Ok, this is just confusing:
 Kelli Garneren.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelli_Garner ******@***** |
Submitted on 2009/09/29 at 4:28pm
I enjoy this site, it is worth me coming back kelligarner93384i@gawab.com
Kelli Garner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelli_Garner
spam
Approve | Delete | Edit | Quick Edit
|
It is puzzling because it doesn’t seem to link to any product, just a Wikipedia page…
I think this is a Poe, but I cannot quite be sure. As such, I’m going to explain a few errors in this post.
The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of transitional fossils.
Really? That’s cool, because there seems to be at least two fairly long lists of them. Oh well.
If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to find as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
Really?
Fish->amphibians
Amphibians->reptiles
Reptiles->mammals
Reptiles->birds
Terrestrial cetaceans->whales/dolphins
From the very beginning these organisms were just as clearly and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today.
Except, they aren’t; go look at them.
Instead of finding a record of fine gradations preserved in the fossil record,we invariably find large gaps.
Gaps? If you have a time line, and you find something from a specific point in it, exactly where evolutionary models predict it to be, mind you, it splits it in two. You can extrapolate between these and make predictions as to what kind of fossils you will find at what points in time to fill said “gap” and where you will find them. This was precisely what was done with Tiktaalik and Acanthostega as well as numerous hominoid fossils.
This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.
Did you sleep during biology class?
Consider well these immense Gaps:
Ok
1. The imagined jump from dead matter to living protozoans is a transition of truly fanciful dimension,one of pure conjecture which overlooks the works of Redi,Spallanzi, and Pasteur,who disproved spontaneous generation.
Because molecules fossilize SO well… They disproved spontaneous generation, NOT modern abiogenesis. The modern field of abiogenesis research knows that. It’s not excluding that information. Bacteria don’t magically appear. Self-replicating systems can appear.
2.There is a gigantic gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high complexity and variety of the metazoan invertebrates.
Viruses make neat transitional forms for this, as do archaea. Cyanobacteria are neat little bacteria which look an aweful lot like chloroplasts.
3.The evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates is completely missing. This is absolutely incredible since evolutionists propose 100 million years of developmental time between the two,which would have involved billions of transitional forms,Yet,not one has ever been found.
4.The evolutionary advance from fishes to Amphibians is totally nonexistent.The timeline allegedly took millions of years….(30 million)…and yet no one has been able to produce even one fishibian.
I already mentioned two transitional forms, acanthostega and tiktaalik, want more?
Ichthyostega
Hynerpeton
Eryops
5.There are no connecting links between and the altogether different reptiles.Seymouria has been offered as such a link,but it allegedly occurs in the geologic column some 20 million years after other reptiles had already appeared.
It has many reptile-like features, it was first thought to BE a reptile, not a “link.” The anthracosaurs and diadectomorphs better illustrate a transitional forms.
6.There are no transitional forms between mammals and reptiles.
Do I really need to demonstrate this? Will you just take my word that there are lots of them? I do? Just read about what a “synapsid” is…
7.There is no connecting evolutionary link between reptiles and birds.Archaeopteryx was once highly acclaimed as such a link but has since been acknowledged by Paleontologists to have been a true bird.
They’re called theropods… First, however, you have to go from reptiles to dinosaurs.
8.There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually either fossils of ape or a man or neither.There is no valid Scientific evidence to suggest that they are fossils of animals intermediate between men and apes.
Except for:
Australopithecus, Sahelanthropus, Homo habilis, and Pierolapithecus.
So, I’ve been reading Performing Kinship and I have a few things I’d like to share. My review won’t be posted until Friday (at the earliest), but I’d like to bring up a couple of ideas which were quite interesting which I may elaborate on even further at a future time.
