[redacted]

i think you've clearly missed the point of the various holy books. theyre not science books. theyre not history books. its no different than taking any philosophical or theological book, ancient or modern, and calling bullshit on account of it not mentioning some far off nebula as if that means anything as it pertains to philosophy and/or theology

"why not mention something like, 'god created the stars, including the sun'? then people would be like oh, all those points of light are just different versions of our sun" why not? because what the hell does that have to do with the philosophical nature of the scriptures?

again, you want it to be a science book but its not and why should it be?
>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^shimfish:
Err...except for all the times the bible mentions stars, which, of course, we used to actually see at night.
Were you expecting a postscript along the lines of "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is."
>> ^Mcboinkens:
This is one of my biggest conflicts with religion. Not one mention of anything outside of the sun and the moon.


Errrrrr.......you clearly missed the point of my post. No mention of anything humans didn't already know about. If I created a full-fledged universe, I'd definitely hint at the fact that there were other things outside of the Earth, Moon, and points of light that are blatantly obvious. Also, it seems to differentiate between the Sun and stars. Why not mention something like, "God created the stars, including the Sun"? Then people would be like oh, all those points of light are just different versions of our Sun. "In 1600 A.D., Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for heresy, for asserting that the Sun is a star, among other things. It wasn't until the mid-1800s, after the work of Galileo, Kepler, Huygens, Newton, and finally, Friedrich Bessel, that it[meaning the sun was a strar] could be proven. The distance to other stars was calculated, and it was found that stars were about as bright as the Sun, when you account for the difference in distance. Also, chemical composition and surface temperature could be determined, and this added further evidence."
It mentions Pleiades and Orion, both of which received there name prior to when the book of Job was written, so no credit there. Besides, those are just constellations.
Why would you not expect any sort of indication that space was bigger than we though? Why leave us in the dark? Why not reveal that the Earth is a globe and not a flatland, like it implies when it mentions the four corners?
"The Third Day
The first appearance of dry ground. The further cooling of the surface set in motion a process of natural contraction, uplifting and motion of the crust (the process continues today, called "plate tectonics"). The earth changed from a smooth one-level molten "cue ball" to a planet with an irregular surface with ocean basins and continental landmasses. With dry ground available, the first plants were made to grow in great abundance. (Genesis 1:9-13)
The Fourth Day
With the sky now clear, the sun, moon and stars were dependably visible. They were to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years." The sun marked the day (sunset to sunset), the moon the month (new moon to new moon), and the stars the seasons (constellations are seen in particular seasons e.g. "Orion" is visible in winter in the northern hemisphere, which is summer in the southern hemisphere). (Genesis 1:14-19)"
A mention of dirt, but not gas? It just bugs me that the only things mentioned were the things that were already known about.

[redacted]

In addition, itis possible to make a canoe out of pizza crust. Rather small but it floats.

mmmmmm pizza.

Note how her rolled crust is not only perfectly round, but also fits the pan size EXACTLY! :-)

@TheGenk @Skeeve @Boise_Lib @gwiz665 @packo @IronDwarf @MaxWilder @westy @BicycleRepairMan @shuac @KnivesOut

Evolution is pseudo-science. It exists in the realm of imagination, and cannot be scientifically verified. At best, evolution science is forensic science, and what has been found not only does not support it, but entirely rules it out. I don't think any of you realize how weak the case for evolution really is. None of them quotes, as far as I know, are from creation scientists btw

No true transitional forms in the fossil record:

Darwins theory proposed that slow change over a great deal of time could evolve one kind of thing into another. Such as reptiles to birds. The theory proposed that we should see in the fossil records billions of these transitional forms, yet we have found none. When the theory was first proposed, darwinists pleaded poverty in the fossil record, claiming the missing links were yet to be found. It was then claimed that the links were missing because conditions conspired against fossilizing them, or that they had been eroded or destroyed in subsequent fossilization.

120 years have gone by since then. We have uncovered an extremely rich fossil record with billions of fossils, a record which has completely failed to produce the expected transitions. It has become obvious that there was no process that could have miraculously destroyed the transitionals yet left the terminal forms intact.

The next theory proposed was "hopeful monster" theory, which states that evolution occurs in large leaps instead of small ones. Some even suggested that a bird could have hatched from a reptile egg. This is against all genetic evidence, and has never been observed.

The complete lack of transitional forms is not even the worst problem for evolution, considering the big gaps between the higher categories, and the systemic absence of transitional forms between families classes orders and phyla.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979 admitting no transitional forms exist.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

-Charles Darwin

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

-Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University

Fossil record disputes evolutionary theory:

According to evolutionary theory we should see an evolutionary tree of organisms starting from the least complex to the most complex. Instead, what we do see in the fossil record is the very sudden appearance of fully-formed and fully-functional complex life.

