Heaving Dead Cats » cliches

Objective Versus Subjective

Johnny — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:41:27 +0000

I’m seeing this video being repeatedly posted on Facebook as it chains its way though the theist world. From what I’ve gathered from the YouTube mirroring, this is a TV commercial running in the Republic of Macedonia. The campaign is apparently something like “Knowledge Is Power.” And this part of the campaign is apparently sub-headlined “Religion is knowledge, too. Bringing religion back to school.“

On several Facebook posts by friends or family, I’ve pointed out that its not a “true story” as claimed. Even pointing out the Snopes article which says that not only did Einstein not do this, but the whole story is an urban legend. The unanimous response so far has been “So what? Its a good story; and even if Einstein didn’t say it, its still the truth.”

The title and the argument of the commercial don’t really coincide. The title asks “does God exist?” while the argument presented is that “if God exists, then he is evil.”

The problem with the argument is that it is comparing objective information with subjective information (apples-to-oranges).

Cold may not exist because it is actually the lack of heat; but heat also really does not exist. Heat is the measurement of temperature. Temperature can be measured with scientific instruments to precise specifics. Multiple scientists from varying cultures with different instruments would measure the same temperature. Darkness actually being a lack of light, but still describing something that is scientifically measureable. Again even with variations in equipment, personnel, and their personal experiences, scientists would reach the same conclusion when measuring the same thing. Thus, they are objective.

Evil, being described as the absence of good is very subjective. Two people raised in different parts of the same state would classify the same deed at different levels of evil. Expand the potential for difference in ‘measuring’ evil (or absence of good) if your sample audience is from completely different cultures or times in history. The ‘measure’ of the absence of good is subjective to the era, the country, the nationality, the culture, the personal faith, the personal experience, and the acceptance of society norms for each individual. Thus, this measurement is subjective.

I also think that the dishonesty of the video creator claiming Einstein had this argument with a professor is poor form. And really goes even further to discredit the argument. But when has ‘Lying for Jesus’ ever been a true ethical struggle for most Christians.

And of course bringing religion into school curriculum is always a bad idea.

Happy Treaty of Tripoli Day!

Johnny — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:11:50 +0000

The Treaty of Tripoli was negotiated while George Washington was president; eventually ratified by the U.S. Senate on June 7th, 1797; and then signed by President John Adams on June 10th, 1797. Although this treaty is no longer in effect today, Article 11 provides some significant insight into the infancy of the United States as a nation.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This ratification by the Senate was recorded as one of the few unanimous votes be the Senate (339 votes taken). Additionally the entire treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York newspapers. There is no evidence of any government or public opposition to the terms of the treaty.

This isn’t like some of the 100-plus-page bills that go to the Senate today, where they might sneak this paragraph in somewhere. The Treaty of Tripoli is a single page.

In my opinion this is a clear indication of what our founding fathers, the government, and the public in-general thought. To maintain “freedom of religion” the government must remain “free from religion.”

We recently saw President Obama reference the Treaty of Tripoli; and many people gasped that a modern-day politician had even heard of it. Unfortunately he skipped over that first sentence in Article 11, but did point out that “the Government of the United States of America…has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of [Muslims].”

There are a few separation of church and state advocates urging people to update their Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, or other social-site status to remind everyone of today’s anniversary.

—– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —–

Since we are on this topic, I’d like to briefly hit on some of the arguments I’ve heard as to why people think the U.S. was established as a Christian nation. Neece had a Separation of Church and State post awhile back, and illustrates a nice example of how it benefits everyone (both religious and non-religious). I want to focus on some of the individual arguments though.

The laws of the U.S. are based on the ten commandments.

How many of the commandments do we have equivalent laws for? So many religious people argue this case without thinking about it long enough to realize. Of the biblical ten commandments, only TWO are laws: 20%. Thou shall not kill and Thou shall not steal. Some people argue a third, Thou shall not bear false witness because of perjury laws; but outside of a courtroom you can lie without legal repercussions so you can’t really count it.

