All the comments from my slug post

the OP is here
and here are the responses, because it’s just too hard to read some of them as is.

Creationist Says:
March 11, 2010 at 11:38 pm edit

I saw this and had to comment:
In reply to your question on what it would take to believe evolution:

It would take a massive robot that evolved out of a vacuum, was capable of
1. creative thought,
2. reproducing both it’s own kind and creating other species of robot
3. automatically repairing itself
4. Generating it’s own power
5. Generating matter from nothing.

That’s a small selection of what an evolutionist believe, right?

And on to the slug. Its a slug. Wow! It eats algae, like other fish/animals. Wow! Its capable of photosynthesis, like animals, plants and humans. Wow! What was you’re point?

Chris Says:
March 16, 2010 at 11:46 pm edit

Humans are capable of photosynthesis? Fascinating!

arthurthepanther Says:
March 17, 2010 at 7:14 am edit

You know, creationist, I approved your comment for three reasons:
1. It sounds utterly ridiculous, and serves only to enhance my position (btw, thanx)
2. it was the only damned response I got;
and 3. – We can’t stop here, this is SLUG COUNTRY – lol

I’m going to quote Barney Frank here. ‘Trying to argue with you would be like arguing with my dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.’

more (lots more… RLY) after the bump.

Creationist Says:
March 17, 2010 at 6:32 pm edit

I should apologies; I thought you were retarded (because you believe something that is scientifically imposable while saying you’re rational) so I said that humans were capable of photosynthesis. Technically, this isn’t true. Humans are capable of converting sunlight into carbon-based vitamins (vitamin D for instance), which are more complex than carbon-dioxide. That said humans use those vitamins to operate lungs that produce carbon dioxide. Why do you consider photosynthesis advanced?

Let’s not argue. Let’s discuss.

I’ll counter by addressing your points.
1. I agree. It sounds insane that the most advanced being in the universe could come about by accident. I don’t understand how any person could believe that.

It’s like saying “if you want a faster/better/more powerful computer – shake it. Eventually all the parts will from better parts and reconnect and it will work better than it did before”. Do you see the similarity with evolutionary theory?

2. Try not insulting the people you want to get a response from. That should work a little better.

3. How old are you, honestly? From the sound of it I would guess 15-20. You wrote “Pwned” and that I “enhanced you position” when I discounted all your previous points and you gave no clear new point.

I eagerly await your response.

arthurthepanther Says:
March 17, 2010 at 11:11 pm edit

First, try not to be hypocritical in your first paragraph, it tends to get a debate off on the wrong foot. “I thought you were retarded” and objection no. 2 don’t go well together.
However, against my better judgment (see my Barney Frank quote above), I’ll respond.

So let’s take it from the top, shall we?

first point : Actually, I wasn’t saying that accidental genesis was insane. I specifically said ‘your comment’ not ‘a specific argument within your comment’.
Your original post posited, like your second post, that machines and biology are similar in complexity, and that supposing random chance in the creation of either is absurd.
Here’s a mountain of evidence that specifically, and in detail, refutes that argument.
By the way, the argument you’re using is a variation on the Watchmaker argument known as Hoyle’s Fallacy. You can look it up on Wikipedia or you tube or any number of other sites to verify that I’m not making it up. I quote here from the excellent essay on the subject by the creator of the web site Ebon Musings (here’s the essay entire)

“In his 1983 book The Intelligent Universe, astronomer Fred Hoyle wrote the following infamous passage:

“A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.” (p.19)

‘Though Hoyle actually intended this as an argument against abiogenesis, the creationists have since assimilated it and used it against evolution. In creationist literature, this argument has mutated into a diversity of forms: setting off an explosion in a print shop to produce a dictionary, disassembling a watch and shaking up the pieces in a box to reassemble it,’ … ‘and so on. No matter what form the analogy takes, however, creationists have promoted it as a common-sense proof of the impossibility of evolution producing complex, highly ordered forms.’ …

‘We turn now to the tornado in the junkyard. This analogy says nothing about the validity of evolution, or for that matter abiogenesis, because it fails to represent them in four crucial ways.

1. It operates purely according to random chance.
2. It is an example of single-step, rather than cumulative, selection.
3. It is a saltationary jump – an end product entirely unlike the beginning product.
4. It has a target specified ahead of time.

‘The first point is the most important. The tornado in the junkyard is an example of an intricate, complex and highly organized form being produced by nothing more than random chance. But evolution is not chance.’ . . . ‘Rather, it operates according to a fixed law – the law of natural selection – which favors some assemblages over others; it preferentially selects for those adaptations which improve fitness and selects against those that do not. The tornado, by contrast, slams parts together and tears them apart with no preference whatsoever, thus completely failing to represent natural selection, the central force which drives evolution. To more accurately represent evolution, one would have to grant the tornado some power to recognize assemblages of parts which could serve as part of a 747 and prevent it from tearing them apart.

‘Second, the tornado analogy is an example of single-step selection – in one step, it goes from a random pile of parts to a fully assembled airliner. This is completely unlike evolution, which operates according to a process of cumulative selection – complex results that are built up gradually, in a repetitive process guided at each step by selective forces. To more accurately represent evolution, the tornado could be sent through the junkyard not once, but thousands or millions of times, at each step preserving chance assemblages of parts that could make up a jumbo jet.

‘Third, in relation to the point above, the tornado in the junkyard is an example of saltation – a sudden leap in which the end product is completely different from the beginning product. Evolution does not work this way; birds do not hatch out of dinosaur eggs and monkeys do not give birth to humans. Rather, species grow different over time through a process of slow change in which each new creature is only slightly different from its ancestor. Evolution forms a gradually shading continuum in which any two steps are almost identical, though the creatures at the beginning and end of the continuum may be very different indeed. If we sent a tornado through a junkyard once, we would not expect to see a complete airplane; but if we repeated the process thousands or millions of times, at each step preserving useful assemblages, we might see a jumbo jet gradually taking shape out of slowly accreting collections of parts. The idea is the same with living things. We do not see complex new creatures appearing suddenly in the fossil record; rather, we see them gradually forming by a process of modification from a line of increasingly dissimilar ancestors.

