Billions of years ago

Published by henderob February 26th, 2008 in Hate Mail (and concerned criticism).

“Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on it’s surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words “Coca Cola… 12 fluid ounces.”

Of course my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident is to move from the intellectual free zone.

Here is another:

“The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”

Note that the banana…

1. is shaped for the human hand.

2. has a non-slip surface.

3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green - too early, yellow - just right, black - too late.

4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper.

5. Is perforated on wrapper.

6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.

7. Is shaped for the human mouth.

8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.

9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.

10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.

To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

Test 1.

The person who thinks the Coca Cola can has no designer is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Now the document that I am referring from states that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings and focuses it’s muscles approximately 100,000 times a day. and that the eye has a retina that contains approximately 137,000,000 light sensitive cells.

The document continues and states that Charles Darwin stated:

“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” Agreed… it does not have the reference recorded so I do not know if this statement is true or false. But let me get to the point at hand.

If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance? In fact… man can’t create anything from nothing… we just do not know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop… but we can not create one grain of sand from nothing. Yet the human eye… is a mere tiny part of the most sophisticated part of creation - the human body.

Again… another statement which I would have to research and verify if this person actually made this comment:

“George Gallup; “If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”

Now this statement concerning Albert Einstein. This is confusing… why would this man contradict himself? If he stated this… then every other statement that has been quoted at this forum is invalid because the man appears to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. In this statement Einstein is quoted to have said:

“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of our modest powers must feel humble.”

Test 2:

1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?

2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?

3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?

If you answered “Yes” to any of those statements… please give details:______________________…

Third analogy:

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and then by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? Logically, anyone with an intelligent mind might conclude that someone put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.

Test 3

Yes or No 1. From the atom to the universe is there order?

Yes or No 2. Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?

3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________________…

To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: “There is no gold in China.”

Test 4 What would I need to have for that statement to be true?

A. No knowledge of China?

B. Partial knowledge of China?

C. Absolute knowledge of China?

“C” is the correct answer. In order for the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China.

Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn’t one.

Let’s say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let’s say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an “agnostic.” You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn’t seem to know if there is a builder.

Test 5 The man who sees a building and doesn’t know if there is a builder is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive

In summary: There are plenty of things that we have faith in that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not have a complete understanding that when you turned your computer on as to why it worked. You took a step of faith that turning it on… that somehow that it would work. You accept the unseen electrical waves that appear right in front of your eyes when you type your comments here. We do not see the reason for why the messages appear… because the powers that be are invisible to the naked eye. For them to be manifest, we need a monitor… so we can enjoy the experience of this forum.

God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible… like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn’t, forget it.

Or do you have an ulterior motive? Could it be that the “atheist” can’t find God… as a thief can’t find the policeman? Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?”

-Jonathon

585 Responses to “Billions of years ago”

1. 121 - February 27th, 2008 at 5:02 am - St John the Blasphemist Says:
   
   

   Can’t sleep!! Bananas will eat me!!!!!!
   .
   St John the Blasphemist
   Saint of Gastronomical Nightmares

2. 122 - February 27th, 2008 at 5:17 am - Dr. Jonathan Hansen Says:
   
   

   Oh dear. The banana thing. Creationists and fruit again. It’s testament (no pun intended) to the poor reasoning of ID that none of the features of a banana described preclude the banana evolving so that other primates (yes, monkeys and apes can peel bananas too!) could spread banana seeds. Yes, wild bananas have seeds even if the ones in a supermarket don’t. Perhaps a knowledge of biology that extended beyond what can be found on a grocery store shelf would help this guy’s comprehension of evolution.

   Also, none of the features described are absolutely unique to the banana. Analogues and homologues of these characteristics are seen in other fruits and berries – exactly as would be expected from characteristics that have arisen through evolutionary processes! The banana teleology falls flat for the same reasons that the old chestnut about bacterial flagella does (trust me, I have a PhD in microbiology).