Say you work at a company that says they have based their entire employee policy from a management book that the president of the company once read. Then you go through the employee policy handbook and compare it to the original management book. You find that only about 20% of the message from the original book actually made it into the policy handbook. Yet the handbook has a multitude of additional policies never covered in the original book. Would you personally conclude that the handbook was based on the original? Or would you conclude ideas might have been taken from the original, but they just as likely came from another source?

What about the fact that “don’t kill” and “don’t steal” are the two most basic universal laws in every society; even those that have never been exposed to the Bible, and especially those who predated the Bible.

The founding fathers referred to “God” in the Constitution.

This one is great because it illustrates that they don’t know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence has “God” appear once, and “Creator” appear once; but neither appear in the Constitution.

…to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…

…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…

Neither of these refer to Jesus, and neither specify the judeo-christian god Yahweh; in fact this is very similar to the language used by deists of the time (which leads to our next claim).

The founding fathers were all Christian.

There were many founding fathers who were Christian, but there were many who were agnostic or deists; some would probably be considered atheist by today’s standards (or with today’s scientific knowledge). More importantly the majority agreed in opposing the idea of christianity or any religion being allowed in government.

Thomas Jefferson was an openly admitted deist. He believed in a generic ‘Creator’ that created the world, and then left man to his own devices; he did not believe in the judeo-christian god and openly stated that the church had twisted religion for its own gain.

George Washington, although being a practicing Christian, is speculated by many to have been a deist; he repeatedly avoids using ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ in speech and text, instead only referencing the ‘Creator.’

Benjamin Franklin was also a deist who thought the church had it wrong and was corrupt besides; and often expressed philosophies that would be considered atheist by today’s standards.

The Presidential Oath of Office has the president swear on the Bible “So help me God.”

Neither the Bible nor the phrase “So help me God” are required parts of the oath of office. For early presidents it was common place to say a prayer after completing the oath; although others might have said it, Chester A. Arthur is the first president officially on record having ended his oath with “I will, so help me God.” Another interesting tid-bit here is that since it is not part of the oath, it is technically illegal for the Chief Justice to say it; the president has the option, but the Chief Justice shouldn’t prompt it. Something else of interest with the most recent oath, since the Chief Justice botched it so badly at the inauguration it was considered possibly invalid; so President Obama retook the oath the morning of the 21st, and did it without a Bible.

The founding fathers created “In God We Trust” as a national motto and put it on money. Besides that they put “under God” in the Pledge.

I really love this one too, because so few people realize how “young” these are. Any reference to God was not placed on money for the specific reason that it could be seen as the government backing a form of religion. “In God We Trust” did not appear on money until 1864. After the Civil War is was a popular sentiment for church leaders to point to the nation moving away from God as the reason for the war. This lead to many appeals written to the government; among these were direct appeals to the Secretary of the Treasury stating that the US currency should display that the US is a “god fearing” country. So on April 22, 1864, Congress passed an Act (that over turned several other Acts, and ultimately went against the Constitution), directing that “In God We Trust” be stamped on two-cent coins. In March of 1865 they passed an Act allowing all coins to be minted with the motto.

The Pledge of Allegiance was not even written until 1892, and “under God” was not added until 1954. “In God We Trust” was not made the official motto until 1956.

—– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —–

So what other arguments have you heard?

Young Earth Invasion

Neece — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:10:05 +0000

Recently, a friend of mine went to the Center For Inquiry in his hometown. There was a book discussion about “50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a god“. This is part of his email to me about it:

The guy who leads the Scientific Evaluation of Religion things for this location has done a pretty good job the two times I have gone. I really have to give him credit and say I was impressed at how he handled this meeting since IT GOT HIJACKED BY A GROUP OF YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS! That’s right, you heard me. It was pretty interesting for me to see first hand their pulling out all the old cliché arguments for Christianity. They got started when there was a chapter summary that mentioned that most religious people are skeptical of other peoples faiths but not their own, they took issue with that statement and then proceeded to confirm its accuracy with their actions.

One creationist gave everyone a four-page handout entitled “Evolution, Science or Religion?” which my friend sent me a few days later. Here it is as he sent it to me: (BEGIN LOGICAL FALLACY DRINKING GAME NOW)

Evolution, Science or Religion?