If you examine the fossil record, you see all kinds of complex life suddenly jumping into existence during a period that evolutionists refer to as the "Cambrian explosion".

None of the fossilized life forms found in the "Cambrian period" have any predecessors prior to that time. In essence, the "Cambrian period" represents a "sudden explosion of life" in geological terms.

Evolutionists try to disprove this by stretching it over a period of 50 million years, but they have no transitional fossils to prove that theory before or during.

"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"

-Paleontologist George Gaylord

What disturbs evolutionists greatly is that complex life just appears in the fossil record out of nowhere, fully functional and formed.

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

-Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki (an evolutionist)

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative."

-Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230

Evolution can't explain the addition of information that turns one kind into another kind

There is no example recorded of functional information being added to any creature, ever.

"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."

Species just don't change. Kind only produces kind:

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it."

Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University

Not enough bones:

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.

Try to debunk this if you can
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=tYLHxcqJmoM&feature=PlayList&p=C805D4953D9DEC66&index=0&playnext=1

More fun facts:

There are no records of any human civilization past 4000 BC

"The research in the development of the [radiocarbon] dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historic and prehistoric epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisors informed us that history extended back only for 5,000 years . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, the earliest historical date that has been established with any degree of certainty is about the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt."—*Willard Libby, Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624.

Prior to a certain point several thousand years ago, there was no trace of man having ever existed. After that point, civilization, writing, language, agriculture, domestication, and all the rest—suddenly exploded into intense activity!

"No more surprising fact has been discovered, by recent excavation, than the suddenness with which civilization appeared in the world. This discovery is the very opposite to that anticipated. It was expected that the more ancient the period, the more primitive would excavators find it to be, until traces of civilization ceased altogether and aboriginal man appeared. Neither in Babylonia nor Egypt, the lands of the oldest known habitations of man, has this been the case."—P.J. Wiseman, New Discoveries, in Babylonia, about Genesis (1949 ), p. 28.

Oldest people/language recorded in c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia.

The various radiodating techniques could be so inaccurate that mankind has only been on earth a few thousand years.

"Dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude . . Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."—*Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?" Popular Science, November 1979, p. 81.

Moonwalk disproves age of moon:

The moon is constantly being bombarded by cosmic dust particles. Scientists were able to measure the rate at which these particles would accumulate. Using their estimates according to their understanding that the age of the Earth was billions of years, their most conservative estimate predicted a dust layer 54 feet deep. This is why the lander had those huge balloon tires, to be prepared to land on a sea of dust. Neil Armstrong, after saying those famous words, uttered two more which disproved the age of the moon entirely "its solid!". Far from being 54 feet, they found the dust was 3/4 of an inch.

Evolution is a fairy tale that modern civilization has bought, hook line and sinker. Humorously, atheists accuse creationists of beiieving in myths without any evidence..when they place their entire faith in an unproven theory even evolutionists know is fatally flawed and invalid. Evolution is a meta physical belief that requires faith. Period.

Evolution is false, science affirms a divine Creator
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Tracts/big_daddy.htm

Though most of this is undisputable, I'm just getting started..

I'm commenting as I watch here, he's already screwed on the "problem" of evil. He's got the whole thing ass backwards. The only way to really solve the problem of evil from a theistic point of view is as he rightly points out the "lack of perspective argument" ie "Maybe there is a larger plan"/maybe it isnt evil after all/maybe its all part of gods plan or similar nonsense.

The point about bringing up this from an atheistic point of view is that there is of course a much more elegant, more logical, more reasonable and more probable solution to the "problem" of evil: There is no god.

It seems like Keller hasnt even considered this as a real possibility, because if he did, he would realize that the problem dissappears entirely. And its not just for human acts of evil, of course. Think of the recent Japan Tsunami..Thousands pointlessly killed by the physics of tectonic plate movement. In a godless universe there is no "why?!!" here, we live on a thin crust wrapping around a lava ball, partially covered by water. A tsunami now and again is inevitable.

If you believe in god, you'll have to make up lots of shitty excuses for these kind of events

None of this proves that there is no god, its just one of those many things that makes it unlikely.

Oh and now his dragging Stalins corpse out again to bash atheism. Nothing to do with atheism. Stalinism was a sick personality cult catering to creduilty and superstition in order to promote a form of marxism. The reason they went after Christianity was because they were competing to convert the gullible to a new mindless cult.

Its not just that its pointless "keeping scores" as it were, I would like to see him tackle Hitchens 2-part Challenge:
Part 1: Name for me one good thing done, or one nice thing said, in the name of religion, that it would be unthinkable that a secularist/atheist could just as reasonably say or do.

