Barking Mad

June 28, 2007

Top Ten Proofs that Creationists are liars

Filed under: asshats, education — misterpost @ 10:40 pm

or perhaps just greedy. Definitely intellectually dishonest.

I refer the reader to toptenproofs.com which is a site that exists literally to sell you apologetic reasons to believe in God. I will save you some money by telling you, pro bono, that each of the reasons can be simply and easily debunked by any person willing to examine the reality in which we actually exist.

I’m just going down the list, destroying the first argument of the first claim of each of the CDs on sale at the site.

Claim: Christianity is the Only True Religion
First evidence offered:

Jesus is the only “religious leader” who actually claimed to be God on Earth, in the flesh

Refutation: Google the following (in roughly chronological order).

Just for fun, I thought I’d mention that the website author’s subsequent claim is that John is an eyewitness of Jesus’ life, when all lines archaeological and other evidence show that, at best, the gospel of John was written decades after the reported death of Yeshua of Nazareth. This is acknowledged almost universally by anyone who’s studied the bible beyond just reading a modern english translation.

Claim: God’s Existence
Evidence provided:

For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it.

Refutation: This is the much abused, and very unhelpful “Argument from Design”. We recognize designed objects not by their complexity, order or beauty, but by knowledge about the designer and contrasting them with naturally occurring objects. It is intellectually dishonest to refuse to recognize this once it has been pointed out.

Claim: Evolution is scientifically impossible
Evidence Provided:

So much of the evidence presented in school textbooks, science journals and consequently the secular news media is just partial evidence. People can be made to believe just about anything if they are only given part of the evidence, but when all of the evidence is presented, the truth has a funny way of coming out

Refutation: Wow, that’s true. Shame we don’t have several man-years to invest in proper thorough demonstrations of all the facts, per student. If we made that investment, this would be the smartest nation in the history of mankind within one generation. I wonder whether we’d start with masters’ degree courses in astronomy, statistics, geology, biology, atomic theory, chemistry, nuclear physics, or quantum mechanics (per student) first? Or should we just try to teach these things all at once? Get real. We teach our kids only the basics because they’re only going to listen for so long, then start focusing on lunch, or the kid sitting in front of them, or sex.

There are, in fact, endless catalogs of scientific journals and other literature being distilled into what is taught to our kids. I wouldn’t want to try to read them all, and neither should you.

Claim: for the physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Evidence provided:

None of us were around when George Washington was President, so technically, we can’t “prove” he was President, however, if there is enough historical documentation attesting to his Presidency and corroborated historically by enough eyewitnesses, combined with absolutely no documented claims denying these facts, logic demands we accept his Presidency as historically true. To deny this would be illogical and unscientific.

Refutation: I LOL’d when I saw this opening argument. The difference, of course, is the volume and quality of historical documentation and corroboration involved. I don’t have the numbers but surely at least a bare majority of the electors in the electoral college of 1789 believed he existed at the time. Wait, we’re talking about George Washington? That’s 100% of the electoral college (69 reasonably educated and duly appointed men) who must have at least had contemporary knowledge of his historical existence. Not that I’ve read them, but it is certain that the Library of Congress has an endless collection of documents of myriad purposes and forms, about or addressed to our First President.
This argument is being made by someone who most likely believes in a literal reading of a collection of ancient poems and stories that only claims 44 authors, but doesn’t try all that hard to assert that it was never edited. This book incidentally includes the tale of a man who killed 10,000 men, solo. Consider: even using the gentlest possible way to slay a person with the jawbone of an ass, would it really hold up to ten thousand repetitions of that same action? In the conditions of hand-to-hand war, is Samson likely to have survived long enough to have done this gently? How reliable can the bible be? [Edit 2007-09-18: turns out it was only one thousand. Guess they've got me now]

More Evidence provided:

History records from eyewitnesses that Jesus Christ actually died and then 3 days later rose from the dead and was seen by 500 men over a span of 40 days.

Refutation: Many accounts do exist. But do they all tell the same story? I haven’t read every scrap of parchment ever dug up in the area that dates to 30CE, but I do suspect that since the 4 gospels, selected by majority vote of a council who did (whose purpose was to canonize the scraps that most agreed with each other to form a doctrine), don’t even tell the same story, it is quite possible that the 500 men who saw him, well, didn’t. To claim that all the four gospels agree is dishonest. To assert that hundreds of accounts that don’t agree count as historical corroboration, is even more dishonest.

Claim: America’s Christian Heritage
Evidence Provided:

that out [sic] Founding Fathers believed in a BLENDING of Church and State, not a separation.

Refutation: This is a joke on its first face! Next assertion please.

Better Evidence Provided:

I remember saying “Fisher Ames, the author of the 1st Amendment said the Bible should be taught in schools, but you say a teacher even having an open Bible on her desk is a violation of the 1st Amendment, so I’m curious…..who do you think knows more about the 1st Amendment, the guy who WROTE it, or the ACLU, 200 years later?” I couldn’t believe my ears when the ACLU actually said to me “we do”. They actually said that.

Refutation: Can’t dispute his argument that Fisher Ames was concerned about the bible not being properly used in every classroom. But Ames and the other Founding Fathers had direct historical memory of the tyranny of the official (“blended”) state church, and would have wanted to prevent that. The prohibition of using the bible as a textbook comes from two powerful ideas. 1) the bible isn’t such a great text for teaching morality or history, viz Jefferson or Paine. 2) use of any religious writing as a textbook by any instructor with a captive audience does in fact Establish religion. The ACLU’s “We do” argument is surely based on subsequent Supreme Court opinions, which are as legally binding as the Bill of Rights, but more easily modified.

