Seriously. Yes. Someone really said that. It appeared on New Jersey On-line today. In a piece title, "God is great to Christopher Hitchens," George Berkin tried his best to wax intellectual about how wonderful God is for allowing Hitch (as he's known in certain circles) to get cancer. FAIL!
He begins by suggesting that Hitch getting cancer "shows that God is kind even to those who spend their lives fighting against him." He seems to believe that if god were to let Hitch just fade away, "unchallenged, to a peaceful death" that he would be "unreconciled" (is that a word?) to god when they meet. (And by the way, who said Hitch is going to die from this?)
To illustrate his point, he brings up The Godfather.... Yes, that's what I said.... The Godfather. He said that Don Corleone died a quiet death, which, according to him, is the worst way a person can die according to the Bible. He died "unreconciled" (there's that word again) "to god." Well, none of that for Christopher Hitchens! No, no. For god so loved Christopher Hitchens that he allowed him to get cancer.
What a load of hogwash!
How does he explain all the cancer victims who were "right with god" before being stricken with cancer? Seriously, Berkin sounds like one of those folks (or nutjobs - you choose) who said Hurricane Katrina was a godly payback for homosexuality, or abortion, or any number of nonsensical things.
He seems to be implying in his article that Hitch will find god now that he has cancer. (Or, maybe I'm just inferring that.) He even brings up the old "no atheists in foxholes" garbage and applies it to Hitch's situation. He said, "[p]eople do tend to wait until they are in big trouble (foxholes) or until the last minute (cancer wards) before they get serious about spiritual, end-of-life, matters."
He adds that pride may be the thing that keeps Christopher from admitting that he's been wrong and that god exists. (Don't you have to know something is true in order to "admit" it?)
Apparently Berkin believes that atheists are atheists because it is a "fun game," and a "profitable" one at that. But, he suspects that that all changes when someone is faced with something potentially deadly. And, for good measure, he throws a little bit of Blaise Pascal in, without saying that is what he is doing, when he says that there are serious consequences to atheism "when you might be terminally ill, because then you're about to make an eternal bet."
Though Berkin says a couple of nice things about Christopher, he tries to take a potshot at him and "many atheists." He fails miserably and ends up, really, taking an unintended potshot at himself and his ilk.
He points to the fact that Hitchens stopped believing in god as a child "when he heard a religious person say something that, even to a child, came across as dumb." And (here comes the best part), he follows that up with: "For me, there’s something inane about an adult beginning to base their adult worldview on something wacko recalled from childhood."
Woo hoo! Can't that be turned right back around on him? Aren't many Christians or religious folk religious because of something "wacko" that they recall from their childhoods (i.e. their religious indoctrination)?
Finally, after a few more nonsensical gems, he sums up by saying (in bold, no less), "Maybe God is doing it this way so that Hitchens can encounter the God he has been denying for so long, before eternity sets in."
You know, sometimes, some people should just shut the hell up; because, at times, the only thing worse than people basking in delusion is when those people have a pulpit (or in this case, a gig with nj.com) from which to spew their nonsense. And this is one of those times - and Berkin is one of those people.
Comments
Hey Trina,
I'd like to thank you for the tone of your article: you remind all honest and open people of faith once again how very INTOLERANT many (and quite possibly most) Atheists truly are.
Atheists have regular 'Janus Moments' where one face of the Atheist is all sunshine and light, rather like Social Progressives proclaiming to be 'tolerant, open minded, accept of diverse opinions, supportive of freedom of speech'...right up to the moment that a biblical Christian or Tanach Jew professes their faith openly and honestly.
Then, all of a sudden, the Brown Shirts come out of the wood work, their jack boots laced up nice and tight, ready to shut down any debate by ad hominem attacks and cries of 'bigot', 'racist', 'homophobe', 'hater', etc.
No calm, courteous, polite (though passionate) debate ensues therefrom: only lawsuits to squelch the free speech of Jews and Christians.
Muslims on the other hand, are given free reign, even in public school prayer rooms.
Cheers
I just tore apart the same article on my page. It truly is abhorrent.
Erk, forgot to tack the Boston on my name. D:
Hey JR.
We do use those words like bigot - because the label fits. I notice your high minded comment doesn't bother to rebut any points in Trina's post nor tries to defend Berkin's silly blather. Exactly who is engaging in an ad hominem attack?