I've never hard a satisfying answer to part 1.

Part 2: Name for me one bad thing done, Or one bad thing said, in the name of religion,that it would be unthinkable that a secularist/atheist could just as reasonably say or do

I bet you thought of something after reading the fifth word in that sentence.

Its not a tie.

Kelller parroting atheist argument:"Until you prove there is a god, I dont have to believe in god!"

What a dishonest douche.

I've never actually heard any atheist make that argument. Heres how the argument really is: I've never seen a shred of evidence, ever, anywhere, in the history of everything that would even suggest, in the slightest,remotest possible way that there might be a god. None. Zip, Zero. I'm not demanding that you come up with a mathematical proof or anything, far from it, but until there is some evidence, ANY kind of evidence, I dont see any reason to believe in god, any more than santa.

More rubbish: Why do I assume god is "inside" the universe? I dont, douchebag, I'm not assuming anything, its your invisible friend, moron, you can fantasize. Oh great, there you go now... "He might be outside of everything", please do go on wasting brainpower trying to make that work..

"You cant prove anything" "So why do you say to God.."---BEEP-- I dont say anything, Keller, I dont talk to invisible things that arent there.

"You cant prove there is no god, so not believing is an act of faith" Yup, I take the same risk you do, Keller, But I'd wager disbelieving in Cthulhu will land you in much more trouble than the mere wuzzy little lake of fire I'll be surfing on (while listening rock music).

Oh fuck. "Fine-tuning" now.. Yep, this universe, that has almost NOTHING but vaccum at minus 270 celsius instantly deadly to any living thing, where the extremely tiny exceptions are 99.999% nuclear fireballs that will burn anything to death once its close enough not to freeze to death. So among a hundred billion galaxies with a hundred billion stars, we know of exactly one that has a planet at just the right distance. What are the chances, eh? Ten thousand billion stars and one of them has life around it (and in few million years its gonna toast that motherfucker too). Ergo: stars are perfect places to have life around. Yup Finetuning. Four aces? more like one ace and ten thousand billion worthless cards, but whatever.

Of course, if I was god, I might make just , I dont know, lets say ten stars, with lots of fine planets around them with lush green envirionments and no nasty earthquakes, asteroids, hurricanes and so on, perhaps I'd even make sure that the sun doesnt blow up and kill everybody in the end. But then again, what the hell do I know..


Ok, that was half an hour. maybe I'll do the rest tomorrow.

WHAT A FREAK!!! He eats the crust?!

She went to all that effort to make pie dough for the crust and then she fills it with canned fruit filling? Ugh.

Winning??

I don't think so.

Also, we need to build a one-way highway along to equator. With massive amounts of cars constantly driving west, we can slow down the earths rotation, thereby slowing down the magma vortices under the earths crust and effectively bringing tectonic movement to a halt.

This would also be a massive economic booster for the construction and automotive sectors, along with the tourism industry for the equatorial countries providing pitstops and Haliburton who gets the contracts to excavate the latrines (beware of faulty wiring).

The only downside is that earth would lose its magnetic field, but political pundits could show that magnetism equals marxism (it's available for all! and both start with an "m"!), so that is easily solvable.

Big win for all.

Remember: God makes a kitten purr for every 40.000 km you drive on the Equatorial Highway!

>> ^Contagion21:

>> ^criticalthud:
Logic, physics, and probability all say that when you shift the mass of the earth (ice caps melting), seismic activity will increase.
Wow.. stretch much? I'm not sure if that's an Appeal to Authority (to the sciences of Logic, Physics and Probability) or just Begging the Question (that the mass of the earth has shifted).
Given the relative mass of the crust, and even smaller relative mass of the ice upon that crust, I would wager that the ice caps could completely and totally melt and have an almost, if not entirely, imperceptible difference on the mass distribution for the planet as a whole.
You're doing a disservice to the understanding we have for plate tectonics to imply that earthquakes increase due to global warming and that this isn't just the simple, and well understood case of a massive earthquake due to a subduction zone between the Pacific and North American plates.
However, feel free to back up any of the following claims:
1) Seismic activity has increased
2) Melting ice has a meaningful impact on planetary mass distribution
3) The poles are shifting


yep. could be a stretch.
we could also wager that bringing millions of years worth of jurassic carbon deposits to the surface and burning them in a short period of time couldn't possibly effect our environment. Or we could wager that our surface environment is just a tad bit more fragile than we thought.
i'm just looking at trends, especially over the last 30 years.

But let's say we have just a few milimeters of overall rise in sea levels. That's an awful lot of mass. and then that mass must adapt to currents, concentrating that mass in different ways.
are you a geoscientist? I'm interested in your insights.
pole shifting...or wandering. google it. same with seismic activity.