   And now oranges. Oranges! The new weapon in Creationisms War on Reason (or is that just in Florida). Yes, it is extremely unlikely that 50 oranges would fall into 10 rows of 5. But if oranges that were in the correct positions were kept and the ones that were not were discarded, and then another 50 were dropped, and then this process was repeated again and again and again, you WOULD end up with 10 rows of 5 eventually. That is because this process would be SELECTIVE rather than totally random, in the way that evolution works through natural selection. The difference being that natural selection is not an intervention by a celestial orange sorter, but an inevitable consequence of competition for finite resources.

   It’s amusing, though, to see this person use the “no gold in China” argument deployed by Dawkins in “The God Delusion”. Here however, a typical Creationist attempt to move the goal posts by trying to change the meanings of words (in this case “atheist” and “agnostic”) is supposed to turn this argument around. It does not, of course. While a hypothetical person who states that they “know” there is no god would be termed a “strong atheist”, an atheist is simply someone who does not BELIEVE in a god. An atheist is in almost every case is not a strong atheist but someone who states simply that “while there may be a god or gods, on the basis of all of the available evidence, it does not seem remotely likely that there is”. An agnostic says “I just don’t know.” These are FUNDAMENTALLY (again, no pun intended) different viewpoints.

   I do agree with the last point, however. I DO have an ulterior motive. I am a biologist. A scientist. My motive is to learn about how living things work, to learn the TRUTH about life and the universe around it based on evidence, reason and experimentation. If evidence and reason told me there was a bearded misogynist in the sky who farted the world into existence, then I would believe that. But it does not. So I don’t.

3. 123 - February 27th, 2008 at 5:22 am - Maurog Says:
   
   

   That’s the most brilliant proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real I’ve ever seen! Now bow before our noodly master!

   Along with a banana that He made so perfect it only took humans 10000 years of selective breeding to make it as large, seedless and tasty as it is today. What was He thinking? And we actually tampered with the banana’s ability to defend itself against parasites, which is a problem if we want bananas to ever grow in the wild again. (this directly from http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0719-02.htm).

   Since a pineapple is clearly unintelligent design, as anyone who ever tried to open one will testify, we can but assume that He was really drunk when designing it. Which further confirms that FSM is indeed the Creator, as no other Creator deity was ever portrayed drunk.

   Praised be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, creator of strange fruit!

4. 124 - February 27th, 2008 at 5:57 am - Roy Says:
   
   

   Should this post have been posted on an atheist website?

   We here believe, that in the beginning, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything,
   but just as some painter designed the Mona Lisa and forgot the eyebrows,
   and Americans invented mass produced cars,
   then shortly after gave up updating the designs,
   he created the sauce of everything and left it to be developed, or to rot?

   But like the painter of the Mona Lisa he will not come back to correct his mistakes,
   but he left a paint pot.

   Roy

   Ps.
   If it helps you can even pray to the FSM with exactly the same results as to praying to anything else.

5. 125 - February 27th, 2008 at 6:06 am - Mr Anonymous Says:
   
   

   A lot of your statements seem to imply that if God didn’t create everything, then everything must have been caused by random chance.

   This argument is often used by people who deny evolution - for example, with the watch argument (If you put all the parts of a watch in a bag and shake it, what are the chances that it would form a working watch? Somehow some people think this also works with evolution). Arguments like these are not valid - watches parts are neithing living, nor can they evolve.

   Recently, I saw an experiment someone did with a simple piece of coding, where watch parts randomly grouped together. The ones that were more like functioning watches were the only ones that managed to survive (instead of survival of the fittest, it was survival of the ones most like watches) and thus, the only ones to reproduce, and over time they evolved from simple pendulums to fully functioning watches.

   Make of it what you will - it seemed fairly trustworthy, but it could have been a hoax. A lot of arguments that are used to show how things could only have reached how they are today if there was a diety seem to assume that any other way is purely by chance - which it isn’t.