Here - I will try to make you happy on 1 point....
Islam is even more insane than Christianity. It is a violent faith that belongs in the 7th century.
That given, it doesn't give you a pass. You actually believe that a god impregnated a virgin to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself because a talking snake convinced a human female to eat a forbidden fruit around 6 to 10 thousand years ago. Right...
The message of your holy book IS homophobic, racist, misogynistic and bigoted.
Prove me wrong about the bible if you can.
God must be real...
How else do repeat Catholic child rapists stay out of prison?
Religion is but myth and fantasy which hardens hearts and enslaves minds. Thank you, Trina, for facilitating this ongoing dialogue. Open, frank discussion is the only path to enlightenment. Some harsh words and flaring of emotions is unavoidable. I do not foresee a world without religion, however, I do believe that it is possible to ameliorate the worst manifestations of religion which are oppression of women and children, the proposition of creationism as meaningful science, oppression and degredation of homosexuals, and ongoing robbery of public coffers in the form of tax exempt status.
Oh, yeah, and the big cop out that is belief in a personal god with intentions to intervene in the lives of humans, that is the biggest pile of nonsense of all. News flash, cancer and its treatment is unaffected by the supernatural world. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Hey P Smith,
Sadly, you're wholly incorrect about SP's responses to Tony Snow's cancer and then his death.
Your stalwart peers over at Daily Kos, MoveOn, and the Huff Post were virtually cheering the cancer on to kill Tony 'sooner rather than later' as many put it.
Further, the SP pundits continued to make such comments all through Mr. Snow's chemo treatments, his recovery (wishing he hadn't was the main theme), and then they really got motivated when his cancer came back.
So do me a favor please and stop trying to white wash the venal hatred which SP's continue to espouse against anyone who disagrees with the Socialist agenda SP's promote.
I know facts are not an SP's strong point, but try to stretch yourself a little on this point, will you?
Cheers.
Hey Brad,
Well, first of all, Berkin makes a valid point, which is echoed even by Atheists using a similar secular metaphor, pertaining to people who 'don't get it' (whatever 'it' may be, secular or sacred).
Such phrases as:
"He needed/got a wake up call."
"We learn best from our mistakes."
"An attitude adjustment is just what he needed."
One of the most recent (last decade or so) phrases borrowed from a commerical, used to get someone's attention after a faux paux of whatever level:
"Can you hear me NOW?"
Berkin's point is both secularly logical, culturally pertinent, and fully consistent with biblical doctrine at the same time:
"God chastises those whom He loves."
Pertaining to the issue of 'bigotry' I've found that you SP's are in gun terms, 'quick to draw' on such terms, rather than actually being willing to sit down and discuss issues honestly, openly, and empirically.
More on the Empirical Nature in my next.
Brad,
Your last statement is rife with misnomers from many provable aspects.
Homosexuality is biologically and medically unsupportable, sans the biblical aspects altogether. However, the biblical doctrine of 'reaping what you sow' is wholly valid in this context: medical study afater medical study has concluded that homosexual behaviours are intrinsically destructive to the human body. Diseases which are part and parcel of homosexuality (not just HIV/AIDS, but those directly resulting from sexual activity amongst homosexuals) would NOT occur without people engaging in such sexual behaviours.
Biologically speaking, homosexuality can also not be supported: the very design of reproductive systems of the male and female human bodies necessitate that homosexuality is unnatural.
It is not a matter of 'bigotry' or 'homophobia', it's a matter of science and biology, from a scientific point of view.
Biblically, God knew the physical outcome of such behaviours.
Brad,
Answering your misogynistic false accusation, I can only conclude that you've not studied Age of Antiquities much at all.
Prior to the Advent of Christianity, women were literally the property of men in ancient cultures. 99% of women had zero legal rights whatsoever, legally or culturally in most societies.
Christianity changed that altogether.
Jesus incorporated women directly and daily into His Ministry. This was one of the key complaints by both Jews and Gentiles (Paleo-Pagans) about His doctrines: women were supposed to be in the background ready to wait hand and foot on men.
Jesus had them in the forefront of His Ministry, and they preached His Gospel just like the men.
The Apostle Paul, who is often derided as a Misogynist, was just the opposite, he made clear the command of the Holy Spirit that with the Lord, "..there is neither male nor female...but all are equal before the Lord."