‘Finally, the tornado analogy fails to represent evolution in one more significant way: it has a target specified ahead of time. Evolution does not. Natural selection is not a forward-looking process; it cannot select for what may become useful in the future, only what is immediately useful in the present. To more accurately represent evolution, we might add the additional stipulation that the tornado be allowed to assemble, not just a jumbo jet, but any functional piece of machinery.

‘A tornado racing through a junkyard hundreds of thousands of times, at each step somehow preserving rather than tearing apart functional assemblages of parts, with the aim of ultimately producing some sort of working machine, be it a 747, a station wagon or a personal computer – this is still not a very good analogy to describe evolution, but it is far better than the implausible caricature of random, single-step saltation with a predetermined target the creationists put forth. This analogy completely fails to represent evolution in every significant way.”

So that’s it, for both your original argument, and for point one of your second post.
Your second point is that I’m rude. I concede the point.
Your third is an implied insult aiming at my real or intellectual age. I refer you to your own second point.
I believe that is what the kids these days are calling Pwnd, sir. Check and mate.
Your grammar is horrendous. Invest in a spell check, PLZ.

Creationist Says:
March 18, 2010 at 12:52 am edit

Sorry about my hypocrisy, and the correctly spelled but improperly used word. I don’t think my grammar is horrendous, bad maybe, but not horrendous.

I’ll try to work through spatially:
1. I don’t see how the slug proves or disproves either of our opinions.

2. (your point 1) We agree that accidental genesis is insane/impossible. I’ll assume you know what I believe, but how do you suppose biology began, if not by accident? And to that answer, wouldn’t that imply a saltationary jump?

3. Hoyle’s Fallacy: good points, but all invalid. (My points counter your quoted numbered points)
i. For biogenesis to occur (without God) it would be random. Natural selection doesn’t apply to non-biological entities and with no other forces how else could biogenesis occur? Aliens?
ii. It’s either biological or it isn’t. If it is to become biological it has to be a single step.
iii. It is a saltationary jump. From non-biological to biological. I know that neo-Darwinian thought doesn’t agree with saltation, but its a huge jump from say, dirt to bacteria. HUGE!
iv. Biogenesis implies a specific target – its the “bio” in “biogenesis”.

I know I’m not going to disprove evolution to you, but you should have a closer look because I’ve found it to be scientifically impossible (spelt it right that time) and I’m sure that if you do you’ll find the same.
4. For simple things to become more complex breaks the second law of thermodynamics.
5. Certain species could never evolve without killing themselves (the Bombardier Beetle for example – look into it).
6. Genetic mutations happen all the time – several times in my own family. But we call them cancer and usually they result in death…

I’m trying not to be an idiot but I may come across as a jerk, that’s not all creationists, just me.

I guess we both have unswerving views, which leads to arguments.

As fun as this is, I don’t know how much longer I can go on…

Chris Says:
March 19, 2010 at 2:12 pm edit

Ultimately here’s what this debate comes down to:

On the side of science we have a couple hundred years of biological science backed up by a great deal of chemistry. We have an extensive fossil record. We have reams of theoretical, mathematical and physical evidence.

On the side of creationism we have a book of Bronze Age fairy tales written over two-thousand years ago. Oh, and Kirk Cameron.

arthurthepanther Says:
March 19, 2010 at 7:15 pm edit

I approve this message. and since it’s been a long discussion, and I really don’t feel like another six page, detailed refutation of what you cut and pasted off of ‘Answers In Genesis’ or some such site, I’m gonna call this argument closed. We’re done here.
I invoke Godwin’s Law.

Chris Says:
March 20, 2010 at 11:28 am edit

I invoke Godwin’s Law.

Debate fail. 😛

arthurthepanther Says:
March 30, 2010 at 7:15 pm edit

BTW – Poe’s Law.

Creationist Says:
March 30, 2010 at 8:01 pm edit

Oh and here’s another point that I just thought of for that discussion we were having 2 weeks ago…

But wait… like all your arguments so far, this one makes no sense and/or doesn’t apply. Are you saying you’re a creationist posing as an evolutionist to start a flame war? Or are you saying that I’m an evolutionist posing as a creationist to start a flame war?

Or are you quoting Edgar Allen Poe’s Law, saying this poetry has gone on long enough because the reader’s attention will wane? That would make more sense… except this isn’t poetry.

Kirk Cameron? We have Chuck Norris. Discussion over!

arthurthepanther Says:
March 31, 2010 at 12:31 am edit

Hmm. I self-invoked Godwin to end a discussion I was bored with, with a person I frankly considered to be the epitome of self-delusion. Unfortunately, a corollary to Godwin that I was not aware of is that self-invoking Godwin’s law is an invalid application. Thus the secondary invocation by Badger is inapplicable. and thus the discussion is still open. Dammit.
Now, I heavily edited your post (because it was a REALLLLY long, boring post, and I can’t be bothered to respond (again) with detailed, scientific proofs that not only are you wrong, but you KNOW YOU ARE and refuse to admit it.) – so in response to the only points that weren’t a re-hash of everything you’d said (and I’d refuted) before, here’s what I have to say:
About Poe – I’m speaking specifically about the point at which the fundamentalist P.O.V. becomes wacko enough, and becomes indistinguishable from parody. I honestly couldn’t tell for sure if you were joking. obviously not, given the following discussion. unless you’re a much better parodist than I give you credit for. IMHO you’re certainly ridiculous enough to qualify for Poe’s Law’s limit, though…

About your assertion regarding validity – Like all my arguments so far, this one certainly makes sense, and definitely applies. Saying that something you want to be true, is true, doesn’t make it so, Joshie. Better luck some other time.

About Chuck Norris – I don’t care what lame ass celebrity you trot out, unless they’re in possession of hard proof, I don’t wanna hear it.
Matter of fact, here’s what you need to do.
Prove to me that the invisible pink unicorn doesn’t exist.
Then prove to me that your god(s) do(es). And while you’re at it, prove that all the other Gods, Goddesses, and minor deities that your personal religion says don’t exist, don’t exist.
THEN you can trot Chuck out.
I know these four things to be true, based upon research and independent fact verification from the majority of the (educated) world ^^
1: We evolved in the past, and are continually evolving now. Have you ever seen suits of armor from the fourteen hundreds? those guys were midgets! We’re not midgets now, and the reason is because of preferential breeding over the course of seven hundred years – which is exactly what evolution is about.
2: The overwhelming majority of those who have had an education (equivalent to or surpassing two year college), those who have done hard scientific research on the subject, and those who have true objectivity, agree with me. Not you.
3: The overwhelming majority of people who agree with you are under-educated, malnourished, impoverished, mentally handicapped, reside in a third-world country, or multiple of the above. They also tend to believe in UFO’s and the death penalty while being anti-abortion.
4: The amount of people who agree with me is growing, thanks in no small part to the determined efforts of people like you and Fred Phelps. The amount of people who agree with you is shrinking.