6. 126 - February 27th, 2008 at 6:38 am - Ohio Pirate Says:
   
   

   @ Jonathan,
   I applaud your convictions. You truly believe yourself and your attempts to prove them. However, comparing inanimate objects and their creators (paintings, buildings), to the evolution of biology is not like comparing apples to apples, it is like comparing apples to cities. No comparrison. When I turn my computer on I don’t know how it works, but somebody does. When I see examples of evolution I don’t fully understand it but somebody does and is understanding it more everyday.
   If you choose to close your mind to research, learning, and full, although complicated, explanations of the world we live in then that is your choice to make.
   I for one will never allow anyone to tell me “it’s that way because something I have no proof of made it that way and if you don’t believe me that something will punish you.”
   Sounds like persuasion by use of fear to me and I’ll have no part of it.
   RAmen!!

7. 127 - February 27th, 2008 at 6:39 am - breakinpoint Says:
   
   

   I have to say, Jonathon you are possibly one of the most intelligent “Hate mail” senders I have had the honor of reading. Of course you are trying to show us the “light” and the error of our ways but none-the-less.
   Good points.

   Thought, shouldn’t logic decide our judgment?
   Instead of taking a snakebite victim to the hospital should we just pray for them to become well, although no one has survived the venom before without treatment?
   Should we put faith in place of logic and judgment?

8. 128 - February 27th, 2008 at 6:50 am - JTown Barrett Says:
   
   

   An actual well-thought out argument.
   .
   First off, I would like to congradulate Jonathon on his letter. I believe that it was well organized and very well argued. Applause all around.
   .
   Now I would like to point something out to Jonathon.
   .
   We are not necessarily atheists; I myself, like you said, am an agnostic because I do not believe in the establishment of religion. I am, however, quite spiritual. Praises to his Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
   .
   Jonathon, please note that the FSM and pastafarianism are not are way to disprove the existence of a god; but rather to point out the flaws in your own christain views. It is satire designed to poke fun at intelligent design; like you said, “The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.”. But what are the odds that there is an omnipotent and omniscient being in a place that is pure bliss and happiness and all that he(I say he because that is how the patriarchy of Christianity refers to it)does is watch every single thing we do? The odds are mind-boggling.
   .
   I’d rather take my chances with the oranges falling in to ten rows of five; odds and probability say that it is bound to happen eventually.

9. 129 - February 27th, 2008 at 6:53 am - JTown Barrett Says:
   
   

   Pushed the button before I was ready.
   .
   At least you know for a FACT that the oranges will eventually fall into their rows. Can you say you know for a fact that god exists? You couldn’t unless you were omnipotent. And if you were, that would make you god, wouldn’t it? And for some crazy reason, I don’t think that you are god.

10. 130 - February 27th, 2008 at 7:01 am - Arg Sayer Says:
    
    

    Good arguments, though I admit I only scanned a lot of it. But your own point is that it’s faith. ID is faith. It shouldn’t be taught as science.

    Gonna go get a banana…

11. 131 - February 27th, 2008 at 7:12 am - StJason Says:
    
    

    I agree 100% with everything you have posted, Jonathon. We all know that the universe is created. It is only the manipulations of that supreme being’s noodly appendage that makes it seem to be otherwise. But we are arguing over which intelligent designer it is. As the name of the theory is INTELLIGENT design, I would postulate it is the being that knows enough about M-string theory, carbon isotope ratios, biology, chemistry, genetics, astrophysics, geology, and every single other scientific field to utterly confound them, and set up a iron-clad chain of logics among all fields that support each other. I don’t remember what bible verse it is that claims it. I know it is in the Gospel, though.

    Were I to use a atheist, pro-science viewpoint to pick apart your arguments (which I’m going to guess you are copying verbatum from the flyer I found on the bus a couple of months back.) it would look something like this:

    1) Your Coca-Cola theory would be perfectly valid in a seriation. In a world where thousands of similar cans, perhaps one is blue and white, perhaps one reads ‘Coca-Kola’, but the important thing when remembering the “Watchmaker” fallacy is context. Sure, a coke can, or watch, out in the middle of a forest is an abberation. In the middle of a pile of cans or a wall of watches, it is a commonality.

