to questions that we see around us.

A Theory can contain Laws, which indeed the Theory of Evolution does. Before you throw up that silly canard.

Oh yay God reusing DNA, great! I love that one.

So why did God reuse defunct viruses in our DNA? You know, the same defunct viruses we find in other Apes.

Or the genes we don't use because they are turned off? Genes that can be taken and used in other animals because they are the same.

There are many of these examples. Which make perfect sense with Common Descent.

But make no sense at all with Special Creation.

Unless you take the stance. Well God made it look that way... just because.

As for the book, I think I recognise it as something I read back as a creationist kid. Can't say it was memorable. Wikipedia indicates that he seems to believe in Evolution now. The book has a Talk Origins page, I will read it later.; April 22, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Logic Lad said...: Joel

A few comments

'What I believe has many witnesses and is recorded for me. There aren't any witnesses for evolution'

Just becaues it is written down does not make it true. Evolution has been observed in the lab. Bacteria adapting to their enviroment. if you accept that organisms can adapt to their enviroment through a process of inherited mutation then you accept evolution

'I don't believe that anything ever develops something like an eye when it didn't have one to begin with'

Just goggle it, the steps from primitive photosensitive patch to fully developed eye has been traced, with evidence from the natural world and is fully consistant with evolutionary theory.

'Most "evidence" I see is more of an argument for intelligent design than for evolution. GM builds cars. They don't build some with computers and others with wind up clocks. They design them in similar ways. God uses DNA so why wouldn't it show similarities? If I built a car and a motorcycle they would probably share some parts in common but that wouldn't mean that they built themselves.
'

All the above things are artifacts, manmade and incapable of reproduction, so you are not comparing like with like. Common ancestry also explains like and similar features, without invoking a supernatural entity.

'On the fact/theory - turn on PBS sometime and watch a nature show of any kind. They have a hard time making a complete sentence without presenting evolution as fact. What would an intelligent designer need to create to have you believe it? We have some pretty crazy animals out there that seem to be just to prove intelligent design as if the complexity of it all isn't enough'

Please stop confusing the layman version of theory with the scientific version, to a scientist a theory is consistant with all the avaliable facts, if any fact contradicts that theory you either have to modify the theory to accomidate it, in a plausable and acceptable way, or junk the theory and start again, spread of germs and gravity are both theories, yet we use them as principals to build hospitals and send rockets into space. untill someone can present a clear piece of evidence that evolution theory is false it continues to be the best fit for the evidence. if that evidence is ever found then every honest scientist will junk the thoery and create a new consistant with the new facts, perhaps the god theory? but givent the weight of evidence in favour of evolution it would require some real humdinger to bring it down.

' I can see how generations of rats living in darkness could lose their vision because it wouldn't hinder their breeding but I've seen lots dead earthworms on the driveway after a rain that haven't developed gills to survive the water or legs to get off the driveway or whatever it is they need to survive.'

I am no evolutionary biologist buit i can see the massive flaws in your arguments, blind rats are so because the energy required to grow eyes is not a good pay off for their use underground, saving energy in one area allows them to spend it somewhere else. Earth worms can drown, as can all non aquatic / amphibious creatures, what is your point. Evolution does not make a creature 'perfect' it works on the presmis of reproductive advantage, how would the deveolpment of gills improve the reproductive ability of most earthworms? worms that gradually move into a more liquid enviroment will adapt to survive there better, there are plenty of worms that live underwater. both species probably share a common ancestor.

I am afraid this comment simply highlights your ignorance of evolution theory, please at least learn the basics before trying to show how it is wrong, otherwise you just look foolish.

I will be honest, if your arguments are representative of those put up in the book i see little point in reading it, i have seen and seen rebuted, all the arguments you have put up. if you can find something original in the book please slap it up here so we can discuss it.; April 23, 2009 at 12:37 AM
profweather said...: ...the steps from primitive photosensitive patch to fully developed eye...It is always FROM something isn't it with you atheists. Oh please tell me how the "primitive photosensitive patch" became photosensitive in the first place. And how it was photosensitive only to wavelengths we "see" as visible light and not to infrared or ultraviolet or to any other wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum?

