I'm a "just born once" atheist. I lack any form of faith in any creator gods, interfering gods or any other so-called "supernatural beings". There are things I do not understand, but I live my life based on what I think is likely, what I can prove myself (or demonstrate) and what I otherwise can observe in nature.

The central claim of the Christian faith is something that you can prove to yourself. If you believe Gods testimony that He raised His Son from the dead and you confess Jesus is Lord, you will be born again and receive the Holy Spirit. It is tangible and experiential. To know God is to know Him personally, and He gives you the evidence.

Gravity, I can prove myself - to a certain degree, and when testing it, the current theory does predict the result, so I think it's true.

You can think about morality this way. If you take a look at your life, you will probably see that you live as if there is good and evil, that an absolute moral law exists. Your conscience will tell you that much, before intellect even comes into it. Some things are right and some things are wrong. The whole world acknowledges this, and this points to an absolute moral law, which in turn points to a moral lawgiver.

Evolution is a little more tricky, because I can prove micro evolution myself with fish, and with basically all the animals we have bred artificially, cats, dogs, cows, chickens etc. Macroevolution is harder, for me as a layman, but I think it is likely, because it explains so much very neatly, and it predicts how things are now, it is also the natural conclusion of micro evolution.

This is what Darwin believed, and he expected to find the evidence for it in the fossil record. Except it wasn't there:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

150 years later and it still hasn't appeared. You see, if you assume that all life has a common ancestor, then you have to believe that micro-evolution leads to macro. It's a just-so story. Darwin made a quantum leap of assumption when he extrapolated micro evolution to a common ancestor. He made a great discovery, but one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. The model of micro evolution is also compatible with special creation. Why should one be preferred when there is absolutely no evidence for macro evolution? Micro has even been demonstrated not to lead to macro:

natural selection, long viewed as the process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution. Micro evolution is decoupled from macro evolution.

SM Stanley Johns Hopkins University
Proceedings, National Science Academy Science
Vol.72 p.648

They have been breeding thousands of generations of fruitflies and millions of generations of bacteria and never once have they created a new species. If macro is true, you have to ask yourself why there are limits they are unable to cross. Living fossils are another problem, creatures supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, and no change at all. They found a blue green bacteria (supposedly) over 1 billion years old, and it is exactly the same as it is today. The evidence all points away from macro. Fossils enter the record in stasis; they don't change.

God can't be observed, can't even be tested for. God also have no direct impact on the world, other than through his followers, and since he (she/it) is not his followers, the conclusion is that he probably doesn't exist.

If you can't even see the operations of atoms in the world, why would you expect to see the operations of God? The bible says that in God all things live and move and have their being. How could you observe that?

It is not that I have faith that he doesn't exist, it's just that I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. I have the same attitude towards Ghosts, Zombies and Unicorns. I would have had the same attitude towards Dinosaurs, because, come on, they're huge lizards, no way they exist! But the evidence suggest otherwise, fossils are real, they actually did exist, but not anymore, thus my earlier theory is demolished by the evidence, and a new hypothesis is formed, one backed by evidence.

It's good that you have an open mind. That's a rare thing in this world. If you don't prefer any evidence, but just want the actual truth, no matter what it is, then all is open to you. Jesus said, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will open. Take a leap of faith and ask Him what the truth is..ask Him for revelation. If He can't hear you, all you will have done is wasted a few minutes of your life.

>> ^gwiz665

No fucking way! You guys are not nearly impressed enough.

Dunno how familiar everyone is with trilobites, but they "were" one of the earliest species of life on earth first showed up over 500 million years ago and lived for nearly 300 million years before going extinct. Or did they?

In my geography class we spent a weekend in Death Valley in piles of shale searching for trilobite fossils (if you got a whole body you get extra credit) and we spent much of the semester discussing them. During that whole time I continually imagined what they might have "really" looked like, then I come onto this "video shift" site where, lo and behold, there's a fricken video of one just strutting around town like it's shit doesn't stink!!! It's not just a funny looking bug, but a living fossil, and it blows my mind! Not once did my professor ever mention they have living relatives. And are they direct descendants meaning they didn't really go extinct??? WTF!