Operational Science by definition uses observable, repeatable, and verifiable experiments to try to discover truth.

Origin Science relies on presuppositions, interpretations, and theory based on artifacts and remains. Origin Science tries to determine the past. This in not real science for it is neither observable, repeatable, or verifiable. Origin Science are interpretations based on operational science.

Scientific Fact Observed- 85% of the world’s rock is sedimentary and is found all over the world.

Belief #1 – This rock took billions of years to form through wind and water erosion.

Belief #2 – This rock was formed by a worldwide flood.

Both are beliefs, interpretations of the facts. The question is: which best explains the facts?

Which of these beliefs better explains polystrate fossils? Fossilized trees that go through multiple rock layers? Did those layers form around ther trees over millions of years or was it rapid sedimentation that occurred? What belief better explains this fact?

Which of those beliefs better explain that there are fossilized clams that have been found on the top of Mount Everest?

Have you ever taken a look at Burlingame Canyon? It took 6 days for this canyon to form… it is verifyable.

Scientific Fact Observed- the moon is drifting away from the earth slowly.

Belief #1- The Universe is billions of years old.

Belief #2 – The Universe is only thousands of years old. Because if you trace the drifting of the moon back for millions of years the moon would be on top of the earth. If you trace it back even less than that the moon would be so much closer to the earth that our tides would be out of control.

Which of these beliefs best fit the Science that we observe?

Scientific Fact Observed – Neptune is a very active planet that is still producing heat, has winds that reach over 1300 MPH and it gives off over twice the amount of energy than what it receives from the sun.

Belief #1- The Universe is billions of years old.

Belief #2 – The Universe is only several thousand years old. If it were millions or billions of years old Neptune would have cooled off and become inactive by now because of its distance from the sun. But if it is only thousands of years old then it would still be cooling off.

Use your reason… Assuming man evolved over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years, using an average life span of 43 years per generation and a family producing an average of 2.5 children, accounting for natural depletion by wars, famines, and plagues, our world should be populated by trillions of people. If this is true, where are they and where are the mountains of skeletons they would have generated?

Scientific Fact Observed – Birds give birth to Birds, dogs give birth to dogs, monkeys give birth to monkeys, humans give birth to humans etc.

Belief #1- All living things have a common ancestor. Over a long period of time sea creatures mutated into reptiles, reptiles mutated into birds which eventually led to every living creature we have today. (This is oversimplified but you get the general idea.)

Belief #2- All creatures were created fully functional and give birth after their own kind.

Which belief better fits what we observe?

Scientific fact observed – There has never been a mutation that has ever produced an increase or addition of information to the genetic code.

Belief #1 – Mutations are the engine that has brought about the evolution of all living creatures from single celled organism into all the creatures we see today.

Belief #2 – Mutations do occur. Mutations occor within kinds. There is no way mutation can change a simpler organism into a more complex organism because they do not produce new genetic information. Felines change into different kinds of felines, canines into different kinds of canines, but never felines into canines or any other transition between kinds.

Scientific fact observed - Geological research shows no transitional fossils.

Belief #1 – It’s not that they never existed, it’s that the geological record isn’t complete. “The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record” – Charles Darwin

Belief #2 – Transitions between kinds has never occurred.

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, certainly I would have included it… I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument”. – Dr. Colin Patterson, Director of the British Museum of Natural History. Well Respected evolutionist and author, Letter to Luther D Sunderland

When talking about transitional fossils Charles Darwin said, “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory”

As stated above Darwin attributed this to the incompleteness of the exploration of the fossil record at the time. But today, well over a century after that time with thousands of tons of fossils from all over the world the lack of transitional fossils is still a problem.

Evolutionist David Raup reviews the evidence from us. He has been the curator of the famous Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. That museum houses 20% of all fossil species known, so Raup is in a position to speak with considerable knowledge about fossil evidence. He says:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded… Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”

Which belief better fits the facts?

Scientific Fact observed- everything which has a beginning has a cause (Law of Cause and effect)

Belief #1- In the Beginning the universe caused itself.