Start with nothing sir, then make the eye...or try something a little easier...just make a grain of sand if you can.

Shear foolishness!; April 23, 2009 at 6:44 AM
BathTub said...: ok profweather at this point I am calling you a poe that statement was just so over the top ridiculous.

Visible light is called visible because that's all we can see with our eyes.

Guess what? We don't have the best eyes, other animals do see different spectra. Some can even see the phase of the light.

But yeah, poe.; April 23, 2009 at 2:00 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Announcment:

Has anybody seen Joel's goal posts? Somebody appears to have moved them.

That is all.; April 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Hi ExPatMatt

I would like to answer at least one of your questions for Trish for you. You never actually ask Trish for her opinion on this one you asked. “What evolution actually states with regards to transitional forms.”

To start with there is no one theory of evolution, but many, the theory is constantly changing, as new discoveries (evidence) don’t fit with old theories and thus the theory changes. Different scientists have different opinions about what should be included in the theory. Therefore to give the best answer to your question you would need to first clarify what you mean by the term evolution. Do you mean Macro evolution, the change from one kind of animal to another over millions of years? Or do you mean micro evolution, the changes inside the same kind of animal?

In this instance I will assume you are talking macro evolution, as that seems most logical from what has been discussed hear. Still it may be better if you define what you mean by transitional forms, rather than asking what does evolution say, because there are many thoughts on what a transitional form actually is depending on who you ask. I personally am yet to be convinced that any theory that I have herd holds credibility.

At the end of the day I am no expert on evolution and there are many others smarter than I to answer your questions. I prefer to concentrate my efforts on learning Gods word and living life, than to learning every new theory or finding, in a theory that I find fundamentally flawed.

But I digress bake to the question. Bellow I have included some quotes from believers in evolution and what they say about transitional forms starting with Charles Darwin himself. I hope these answer you question “What evolution actually states with regards to transitional forms?”

Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
C. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413.

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
S.J. Gould, Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):14, 1977.

It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been ‘debunked.’ Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.
D. Ager, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 87(2):131–160, 1976

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation … . For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less ape-like and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.
Scientific American article by John Rennie ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ page 80

Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Scientific American article by John Rennie ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ page 83

These last two quotes from the same author in the same article contradict themselves how could “20 or more hominid” “fill the gap” If “not all of them are our ancestors”.

I am not intending to get into a huge debate about evolution/creation. There are others better qualified and resourced to answer these questions. You could try Creation ministries International or Answers in Genesis.

Thanks for reading

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:20; April 23, 2009 at 6:18 PM
BathTub said...: Yeah I am pretty sure cut and & pasting the same old tired platitudes are exactly NOT what he was asking for.; April 23, 2009 at 6:32 PM
BathTub said...: I'll tell you guys what I will give you a HUGE head start on this.

The theory of evolution with regards to transitional forms.

The Theory states that all forms of modern/current life can be traced back to a common ancestor.

Therefore we can predict that winding back the clock we can assert certain types of animals must have existed.

This predictive power is how science works.

In keeping with actual theory and NOT caricatures like the crocoduck.

It doesn't not however guarantee that every variant of animal ever to have existed a) has been fossilized b) uncovered by paleontologists (yet).

Fossilization is an extremely rare Event. We don't even have fossils of all the animals we know exist today! But we do have enough to know that something on the order of 99% of the animal species to exist on the earth are now Extinct. Including entire types of animals that are completely gone from the planet today. Like Dinosaurs for example.

Some examples of how the science works

Scientist "You know, it looks to me like Birds evolved from dinosaurs"

Well how would that be tested? What would the Theory of Evolution indicate here.

Well it predicts that there must be quite an overlap between animals that are like we think are birds. And animals that we consider dinosaurs. So you would expect there to exist animals that fit into this band. We also know what sort of timeframe this transition should have happened. So we go look into appropriate aged rock and see what sort of fossils we can find.