>> ^criticalthud:

Logic, physics, and probability all say that when you shift the mass of the earth (ice caps melting), seismic activity will increase.

Wow.. stretch much? I'm not sure if that's an Appeal to Authority (to the sciences of Logic, Physics and Probability) or just Begging the Question (that the mass of the earth has shifted).

Given the relative mass of the crust, and even smaller relative mass of the ice upon that crust, I would wager that the ice caps could completely and totally melt and have an almost, if not entirely, imperceptible difference on the mass distribution for the planet as a whole.

You're doing a disservice to the understanding we have for plate tectonics to imply that earthquakes increase due to global warming and that this isn't just the simple, and well understood case of a massive earthquake due to a subduction zone between the Pacific and North American plates.


However, feel free to back up any of the following claims:

1) Seismic activity has increased

2) Melting ice has a meaningful impact on planetary mass distribution

3) The poles are shifting

Now we know why it's in their best interest to keep the majority of the public in the USofA uneducated.

Propagate religion, downplay education levels, keep the masses complaint. Let just enough people through the doors of higher education to keep the country running and let only a select few from the uppermost crust into the "inner circle". If any of "the educated" starts to rebel against the control too much, label him as a dissident and push them back to the bottom of the ranks where they can't challenge you.

And now you're not only running a country, you're Ruling a country and the people in it.
Let the public know only enough so that they think you are working for them. Most will never take the time to connect the dots further than the first two-to-three steps.

And lets face it most people don't want to look forward, they are comfortable with all that's been provided for them: DVDs, computers, iPhones, HDTV... (thank you to our keepers.)

I know we joke that every roast is lame, and we all have a good laugh pretending the roastee is someone not deserving of notice, and so on. We then take pot shots at the MC, make a good joke about him or her and how they fucked the proceedings up somehow, but... Sigh. Today I'm just feeling like this really, truly, honestly is NOT worth our time. No jokes. Completely serious now.

Would any of us care if @thinker247 or @MrFisk got banned tomorrow? Or left? Or died? Okay, if they died I'd probably at least feign a touch of sympathy, but it would be disingenuous if it was anything more than a sigh. I wouldn't trade @rottenseed's shit covered dick from @berticus' ass to save their lives. What two miserable subhuman beings. I mean they're really the crust of peggedbea's vagina. Speaking of @peggedbea's vagina, it's seen so many dicks the cum has clotted over and it's already started to heal shut.

Today I'd like to propose we kill this SiftTalk post right here and now. I'd ask permission from @dotdude first, seeing how he's kind of the unsaid facilitator of these shit shenanigans, but he's too busy posting mild, inoffensive oneliners under the alter-ego 'THE JESTER'. Newsflash, dotdude, jesters are typically amusing and at times hilarious. You're none of these.

The real reason I hate these two is because, first, thinker247's name is so telling of just how lame a person he must be in real life. It's like me calling myself movieDirector#1 or superDickSized. Or rottenseed calling himself notGay. And this third grader thinks he's edgy because he wrote "motherfucking" and "bitches" in the title. Hey, dickhead, this roast isn't about you.

Second, there's the roastee, MrFisk. A person so miserable and unlikable that only choggie could come to his defense during his Siftquisition. That's like having Jared Lee Loughner represent you in a murder trial. What a joke that whole Siftquistion was, huh? And I love how @dag and @kronosposeidon became the busybody Perry fucking Masons of the Sift as if calling those SiftTalk posts a "Siftquisition" made them anything more than a discussion thread on a website that plays videos. My favorite is when dag claimed he had "something else to enter into the docket" and "Department of HomeSift Security." The fuck? There's about as much credibility in a Siftquisition as there would be if @kulpims claimed he wasn't gobbling @dystopianfuturetoday's dick. Or was that @laura's dick? Either way, they're both effeminate dudes.

So who's with me? Who thinks we ought to kill this embarrassing navel-gazing jerkfest and pretend it never happened. While we're at it, let's finish what we started and *ban these two for trying so hard to be cool and outrageous. Sorry, thinker247 and MrFisk, did mommy not give you two enough of her tit to suck on when you were a baby? You still need approval and acceptance? I hear 4chan is looking for a few more whores for their ranks.

I wish I could quality or promote this.

It's funny that the other guy gets assaulted AS soon as the camera becomes known of. Great display of etatism-pie (or statism for @blankfist) with a crust of theocracy and a wonderful whipped topping of fear. Mmmmmm...

Even though the tax-payers get hit with the bill, I hope they sue the crap out of them. Drawing blood is a great way to start. (Unless the citizenry is like the prayer defense tacklers.)