So good luck, and good riddance.

Chris Says:
March 31, 2010 at 7:03 am edit

Chuck Norris went hunting.
There were no survivors.

Creationist Says:
March 31, 2010 at 6:01 pm edit

You’re a really bad debater.

Finally you have a valid point. But it goes both ways: Saying that something you want to be true, is true, doesn’t make it so.

Obviously its impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, gods, goddesses or pink unicorns. But matter and energy came from somewhere… Or did it?

You 14th century armour point is easily explained by diet changes. And refuted by saying: But “more evolved” Asians are shorter than whites or blacks”. Maybe in the 14th century they were “more evolved” than now?

And your next point is “other people believe what I believe”. Good point. More people believe what I believe though including the majority of Americans (though they fit your description:under-educated, malnourished, impoverished, mentally handicapped). Those that don’t are looking for an excuse to justify their lifestyle, be it homosexual or abortionist or murderous… (boom goes the dynamite!)

And I guess your description of “hard scientific research” is reading an evolution-biased book. I bet that’s where they get their “true objectivity”!

Thanks for editing out my points you didn’t like/couldn’t answer….

I’m going to have to end it here unless you have a point you think I can’t refute. This is too easy!

Chris Says:
April 2, 2010 at 3:28 pm edit

What exactly is an abortionist lifestyle? Do you just have to support people’s right to choose to qualify? Do you have to perform abortions? Or do you just have to get one? If so, how many are needed to qualify?

arthurthepanther Says:
April 3, 2010 at 4:58 am edit

Bye-bye, then – and good riddance to bad rubbish.
I’m glad you admit my point’s validity – and I’m not sorry to say, it doesn’t go both ways.
I have reams and reams of evidence on my side.

You have a book of fairy tales your momma (statistically speaking) probably read you to sleep with at night.

There’s something you missed with my request for proof. If I said I had an invisible pink unicorn, or for that matter an untouchable, heatless, invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, you couldn’t prove me wrong – but what would the point be of proving me wrong? I can just imagine the conversations.
Says one, “Ooh, look, I’ve got something ever so awesome in my garage, but you can’t see it, hear it, taste it or smell it, and it has absolutely no tangible effect on your life that is in any way measurable.”
Says the other, “Oh, yeah?” *eye roll* “Who cares?”

…. Diet changes. Okay, that’s an interesting one, and it does apparently affect height in certain specific cases. Here’s what wikipedia said:
“When populations share genetic background and environmental factors, average height is frequently characteristic within the group. Exceptional height variation (around 20% deviation from average) within such a population is usually due to gigantism or dwarfism; which are medical conditions due to specific genes or to endocrine abnormalities.
{here’s what I expect you’ll be quoting from, so I put it in with full context. – ed.}
In regions of extreme poverty or prolonged warfare, environmental factors like malnutrition during childhood or adolescence may account for marked reductions in adult stature even without the presence of any of these medical conditions. This is one reason that immigrant populations from regions of extreme poverty to regions of plenty may show an increase in stature, despite sharing the same gene pool.”

However, the trend over time has been towards taller people, even when environmental factors have been accounted for. And the specific reason I chose to point out armor is because those who were given armor were the richest, best-fed, and best exercised of the time – thus the environmental factors can be easily accounted for, and they were still WAAAY shorter than us.
Another article from wiki –
“Height is, like other phenotypic traits, determined by a combination of genetics and environmental factors. A child’s height based on parental heights is subject to regression toward the mean, therefore extremely tall or short parents will likely have correspondingly taller or shorter offspring, but their offspring will also likely be closer to average height than the parents themselves. Genetic potential plus nutrition minus stressors is a basic formula.”
“The precise relationship between genetics and environment is complex and uncertain. Human height is 60%-80% heritable, according to several twin studies and has been considered polygenic since the Mendelian-biometrician debate a hundred years ago.”

*eye roll* Uh-huh. So apparently all the educated, intelligent, well-fed middle-class to upper-class people are deviants or law breakers. Wow. Been listening to Phelps, much? And I’m glad you admit the fact that the majority of the people who think like you are inbred, under-fed morons. It lends such a nice, convincing touch to your superior attitude.

… My description of hard scientific research is just that – hard scientific research. Laboratory studies with repeatable results, large experimental populations and control groups, few variables, and scientists with experience in the field of research that the experiment is in, recording measurable data accurately. That’s all.

And your alternative would be a religious person praying to themselves to get their true objectivity, then?
Maybe I should ask the pope, that child-molester, and see what he thinks.
I don’t care that you think you’re right.
I don’t care that you think all the rubbish you’re spewing actually counters any of my arguments – all you’re doing is muddying the waters to try and buy your god a few moments more breathing room/credence. Science continues to close the gap every day between 99.9999999999999% proof and positive, concrete 100% proof that god(ess)(es) doesn’t exist at all.
have fun with the evolutionary dead-end of belief in a supernatural being.
“Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.” – Charles Darwin

Creationist Says:
April 4, 2010 at 10:26 am edit

Did you think we theists believe in God with no proof? Do you think 4.5 billion people have been tricked; fooled by some invisible man?

I’ve seen the dead rise. I’ve seen the disabled walk. I’ve seen the blind see and the deaf hear. I’ve felt the presence of God and seen demonic forces manifest at the name of Jesus. I’ve seen lives completely changed. Addicts set free. People with mental illness healed instantly! I was there. That was me. I’ve seen the impossible happen in Jesus name.
All exactly as described in my “bronze-age fairy tale”.

Did you think I’m uncertain of the existence of God?

Was it a delusion? Was I dreaming?