And guess what....

Yeah you know what's coming.

There are now around 20+ known species of dinosaurs with feathers.

Including funnily enough the velociraptors from Jurassic Park.

These are NOT birds. That does NOT include Rays' favourite archaeopteryx. Which is part of the next group, bird like dinosaurs.

Wow, so here is a group of animals no one in modern times knew existed, but was predicted by the theory of evolution and has been found.

That's how the science works.

Another much more famous example..

Scientist thinks to himself, you know, the theory suggests that around 400 million years ago species emerged from the sea onto land. Hmmmm... So if I dig in 400 million year old rock I should find fossils of species that are very fishlike, but also very tretrapodlike.

So he went digging...

And guess what...

Yeah again you know what is coming.

Tiktaalik was discovered. Part Fish, Part Tetrapod, a Fishapod!

From Wikipedia.
* Fish
o fish gills
o fish scales
* "Fishapod"
o half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes
o half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region
* Tetrapod
o tetrapod rib bones
o tetrapod mobile neck
o tetrapod lungs

So another creature of which modern man never knew of and doesn't exist today, which was accurately predicted to exist by the Theory of Evolution.

The list of such species is HUGE. Many modern animals have extremely well known lineages.

And more of these forms are found every year.

Did you know there are at least 3 known fossil species of snakes with rear legs only? (insert Garden of Eden joke here)

Seriously, google 'Dawn of the Picasso Fish' for 2 transitional fossils between normal fish and flatfish. Some extremely freaky looking fish, which again modern man had never seen, but theory of evolution predicted must have existed at some point and which fossils have now been identified.

I could keep going on and on, but I need to stop at some point.

But it's an amazing subject.; April 23, 2009 at 7:29 PM
BathTub said...: Oh how is this for fantastic timing.

A new find published today.

Puijila, A transitional Seal form, basically a seal with webbed feet instead of flippers.

Google it.; April 23, 2009 at 9:03 PM
The Murphy's said...: To my atheist friends,

Honest and sincere questions.
Do you think that a person could believe in evolution and still have a belief in God?

In your opinion does evolution negate the idea of God and His part in creation?

Lets say Trish believed in evolution and was a Christian as well, do you think she would be deluded or just intelligent scientifically and also a believer?

I really am interested to know, because I am pretty sure you guys are wondering why Trish attacked evolution when her first initiative was trying to engage atheist??? Maybe I am wrong..please help...

Ryan; April 24, 2009 at 6:43 AM
The Murphy's said...: BathTub,

Thanks for the info and the new find info. Very interesting!

Ryan; April 24, 2009 at 6:46 AM
profweather said...: Hogwash!

When a fossil is found all you know is an animal lived and died...and it died suddenly or else there would be no fossil.

Dating fossils by rock strata is also lunacy. How do you explain polystrate fossil trees? They must be buried rapidly to fossilize. Yet evolutionists say it take hundreds of thousands of years for the strata to develop.

I could guarantee that if an evolutionist found a fossilized Chihuahua and fossilized Great Dane they would claim the Chihuahua would be a transitional species. You are doing science a disservice and are blinded by your own ignorance.

Some people are thought of as fools, atheists speak and remove all doubt.; April 24, 2009 at 8:31 AM
ExPatMatt said...: BathTub steps up to the plate....

...the pitcher's looking nervous....

...here comes the pitch...

...he swings...

And it's gone, gone, gone!!

BathTub knocks it right out of the park and the crowd go wild!

That's how you do it guys. Even if you don't accept that it's true; at least accept that this is what the experts actually think about evolution and transitional forms in particular.

Cheers,; April 24, 2009 at 8:34 AM
ExPatMatt said...: profweather,

You sound a bit flustered. Take a deep breath, read what BathTub actually wrote and then let us know what, specifically, you have a problem with.