    2) The banana? Did you just take that from a ID website, or from one of those flyers they ‘hide’ on the back of buses? At least you didn’t trot out the old “Carbon Dating is wrong!” argument. To deflate your banana argument, I’d just like to ask: What major civilizations are based upon this wondrous fruit? Certainly the Greeks and Romans… No? How about the Kingdom of David… Not domesticated yet. Huh. Egypt? Happarapa? Mesopotamia? Olmec? Maya? Zu Dynasty? None of them? God made this perfect food for humans, then made it so that it was finicky and would only grow in very limited places, then didn’t even see fit to give this divine gift onto any of the civilizations. Sounds like the Banana is well designed, but the creator doesn’t have the slightest clue about distribution.

    3) The coke can again. Hey, I got a question for all the “GOD DOES EVERYTHING” crowd. If He is so amazing, why does He reuse so many parts? Your average Sci-fi hack can come up with a dozen creatures more unique then anything found here on Earth, yet just about every Cordade has a pair of eyes, almost identical. Speaking of eyes, why is it that all the IDers always forget that eyeballs didn’t evolve once on earth, but TWICE. God flexing his design Intelligence by using the exact same design yet again? What about flight? That managed to pop up twice in identical fashion among two animals who have no real similarities. Echolocation? Again, at least twice, and that is at least as complex as an eyeball. If you look, again and again, you see animals and plants filling the same nitches (’guilds’) in different ecosystems in identical ways. Even if they are on opposite sides of the world, they manage to come to the same conclusion. Ostriches, Emus and Rheas? Africa, South America, and Australia. They can’t fly, so how did they get there? On the backs of coconuts?

    4) Your test #2 is inherently flawed. Unless you are saying that GOD built buildings… Even evengelical Pastafarians don’t claim that. A mountain, a tree and a midget, sure, but buildings?

    5) Test 3 is laughably flawed. Otherwise we would accurately predict the weather, earthquakes, and gambling would never been invented. Chemistry and medicine would work 100% of the time with 100% of the people. Speaking of people, you wouldn’t have any. Most biologic functions require a bit of inefficiency to protect them from unbalancing. To say nothing about how genes are passed on. Chaos and disorder is everywhere, especially if you pass the Heinsberg limit.

    6) Your test #4 suffers from the fact that nobody in the group you are trying to demolish has ever said there is no god, outside of the rants of certain priests. The official scientific position is “Not enough evidence” This is what is known as a “Straw man” in common vulgate. It would be like if I said “Why do all Christians hate bricks?” No matter how you answer this accusation, you are acknowledging the fact that it is based upon, that Christians hate bricks.

    7) God is building buildings again? Tell him to knock it off. The housing market is oversaturated, and the market is crashing.

    A long list of straw men. Probably the same arguements were used back in the Renasance, and still failed to do anything but inspire the faithful.

    So thank you Jonathon, you have inspired me. Truely He is great in all things, and in his Noodly Wisdom has created all things around us and made them Good. I especially like the bananas. They should become a holy meal for a religion. Ours already has one, but I think Christianity could use some bananas. They have lots of fiber in them, helps you clean out your system.

12. 132 - February 27th, 2008 at 7:18 am - Jason Says:
    
    

    tl;dr

13. 133 - February 27th, 2008 at 7:20 am - Murmur Says:
    
    

    Oh how i love how these people think they can prove God exists by trying to prove how statistically improbable it is that we exist, or how it is impossible for us to prove that God doesn’t exist.

    Here goes:

    Test 1:

    A banana is a fruit and the simple fact is that the chances of one edible object fitting into some random blueprint for a perfect edible product is extremely high. People love to eat Lobster, but is it a lot harder to eat, does this mean that we are not supposed to eat it, or that God does not in fact exist because not all edible objects are made easy for us to eat. (I would also like to point out that most of us eat Bananas the wrong way… look it up on Google… the so called tab to open it is in fact the wrong side to open it on).