Your question should be, “can I PROVE it to you?” No, I can’t. I was there, and you weren’t.

But were you there at the point of evolutionary biogenesis? Have you witnessed one species evolve into another? Or maybe you read about it in a book written by someone who did? Or is it just a theory that lets you live your life without consequences?

I’ll keep my “fairytale-my-momma-read-me-at-night”, you keep your unobserved, unrepeatable “science”.

I realise now that I will never change your opinion. I hope you can learn to tolerate mine even if you don’t fully understand it.

arthurthepanther Says:
April 5, 2010 at 10:07 am edit

1) yes, yes I do.

2) Wow. Can I have some of whatever you took?

3)Well, no. Obviously. Your rigid mindset and schizoid delusions make it very clear that you’re Christian, and worse, a ‘true believer’. . . very similar psychologically to U.F.O. nuts and conspiracy theorists.

4)Yes and yes.

5) anecdotal evidence FAIL… Pics or it didn’t happen. LOL

6) No, I absolutely wasn’t. Unlike you, we actually CAN reproduce biogenesis in a laboratory. Witnessing one species evolving…. actually, l have. Ever heard of the banana? the coffee bean? the strawberry? I’ve witnessed their evolution firsthand, and so have you if you occasionally eat bananas or strawberries, or drink coffee. And no, no it isn’t. I resent the libelous statement on my good character.

7)You go ahead and live in a dream-world, and let the rest of us take care of the world as it is. As I’ve said before, as long as you don’t interfere in politics, education, or anything else that might impact my life, I have no problem with you practicing your little voodoo cult. If you do, then I get to slam on you and it, and prove the two of you wrong.

8)You don’t get it. This isn’t an opinion. This is fact. And you’re fiction. So, no. I will never ‘tolerate’ the dilution of fact with fiction. Oh, yeah, used to be christian. understand it fully. It’s a cult. ‘Nuff said.

Creationist Says:
April 5, 2010 at 6:50 pm edit

My good Christian senses tell me to stop here. But I’m really enjoying this. I hope you don’t mind that I will continue to reply to you.

2. Its called reality. Breath it in…

5. Hmmm… since you won’t accept eyewitness accounts I doubt you’ll accept picture, I’ll have to turn to youtube:

a. Holy crap! Really? Please provide details.
b. You didn’t really say a specific thing about bananas, coffee and strawberries – another winning argument! But after some research it turns out they’re all members of the berry family and can be interbreed like members of any other family. eg dogs, cats and people. So that doesn’t really prove evolution any more that breeding a labrador and a poodle to make a labradoodle…
c. Ha ha… funny.

7. Ok, but the reciprocal must be true also. If your pagan views interfere with in politics, education and anything else I like, I get to slam you and it and prove that the two of you are wrong.

8. I think its funny that you talk so much about dilution without seeing it in yourself. You’re so diluted you don’t take seriously anything I say – I say “I’ve seen miracles” you imply drug use and then you say “bananas” and think you’ve proven your point…

I’m interested to hear your story and how you became an atheist if you’re willing to tell it.

arthurthepanther Says:
April 9, 2010 at 3:22 am edit

you know, I’ve tried to reason with you. maybe that’s my failing… I keep on trying to reason with someone who willfully refuses to see reason. try watching this video. really listen to what is being said… please.
As for how I became an atheist, it’s really a simple story. I started out as a Christian. The logical inconsistencies in the Bible combined with the disconnect between what the text said, what people preached, and what was self-evidently right to do, got to be too much, and I became disillusioned regarding that particular faith in my teens.
(BTW ’self-evidently right’ means everything that the bible advocates that’s morally and ethically wrong, from slavery through stoning somebody who badmouths his parents to killing a girl for not being a virgin. And lest you think that it doesn’t apply today, I bring up Matthew 5:17 – where Jesus basically signs off on all that and more.)
Not to mention that I never ever, even once, saw anything that proved to me that my faith was justified (that goes for any system of belief, btw, from abrahamic through zoroastrian). I didn’t think of it that way. I was a gullible teenager, and sincere in my belief… but looking back I can say with certainty that I never once heard any voice but my own in my head, as hard as I tried to convince myself otherwise.
Over the next ten years I alternated between being agnostic and following various alternative religions to Christianity, including Buddhism, Taoism, even Wicca and non-denominational pagan. None of them jibed logically. Each had moral or ethical errors, self-evident flaws. Each religion laid claims about miraculous, supernatural things that supposedly happen to that religion’s followers. No matter how hard I tried, I simply could not see anything but what was really happening. Matter of fact, it was during a spiritual ceremony that I finally gave up and let myself be okay with the fact that everyone else was pretending just as hard as I was, and that there was no point in pretending. There might be some people who believe sincerely enough to convince themselves that miraculous things are happening, but that’s all it is. Sincerely deluded people desperate for hallucinations, getting their wish.
I’m reposting this all as a blog entry because it’s easier to read that way.

and in response –
2) Funny, I was about to say the same to you. *sardonically*
Hmm. I see. well, given how much video evidence I’ve shown on my side, you’re right, I’d be a bit skeptical of a couple photos. But I’ll look at your videos. Hey, If you have solid proof of God or your religion on youtube, at least I’ll concede that there’s room for doubt…
vid#1: So… what, a couple photos of a guy with his eyes being rubbed. and a prayer tent. In what may or may not be Mozambique.
That’s not proof of anything. All I have is a voice-over telling me what she wants me to believe. I wouldn’t believe science if it were presented this way. Why should I believe something miraculous occurred when there’s no evidence of it? What you’re presenting me with here is strictly anecdotal.
Where’s the international media frenzy over this guy being cured from blindness? where’s the video of his cataracts (or whatever actually is causing the blindness, if he’s actually blind) receding? In other words, where is the third-party verifiability?
If the rest are this quality, I shouldn’t waste my time. *sighs* slogging on…
vid #2 – I’m wondering a few things. Who is that lady? is there any record of her having had any illness before she arrived? does she know the preacher? And no, I’m not going to take his or her word for it, that would be both gullible and naive. Remember James Randi and Peter Popoff? no? well, here you go.