Belief #2- In the Beginning God created the universe

If matter had a beginning, then belief number 1 cannot be true, the law of cause and effect shows that everything that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore one must conclude one of two things: either matter had no beginning or it had a cause.

Scientific Fact Observed – The 2nd Law of thermodynamics: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

Belief #1 – Matter had no beginning. The universe caused itself.

Belief #2 – Matter had a beginning, it was created by God.

If matter had no beginning then how can the 2nd law of thermodynamics be true? If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy. Therefore if the universe has a beginning, it must have a cause (Law of cause and effect)

Which belief fits the facts? The universe had no cause, or God caused the universe?

One might ask “Well what/who caused God?”. Well that’s a good question. First I would say that logic demands that there be something which had no cause, something that is eternal. Because if I would answer who/what caused God, you would say “well who/what caused that?” and it would be an endless cycle. There had to have been something which had no beginning, and had no cause. These past two scientific facts prove that matter itself cannot be that which had no beginning or cause. Logic demands there must be something eternal, Science proves matter can’t be eternal, the Bible describes God as eternal. God is outside of time/space, He is eternal.

Scientific fact observed- Nonliving matter cannot produce living creatures. (Law of Biogenisis/Pasteur’s Law)

Belief #1- Life was spontaneously generated from nonliving matter, not from a Creator.

Belief #2- Life was created by God

Which answer best explains the facts? Science says spontaneous generation can’t happen, without God the first living organism would have had to have come from nonliving matter. But this is scientifically impossible.

Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the Nobel Prize for developing penicillin said this, “To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”

Nobel Prize winning evolutionist and Harvard professor Dr George Wald answered this question when he said, “There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising into evolution or the supernatural creative act of a God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, however, was scientifically disproved by Louis Pasteur and others. Therefore, that leaves only one possibility as to how life arose, that it was a supernatural creative act of a God. However, I choose not to believe this, because I do not want to believe in a God. Therefore I choose to believe that which I know is scientifically impossible.”

Why would Dr Wald, a man smart enough to win a Nobel prize, believe and teach something he considered to be scientifically impossible? Because he said he didn’t want to believe in a God. Why didn’t he want to believe in a God? Because if God is real then we will be accountable to Him one day.

If God is real you will stand in front of Him one day as well, how will you do? Here is a quick test: Have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen something? Jesus said ” If you have looked with lust you’ve committed adultery in your heart” Have you looked with lust? Have you ever murdered someone? Keep in mind Jesus said if you hate your brother or call your brother a fool you will be judged as a murderer. Have you ever taken God’s name in vain? This is called blasphemy. This is like taking God’s holy name, throwing it into the mud and stomping on it. Imagine if I took your mother’s name and used it in place of a 4 letter word. You’d be very offended wouldn’t you?… So how will you do? This is only four of the Ten Commandments, which is God’s standard of righteousness. When you stand before God will you be innocent or guilty? Will you be deserving of Heaven or Hell? Listen to your conscience, God gave you His moral code and a conscience so that you would know you are in need of Him.

Psalm 53:1 “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.” When you look around and see design, order, art, and creation it is axiomatic that there is a designer, an orderer, an artist, and a creator behind it. We know there is design in something like a chair or an automobile. We know because the object itself is the evidence. You would not have to convince me that someone designed an automobile, I just know. Why then do we try to postulate (based on no facts, just guesses) that there is no designer or creator to nature, plants, animals, and humans?

If your conscience is telling you that you are guilty of breaking God’s commands that is a good thing. Listen to your conscience and understand that there is something wrong. Breaking God’s law will condemn you to Hell. Once you understand this you will understand that it is not God’s will to send anyone to Hell. Jesus Christ came to this earth (a historical fact that only extreme scoffers try to deny). Jesus said, “I am th way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me.” You see punishment that we all deserve for breaking God’s law was poured out on Christ. God loved us so much that He chose to cruch His own Son for our sake. The Bible tells us that Jesus became sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God. There is no other belief, idea, person, religion, or anything that can save us from our sins. We must repent (turn from our sins) and believe the gospel. Don’t rely on blind faith any longer. Check out the claims of Christ and the Bible for yourself. Remember this story, many people came to Jesus and had objections to His message. He replied to them and said, “Unless you repent you will likewise perish.” Please do not be the kind of person that looks for any excuse to reject the message of salvation. Repent and believe the gospel today.