This doctrine did NOT sit well with the cultures of the day.
More n
Brad,
Roman culture, the dominant society for some 6 centuries throughout the Western civilizations, had no concept of equality between men and women; it simply didn't exist because it was too outrageous a doctrine.
This was one of the arguments made by Romans against Christianity during the Apostolic Period: many 'churches' were literally in the homes of widowed women and those women were Christian community leaders.
No Roman, Greek, Iberian (Spanish and Portuguese), Gallic (French), Celtic, Germanic, or Anglo, corollary existed to match the Christian paradigm.
Christianity was signal in bringing the doctrine of equality between men and women into the world: it had never been so proclaimed in history and on such a scale.
Racially speaking, the Apostolic doctrines did not teach concerning race, because 'race' was not a concept considered as we do in the modern era.
Paul taught that before the Lord, there was no diff. between 'slave or master'.
Brad,
Continuing pertaining to the 'racist' issue, you once again are historically incorrect pertaining to Christianity, race, and slavery.
Historical evidence PROVES that it was Christians who started, directed, and succeeded, in abolishing slavery across the globe.
British Missionary Societies were the ones who successfully got the British Govt. to outlaw slavery in I believe, 1805.
The Abolitionist Movement in the USA was founded and driven by Christians as well: the Underground Railroad was staffed by hundreds of Christians helping runaway slaves get to freedom.
Brad, I don't know the origins of your animus against Christianity, but you at least should avail yourself of learning the historical record from a secular empirical view, since secularism seems to be something you champion, is it not?
Jesus Christ brought a radical agenda to the world: equality between the sexes, freedom from man made 'religiosity', and offered reconciliation with God.
Hope this helped
Hello Lynette,
Like Brad, you are what I call 'historically challenged', which is usually the case with many if not most Atheists, and certainly with the vast majority of Social Progressives.
The 20th century proved that Atheism as a belief structure caused more human suffering, loss of life, and deprivations, than all the religious wars in the Christian/Islamic eras.
Lenin and Stalin, both Atheists, ended up exterminating 47-53 MILLION men, women, and children, by 1953.
Mao Zhedong (Mao tse Tung), an Atheist, during his 25 years of power according to most Sinologists, exterminated between 60 MILLION and 100 MILLION men, women, and children.
There is then the Khmer Rouge, Atheists, with roughly 2 MILLION men, women, and children exterminated.
Mind you Lynette, all this devastation and genocide occurred in just roughly 70 years, compared to 1500 years for the religious wars to take their toll.
Comparatively speaking, Atheism has caused the deaths of a LOT more innoc
Lynette,
Lastly, I wouldn't be so 'high and mighty' when it comes to ailments of the body, in supporting your vaunted 'science'.
Honest medical professionals will tell you upfront that there are many cases which they CANNOT medically explain, when terminal illness which SHOULD kill patients, disappear 'on their own'.
This 'on their own' explanation is not medically, scientifically, or logically supportable, in that when such events occur, there is NO valid, provable, verifiable, or rational explanation for the events.
Simply put, those people should be deader than the proverbial doornail!
The necessary implication from their survival is that there IS indeed 'something beyond the secular' as some in the Medical Profession have put it (not Christians by the way).
However, since science seems to be one of your secular altars, allow me to conclude by saying that mathematically, complex life on the planet should NOT exist.
Science cannot explain it.
Cheers.
"The necessary implication from their survival is that there IS indeed 'something beyond the secular' as some in the Medical Profession have put it (not Christians by the way)."
Nice confirmation bias. Out of the millions of people with chronic or fatal diseases, you choose the very few who recover and forget everything about those who don't. Misdiagnosis is a possibility, as is a faulty prognosis. If you do find something that science cannot explain, please don't go "it must be magic". That gets us nowhere and is infantile in its assumptions.
"However, since science seems to be one of your secular altars, allow me to conclude by saying that mathematically, complex life on the planet should NOT exist. "
Now you're just talking nonsense. What do you base that assumption on?
As a medical student I would point out that just because medicine does not know something is not a good argument for "God must have done it!" Medicine changes every day and things that last week were unknown are figured out.
Hey John,
Thanks for the respectful reply.
Firstly, nothing I've stipulated to denotes 'magic/magick': such is the pervue of Neo-Pagans and has nothing whatsoever to do with either Judeo-Christian biblical doctrines.