You know, you still haven’t given me anything concrete. If you could show me god healing an amputee, I’d pretty much concede that God existed, and if He did it within the ritual confines of one particular faith, I’d probably convert. Why is it that you and I have never seen an amputee healed by God? In fact, why is it that no-one has seen an amputee healed? Does He just have something against amputees?
vid#3 – again, all you have is hearsay. I don’t want a story, I want actual proof of it happening. This is on the order of a U.F.O. story for Christians.
Why is it that all of these videos are in the developing nation? There are plenty of sick, wheelchair-bound, blind and dead men and women in the first world, even among the very faithful. Why is it that you can only find miracles happening in the third-world?

On to
6)  Sure. but first, bananas. Bananas aren’t actually regular plants. And they weren’t put here by God’s will. They are a completely artificial fruit created by man, developed and nurtured by man, and shaped by man’s needs. This in and of itself is a key example of evolution, one that clears up a lot of misunderstandings people have about the theory. For one thing, Evolution doesn’t just deal with how we got here, it deals with how we go forward, too. For another, evolution doesn’t happen in a vacuum. When you talk about how plants of similar backgrounds can be bred together, that’s evolution too. When we tamper with the genetic structure of a plant by cross-breeding or selectively breeding for traits we like, we are doing what is called preferential selection, which is very much a part of darwinian evolution. A side note here: I’ve been looking into it, and even though we do have solid proof of how bio first genesis’d, it has nothing to do with evolution, because evolutionary theory has nothing to do with how life started, but rather with how different life forms have differentiated, multiplied, and diversified since life began. If you’d like to take issue with science on that, throw out your tv and microwave and go back to living in the woods – and no eating bananas, to bring me back to my point – bananas are sterile. completely man-made. They’re all clones of each other, going back to the original mule offspring of a couple plants that a)look horrible, b) taste bad or have waaaay too many seeds, etc.

So, actually, bananas can’t cross-breed with coffee or strawberries.
But my point is that they are examples of evolution at work. Strawberries are constantly being preferentially selected for highest yield/sweetest flavor/brightest color, to the point where strawberries I grow now grow larger, look noticeably brighter, and taste sweeter, than when I was a child. Coffee is constantly being hybridized and crossbred with other coffees to produce hardier or more flavorful strains… these are all the principles of evolution at work. The fact that we can do these things at all means that it can happen in the wild. And that is my proof of evolution happening in front of me. I witness it every day.

for a good example of a wild banana versus a real one.

By the way, dogs, cats, and people can interbreed? lol
j/k I get your point, but it operates from a misunderstanding about how evolution functions. check this out.

7 See but that’s the thing. I’m not pagan.
I’m an atheist. I don’t HAVE a religious point of view. Q.E.D.

8. I think you mean delusion here. but the difference is that I don’t see an invisible man, hear inaudible things, talk to people who aren’t there, or expect magical things to happen just because I want them to.
Extraordinary claims don’t require less proof to be accepted as true. Indeed, because the claims are extraordinary, they require extraordinary proof. You claim I’m deluded for not believing you. I say I would be an idiot to believe the things you tell me without the extraordinary amount of proof those claims require. That’s not delusion, that’s the essence of rationality.


Creationist Says:
April 9, 2010 at 6:25 am edit

At first I was a little bit pissed that you label all creationist as idiots, but I’m starting to enjoy this conversation:

My point all along has been that your reasoning is flawed; almost every point you’ve presented I’ve found flaws in. I don’t think you even explained the banana point. I’m entirely open to reason and logic whenever you’re ready to present it.

I watched the video. He makes some good points but his argument was against some dude who made a video, not God, god/s/ess/esses or the Bible. The best point he made is that putting reason and God together makes sense. But as we said long ago the existence of God can’t go either way based on physical evidence.

Thanks for your personal story, it’s an interesting one. Mine was very similar except when I was uncertain about God, I prayed and said “God if you’re real you better prove it”. And (to me) He did – supernaturally (but I was probably dreaming again). That said I can understand that you think many churches are hypocritical, boring charades. I say many because many are – the Catholic church is one of the worst (and that one where they picket funerals – what douches!). But there are “real” churches out there where the words and actions match.

With regard to your view of God something that helped me is to understand that as loving God is, He is also a destroyer (possibly an explanation for the Hindu god, Shiva). But He is the destroyer of destroyers, that is a protector of the innocent.

Biblically, God doesn’t do things for no reason. If you find an inconsistency its probably because you’re not looking in perspective. If you disagree present an example.

The verse you quoted is taken out of context – Jesus was saying that if you try to live by the law you will fail. If you’ve ever read the law you’ll know its impossible to follow entirely. But if it was possible Jesus would never have come and there would be no Christmas! See Galatians 3:10-14 for the purpose of the Law.

But enough about that, my purpose here was to discuss evolution. I saw in the news the discovery of the new “missing link”. But with a cranial capacity fitting ape, chimp and gorilla and 1/4 the size of human I had to think, “Isn’t that a gorilla?”. Given that there aren’t gorillas as far south as South Africa, maybe it’s an extinct variety…?

Chris Says:
April 9, 2010 at 4:33 pm edit

But enough about that, my purpose here was to discuss evolution. I saw in the news the discovery of the new “missing link”. But with a cranial capacity fitting ape, chimp and gorilla and 1/4 the size of human I had to think, “Isn’t that a gorilla?”. Given that there aren’t gorillas as far south as South Africa, maybe it’s an extinct variety…?

The press loves the term “missing link”, but it’s largely meaningless in scientific terms. We’ll never have a totally complete fossil record (since that would probably require the bones of every individual of all the species that lead up to us), so there’s always going to be something missing. But what we have now is pretty complete.

I’m not sure what point you’re making with gorillas. Of course there’s a similarity between us, chimps, gorillas and all the primate species. That’s because we all share a common ancestor.

arthurthepanther Says:
April 9, 2010 at 8:36 pm edit

Just FYI, I’ve moved this conversation over to a new post, since the debate was getting a bit crowded on this post. ^^ you can find that debate at
I’d appreciate new comments being directed to that post.
I’ve reproduced all the comments thus far faithfully, although I did omit one double post and tried to clean up the chronology as best I could.
We even have a comment already!

Update: Thanks for moving up here, Josh! It really helps me keep things organized so people can find them!