Claim: Dinosaurs Lived With Man
Evidence Provided:

First, dinosaurs were nothing more than reptiles that continued to grow. Most people are unaware of the fact that reptiles never stop growing in size.

Refutation: Wow. So, why don’t we see giant-sized reptiles now? The biggest ones (crocodiles to my knowledge) get up to about 20 feet. Even when they’re over 130 years old, like the “first humans”. Even in places where food is plentiful. Dinosaurs had to have grown more quickly. Fact: Very few dinosaurs looked like anything alive today. More facts: Dinosaur fossils are not found with human fossils. Ever. The strata in the geologic column tell a story that cannot be explained away by the great Flood. Why? Because reptiles that are alive currently also show up in the fossil record contemporaneously with humans, but dinosaurs never, ever do. Rabbit fossils never show up in the Pre-Cambrian strata. There is a mechanism that explains this, called geologic time. It’s real. To deny this is dishonest. Liar.

Claim: Theistic Evolution is Not Biblical
Actually, I don’t have a problem with this one. It is clear “prima facie” that the authors of the bible had no concept of how old the earth actually was, or any rigorous theories on the origin of species.

But I will mock this single assertion: “[T]he Bible does not say the Earth is flat. It describes it as a sphere suspended upon nothing, which of course, is true” because the bible also describes the world as having ends, and the heavens as having pillars.

Claim: a Young Earth
Evidence Provided:

Over 99% of all the layers in the actual ground are different than the official “Geologic Column” you see in your Geology book. Bottom line, it appears that way on paper, but not in the ground. The layers in the ground are actually all out of sequence, upside down, inverted, missing layers, etc. The layers are all randomly shuffled throughout the entire planet like a deck of cards. This is exactly what we would expect to see if there were a worldwide flood producing massive mudslides all over the Earth. It is not what we should see if these layers supposedly represent the surfaces of the Earth over the last “500 million years.

Refutation: yes, there would be missing layers all over the place. This is predicted by the theory behind the Geologic column. Nobody’s saying that all this material just piles up over time like layers on a really large onion- the material has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is several things, e.g. lava, meteorites and space dust, the skeletons of really large numbers of very small animals, etc. Erosion is an obvious example of how layers could be missing. The random mudslide hypothesis on the other hand is testable, and easily demonstrated to be untenable, and denial of this is dishonest.

My final evidence that these guys are dishonest?

On their face it appears strongly that these materials are either produced by, or culled from, Kent Hovind’s creationist sect, y’know, down south.

And of course in the interests of skepticism, I encourage you not to take my word for it. See also Talk Origins, Iron Chariots, and of course Google is your friend.

43 Comments »

  1. Your refutals are really shallow,& your going to have to try alot harder to convince people. Check out http://www.sciencefindsgod.com for starters and see how one of your fellow athiest colleagues studied up and found the truth. Most people in the world today have accepted “the theory of evolution” as truth. The path to destruction is wide but the path to righteousness is narrow. PROVERBS 1:7 fear of the lord(GOD) is the beginning of knowledge but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
    IF you looked @ the HOLY BIBLE and particularly the book of revelation and discern the prophecies in it you would find that they are being fulfilled in this day and the world is heading in that direction. Can it really hurt you to honestly seek the truth. I can tell it will be to your regret not to. Remember this now …. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that JESUS CHRIST is Lord. Amen

    Comment by Marc B — August 14, 2007 @ 5:23 pm

  2. Okay, I allowed the above comment so I could say this. I have known many people who “honestly wanted to know the truth” and ended up with Jesus.
    I have also known a smaller number of people who decided to put “the truth” to the test and find it miserably lacking.
    The several sciences I reference above are not afraid of “the truth”. In fact modern scientific thinking is very good about stripping bullshit away from “the truth”.
    If you’d spent one tenth the time studying biblical criticism, or astronomy, or ANY OTHER FAITH SYSTEM of ancient or even recent times, that you spend on whatever flavor of Christianity you are stuck with…. GAH, I don’t know what to tell you. You’re stuck in a paradigm that doesn’t work, and doesn’t allow you to permit yourself to wonder why it doesn’t work.
    My refutations are indeed shallow, because I have a life and lack the time for a doctoral dissertation on each lame argument these fools come up with.
    What you haven’t demonstrated is how they are wrong. Can you? Without quoting scripture or your pastor? I doubt it.
    Sorry, you lose.

    UPDATE: I followed his link http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/ after I hit the submit button. I apologize. Should have gone there first.
    Here’s why it’s worth going back to. The linked page references Antony Flew, who was a vocal atheist forever. Now, go ahead and click the link “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God” HE SAYS ON THIS PAGE THAT HE STILL DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE JUDEOCHRISTIAN VERSION OF GOD. It’s a huge and improbable leap to go from citing a website that claims god is real because Antony Flew thinks so, to saying “see, see, he saw The Light! now he’s saved!” etc. Marc B, did you even read the article? You have lost my respect and I have lost all motivation for replying to you politely.
    You’re a fucking idiot.