    Test 2:

    Yes, a cave has no builder and yet there are many caves that are quite habitable. The fact that we chose to improve on on our environment is our own choice. In fact i would go as far as to say if god does exist then he did not build us very nice houses.

    Test 3:

    It is highly unlikely, but not impossible, the pure fact that it only happens once in a million times does not mean that it will never happen, in fact if you do it a million times a day for a million years it will happen at least once a day.

    Test 4:

    Flip this argument over, to state that there is a god is an absolute statement… follow on from there… this kind of proof wouldn’t stand one second against any statistician. The simple fact is that you cannot prove that there is in fact gold in China, so how can you say that we who say there is no gold in China are wrong. And if you are assuming there is gold in China, what FACTS are you basing this on?

    Test 5:

    If a man sees a building or a painting and thinks there is no builder then he obviously does not know what a building is. Could he be looking at a large rock formation? Or is he looking at a skyscraper? How can you use the fact that some things are created perfectly for man (sic) a banana AND the fact that man has to build his own houses because god didnt build adequate ones for him as an argument that god exists… surely these statements contradict eachother? Either god creates everything perfectly for us, or we have to build it ourselves… ther eis no middle ground here… you are saying god does exist… we are simply saying that we don’t see enough proof that he does. Unless of course you are talking about HIM, then i stand corrected, his noodly appendage would never create such conundrums!

14. 134 - February 27th, 2008 at 7:24 am - Swiss Chris Says:
    
    

    Interesting….

    However:

    Why do humans still have an appendix? They serve no digestive purpose and all they can do is kill you by getting infected.

    Why do we sometimes bite the insides of our mouths? What kind of perfect design is that?

    Why do some lizards have small, useless stubs that used to be legs, even though they only move by slithering like snakes?

    1. Evolution does not question the existance of God as such. I shouldn’t think it will ever be possible to prove or disprove His existance

    2. “If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance?”
    Evolution isn’t the story of things evolving and it all “falling into place”. It’s the story of billions of random changes happening in the world and those changes that are useful surviving. By “useful”, I mean able to survive. Naturally, only very few of these things are any use at all.

    3. To claim that a 2000 year old book written by people with limited knowledge of the world around them is truer than the life’s work of an intelligent scientist who based his ideas on observation and logic is an INSULT to Charles Darwin.

    4. Naturally of course, the above points are merely what the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes us believe by making ALL empirical data suggest evolution. Pastafarianism is no more untrue or unlogical than Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any creed you might come up with. Maybe one day, His Noodly Appendage will touch you too.

    RAmen

15. 135 - February 27th, 2008 at 7:29 am - Daniel Ryan Says:
    
    

    well…i wonder how long you thought about that one …besides do you really wanna make it seem bad??? FSM?

16. 136 - February 27th, 2008 at 7:43 am - James Says:
    
    

    Hello Retard,
    Yes the eye from from evolution, a single cell, when they formed multicellular organisms the ones that developed sensory details survived to reproduce, and eventually that trait was amplified. During the time, if someone didn’t accept a god, they wouldn’t be taken seriously and most of them were prosecuted. Yes, people build things with the resources they have a round them, an evolutionary trait that makes us as animals successful, but all do you really think it’s more likely that the laws of physics were created?! Some times the religious right are total morons, you think that the laws of physics didn’t exist before then? The big bang started with a single point of matter, an atom that was very dense, so the structure of the atom already existed, there was chaos and very little order at the beginning of the universe, and because we are a tiny, tiny planet we haven’t been able to experience it to the fullest, aren’t we lucky! Though if the sun doesn’t go out we will eventually collide and be swallowed by a massive black hole at the center of the Andromida galaxy. So why would “gods” favorite creations be guaranteed a horrible death? And his masterpiece destroyed? Because there is no god (aside from his holy spaghetti monster. And in answer to your last statement, have you ever actually read the bible? Because I have and it is so full of contradictions, a page after the one where it says thou shalt not sleep with a man as thou sleeps with a woman, it says to stone your daughter do death if she sleeps with anyone you haven’t consented her to! Also the bible was written 300-500 years after Jesus’ death, if he existed, so it was made up by other people against he teachings and will. Don’t pick and choose your morals from the bible and don’t tell people they’re wrong, perhaps your logic has been blinded by your religious brainwashing. FUCK YOU!