Ok?; April 24, 2009 at 12:33 PM
BathTub said...: TheMurphy's a large number of christians do, the question is a bit odd really. Even if you don't believe Catholics are Christian. There are some very prominent movers in the field who are Christian.

Ken Miller is a very well known example, Biologist, Christian, Author, who was part of the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial a few years ago.

Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, someone who probably understands our DNA more than any else could, is a Christian.

They are just examples of 2 individuals. But really the point is outside of the very specific (and Modern) YEC movement centered in the US a large portion of the world doesn't have this theological resistance to science.

Oh and profweather, cut and pasting some of Ray's lamest examples isn't doing anything to convince anyone you aren't just a Poe, and a rather lame one at that.; April 24, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Whateverman said...: The Murphy's wrote Honest and sincere questions.
Do you think that a person could believe in evolution and still have a belief in God?Hi Ryan. I'm not an atheist, but I find I generally agree with the things said by atheists, to take that for what it's worth...

Yes, God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible. Conflicts arise only when theists claim there's conflict.

In your opinion does evolution negate the idea of God and His part in creation? Nope, not in the least. Certain Biblical interpretations of Creation do fly in the face of the ToE, but they're only interpretations. Different Christians perceive the Bible differently, ranging from parable to 100% literally written by God. Given this, I don't find Christianity incompatible with the theory.

Individual Christians (depending on how they interpret the Bible)? Yes. Christianity? No.; April 24, 2009 at 3:58 PM
joelsplace said...: I've been digging around on the internet looking for things you've referenced and all I find is a bunch of talk. No evidence so far. What does Answers in Genesis give as a contradiction? All I found is a bunch of explanations for what people claim are contradictions. Let's try your tactics:
1) Please let me know what creationists believe.
2) What does the Bible have to say about the origin of creation?
3) Why does the theory of evolution contradict the Bible?
4) Why does evolution negate the message of the Gospel?
I've seen plenty of proof of intelligent design. Please search the internet to support this.
Joel; April 24, 2009 at 9:29 PM
joelsplace said...: As for Michael Denton's book - I haven't been able to find mine and it's been around 15 years since I read it. I just knew that it was a written by a scientist that doesn't believe in God.
I found several articles on the supposed evolution of the eye and the were all talk and no evidence.
Christians are not evolutionists and evolutionists are not Christians - read the Bible.; April 24, 2009 at 9:42 PM
joelsplace said...: I'll even give you a tip to help you understand what you are reading. The Bible sometimes gives the big picture and then goes back and fills in the details which makes it seem out of order or redundant if you don't understand the style. Joel; April 24, 2009 at 9:51 PM
BathTub said...: *sigh* Joely joely joely joel.

You're really just flailing now, and I had such high hopes too.

Let me help you since you are having so many problems with the internets.

From AIG

"Common misconceptions/misunderstandings"
"The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology. (Methuselah would have lived 17 years after the Flood without being on the Ark. This is a problem.)"; April 24, 2009 at 11:15 PM
The Murphy's said...: So let me then turn this to the Christians posting on this blog....tell me your opinion....

Do you think that a person could believe in evolution and still have a belief in God?

In your opinion does evolution negate the idea of God and His part in creation?

Lets say Trish believed in evolution and was a Christian as well, do you think she would be deluded or just intelligent scientifically and also a believer?

Ryan; April 24, 2009 at 11:46 PM
joelsplace said...: Bathtub,
I guess you are having a little trouble with the dictionary now.
"Common misconceptions/misunderstandings" This heading would indicate incorrect things sometimes used to attempt to argue for intelligent design. They are using a translation that was obviously in error to support their argument. I don't claim that translations of the Bible are always correct and neither do any other Christians that I know of.; April 25, 2009 at 1:14 AM
BathTub said...: Hahahaha.

Ok, I'm done, if you are quite happy to admit translation errors in your bible then there isn't really much to discuss.

People claim the bible is the perfect inerrant word of God all the time. Ray certainly does, he has money on it, well at least he did, he used to offer money for bible errors.