    Comment by misterpost — August 14, 2007 @ 6:41 pm

  3. Now your getting all emotional. Emotion being anger, hence calling me a f—ing idiot. I am married and like most married people I do some f—ing, but I don’t think I’m
    an idiot. Hey that’s just what I think though. Anyway Bob Dutko is pretty busy doing alot of great things for people and service unto God so I thought I’d shoot back a little. I have the CD’s but haven’t listened to them all. I’m thankful for Bob and his ministry. If you really want to have an intellectual showdown regarding these things I’m curious to know if you have gone on Bob’s website or e-mail and confronted him on it. He likes to hear from sceptics and be challenged so…go ahead. In addition to earlier exchanges, I forgive you because I am supposed to do so. Getting back to end time prophecy in the book of Revelation:
    You seem like the kind of guy that knows all so just for others who may read this and just might agree with me:
    Considering the reuniting of the Roman empire under one trade system and law being Europe and America following behind in uniting America, Canada, and Mexico in a similar fashion starting first with trade(check out I-35 corridor) and then most likely by law. It seems undeniable we are approaching a one world goverment which will be headed by someone. He will have his right hand man to tell help him tell all his lies. He will bring peace & prosperity between all including Israel and Islam. You(misterpost) and your fellows who deny GOD and His Word will love him especially when he publicly executes GOD’s prophets (see Rev. 11:7-10) but enjoy it because it will only last 3 & 1/2 days until GOD will raise them up. (Rev.11:11) I gotta get but I’ll be back to chat some more. Do you deny these things mentioned above regarding the days we are living in? Also for starters on my refutal to your statements: AS Bob Dutko asked: What did Budha,or Mohamed,or confusious, etc. do when a loved one died or when there was a storm or a lepor, or sick loved one? They lived with it. History records no miracles from any of these figures and by the way they are all sleeping in theirs graves except the true son of our loving GOD, Jesus. gotta go….. if you (misterpost) have so huevos in your pants can you print this comment and maybe share your real first name. Adios for now.

    Comment by Marc B — August 14, 2007 @ 9:28 pm

  4. You misunderstand. Calling you a fucking idiot was a cool headed decision based on the evidence at hand.

    You apply to the book of Revelation the same logic that allows other fools to apply the “predictions” of Nostradamus to our times, even though he was writing about current events.

    The methods used by bible-thumpers to apply scriptural predictions to modern times are far from rigorous, as evidenced by the fact that there are thousands of subtly incompatible interpretations of any given biblical text.

    I’m not upset and you have not “struck a nerve”. I am also not interested in being baited by any reference to the size of my genitalia.

    Good day to you.

    Comment by misterpost — August 15, 2007 @ 4:39 pm

  5. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

    Comment by Marc B — August 16, 2007 @ 1:35 am

  6. That’s a beautiful metaphor for what I’m talking about, thank you.
    By the way, Marc- DID you read the “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God” link? Because your use of that page as support for your argument seems to show that you did not comprehend it.

    Comment by misterpost — August 16, 2007 @ 2:47 am

  7. I apologize, I read only the front page and not the article following. Now that I have, I see he does believe in intelligent design of some god and not God almighty who sent his Son as an altimate gift to mankind which all history cannot debunk. It was my mistake to throw that out there in a hasty fashion. One link I do however fall back on for real hard scientific evidence is http://www.creationworldview.org. Since seeing is believing for a faithless atheist this would be a good sight to check out for such. Misterpost, you never did respond to my question regarding your list of false gods and any historically recorded miracles they had accomplished. For the fact that God made the sun to shine for all, I can say have a blessed day mistersmartypost.

    Comment by Marc B — August 20, 2007 @ 5:29 pm

  8. In last comment I mispelled. To be precise and clear I meant ULTIMATE.

    Comment by Marc B — August 20, 2007 @ 5:37 pm

  9. Dude, you bore me. Really, your question is dumb.
    Almost by definition, ALL of the gods of the ancient Middle East and Mediterranean area accomplished “miracles”. The deities of other cultures vary wildly in power and scope, of course, mostly with the imaginations and experience of their worshippers. Faith healing happens all over the place, and is not restricted to Judeo-Christian followers, though it is most prevalent with them.
    It’s not my responsibility to educate you on these questions. It was your history teachers’ responsibility. I am very sorry for you that none of your teachers ever taught you the names Osiris, Mithras, Hercules, Enkidu, Ulysses/Odysseus. These folks were surrounded by divine intervention and have nothing to do with christian mythology. The list of “false” gods is enormous, and interesting.
    Of course, you wouldn’t find any information about them in your bible so you might not have heard of them. Well guess what- other books exist aside from the bible. Some predate the bible, many of them are more interesting, and most are better written. They’re worth a lot of reading.

    Take a look at your bubble from the outside for once! We live in a far bigger and more interesting world than described in the bible, you just have to acknowledge it and learn to wonder.

    Regarding “historically recorded miracles”, I have a page for you to look at: http://skepdic.com/miracles.html
    Please give it a better read than the first link you sent.

    I did read the page you sent. Not impressed, nothing that hasn’t been debunked before. It starts with an assumption- that the bible is inerrant (a sad joke in my opinion)- and runs with it, dismissing a little too easily anything that contradicts its basic assumption. That’s not science.

    Another that deserves some link love is the young earth faq. http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

    Have a well-informed, factually grounded day, Marc

    Comment by misterpost — August 21, 2007 @ 2:49 pm

  10. I know that wikipedia is perceived as this evil liberal whatever, but it does at least have some surface-level information about a lot of stuff. See for example its list of gods (by culture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gods_by_culture and (by association) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gods_by_association
    Spend a few hours on this. Find a couple of gods you like, and go to a University library, or at least the nearest public one. Spend a few days there.

    There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Bore me no more with it.