17. 137 - February 27th, 2008 at 7:46 am - Elvish Pirate Monarch Says:
    
    

    Dear Jonathon,
    `
    What you and your like fail to understand is that evolutionary theory is not accident. Evolutionary theory is about responses to pressures. Why is the Bannana shaped the way it is? Evolutionary theory would predict that at somepoint in the evolutionary development that that shape for the fruit contained an advantage that allowed more members of the species to reproduce. Evolution neither proves nor disproves a god of any form. It is a mechanism, a process by which diversity occurs. Could it be the tool used by a designer? Who knows, thats a question for philosophy not biology. The fact of the matter is that the science supports evolution, the evidence supports it, and more importantly reason supports it. What creationism argues is that there is no natural mechanism, there is only the supernatural. What the evolution proponents argue is that there is a natural mechanism, and whether there is a supernatural force that is the cause of why things are the way they are is irrelavent to the study of the natural world. To put things into your coke can arguement, science does not try and explain the why it is that way (in the case of your arguement that is because its what the designer wanted it to look like) but instead trys to explain the how it was made (what tools did the designer use to make it? What steps where involved? etc.), Explaining the hows proves nothing in regards to the designer. Finally, demonstrating arguements counter to the philosophy of atheism does nothing to discredit or disprove evolutionary theory as I have pointed out. The beautiful thing about science is that it is based on observable, testable evidence, and regardless of your religion or philosophy the evidence does not change.
    ~
    RAmen

18. 138 - February 27th, 2008 at 7:52 am - freibooter Says:
    
    

    I love the example of the Banana as “The Atheist Nightmare”, since it is one of the fruits that did indeed have a creator: man!

    Just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana#Cultivation
    or look at the picture of a wild banana, the large seeds make them uneatable. There has been a lot of cross-breeding and cultivation going on in order to create our current, sterile, asexual, perversion-of-nature bananas.
    The banana that this guy attributes to “God” is small, almost round, full of seeds, very impractical and really disgusting if you try to eat it.

    But his God didn’t stop there, he obviously also created Pineapples, Coconuts and of course Broccoli - just to mess with us. :)

19. 139 - February 27th, 2008 at 8:02 am - James D Says:
    
    

    Wow that was the largest case of misquoting ever! Maybe if you did some actual research you would have discovered that was only part of the quote, taken entirely out of context and is merely his rhetoric setup. However misquoting him like this is a very popular way of trying to prove a false point so thank you for conforming to the norm of uninteligent people, using cheap tricks to try and prove a point. The actual, entire quote from the origin of species is as follows (it is very long):
    “ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION AND COMPLICATION.
    To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.”
    Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition (above from Project Gutenberg)

    Therefore if you were to do some actual research you would have found the truth, not just a popular misquoting that the news media today enjoys to use for celebrities, and politicians.
    If you read all of that good for you, Thank you and
    RAmen
    James, Self Appointed king of pirates.
    P.S. the source of the info for this post was http://www.aquaticape.org/darwin.html
    Thank you

20. 140 - February 27th, 2008 at 8:07 am - kelly Says:
    
    

    @Jonathon

    You said:

    “to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn’t one.”

    But wouldn’t it follow that to state that YOUR god is the correct god and all others are false then you are stating that you are omniscient? Can you be absolutely certain that god isn’t a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    By the way, your logic, while eloquent, is completely irrelevant. No one can know with certainty what is truth, but we can make an educated guess. Science relies on educated guesses, religion relies on a story that a group of people made up a long time ago in order to control a larger group of people.

    Here’s my test for you Jonathon:
    A person who believes in a story that a group of people made up a long time ago, over science (based on educated guesses) is:

    A. Intelligent

    B. A fool

    C. Has an ulterior motive

    RAmen to you!

Leave a Reply