This of course dispite not having any originals, or copies of the originals, or copies of copies of the originals, or copies of copies of copies of the originals.

Because you can create an excuse for a contradiction or mistake or doesn't mean the mistake never existed in the first place.

You probably missed the discussion over at Rays blog a few weeks ago.

"The Bible is literally true, all of it."

"What about that?

"Well that's hyperbole"

"And that?"

"Well that's Metaphor and such"

"Right, so the bible is literally true, except for when it's Hyperbole and/or Metaphor and such"

And now

"Or a translation error"

And the million dollar question.

"Who decides what parts are hyperbole, what parts are metaphor and such, and what parts are mistranslations"

Well, ultimately the reader does.; April 25, 2009 at 1:42 AM
BathTub said...: Oh and perhaps I should point out that the core of Answers in Genesis is that the Hebrew for Day (yom), means 1 literal 24 hour Day.

So I guess this mistranslation happened sometime before whatever their reference Hebrew copy is.; April 25, 2009 at 4:29 AM
joelsplace said...: Bathtub,
You are really showing your lack of understanding about what Christians believe. Translations are all done by people that make mistakes. We do have thousands of copies of the Bible in the original language. Sure they may be copies of copies but it is not unreasonable to believe they are correct when you have so many to compare. If you have 900 that use one word and 100 that use misc different words in that location it's pretty easy to figure out which one is correct.

"Right, so the bible is literally true, except for when it's Hyperbole and/or Metaphor and such"
You figure that out by the context just like in any text. When Jesus says "I am the door" that doesn't mean He is a piece of wood with hinges. It is literal unless the context clearly shows otherwise. It is inerrant in the original.
There are a few places that it isn't clear if something is in the original and most Bibles note those areas. They aren't any that change what the Bible teaches. You can leave those very few out and still be just fine.
So called Christians that believe in evolution are the ones that do the picking and choosing you are talking about. I cannot believe evolution and the Bible without discounting huge parts of the text by calling them an allegory or mistakes. If it was up to me to decide what is true in the Bible and what isn't then I might as well toss the whole thing because I am then the judge over it and therefore wouldn't need it at all. God is everyone's judge not the other way around. Thanks, Joel; April 25, 2009 at 9:40 AM
BathTub said...: No you don't get off that easy. You don't get to say things like that just because it makes you uncomfortable. I was a christian for 20 years so I know what christians think about the bible.

Feel free to say what you think about the bible, but don't turn around and then say your views are the same as ALL christians because clearly they aren't.

Unless you are invoking the "No TRUE Christian believes...." fallacy.

The bible was & is man-made every step of the way.

But this is the usual justification.

How do we trust the original authors?

Well God guided them to write the correct things down.

How do we trust the copiers?

Well God guided them to copy correctly.

How do we know that the correct Gospels and Letters and books and so on where collected up and eventually agreed upon to become 'The Bible'.

Well God made sure that only the correct books made it in.

Of course the fact that different churches use different bibles, means at least someone is using the wrong one.

See I love that you are comfortable with hyperbole, and metaphor and translation errors in you bible, but you know without a doubt, that genesis 1 & 2 are literally true with no error, and couldn't possibly be anything else.; April 25, 2009 at 12:28 PM
profweather said...: Bath Tub

If you are not a Christian now you never were a Christian. I'm sure you will disagree though. But if you were saved then I'd be confident of this very thing, that God who would have began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.

Being is Christian is not something you turn on or off...choose to become or not. A Christian is one who is "born again" from God. You had no say in your natural birth and you have no say on being born again. It is all a work of God.

Your part in the equation is to humble yourself before God, by repenting of your sins and trusting in Christ only (and Himself alone) to save you. God gives grace to the humble but will resist the proud.

There are many people as yourself, who at one time made a "profession of faith", "said/repeated a prayer", "accepted Christ in your heart", or any number of man-made concoctions in the past who were never saved in the first place. You were duped. None of those ideas are to be found in the Bible.