1) The Sullk’atas relatedness stems from a combination of “birth kinship” and ayllu membership. The ayllu is the community and is defined by exchange and reciprocity. This exchange comes in the form of food and labor. Children are defined through the one-way exchange of food from parent to child. This gets particularly interesting when children are adopted or “given” to an older relative or in the inability of the “birth parent” to care for the child. In this sense, a child may have two (or possibly more) mothers; the mother who gave birth to the child and the mother(s) who raised the child. The author gives the example of “Javier’s Mothers” in which Javier’s birth mother (Julia) was injured shortly after giving birth. As a result of her inability to care for Javier, Julia’s sister (Silveria) cared for Javier while her sister was injured. Upon Julia’s recovery, she wished to care for Javier once more. The status of Javier as “Julia’s son” is undisputed, but Javier’s status as “Silveria’s son” is also undisputed. Since both of these women participated in the one-way contribution to raising Javier, both women are considered Javier’s mothers. This is similar to the explanation of why it is a falsehood that adopted parents are not the “biological” parents and explains it in quite a similar way. As a child of both mothers, Javier is expected to reciprocate caring through the giving of gifts to both “mothers” upon adulthood or when returning from school or work in the city.
2) Sex, marriage, and children: The Sullk’ata assume the young man and woman to be wed have had sex prior to the formal marriage (Catholic) and as such, children and parents are not stigmatized if the parents have not undergone the formal wedding. Additionally, women are not stigmatized for having sex (and children) prior to warmi suway (to steal a woman; usually during Carnival) or warmi mañay (to marry a woman). The individuals are assumed to be drunk (during Carnival) and because of this are not considered responsible for their own actions, but sex is something which is assumed to take place, just not around the adults of the community. A woman can return to her parents after being “stolen” and is generally accepted back into the family, although usually after a scolding.
Today, September 30th is International Blasphemy Day. To round up the list, I’ve written something to piss off every single major religion. Additionally, if you live in one of the states which has a blasphemy law, I would encourage you to vocally and publicly say something which is blasphemous. You can:
Deny the existence of god(s)
Hand out flyers with information denouncing Jesus or Muhammad; say things like “Ganesha does nothing”
Wear t-shirts like this or this.
Be the obnoxious asshole that says their beliefs are ridiculous.
Have fun with it.
Look to the upper right hand corner of my blag and you shall see the “atheist blogroll” button
I have been added to The Atheist Blogroll! Since I’m on WordPress and they hate javascript, no list for me! But you can find it here.
Those of you infidels/heathens/Christian-baby-eaters who also want to be on it can go to Deep Thoughts for more information.
And he does it again!
One of the things that I’ve noticed, even as a child is that being in rebellion to God seemed to make a person stupid or foolish.
Cool, so I’m a foolish rebel for going against Santa Claus and Russell’s Teapot.
Want more?
I would like to introduce my readers to something I rarely have the opportunity to do: introduce a theist with whom I mostly agree with on non-theological issues (science and politics come to mind).
Go read, it’s mostly political, but he does have some religion/science oriented stuff and seems honestly inquisitive about science. People such as him make remind me why I stated:
I could say Christians can’t argue because of your [Makarios] apparent inability to understand basic logic. I would never do such a thing since Christians CAN be very intelligent and think critically.
Philip is such an example and is dutifully being added to my blogroll. Feel free to pay him a visit.
Makarios, do yourself a favor, educate yourself, please? I’m going to give this a once-over for you. It’s long, and I know most of my readers will be bored with it, so it’s below the fold
Aww, the Christian wants to argue, should I rip into his claims? I think so, since he feels an appeal to ignorance qualifies as evidence as illustrated on this comment.
In any event, let’s have some fisking fun:
There’s a story going round that atheists are intelligent, well educated and “brighter” than anyone else in the world.
Well, there is a correlation between educational level and religiosity, but that doesn’t mean being an atheist makes you smarter or better educated, it could just be that the smarter and better educated you are, the more likely you are to see religion for what it is…
See?
It’s gotten to the point that even atheists are starting to believe that stereotype. However, there is ample proof to show that that’s an unfair and inaccurate stereotype. Example One below:
Is there data?
Z’s First Comment
“the universe exploded from a point that must have been infinitesimally small and dense.”