    Comment by misterpost — August 21, 2007 @ 3:11 pm

  11. I don’t have a few days to spend at the library or sit around making blogs like you apparently do. Fact is I just got online to check out a couple things and came upon your blog. I don’t use computers as often as I have the last few days going back and forth with you. One thing I realize is I can get online to find something and end up getting side tracked looking at exactly the opposite than what I came for. You can find all the info you need and a whole lot more than you really need. I think you may have overdosed a little. Intellect is a good thing but it can be a hinderance to ones faith of the unknown. If one is a ________ (fill in the blank) he/she can find plenty of others to help oneself be justified in his cause or beliefs. Misterpost you may have an interest in Mythological heroes & insignificant religious figures(yaaaawwnn……..) talk about boring, I don’t pay attention to fairytale gods or religions with uncertain documentaion. If you really can’t find any wisdom or moral sense to a book in the holy bible such as PROVERBS than it’s clear that we are just from different schools of thought & you may be a lawless self righteous person without a clue of any basic moral fiber.(you’d have to really read it to understand that). My God is real. His word is real and I see the truths come to reality in my life alot. I really don’t need to see any stories of Jesus or biblical text confirmed with history or anyone. I’ve witnessed firsthand Gods workings in people around me and myself. Misterpost, You have a soul, you should let that big brain of yours rest just a little while. Have a good one.

    Comment by Marc B — August 22, 2007 @ 5:14 am

  12. I apologize. I have misjudged you, spoken in haste. You are not a fucking idiot after all.

    After this exchange I now understand that term does not even begin to describe what a self-righteous, dogmatic, closed-minded, stupid blowhard you are.

    Again, that’s not an emotional response. I’ve met plenty of jackasses like you before and I’m well past bothering to get emotional about it, beyond feeling no small degree of pity for you, and worry for all of our children.

    You, who came to my blog to instruct me “to honestly seek the truth”, now tell me you do not have time to spend in a library to learn about the mythology of other cultures? You imply that (yawn) the religious figures of other people are insignificant, when they surely believed at least as fervently in the pagan gods as you believe in the god of Abraham (a mythological figure)?

    You even imply that all I do is sit around writing my blog, and that I am lawless without any moral fiber. You don’t know me from Enkidu, who are you to judge?

    How would you know whether I’ve read Proverbs or not, have I mentioned it? I have read it. It is, in fact, my favorite book in the bible. The fact that I do not read it as a holy infalliable text does not make it less interesting, nor imply that I have no morals.

    You’re shining a blinding bright light on your own hypocrisy. I suggest you take another look at the thesis of this blog entry, which is that creationists (as you appear to claim to be) are intellectually dishonest because they only look at the evidence they want to see, and then denounce real scientific knowledge (which you seem to want to do). The thesis once again is that you (Marc B) and your kind are the worst kind of liar- the kind that cannot admit they’ve been caught in their dishonesty.

    Thank you for proving my thesis. Good Day.

    Comment by misterpost — August 22, 2007 @ 1:43 pm

  13. “The Bible, properly read, is the most potent force for atheism yet invented.” — Issac Asimov

    Comment by Syd — August 22, 2007 @ 9:45 pm

  14. Amen, Brother Syd, Amen!

    Comment by misterpost — August 22, 2007 @ 10:24 pm

  15. Misterpost and I have been pals for a long time, so we have had chance to discuss our different points of view regarding religion, politics, the world in general, and whether or not Dan Quayle had more brains than George W. Bush. That being said, I would like to comment here in line with the discussion being had between Misterpost and Marc B.

    Unlike Misterpost, I cannot call myself holding Athiest (or athiest, depending) views. Unlike Marc B I cannot call myself a Christian (or christian). I suppose the term best used, if forced to use one, is Agnostic. I believe that there is something out there, but I’m not the person to preach what it is, and it certainly has better things to do than muck about in the daily lives of our self-abusive species.

    This is not a decision that came about randomly. I was raised in an Irish Catholic/Reformed Jew/Presbyterian household. My family presented very different points of view, and allowed me to research on my own as to what I felt best described “God.” I went on retreats, read voraciously, spoke with just about every religious figure I could corner. Hell, I even dated a Jehovah’s Witness. Based in part on this, and other things I won’t get into because I’m starting to bore myself, I think I have a fairly level mind when it comes to discussing religion.

    The point of this whole ramble? Very simple: delicatessen morality. Each religious point of view pulls what it wants to out of whatever text it finds most in line with its spiel. The basics are often swell things to live by — be nice to one another, listen to your folks, don’t steal, don’t kill. Then it starts going off into wierd tangients — God will save you from the snake in the box when you put your hand in, God will pull you up in the Rapture and let you watch everyone else die, God wants you to be a cannabal and eat flesh and drink blood. Kill yourself, and others, and be a martyr; be tortured and become a saint. Send money to a certain PO Box in Tennessee.

    Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

    Marc’s very arguments and references are the main reason I stay away from organised religions in general. If he’s trying to sway a reader to his point of view, he’s lost my confidence. I’d rather have doom and gloom which I discovered than have “to know God is to be saved” forced down my throat. I cannot agree with “you’re going to hell if you don’t buy my brand of bible-thump.” Isn’t that why we have these wars in the first place–aside from oil, I mean. Does it mean that because Ug, the cave man, is in hell because he never heard of Jesus, being born thousands of years too early? Or Ghandi’s becoming a kebob ’cause he didn’t get into the schtick?

    Bullshit. If your heavenly father does that kind of pick and choose, you can have him. I’ll stick with something that protects and loves his children regardless of their own opinions.

    Go back and stick your head in the sand Marc. The world moves on, and someday this too will pass.

    I need a beer.