Jesus said, "unless you repent you will likewise parish."

"In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

Peter said to them, "Repent."

Also Peter said, "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away..."

Paul, "Repentance toward God, faith toward Christ.."

"God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..."

Paul to Timothy, "perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth..."

As an aside, yes they were a literal 24-hour days "in the beginning."; April 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM
joelsplace said...: Bathtub,
"I was a christian for 20 years so I know what christians think about the bible."
You are showing an even deeper misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches. Have you ever read it?
The Bible warns about those who would claim to be Christians but are not. They are sometimes called tares. They can appear to be real Christians and only God knows who they are. It isn't my job as a Christian to figure that out. There are others that claim to be Christians but are not based on what they believe. The Bible is also clear on the status of people who leave the faith. "they went out from us because they were not of us". If you don't like the translation feel free to look it up in the original language. That's what I do to make sure the translation is accurate.
The point is that the Bible is clear on what a Christian is and what they believe. Just because you can find someone that thinks that some translation is inerrant doesn't make them right or make them representative of real Christianity. Real Christians follow Christ and believe what he said. Hasn't that been your argument all along? - "evolutionists don't believe that". I guess you are giving me permission to say that evolutionists believe that aliens seeded our planet with DNA to produce all forms of life we now have since some do believe that.
BTW: The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament. Wiki has a page on it too if you care to look.

I'll give you the typical so called "Christian" false argument for evolution in Genesis. They claim that day just means some period of time such as millions of years. If you take that on the surface and don't bother to read Genesis then it sounds good because day in Hebrew works just like it does in English. I can say "on the third day of next month" and that means a 24 hour period. I can also refer to "back in the day" and that means some period of time. Just like in English Hebrew day is a 24 hour period if it is attached to a specific number and can mean a period of time if not. But... God didn't leave it at that. He also attached it to morning and evening so that no one could honestly change it from a 24 hour period into millions of years. If you reject the Bible that is your problem. Don't lump me in with someone who calls themselves a Christian but is dishonest with the Bible and I won't call you alien tubby. Or maybe I will if I have to be Joely. Joel; April 25, 2009 at 5:36 PM
BathTub said...: Yeah profweather, that's the standard response, so I was completely expecting it. No True Christian blah blah blah.

Especially since you are just a Ray Comfort cut & paste bot at this point.

You missed the opportunity to call me a filthy pig like he called Happy Humanist though, something to remember for next time.

Joelsplace, sorry really I don't know what tangent you are on about now.

I was the one specifically saying different Christians believe different things about the bible. You were the ones saying all Christians believe the same way.

It would be equally dishonest to say such things about all 'Evolutionists' Christian or not.

Or are you saying True Christians aren't allowed to believe in Evolution? It's so hard to know what is and isn't a True Christian.; April 25, 2009 at 9:28 PM
profweather said...: Bath Tub,

I'm not sure what you mean about Ray Comfort. I've never cut and pasted anything from Him. But thank you for the compliment. Great minds think alike.

And even if what I said is similar to Ray, that makes it no less true.; April 26, 2009 at 5:42 AM
ExPatMatt said...: HeathP (If you're still reading),

No offense, but there was a lot of waffle in your post, so I'll cut to a bit at the end. You said;

"These last two quotes from the same author in the same article contradict themselves how could “20 or more hominid” “fill the gap” If “not all of them are our ancestors”."Imagine that you are trying to trace your family genealogy and, so far, you know about yourself and your great-grandfather. Clearly you're not your grandfather's son (I hope!) so there's a lot more evidence yet to find.

Let's say you find an uncle, a cousin, your grandfather and your father. You do some DNA testing (you're a geneticist in this story, OK?) and confirm that you are related to all four people, but that you're most related to your father, then grandfather and so on. The evidence is mounting....

Then you find various family photo albums and the like that confirm your suspicions about who is who and so on.