Definitely an oversimplification; but you’re also illustrating a broad generalization with a single case, based upon this type of evidence, I could say Christians can’t argue because of your apparent inability to understand basic logic. I would never do such a thing since Christians CAN be very intelligent and think critically.
Z’s Second Comment
“Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy – nothing.”
Well, of course “prior” is irrelevant since there was no “prior”–which is why asking “what caused the big bang” is such a nonsensical question. How many wings do fairies have?
I’m still waiting Z for you to tell me why those comments aren’t contradictory.
Or, you can just say, “I was wrong. Everything came from nothing and:
Slippery slope, here you come!
. Since nothing, literally nothing natural or material existed, and
You’re doing well so far.
. Since I rule out anything supernatural, or outside of nature, and
Ohh, damn, see, you missed it right there; we have no reason to suppose these things existed then or now. We do, however, have reason to suppose the universe did expand from an infinitesimal singularity with infinite mass, but I doubt you have read about this.
. Since everything that begins to exist does so because of a cause
Yep, and you missed it again right there. Have you heard of radioactive decay? What causes a specific alpha or beta particle to leave a specific atom at a specific point in time? It is unstable, but why then? And why that specific arrangement of energy?
The reason you want causality is because we humans love to have it. It seems like then we have the answer, unfortunately, not everything needs a direct cause, hence you have issues.
. That means that I believe that nothing caused everything to begin to exist.”
Not exactly, the universe came into existence due to unknown cosmological causes. We know precisely how the universe expanded from this singularity, but because time and space didn’t exactly exist until the universe began to expand, it did not “cause” it to happen.
Or you can even go by the ultimate proof that intelligent, knowledgeable atheists is a false and misleading stereotype and quote Richard Dawkins himself.
Now you’re stepping into my domain, aren’t you?
“Nothing EVOLVED into everything.”
See, what you fail to realize is that evolution is about replication, if you have a single self-replicating chemical compound, (it can be ANY replicating chemical compound) it will be subject to evolution. This means, simply put, that a very simple self-replicating chemical can result in immense diversity. You arguments are both arguments from ignorance. Good luck with learning to argue more effectively.
I have heard this argument so many times, it makes my ears spontaneously bleed upon thinking about it. The arguments of the nonreligious are “not nice” or “are smug” or “are rude.” PZ posted a link to one such argument, and I don’t think I really need to point out how silly it is to simply call someone rude, smug, or cruel as a refutation of an argument or as the first line in an argument. It really needs a good fisking, but since it seems the server is down while I write this, I’ll just post the cached version:
*note: it’s dull and boring, the bulk of my actual argument is after the silly part
I am trying really hard to cut down on generalising and bagging out “atheists” rather than specific people and streams of atheism.
Really now? Odd, because this seems to be precisely what you did.
They’re not all the same – and they aren’t all out to eat your babies. But atheists (general) keep giving me reason to think bad thoughts about them. Like the two who hijack this thread on Communicate Jesus.
I like babies, they’re delicious and nutritious, very tender, too. They hijacked a thread? I sure thought they were just commenting… Looks like it to me. Go look at the page for yourself. There doesn’t seem to be anything false in there.
Here are five tips for my atheist friends to help them seem nicer and more reasonable.
Reasonable? He wants atheists to be reasonable? He can’t be serious. He believes a book written over 1000 years ago with no sources for verification, no corroborating evidence from contemporary historians, not a shred of physical evidence supporting the supernatural claims in that book, and he wants US to be reasonable. What drugs are you on?
1. Stop being so smug.
Yes, I’m smug because, let’s see, my arguments aren’t easily refuted? You can’t produce any evidence and therefor must resort to “well, you’re just too proud of yourself.” Really, I’m not, I’ll be proud of myself when I’m part of a project that improves lives for much of humanity. Until then, I’m going to be very vocal about the clear misrepresentations of honest inquiry and attempts to suppress this inquiry.