    Comment by Syd — August 22, 2007 @ 11:16 pm

  16. Read it again. I said you “may be……” I was using judgement, and not judging. So your judgement of my character in your last statement has lost ground. Same for your opinion on creation science, there is real scientific knowledge on creation, you just choose not to examine. I can be self righteous at times, even though I haven’t you given a reason to call me that or a liar. Someone can be sincere and think they are right when they are really wrong but it would be unjust to call them a liar. You lack in the ability to debate without insulting people like a child and you have no sense of humor whatsoever. It’s really like talking to a robot. Fact is, I am a liar. I am also a hypocrite. If your so bored with me, why do you keep coming back for more. Your keystokes say one thing but I think your motives tell otherwise. Maybe you(misterpost) …….are a liar also? SO….simple question, are you a liar?

    Comment by Marc B — August 23, 2007 @ 1:36 am

  17. Pardon the intrusion, as well as my ignorance: Whilst I can go on for days finding scientific, proof positive evidence in the favour of evolution, I fail to remember any non-religious based journal that has the same for creation. Please tell me the source. I would honestly like to read this.

    Comment by Syd — August 23, 2007 @ 1:43 am

  18. Throw in the rigorous science behind miracles while you’re at it.
    If I could find one study of miracles with evidence that Judeo-Christian miracles have more validity than (pick your alternative flavor), that doesn’t fall apart under rigorous scrutiny, and you’ll have a convert.

    Good luck.

    Comment by misterpost — August 23, 2007 @ 2:48 pm

  19. Misterpost, don’t change the subject. Are you not a liar? Truthfully, all it takes is one lie and you are a liar. I would think chances are we are all liars at sometime or another. I will not judge you, just maybe you’ve never lied. However, you know what one might call a person who is a liar and calls others liars. OK, It’s clear then. Lets be past that. As for the whole argument, should we beat up on each other so much in the quest for truth. It’s been a little fun rippin on you but it hasn’t really birthed any resolve…….yet. Syd, despite your instructions for me at the end of your statement I don’t mind the intrusion. Your input and sense of humor are appreciated. Last time I checked it’s still known as the “theory of evolution” in regards to proof positive info. I do have some material sources for you to check if you really want them. Yes I have some that are non-religious based. I do agree that there is alot of suffering and loss in the world because of religion. I don’t agee with alot of stuff amongst Christians. There are some scammers and nuts with prayer napkins, miracle water etc. Woe to them. Within christianity some have done some damage (including myself) at times as far as representation. Many make the mistake of judging God by his imperfect people. I would like to address a couple things if a may at a later time along with those resources. Thanks for hearing me out. G’ day.

    Comment by Marc B — August 23, 2007 @ 11:32 pm

  20. “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” -Ben Franklin ATTN: Syd

    Comment by Marc B — August 23, 2007 @ 11:36 pm

  21. The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church. — Ferdinand Magellan

    Spirituality: The last refuge of a failed human. Just another way of distracting from who you really are. — George Carlin

    I do not judge God by imperfect people. That would be pointless, like judging the whole of the automotive industry by Ford. I do not judge God at all; rather, as I said, being sort of Agnostic, I feel that it’s not for humans to decide on what the whole thing is about. The Bible is an interesting text, full of stories, many of which were written years after the actual events, mostly compiled by people who simply were not there. The current canon isn’t even half of what was written to consider religious text. Constantine picked and chose whatever suited his political aspirations of the time. You might as well take a Popular Mechanics from 1952 and base your judgement of an entire generation from that for as much good as it will do.

    As for the comments directed torwards me regarding “theory of evolution,” may I also respond with “creationist theory.” I still say there are more facts regarding the former than there are the latter and will remain obstenant in that opinion. “Some that are religious based” suggests there aren’t that many, and I would think that there is good reason for that — lack of evidence. What I’m saying is: I’d rather believe that my car is going to run, than have faith it’s not gonna explode on the interstate. (of course, driving a Volvo, I can afford both ha ha.) Until I see something that says “poof, you were sand, now you’re a gopher,” it ain’t gonna fly with me. Besides–who’s to say that your God didn’t come up with the idea of evolution in the first place? ‘Cause of what it says in Gensis, one of the most self-contradictory chapter of the Old Testament? It can’t agree with whether or not Eve was the first woman (see: Lilith). As a resource material it fails miserably. Sorry, it’s true.

    Misterpost and Marc B ain’t gonna change each other’s minds. I strongly think that Misterpost’s non-belief system is just as strong as Marc’s belief system, if not more so. That’s why it is so much fun to be in between. I can disagree with Misterpost to a certain extent, and yet still see Marc’s Christianity as but another colour in a multi-hued, self-absorbed rainbow of God-bothering.

    Comment by Syd — August 24, 2007 @ 12:34 am

  22. I haven’t changed the topic- was not my thesis that creationists are liars? Have I not provided, with your help, some evidence that shows creationists to be intellectually dishonest (again, continuing to assert ideas that have already been discredited earlier in a discussion is one example of dishonest)?
    Listen, I’ve heard these arguments before, and they’re no more persuasive now than the last dozen iterations- Ray Comfort loves to start his arguments with “Have you ever told a lie?– then you’re a liar and you need god’s forgiveness”. What crap!
    Regarding the theory of evolution, I have another link for you to peruse: http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html just for starters.
    But you probably won’t spend any time there- why would you, it’s not funny. Here’s something to show you that indeed I do have a sense of humor: http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html
    Hell, read the whole site- http://www.re-discovery.org/

    I’m not going to trollbait you with further argument, you’ve contributed nothing of value to the discussion. Go away.