If you started the Logical Fallacy Drinking Game at the top, you are totally sloshed now, so you’re probably not even able to focus on the text anymore. Go pray to the white porcelain god for a bit then come back and tell us what you think.

My friend (who I am not naming because I didn’t ask his permission) says he’s going to go through and refute each point. Honestly this kind of dreck just makes me tired. I am posting it without comment for now. Feel free to pick it apart in the comments and maybe we can tackle different parts in different posts.

EDIT: I forgot that my friend (sorry, I really should have asked him if I could use his name, sorry) wrote a little creation story in response:

It’s obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence without some preconceived idea.
I mean we know for a fact that Odin, Vili and Ve killed Ymir, and his blood flooded the world and drowned all of the jötunn, except two.
But jötnar grew again in numbers and soon there were as many as before Ymir’s death.
Then the gods created seven more worlds using Ymir’s flesh for dirt, his blood for the Oceans, rivers and lakes, his bones for stone, his brain as the clouds, his skull for the heavens.
We know this because we see that the the earth is made from only a few “elements”. Just use your logic and the wisdom that comes from the all father, Odin.
Also “seven more worlds” right? 1 + 7 = 8 and now that we got the Pluto thing settled there are 8 planets in our solar system. Or should I say “Ymir’s left over body soup system” Slam dunk! Norse creation FTW! Jesus PWNED!
Sparks from Muspelheim flew up and became stars.
Sparks, am I right? We know stars are big burny things. That’s science people!
One day when the gods were walking they found two tree trunks. They transformed them into the shape of humans. We know this for a fact! Odin gave them life, Vili gave them mind and Ve gave them the ability to hear, see, and speak.
The gods named them Ask and Embla and built the kingdom of Middle-earth for them; and, to keep out the jötnar, the gods placed a gigantic fence made of Ymir’s eyelashes around Middle-earth.
Again, that is just science. Look down at your descended from tree truck people bodies and give thanks that we still have eyelashes keeping the jötnar at bay.

All hail the magic giant eyelash fence! WOOT! This is such a brilliant response. It makes way more sense though. LOL

Back to the creationist handout bullshit: I thought about removing the blatant proselytizing at the end, but then I figured you’re big people, you can handle it. Your comments are welcome and encouraged.

What’s your favorite bit that you find totally insanely stupid? Which fallacy does it commit? Why does it drive you mad?

Richard Dawkins “Rose From The Dead”

sheisgod — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:41:21 +0000

From NewsBiscuit

via RichardDawkins.net

Confirmed atheist Richard Dawkins was forced onto the defensive yesterday after he died but subsequently rose from the dead in a miraculous resurrection, much like that of the son of God Jesus Christ.

‘There are a number of perfectly logical scientific explanations for what has happened’ he told journalists flocking to hear his story or just touch the hem of his clothing. ‘Although I was pronounced dead after the unfortunate incident on Friday, the doctors clearly made a mistake. The fact that there was thunder and lightning, and those around claim to have heard the sound of angelic voices is completely irrelevant.’

Dawkins suffered a shocking but ironic death on Friday having been seized by a mysterious gang of burly men dressed as Roman soldiers. They nailed him to a cross, and left him there until he died some hours later. However on Sunday, his body was no longer to be found in Slough mortuary, and he was seen walking on the A4 towards his home, where his resurrection was hailed as a miracle.

It is being suggested in some quarters that Richard Dawkins was being taught a lesson by God, who has now given him magical powers including the ability to walk on water and cast out demons. A bitter Pope Benedict said ‘Why is it the naughty ones get all the attention? I have been saying that I definitely, definitely believe in God for ages and I haven’t been given the ability to perform a single miracle. Unless you count progressing from the Hitler Youth to being God’s representative on Earth, I suppose.’