8 thoughts on “All the comments from my slug post

  1. Arthur,

    Sifting through these comments has been a long and torturous process, but I would just like to congratulate you on being a more dedicated advocate of truth than I, or most atheists, have the patience to be. It’s so frustrating to try and have a reason-based, logic-based conversation with someone who:
    1)Willfully refutes the very concepts of logic and reason as able to supply answers to life’s questions
    2)Selctively relies on warped and erroneous science to support their non-scientific ideals
    Inevitably, a person of reason will usually surrender out of fatigue since nothing they say can make a dent in the armor of someone who has invested so much of their life in the construction of their own delusion. You, however, seem to have hung in to the end. Bravo.

    I would like to touch on one point that Creationist made that, understandably, slipped through your net because it is a particular pet peave of mine. Creationists often make the false statement that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is simply not true. Apologists who make this assertion are either intentionally misrepresenting science in an attempt to support their flawed thesis, or (the more common occurrence) they simply have a flawed understanding of not only the scientific principles they argue against, but those they use to support their arguments as well. The second law of thermodynamics applies to CLOSED systems. Evolution–or even biology–is not a closed system. Animals and plants take from their environment and excrete waste. The environment receives energy from the sun which projects energy into space. The increase in order and complexity that occurs through evolution is minute compared to the increase in entropy that results from the bleeding of energy by both the sun and the earth into outer space. We witness processes all the time–such as a chicken egg developing into a chicken–that represent extremely small decreases in entropy–but they don’t violate the 2nd law because they are localized parts of the larger system–the universe–in which entropy is increasing.

    Lastly, I would just like to say to Creationist that even if you take all the rational arguments off the table and even if you refuse to acknowledge anything that has been said to you thusfar, there is one indisputable fact that remains. If the God of your bible truly existed, with all the power and omniscience he is proposed to have, then it would be entirely within his ability to remove all doubt from those like me. He could easily materialize at a nationally televised news conference, levitate a mountain, reverse magnetic north, and change the boiling point of water while simultaneously predicting the accurate results of the next twelve powerball drawings. The fact that every single “miracle” that you drag out as evidence is disputable in some way should be a warning flag to you that they are not real–since eliminating all dispute would be a simple matter for such a powerful God. I know, this is where you call upon me to have “faith”–but faith is simply having the highest degree of certainty in something which has the lowest degree of evidence. I will not have “faith” in anything–and neither should you.


    1. Thank you for the comment, and the support. this argument has been a bit of a labour of love. I may suck at debate, but I’m a dogged sonofabitch when I get my dander up. It’s nice to know someone actually read all the way through that mess. ^^ I’m going to be updating this post again soon, since Mr. Coombe has decided to post another response. *sigh*
      *sings softly to himself* This is the post that never ends…


  2. My interest in this blog is ebbing again.

    It seems like it’s the blog that never ends, doesn’t it. Because you still have yet to prove anything to me. I’m entirely open to logic and reason, and when you present it I’m sure I will believe as you do. Yet when I present you with actual testimony you implied I was on drugs…

    The two failing of evolution as I see it:
    1. No evidence (nor theory) of the start of life.
    2. No evidence for family/kind changes.

    Sure you can preferentially breed any animal or plant to get a better (preferred) version. (I don’t think I’ve ever argued against that, if you thought I had it would have been a difference in opinion on the definition of the word “species”.) But the wild banana and modern banana are both still bananas, not some new kind of fruit created through evolution but a variation of an existing fruit. So I’ll rephrase my question and ask again, “Have you witnessed one kind of life evolve into another?”

    Let’s not argue about whether mankind/Christians/televangelists are evil in nature. I’m pretty sure we would both agree they are.

    I’m still waiting for some sort of proof of this statement you said, “Unlike you, we actually CAN reproduce biogenesis in a laboratory.” I’m really, really interested in this.


    1. replies in order:
      That’s because testimony is not evidence. If you give me an orange, and then tell me it’s an orange, I’ll believe you.

      If you tell me about an orange you once ate, I’ll likely believe you then, as well.

      Alternatively, if you told me that you once saw a fruit which was iridescent, say, or in some other way completely amazing and beyond the pale of what I had experienced before, I would likely ask you to show me the fruit itself, or the tree it grew from.
      I would need concrete proof that you were not lying or crazy, because your testimony would not jibe with my experiences. (before you go on about science being the same kind of unprovable thing, remember: we have proof in the form of everything technological that has ever existed EVER that most of science is at least accurate enough to be getting on with.) For the difference demonstrated far better than I can, and far more entertainingly, watch this.

      Thus, when you told me about things which you had no proof of, but which sounded like a great plot for a kitschy Sam Raimy horror film, I suspected that you might be suffering a schizoid break or be on drugs, and since there is a prejudice in this country against the mentally ill, I went with the more polite option.

      Remember, I don’t have to believe in your particular brand of crazy to be open-minded.

      Now as for your problems with evolution –
      1. “No evidence (nor theory) of the start of life.”
      This is based around a misconception about what exactly the theory of evolution is, per se.

      The theory of evolution is not a theory of life, the universe, and everything (by the way, the answer is 42, and I just lost the game). Nor is it the pinnacle of the biological sciences.

      Evolution is simply a very good, proven and reliable explanation for what happened AFTER life began. More precisely, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

      Evolution has nothing to do with the scientific theory of abiogenesis, which is the scientific explanation (backed by reams of experimental research, loads of math, and tons of chemistry) for how life began on earth.

      2. “No evidence for family/kind changes.”
      Again, this is based on a misconception about what evolution is and how it works.

      Evolution isn’t magic.

      Evolution doesn’t happen instantly.

      Why would you think it would? What on earth makes you think that changes as radical and complex as those involved in an organism changing from one kind or species of organism to another would happen rapidly? I’m pretty sure you’re brighter than that.
      I know there’s nothing in the standard k-12 education that would lead you to believe any such thing. Did you graduate? Were you home schooled? How is it that this unfortunate gap in your basic education appeared?

      Since no human has lived for as much as two hundred years, let alone two hundred thousand, we can only see very small changes in the course of our lifetimes, if we’re very observant. These changes are usually on the order of minor alterations in species that breed fairly quickly, like fruit flies. This is because evolution is a very slow process, and incorporates more than just speciation (changes that differentiate a genetic line into a completely different species).