    Comment by misterpost — August 24, 2007 @ 1:21 am

  23. Sd, rgrdng jdgng Gd, rll dd nt drct tht cmmnt t r th pstmstr. jst thrw tht t thr cs sm ppl d tht. Ppl lk Frdnnd Mglln. f tht’s n fct wht h sd. ‘m tkn r wrd fr t. dn’t blv Gd ss tht n hs wrd. H ds s: Frm JB 26:7 H strchs t th nrth vr mpt spc; H hngs th rth n nthng. f t’s fnc w f sng flt t’s bnd m.
    [Disemvoweled by misterpost for quote mining the bible, which counts as being boring. Get the fuck off my blog.]

    Comment by Marc B — August 24, 2007 @ 1:52 am

  24. “I might repeat to myself, slowly and soothingly, a list of quotations from minds beautiful and profound — if I can remember any of the damn things.” Dorothy Parker

    I tire of this. This is the reason I have a “No Soliciting” sign on my front porch screen door. One can only go ’round and ’round so many times before the centrifugal force makes you want to vomit.

    My grandmother used to say, “Never try to teach a pig to sing — it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” I’m inclined to think that this is misterpost’s music classroom, and those who enter and speak are some kind of student. Regardless of what you wanted, you’re in here, so you voluntarily signed up for the course. If you don’t like the cirriculum, then head on down the hall.

    As for me, I’m going to the loo and then for lunch. I’ll be back at the start of next period to see how the next chapter reads.

    Comment by Syd — August 24, 2007 @ 11:35 am

  25. for Syd re: non-rel evidence for ID
    http://www.arn.org/authors/johnson.html
    http://www.arn.org/author/wells.html

    Comment by Marc B — August 24, 2007 @ 8:49 pm

  26. I just have to say that I found this all very interesting and a little bit funny. Yes, I do read your blogs, I don’t know if you knew that or not, but I find it gives me better insight into how you think. As for your…well…can you call it a conversation with Marc B.? I find that Syd pretty much hits you both on the mark.

    Marc B., you have been judgmental and closed minded, whether you want to admit it or not. You know nothing of misterpost’s life or upbringing. I do. He is one of the most honest people I’ve met, and that is saying a lot. Not that you would know that, because you don’t know me.

    misterpost, I know this is your blog and all, but all the name calling? It does sound kind of childish. I’m sure that you can make a point without being so…well, you I guess.

    Anyway, I just wanted to say something here. Not that it is very important or relevant to anything, but I believe that you will see and find what you want to, and no amount of convincing, talking, reading, beating, research, proofs, or anything is ever going to change that until someone opens their mind to a possibility other than what they have always believed. Honestly, no ones beliefs can be “proven”. We will just have to wait and see what happens after we die…until then, what’s the point in arguing…just agree to disagree. However few in the world are actually able to do that, they have to prove to another that they are right…no matter what the cost.

    I’m not as quick or well informed as many people, and I do have my own set of beliefs, but I think that both of you are a bit hard headed, and wrong on some of your hardcore beliefs and points. That being said, no, I can’t prove any of it. That is just my gut feeling.

    Well, all that being said, I think I’m going to go to bed now…

    Comment by SAP — August 25, 2007 @ 5:34 am

  27. Wells link was unavailable; Johnson’s writings read like the Erich von Daniken of Creationism.

    http://www.evdaniken.com/

    Comment by Syd — August 25, 2007 @ 2:47 pm

  28. I am familiar enough with Johnson.
    He offers no useful alternative to Darwinism, nothing of substance to show that his alternative is better.
    QED

    Comment by misterpost — August 26, 2007 @ 2:21 am

  29. My point exactly. When I ask for facts, I want something scientific. I hardly think that suffices.

    BTW–it was a beautiful day today in Lincoln, NE. The sun was out and it was amazingly comfortable. That has no bearing on anything, except to say that it was a very nice day, whomever or whatever was responsible for it.

    Comment by Syd — August 26, 2007 @ 3:26 am

  30. An ammendum to my comment:

    Even if I were less inclined in my stubborn mindset for fact, I would certainly hope that “the Creator” would have more imagination than to just go “poof, here you are.” My opinion is that it would just be too easy and show no panache, no creativity (pardon the pun).

    I’d also like to think that we are indeed still evolving. What we are now, as a species, isn’t exactly the healthiest thing this beautiful ball of rock has played home to. Maybe the next thing, Human 5.0 or whatever, won’t be a race of asshats (I owe misterpost a nickel in royalties for that one).

    BTW–Good reading that plays a bit with religion and actually has some ideas in line with mine:

    Good Omens by Neil Gaimen and Terry Pratchett

    Small Gods by Terry Pratchett

    The Last Continent by Terry Pratchett

    Hell, any of the Discworld series from Pratchett. The Last Continent, however, does have a very interesting god in that has a definate goal in mind.

    Read ‘em and laugh. They may be fiction, but we should be used to reading fiction by now.

    Comment by Syd — August 26, 2007 @ 3:46 am

  31. I love the back and forth, thats hilarious. I’d like to inject some more humor into this. “The Bob Dutko Show” everyday prays for the troops in Iraq (in Bob’s opinion, a very just war). But this time I sent a name to be prayed for…Private Jen Italia and her two children. Say it quick Marc, even you will get it. You could here the other people in the background laughing as hard as I was. Keep it real! Ps. have you heard Dutko’s theory of ghosts?