(Disclaimer: For any biblical creationists, replace each "million" above with "hundred." Kthx.)

Very well written. I'm sure you'll do very well here, and I'm happy to have you as a member of our community. Cheers.

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
^ djsunkid

TBH, i mostly agree with you. However, when I ran across it, saw that whoever had stitched it together had decided/accepted it was a piranha (which it clearly is not) and that the fish was weired, ugly, and scary, I was curious to know what it actually was. The sift, being what it is, namely a fair bit more informed than the avg YouTube/Metacafe poster and it looks like with "sometimes" link, Ive not been disappointed. Also, I personally find it interesting whenever viewing unusual fish photos (especially the extreamly deep sea, and never seen before by man types, living fossils and such like).

Also, i'm still learning the ways of the sift (its tastes) and had partly expected this to fail. Democracy in action, as it were. Let the sift voice itself by not voting if it wishes. (this is a great example of something im happy DID get discarded. it didn't deserve to be here. it had been rated elsewhere, and i was curious. Would it do well here? it did not. good.)

I haven't got the sifts tastes down pat yet (and im unlikely to exclusively feed it what it likes even when i do)

Ive mostly sifted according to a mood; notably had a prodigy one inspired by watching a vid on here. 2 made it, 1 didnt. went for the old ones people dont hear anymore and that i still like and find interesting. another was my medieval folk mood. I like Blackmore's Night and Mediæval Bæbes vids that i posted just reacently. Possibly too obscure though, as, -while i find them enchanting, very well done and generally beautifull- the Blackmore's Night got almost no views (but a good vote ratio from the views it did have). Cant say the same for the Mediæval Bæbes vids though, they've had their views and still not been liked. Cant please everyone, especially with music.

Anyway, back on topic. Knowing that this fish IS known makes it utterly and irredeemably redundant.

I appreciate the votes from everyone who did, however I can get to 10 with something better than this.

*discard

^ djsunkid

TBH, i mostly agree with you. However, when I ran across it, saw that whoever had stitched it together had decided/accepted it was a piranha (which it clearly is not) and that the fish was weired, ugly, and scary, I was curious to know what it actually was. The sift, being what it is, namely a fair bit more informed than the avg YouTube/Metacafe poster and it looks like with "sometimes" link, Ive not been disappointed. Also, I personally find it interesting whenever viewing unusual fish photos (especially the extreamly deep sea, and never seen before by man types, living fossils and such like).

Also, i'm still learning the ways of the sift (its tastes) and had partly expected this to fail. Democracy in action, as it were. Let the sift voice itself by not voting if it wishes. (this is a great example of something im happy DID get discarded. it didn't deserve to be here. it had been rated elsewhere, and i was curious. Would it do well here? it did not. good.)

I haven't got the sifts tastes down pat yet (and im unlikely to exclusively feed it what it likes even when i do)

Ive mostly sifted according to a mood; notably had a prodigy one inspired by watching a vid on here. 2 made it, 1 didnt. went for the old ones people dont hear anymore and that i still like and find interesting. another was my medieval folk mood. I like Blackmore's Night and Mediæval Bæbes vids that i posted just reacently. Possibly too obscure though, as, -while i find them enchanting, very well done and generally beautifull- the Blackmore's Night got almost no views (but a good vote ratio from the views it did have). Cant say the same for the Mediæval Bæbes vids though, they've had their views and still not been liked. Cant please everyone, especially with music.

Anyway, back on topic. Knowing that this fish IS known makes it utterly and irredeemably redundant.

I appreciate the votes from everyone who did, however I can get to 10 with something better than this.

*discard

Tags for this video have been changed from 'japanese, living fossil' to 'japanese, living fossil, extinction, endangered, Latimeria, lazarus species' - edited by swampgirl

This video shows rare footage of a frilled shark in shallow water. The frilled shark (Chlamydoselachus anguineus) is a primitive shark species, sometimes called a "living fossil" because it resembles extinct species of sharks. Frilled sharks are usually found at depths of around 2,000 feet, but this one somehow found its way into shallow water off the coast of Japan, where it was captured and taken to a nearby marine park. In poor condition, the shark died soon after this video was shot.