Despite the miraculous events of the past few days, Richard Dawkins was standing by his militant atheism. ‘All of it can be explained by science and rational thought’ he insisted to reporters outside his front door. At this point a leper rushed through the crowd, and kissed Dawkins’ feet, only to stand up apparently totally cured of her hideous affliction. ‘OK, that is pretty impressive, I admit’ said the author of The God Delusion. ‘Oh shit, I think I’m going to get pissed.’ At that he touched a bottle of mineral water, turning it into Chateau Lafitte 1967, and slunk inside to drink it.

Penn and Teller, Bullshit!

sheisgod — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:30:14 +0000

Creationism

Holier than Thou

Extremists, Things that make me go, “WTF?!”

sheisgod — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:28:49 +0000

You have different types of extremists in this crazy world today. Each one that I can think of makes me scratch my head in wonder. As in what the fuck is the deal with these nut cases.

The first type I’m going to cover is religious extremists. The types that blow up cars, ram planes into buildings, etc. This really boggles my mind. Why do people kill in the name of some (likely imaginary) god? I’ll state it this way for the religious. If we weren’t meant to think for ourselves, why would god give us a brain and free will? He or she could have easily designed us as mindless robots. So why all the violence in the name of religion? I guess some haven’t evolved into civilized individuals. They still hold on to the values of the dark ages where freethinkers or infidels were burned at the stake.

Now I’ll go on to the Pro-Lifers. Not your everyday folks that think abortion is wrong. But those who murder doctors and set clinics on fire. Those people are against abortion because it’s murder to them. So abortion is wrong because it is murder?! So what is killing a medical practitioner? Is it like this, “don’t kill the unborn, but it’s ok to kill the living.” Logic, you’re doing it wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

The next example I will go on to is animal rights extremists. I’m an animal lover myself. People that abuse them make me sick. But I would never ever kill another human or blow up a testing facility for the love of my pet. It basically goes back to the same concept as the post above, except I’ll state it as so. “It’s terrible to torment and/or kill a puppy, but it’s ok to kill a human.” Again, two wrongs don’t make a right. Animal cruelty is wrong. There are better measures to end such violence. In most countries there are laws that protect animals. If you don’t think the laws are good enough you can change them. Picketing, signing petitions, and so on. Making a pipe bomb to use to vandalize an animal testing site is not the way to go.

Murder and abuse of any living being is wrong. No matter how much of a misanthrope I may be sometimes. The idea of taking another’s life sickens me. Anyone with any common sense knows there’s no justifiable reason for murder.

This topic makes me think back. About a year ago I would visit the Animal Liberation Front message board on a regular basis. I remember seeing graphics, banners, bumpers stickers with this question on them, “What part of thou shall not kill don’t you understand?” What part of thou shall not kill don’t you extremists understand?! How did the rights of a invisible man in the sky, unborn fetus, or a cat get to be greater than the rights of a fellow human? So many things I just don’t understand.

Debating Creationists

sheisgod — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:46:17 +0000

Heaving Dead Cats » cliches

Objective Versus Subjective

Related posts

Happy Treaty of Tripoli Day!

Related posts

Young Earth Invasion

Evolution, Science or Religion?

Scientific Fact Observed- 85% of the world’s rock is sedimentary and is found all over the world.

Scientific Fact Observed- the moon is drifting away from the earth slowly.

Scientific Fact Observed – Neptune is a very active planet that is still producing heat, has winds that reach over 1300 MPH and it gives off over twice the amount of energy than what it receives from the sun.

Scientific Fact Observed – Birds give birth to Birds, dogs give birth to dogs, monkeys give birth to monkeys, humans give birth to humans etc.

Scientific fact observed – There has never been a mutation that has ever produced an increase or addition of information to the genetic code.

Scientific fact observed - Geological research shows no transitional fossils.

Scientific Fact observed- everything which has a beginning has a cause (Law of Cause and effect)

Scientific Fact Observed – The 2nd Law of thermodynamics: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

Scientific fact observed- Nonliving matter cannot produce living creatures. (Law of Biogenisis/Pasteur’s Law)

Related posts

Richard Dawkins “Rose From The Dead”

Related posts

Penn and Teller, Bullshit!

Related posts

Extremists, Things that make me go, “WTF?!”

Related posts

Debating Creationists

Related posts