      However, if you’d done your homework, you’d know that there are many examples of evolution happening as we speak, and which are well documented in recent history.

      “One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, also known as the apple maggot fly, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[28] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.[29]” – Wikipedia

      And there’s more. Remember, there’s more than one way to evolve, and more than one pressure that can help evolution along. You seem to be really stuck on the idea that somehow evolution should prove what it never claimed to prove, that large jumps from fish to fowl to pond scum were possible. What it proves (and proves again) is that by a slow process of incremental changes, things do change – and they eventually can wind up as different as fish and fowl. For that, though, you need hundreds of millions of years to implement those tiny steps.
      Since you want evolution right in front of you though, how about the Peppered Moth? the entire species changed its color in response to the presence of massive pollution (during the industrial revolution in England) – and then the entire species changed its color back years later when the pollution was no longer an issue.
      This is a really excellent example of adaptation in response to selection pressure, another part of evolutionary theory. If the pollution had stuck around, the darker moths also would have stuck around, since the darker coloration would have given them the evolutionary edge over the lighter ones.

      Want another example? How about bacteria? The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria, like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects, is evidence for evolution of species, and of change within species.

      Thus the appearance of vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and the danger it poses to hospital patients, is a direct result of evolution through natural selection.
      The rise of Shigella strains resistant to the synthetic antibiotic class of sulfonamides also demonstrates the generation of new information as an evolutionary process.
      Similarly, the appearance of DDT resistance in various forms of Anopheles mosquitoes, and the appearance of myxomatosis resistance in breeding rabbit populations in Australia, are all evidence of the existence of evolution.

      Just because the damned thing doesn’t work like you imagine it must, or like you want it to, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Matter of fact one of the easier ways to tell fact from self-serving fiction is asking whether or not it conforms to all of your preferences. If it does, it’s likely fiction. Or you aren’t being very observant. One of the two. (That doesn’t mean that the opposite is true – we all know that just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s true. Duh.)

      okay, for one thing, obviously you don’t understand the meaning of the word species. I quote here from my desk reference dictionary. “species [ˈspiːʃiːz (Latin) ˈspiːʃɪˌiːz] n pl -cies 1. Biology
      a. any of the taxonomic groups into which a genus is divided, the members of which are capable of interbreeding: often containing subspecies, varieties, or races. A species is designated in italics by the genus name followed by the specific name, for example Felis domesticus (the domestic cat) Abbreviation sp
      b. the animals of such a group
      c. any group of related animals or plants not necessarily of this taxonomic rank”

      And actually, if you listened to what I said about the banana, you’d realize that the modern banana is a genetic hybrid (i.e. genetically distinct separate species), bearing an almost no resemblance to it’s genetic forefathers, Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana (and incapable of cross-breeding with them).

      Between these two (acuminata and balbisiana, which are separate species as well, as denoted by their latin names, although closely related), the former produces unpalatable fruit flesh, and the latter is far too seedy for enjoyable consumption.

      And they look nothing like the modern banana.

      So they neither look, nor taste, nor breed, the same. What more do you want? Jesus.

      Genetic change over time (whatever the cause) is called evolution. That’s my point. You don’t seem to get it. ALL OF THIS IS EVOLUTION.

      *waves proof of evolution in your face*

      *Josh closes his eyes, puts his thumbs in his ears and sings, ‘NA-na-NA-na I can’t hear you…’*

      lol ok that was mean. ^^ *grins* Figured we could do with a little mood-lightener. I’m just kidding.
      Nah, you’d probably just deck me with the family bible – you know, the twenty-pounder with the genealogy in it? lol

      I’m really frustrated with you, though. You want to find something impossible and then call that evolution. Sorry that isn’t the case. It’d make a much better case for creation if it were, but it ain’t.

      Um. The entirety of mankind is evil in nature? I certainly don’t think so. I think the majority of humanity is like the people I know – flawed but decent, with good intentions and the wisdom to always seek improvement on the past. As for Christians, I don’t think Christians are evil. Just misled or weak. televangelists and preachers… I don’t necessarily think they’re evil, either, not pure evil. Greedy, grasping bigoted con-men, maybe. Also probably at least some are self-deluded, well-meaning fools. When you learn it from your parents it’s hard not to be deluded. The pope, on the other hand… He’s a darker shade of black, if you get my meaning. but that’s a different subject.

      Anyway. As for the proof of abiogenesis, start here. … and it was started in the ’50s.

      And before you say anything, I know that there are quite a few conservative and religious pseudoscientific blogs and videos that slam on this particular set of experiments. here’s a followup to the original video. I think you’ll be interested by what you find.


  3. Sigh. Ok, I think I’ve got one more in me.

    Modern bananas, you (or one of your many videos) said they came from Papua New Guinea and were cultivated by the natives. That’s a great theory but PNG natives weren’t real great at writing thousands of years ago, so I’d say what’s your proof? Also if the “wild banana” requires farming to reproduce and yet tastes so bad, why did they keep farming bad-tasting wild bananas for thousands of years?

    On abiogenesis; amino acids aren’t life. Previously undiscovered amino acids aren’t life. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. Proteins are not life. That experiment is like making dirt and saying, “I built a skyscraper”. So I’ll call that debunked.

    Micro evolution is not in dispute.

    On the observability of macro evolution: One of the key requirements of science is observability. If its not observable, its not science. Another requirement is repeatability… but I’ll leave that one right there.

    So here we have one non-provable, non-science theory that doesn’t answer the only question I care about – “How did I get here?”
    And one non-provable, non-science theory that does answer that question…

    They’re not observable. They’re not repeatable. They’re not science. And yet we both believe them (respectively). At least mine answer the key question of life…

    I’m done.