You would be quite right to say these four individuals 'fill (some of) the gaps' in your family tree, though only two of them were your direct ancestors because that's what the evidence is telling you.

Does that make sense?

Now extrapolate that to the relatedness of individual species and you'll get what the guy was talking about.

OK?

Cool.; April 27, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Curtis said...: ExPatMatt said... "I mean, you'd have to be a real moron to misunderstand evolution to the extent that you think that a 'birdog' is viable species."

Funny thing is, 2 years ago I took my kids to the Drumheller Dinosaur museum and they had a display of a "creature" they had made up which represented the transition of a Horse like animal(Hyrachyus eximus) into a Rhinoceros. The part I find funny is if Trish had posted an image from an actual museum representation would you have critisized that too, because it was just as "silly" as her photoshop pics.

You can find it at wiki.; May 3, 2009 at 8:18 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Curtis,

The short answer is; no.

There's a difference between a funny-looking animal (a platypus, for example) and an animal that is a composite of two contemporary species.

The fact that creationists apparently can't tell the difference and seem to think that a transitional form is some sort of aberrant chimera is worrying.

The animal you quoted is fully mammal, with all the features you would expect to find on a mammal. It fits into the nested hierarchy of life quite nicely.

The 'birdog' is half mammal (canine) and half bird!. Not just a half and half mix, but one half of one stuck on to the half of the other.

Yes, that is ridiculous. No, that is not easily mistakable for actual transitional species.

Regards.; May 4, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Whateverman said...: Curtis wrote Trish had posted an image from an actual museum representation would you have critisized that too, because it was just as "silly" as her photoshop pics.I wont speak for EPM, but you clearly don't why those pictures were laughed at here.

If someone wants to photoshop a hyrachyus eximus into existence, the image wouldn't by default appear patently ridiculous. Why? Because there are modern animals that already look similar to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara

There is nothing that looks like a crockoduck.; May 4, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Unknown said...: Believing that Jesus Christ is Lord means that you will submit your life to His ways. These ways cause us to live with compassion, kindness, humility, quiet strength, discipline, being content with second place, quick to forgive, and loving unconditionally built into our character. Is this soooo bad??? These are all great character traits. One can continue to argue about all this stuff and what is true, but think of this?? If there is no God and we are not responsible for the way we live, and there is nothing awaiting us when we die--and we actually believed there is a God, that the Bible is true, that we are responsible for the way we live, ect. ect. than no harm done...we lived a good life with good character and then we die. On the other hand, however, if God is real and it is all true and we did not accept Jesus Christ as Lord, and Hell is real ??? I certainly would not want to take that chance. I would rather err on the God side than the "no" God side. Jesus Christ made the way for us to live eternally in His kingdom with abundant life now!! By the way I think the satire is funny!; August 2, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Whateverman said...: Deanna wrote: Believing that Jesus Christ is Lord means that you will submit your life to His ways. These ways cause us to live with compassion, kindness, humility, quiet strength, discipline, being content with second place, quick to forgive, and loving unconditionally built into our character. Is this soooo bad???

Nope. I submit to you that those things are *good* for the most part.

I'd like to point out, however, that those things are achievable regardless of whether you submit or not. Submission is actually a non-sequitur.; August 2, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Wah-Gah-Side said...: And furthermore, why would you deny any bird the right to evolve a dog's head over x-number of millions (give or take billions...does it really matter how long?) of years.

I am right in assuming that your use of the word profweather is in no way a claim that you hold the title professor. You are so clueless on so many levels. I don't want to change your mind. I just want to inform you that making infantile statements does you and your cause no good.

Don't be a sore loser.; October 1, 2009 at 7:27 AM
Sajid said...: Cute, Laughable, Absurd..

..and willfully/naturally ignorant.

- Sajid; December 30, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Unknown said...: These were great photos. Now I'd like to see a GodMan or ManGod as Christians claim that Jesus is; fully God and fully Man; what a hybrid that would be.; June 15, 2010 at 2:28 AM