2. Don’t assume every piece of Christian evangelism is directed at you – we want the undecideds, not the decided-uns.
So do I. I want them to have honest representations of what I am saying. I’m also after YOU. I want YOU to think critically about the things you believe. I also want other atheists to think critically about what they believe. I want honest and informed criticisms. By making dishonest or uninformed criticisms misrepresenting my position or the scientific method or scientific discoveries, I take great offense to it.
3. Admit that the debate about God’s existence is complex – and that it can, depending on your presuppositions, be quite possible for intelligent and rational people to intelligently believe in an intervening deity who communicates through a book.
Except the debate is not complex: “Do/does (a) god(s) exist?” See, simple question. Now, here’s where the rational part comes in. Do you have any physical evidence supporting your claim that a supernatural entity exists?
4. Admit that the scientific method – which by its nature relies on induction rather than deduction (starting with a hypothesis and testing it rather than observing facts and forming a hypothesis) – is as open to abuse as any religious belief, and is neither objective nor infallible.
Here’s this for a refutation: go fuck yourself with a chalice. A hypothesis is not the starting point, it’s not even the end point, nor is it in the middle. Hypotheses are proposed based upon existing evidence and these hypotheses have testable aspects. So, yes, facts are observed, and hypotheses are formed. The experiments confirm or refute the hypotheses and new hypotheses are created based upon these observations. A hypothesis is an assumption, the observations are data, the interpretation of this data confirming or refuting the hypothesis is termed the result. These results are incorporated into new hypotheses and the cycle starts again. Results will always yield more questions than answers. Answering these questions is the goal of writing a hypothesis.
On top of this quite different method than the one you claim, science has a few other tricks, peer review and self-correction. In the event you have never been to a conference where two opposing models are being presented, you have yet to see an argument. Both sides are often VERY well informed, and usually very interesting questions are raised by these discussions as well as courses of investigation for both parties to further support or refute their own claims or the claims of the other party.
5. Try to deal with the actual notions of God seriously believed in by millions of people rather than inventing strawmen
Really, supernatural entity which answers prayers, helps people in need, and so forth? That one? You see, it has been addressed-repeatedly.
(or spaghetti monsters) to dismiss the concepts of God
Better idea, how about figure out that the spaghetti monster illustrates exactly how much evidence you have for the notion of “God.” Similarly, the Celestial Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Cthulhu all illustrate precisely the same level of evidence put forth by these believers.
and deal with the Bible paying attention to context and the broader Christological narrative rather than quoting obscure Old Testament laws.
Fine, I’ll resort exclusively to the New Testament:
Matthew 5:18: For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Oops, seems like the “Old Testament” is still valid, doesn’t it?
By all means quote the laws when they are applied incorrectly by “Christians” – but understand how they’re meant to work before dealing with the Christians described in point 3.
I’ll just let SAB point out the absurdities to you. I’ll also let them explain the blatantly wrong parts. Have fun.
A particularly fun comment on the “communicate jesus” website is this one:
Hi Gerry, let’s take God out of the picture at the moment. Assuming (falsely, in my view!) that there is no god…
- why are there weapons of war in our world?
- why is there disease in our world?
- we are we not compassionate toward one another?How does an atheist respond to these difficult questions of suffering, pain, disease, sickness and the overall problems with the human condition?
God easily becomes the scapegoat for humanity’s woes, yet I am yet to hear an atheist thank God for what is good about humanity and the world we live in. If there is no god, how do you respond to the questions above?
Answers for these questions are quite simple:
1) Weapons of war were created by humans to fight against one another for resources of various types or political power
2) Disease exists because of bacterial infections, viral infections, genetic disorders, autoimmune syndromes, and the like. All organisms struggle for life, mutation exists as a function of life… Disease exists because of these things, there is no cognitive desire for these to exist.
3) We generally are compassionate towards others within our “in-group.” This is because of our empathy instinct. When people are not empathetic, it is generally because the target is outside of the “in-group” either by birth or because they are excluded due to his or her behavior.
4) These questions are not difficult, and they have been answered MANY times.
5) Even if these questions could not be or have not been answered numerous times, it’s still not useful to say “if you can’t answer this, god exists.”
Recent Comments