    1. You said
      Modern bananas, you (or one of your many videos) said they came from Papua New Guinea and were cultivated by the natives.That’s a great theory but PNG natives weren’t real great at writing thousands of years ago, so I’d say what’s your proof?
      Well, I wasn’t the one who said that, one of my sources did. I kind of wondered the same thing. However, since it wasn’t central to the point I was making, and since I could verify everything that source said about the material I was using in my argument, I figured meh.
      you said
      Also if the “wild banana” requires farming to reproduce and yet tastes so bad, why did they keep farming bad-tasting wild bananas for thousands of years?
      If you’d read carefully, what you would have found is that the ‘wild banana’ doesn’t require farming. Hence the name ‘wild banana’. The modern banana does require farming, because it’s a sterile mule (in other words it can’t reproduce, except with the help of humans using technology). It was probably initially discovered because the two wild banana forebears occasionally will cross-pollinate in the wild. it’s rare, but it happens.
      you said
      That experiment is like making dirt and saying, “I built a skyscraper”
      what you’re missing here is the fact that we know already that if those amino acids were present, the rest is a fait accompli. they naturally would have formed more and more complex chains of chemicals. Ask any chemist about the background theory behind the abiogenesis, what happens after the amino acids form. If he’s at all detailed, he’ll convince you. Unfortunately, since both of us lack a chemistry degree, most of what a chemist would say, I can’t, and you wouldn’t understand. So there ya go. Ask a chemist. (p.s. – no, it doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics. that mistaken idea comes from a flawed understanding of what the second law of thermodynamic is and how it functions.)
      you said
      Micro evolution is not in dispute.
      Good. then we’re in agreement, because micro evolution IS EVOLUTION. Many tiny changes, taken over lots of time, make big changes. That’s a law in everything from finance through physics to personal relationships. What don’t you get, again? Because I’m having a hard time seeing how that isn’t self-evident.
      you said
      One of the key requirements of science is observability
      that’s very true. However, it doesn’t need to be visible to the naked eye, or even to the uneducated layman (like us, for instance). Observability as a scientific term doesn’t mean that you see it with a naked eye, but rather that your instrumentation and experimentation and mathematics all bear it out. remember, we can’t see an individual oxygen atom. we can’t even see the proton that makes it up with an electron microscope. (The answer to “how we know they exist” is that we only define them by their effects on the world around them. We may not be able to say exactly “what” an electron is, but we can definitely describe its properties such as mass and charge, etc.) – Thus demonstrating that a material or process doesn’t need to be directly observable for science to prove that it exists. If you doubt it, remember Hiroshima, then re-think that doubt.
      you said
      Another requirement is repeatability… but I’ll leave that one right there.
      Again you misunderstand (I’m inclined to think willfully) scientific terminology. Repeatability is specific in the scientific world to the results of scientific experiments.
      In other words, if I conduct an experiment, and I get X+Y=J, then repeatability means that no matter who else does the experiment later on, as long as they do the same exact experiment I did, they should get the same exact results. If they don’t get those results, the experiment might be flawed, or their execution of my experiment might be flawed, and so everybody sits down and tries the experiments again to try to figure out what went wrong and whose fault it was and what the correct answer is.
      In terms of theories about the natural processes of the world we live in, like gravity (and evolution), scientists need to prove that history bears them out, and continues to bear them out. If some day gravity ceased to exist, and we were all flung off into space by a combination of inertia and velocity, we could spend the last moments of our lives cussing newton for being wrong. until then, since all of the evidence (every last damned shred of it, including our continued existence) says he was correct, guess what? Gravity is in. Same things can be said of evolution. If someday a creature spontaneously appears out of nowhere, right in front of credible witnesses, that has never appeared on earth before, in a manner which is consistent with creation by a deity or other supreme being, then we can chuck Darwin out the window. ’till then, guess what? Evolution is in. And since you creationists have been trying for a couple hundred years now to get rid of him, and he’s STILL here, I’m guessing he’s probably in for the long haul, because either he’s right, or god doesn’t want you guys to win. ^^
      you said
      So here we have one non-provable, non-science theory that doesn’t answer the only question I care about – “How did I get here?”
      And one non-provable, non-science theory that does answer that question…

      *rolls eyes* I have shoved proof in your face since day one. you just nit-pick it to death. Because you don’t want it to be true. And I get that. Did you ever stop to think that if you want your faith to be true so bad, you might as well just say ‘ok, maybe evolution is real, but God did it’? I mean, evolution is a pretty well-proven fact. But *shrugs* God is nigh unto unprovable, one way or the other. I happen to believe that there is no god. But it’s possible that God could have created the cosmos, using the tools of evolution &c. – it would make more sense than god toying with humanity for his own sick, twisted amusement… Anyway.
      You said
      They’re not observable.
      Mine is, because like I said, you have a flawed grasp of a) the fundamentals of science, b) scientific observation, and c) evolution theory, all of which has led you to an assumption which you have decided not to change.
      They’re not repeatable.
      See my comment above about repeatability in science.
      They’re not science.
      Mine is. Mine is the epitome of science. It’s been vetted by thousands of scientists, among them the inventors of computers, television, radio, the internet, automobiles, records, CD, DVD, mp3s, wireless networking, cell phones, VHS, jet propulsion, braille, the telephone, the tin can and can opener, the dishwasher, the incandescent light bulb, the fluorescent light bulb, neon lights, LEDs, plasma screens, the lawn mower, the saxophone, the tumbler lock, the battery, celluloid, discoverers of x-rays, genetics, nuclear physics, the principles behind TNT and the atom bomb And MORE. It’s science.

      Meh. I was done a while back, but I figured you were polite and at least pretended to actually want answers, so I was polite and answered you. I guess you don’t like getting real, verifiable truth. Maybe next time I should tell you a lie.


    1. That’s AWESOME! So…. you’re talking to James Randi, right? about the million dollar prize? the one you can win for demonstrating that you have any extra sensory power whatsoever? . . .

      I’m sure the answer is no. I’m right, aren’t I? there’s going to be no article in the newspaper, no Fox News special report, nada – because you have no way of demonstrably repeating your claims.

      And don’t hide behind the I don’t want the money bit – because I’m sure there are plenty of people in your life who need that money, and if you’re such a self-effacing soul, I’m sure you’ll give it to them.

      To quote myself, “Extraordinary claims don’t require less proof to be accepted as true. Indeed, because the claims are extraordinary, they require extraordinary proof. You claim I’m deluded for not believing you. I say I would be an idiot to believe the things you tell me without the extraordinary amount of proof those claims require. That’s not delusion, that’s the essence of rationality.”

      And Lastly, Since when does a post on evolution theory become an appropriate forum for claims of extra-sensory bullshit?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s