    Comment by realemon — October 11, 2007 @ 10:59 pm

  32. I’ll have to forgive you for being such an immature, inconsiderate ass, since you must be a jr. high school student or something. Whether the war is just or not, freedom is not free. Many americans have given their lives in serving this nation and its citizens and then there is …..you. dig yourself

    Comment by Marc B — October 18, 2007 @ 8:13 pm

  33. Freedom isn’t free……..It costs folks like you and me….and also innocent Folks their lives and Americans alot of money…shitty, I know, but the bible says that Jesus hates innocent blood being spilled. Did you know that if the Americans find a bad guy in a crowd of 30 innocents it’s cool for them to kill ‘em all? that is true. But since their praying to the wrong God I guess it’s ok. Thank God, Allah, Vishnu, Budha that our God is the right one. And also, I guess prayers don’t work since bullets don’t bounce off of the American flag! damn it! pray harder!

    Comment by realemon — October 18, 2007 @ 11:40 pm

  34. “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.” Ferdinand Magellan

    The quote is a fabrication of Robert Green Ingersoll. It is found in his essay “Individuality.” This may be accessed at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/individuality.html
    It’s in the fourth paragraph of his essay:

    It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions, — some one who had the grandeur to say his say. I believe it was Magellan who said, “The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church.” On the prow of his ship were disobedience, defiance, scorn, and success.

    This was first pointed out, as far as I know, by Dr. Tom Gorski in his website “Knowing What Ain’t So” at http://www.churchoffreethought.org/cgi-bin/contray/contray.cgi?DATA=&ID=000011010&GROUP=048. Dr. Gorski is one of four founders of the The North Texas Church of Freethought.

    To the credit of Wikiquote it clearly points out the quote is disputed and attributes it to Ingersoll http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ferdinand_Magellan

    At http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Religion/Atheist%20Quotes.htm it immediately corrected the attribution: “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.”
    ……….Robert Green Ingersoll (not Ferdinand Magellan)

    At http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-63650.html they already were able to determine that it was Ingersoll who in fact said the words he attributes to Magellan. “Regarding a flat earth, please note that Ingersoll used a quote attributed to Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521), the Portuguese and Spanish explorer: ‘The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church.’ Ingersoll uses this quote to make a point: ‘The trouble with most people is, they bow to what is called authority.’ Ingersoll’s thrust in this article is that ‘It is the duty of each and every one to maintain his individuality’ and ‘There can be nothing more utterly subversive of all that is really valuable than the suppression of honest thought–No man, worthy of the form he bears, will at the command of church or state solemnly repeat a creed his reason scorns.’ I agree with Ingersoll. If you do not, that is certainly your privilege.” The author assumes Ingersoll got it from an authentic source. But I have read the primary sources on Magellan—eyewitness accounts by Antonio Pigafetta, Gines de Mafra, Francisco Albo, The Genoese Pilot, Martinho de Aiamonte, Sebastian Elcano—nowhere is there such a statement from Magellan. Ingersoll most definitely cites no authority.

    Comment by Vicente Calibo de Jesus — December 17, 2007 @ 4:43 am

  35. I am a Christian and I do find your arguments thought provoking.
    I don’t know if you would ever be interested in doing a debate with a local Christian station. You probably have heard of Bob Dutko. Would that ever seem like something you may do. Or maybe you already have. I would like to tune in and listen if you do. Let me know so I can make sure I hear.
    Have a great day.
    Mike Epley

    Comment by Mike Epley — February 16, 2009 @ 8:34 pm

  36. You understate the magnitude of Dutko’s dishonesty about Fisher Ames. Ames was NOT the author of the first amendment and a few Google-clicks will show. Even bible-thumping David Barton describes him as but a “helper.” When historic authors, for sake the of brevity, attribute the FA to a single person, it’s Madison. No surprise there.

    And to dishonesty: I have repeatedly emailed Dutko and on at lest one occasion have mailed him hard-copy pages from my history books with full citations and references showing his error. His reaction? To again and again knowingly repeat the falsehood and then accuse “the left” of lying about history, evolution and the like.

    What a fine guy Dutko is.

    Comment by thomas wheeler — March 26, 2009 @ 9:03 am

  37. your presentation of these Christian beliefs is wrong. you take only parts of arguments and take them out of context to make them sound stupid and intelectually dishonest. these arguments from Bob Dutko’s CDs are much more valid than what you say. your “evidence provided” things do not show the true evidence only take parts of it that dont represent the whole argument.

    Comment by DM — May 18, 2009 @ 3:09 pm

  38. I disagree.
    Naturally.

    These beliefs (see for example “Evolution is scientifically impossible”) could not have been more clear or easy to understand, though I’ve noticed there is less detail on Dutko’s site now than there was when I wrote the original post. Can you tell me how I have misrepresented them?

    I have also not taken the claims out of context. I have quoted directly from the site, e.g “History records from eyewitnesses that Jesus Christ actually died and then 3 days later rose from the dead and was seen by 500 men over a span of 40 days.” We have two contexts here – one is called History and the other is known as the bible. In the context of History claims of having risen from the dead are not unheard of, nor are claims of divinity. It had been done before, it was tried during Jesus’ lifetime, it has happened since. That is the context of history. The context in the bible is that only one of the gospel stories mentions Jesus being seen by anyone other than a few close friends. Do you know your New Testament well enough to identify which?

    I’m bored with this argument. I stand by what I say – Bob Dutko is full of shit. I hope you didn’t spend too much on his CDs.

    Comment by misterpost — May 18, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

    • your presentations are partial because the information is missing. you are simply not refuting the scinetific, ot historical, etc. proofs of evolution being false, of Christ’s ressurection, etc. in your rebuttal of Dutko’s evolution cds you say it would take too long to teach all these things. How long was the CD? the comments on Dutko’s cd would not take years to explain. i coud argue the same thing against you. the evolutionary theories take a lifetime to learn, just look at all the scientists who are still studying them. if you truly examine the scientific evidence with an open mind and unbiased, you will see that evolution cannot stand.
      Another thing that bothered me was your assertion that the Gospels do not teach the same thing. Have you read any of them? if not then i suggeset you do. the Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all had different target audiences. Matthew was written mainly for the Jews. His purpose was to provide an account of Jesus’ life using Old Testament referances that supported believers, and Jesus’ claims of being the Messaiah. As an example, Matthew often uses Son of David (King David of Israel) instead of Son of God, as the other authors use, to make it more for the Jewish reader. The title of Son of David and Son of God are not contradictory. Son of David is used because Jesus is from King David’s line, and this helps to establish Him as Messiah because many prophesies use this. Matthew also focuses on Jesus’ teachings of the Kingdom of Heaven and so his narrations include more events of Jesus preaching this than the other Gospels. Mark however does not contain these symbols to Jewish customs and laws, and prophesies. The Gospel of Mark is directed toward Gentiles, and most historians think to those in Rome. Over 40% of the Gospel of Mark focuses on Jesus’ last week on earth. Obviously, he will have included events others did not. The Gospel of Luke has a whole other flavor. it was written to a man by the name of Theophilus, a Geintile. The name Theophilus means lover of God. So this Gospel is directed primarily toward those who are seeking God and who love Him, or have already accepted Him. So this book goes more in depth about Jesus’ ministry. It includes more parables that are meant to primarily to help those who have already accepted Him. The Gospel of John has another goal the John himself states in chapter 20 verse 31 “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” This gospel is primarily directed to Non- Jewish followers of Jesus. If you read all the Gospels you will not find ANY contradiction between them. they tell many of the same stories and fill in the gaps of one another. where Matthew talks more of Jesus birth, Mark does not but focuses on the death and resurection. All the gospels are inter related and to assert that they are dishonest is false.

      By the way, these are not my original ideas. they come from some study helps in my Bible and are well backed.

      Comment by DM — May 19, 2009 @ 1:52 pm

      • I guess I don’t take too much issue with the idea that the new testament is internally consistent – haven’t read it through in one sitting in years so don’t have anything to add here.

        What I take issue with is the fact that the myriad churches that base their ideas on the new testament are *not* internally consistent, with themselves or with the new testament.

        Also the bible as a whole really ought to be more consistent with reality than it is, if it were written by the author of reality itself, as these bible-thumpers claim it to be.

        I don’t see a singular god bubbling out of all the noise – what I see instead is different interpretations of the same books by different people. Some divine inspiration.

        Comment by misterpost — October 9, 2009 @ 1:33 pm

  39. I feel very sorry for these creation scientist’s as I am in favour of creation science. As I saw on another website which I cant remember the name off these creation scientist’s dont get enough credit for all the work and real science they put in, after all they all have phd’s and god knows what else. They study the same science as atheist scientist do but everyone has there own interpratation. Another thing is I get very offended when creation scientist are often called biased and liars just because its fits in with the bible and the bible is a very trustworthy source if you go on allaboutthetruth.org for any spectics and athesist, this is when I find people who woant listen or read the bible properly by an almighty god who is witness to the very beginning and who has always existed very biased, hypocritical, ignorant and arogant.
    This is how strong I am in Christ Jesus our only true god. AMEN

    Comment by Ac — October 9, 2009 @ 11:23 am

  40. First, congratulations on congratulating yourself on how strong you are in Christ Jesus.
    If he were in fact real, I’m sure he’d have done a facepalm having read that last bit.

    Your site didn’t work. A pity.

    I do want to clarify something: I don’t call the creationists(e.g. Bob Dutka) liars because their worldview fits with the bible. I have little issue with being consistent with your own message.

    What gets me is that when faced with actual facts that conflict with biblical teaching, these people would rather side with the bible than reality.

    I maintain that this is intellectually dishonest, but doesn’t make you a liar. You’re not a liar until you’ve had reality thrown in your face countless times, yet still choose to make your living peddling crap.

    Comment by misterpost — October 9, 2009 @ 1:08 pm

  41. Well ok I’m open to people’s opposing opinions because i’ve had countless debates with my friend’s on this so fair enough. However when you say if Jesus were in fact real, he is real regardless of wheather you believe in him or not, obviously in your case you dont. That site I mentioned is brilliant as it gives answers to difficult questions, because their are alot of people out there who choose to reject the bible for various reasons, the list is to long but the answers are obvious. Myself as a christian who studies the bible I find very interesting which contains very helpful notes, refrences and evidence which indeed backs up the bible very well as a trustworthy source as written by almighty God’s eye witnesses who were well educated people back then, these were achual events where all prophecys were fullied even today as well as healing and I stand witness to healing today. In regards to what you said about my message I’ve noticed that when people say science cant agree with the bible because there would be a major up roar and plus science is not allowed to side with the bible, also when proving the bible as a trustworthy source which it is we’re not allowed to have that either so we’re not allowed to win either way which frustrates me alot. Sorry if i go on abit i tend to get carried away. Anyway you say you went on that site I refered to I wonder why it didnt work, I mean I had problems believing in jesus at one point but now I see sense in jesus and the gospel and no sense in evolution. Anyway each to their. own.

    Comment by Ac — October 9, 2009 @ 4:52 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.