Secondly, the number of cases simply doesn't matter, the mere fact of their existence refutes the Atheist premise that physical phenomena is explainable within the context of the Sciences.
I'll even give you and accept your premise that some of those few cases may well be due to misdiagnoses, faulty testing procedures or results, or even technical faults in the medical equipment.
However, even with all that given to you, there factually remains real world cases of cancer patients whose cancers simply 'disappeared' or 'went into remission' when NONE of that should/could have scientifically/medically occurred.
Same thing for heart patients, lung patients, etc., pick whatever disease which currently exists and you'll find such cases as I'm noting.
Cheers.
John,
Relating to the mathematics concerning the existence of complex life on the planet, please take some time (depending on your workload of course) and Google the subject of Statistical Analysis of the existence of life as it exists on our planet.
It basically comes down to this: statistically speaking, the mathematical probability of complex life on planet Earth is at such an extreme level as to make it literally impossible that life here should exist as it does.
It's a rather interesting subject matter.
The two main cores (from my perspective at any rate) of interest are 1. the Complexity itself and 2. the inter-dependence of all the life forms on the working paradigms of the entire system itself.
Basically, the very complexity of how life MUST interact in order to create the viable Biosphere in which we currently live and which has allowed life to develop and exist, should not itself exist: without Diving Creation that is to say.
Have a happy 4th!
Gianna,
Hey there, hope you're having a great 4th!
I agree, just because something unexplainable and unquantifiable happened doesn't NECESSARILY make it the case that 'God did it.'
However, please take a moment to understand and validate the other side of the same coin which you present:
The fact that something unexplainable and unquantifiable did happen DOESN'T negate the premise that 'God did it.'
You can't hold to your premise without the opposite being validly possible.
Lastly, just because current knowledge basis doesn't explain something, does NOT necessarily imply that some future knowledge basis 'might' explain it.
Medical sciences are just that, sciences, and they are predicated upon quantifiable and verifiable variables, products, and known attributes based upon empirical evidence (but not merely limited to these few aspects here mentioned).
The real world fact remains that there are medical outcomes of given cases which well and truly cannot medically
Gianna,
'...cannot medically be explained.'
Have a great 4th!
Cheers.
>>"It basically comes down to this: statistically speaking, the mathematical probability of complex life on planet Earth is at such an extreme level as to make it literally impossible that life here should exist as it does."
Are creationists aware that every time they say something stupid a kitten has to be sacrificed? That was one of them.
Only creationists make this claim, A, because that's how they want the universe to be (specially created) and B, because they've never understood that argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. Oh, and C, because they don't understand statistics and they don't want to either. And the creo's that lied to them by claiming life is "statistically impossible" know that.
Creationists would have a lot more respect if they admitted they had zero evidence and that everything they believe in requires magic, instead of pretending that science somehow supports their faith.
It doesn't. (at all. not even a ickle bit)
Hey Nick,
Thank you for proving my earlier points about the majority of Atheists (but not all): you can't engage in a reasoned, honest, open, debate utilizing specifics; all you do is engage in ad hominem attacks "..every time they say something stupid a kitten has to be sacrificed..", and then generalize as much as possible to avoid having to actually prove your points.
Lastly, once again I must point out that most Atheists do the very same thing when it comes to Biblical Doctrines and the foundational premises for what is found in the Bible.
You folks keep shouting 'magick/magic' in relation to biblical beliefs (whether biblical Christian or Tanach Jew it matters not), whether from willful ignorance or self-induced delusions based in hatred of people of Faith, I know not.
However, let me say this clearly again: 'magick/magic' is part of the belief structure of Neo-Pagans, biblically speaking, it is sinful to engage in the works of Satan. Those are facts.
Cheers.
>>>"and then generalize as much as possible to avoid having to actually prove your points."
Uh, bub, I'm not the one who used argument from incredulity.
>>>"However, let me say this clearly again: 'magick/magic' is part of the belief structure of Neo-Pagans, biblically speaking, it is sinful to engage in the works of Satan. Those are facts."
Um, in order to be factual, you would first have to demonstrate (objectively and scientifically if possible) that an "entity" called Satan exists.
And silly me for confusing 'miracles by God that render the rules of physics moot' with 'magic'. I apologise.
Hey again Nick,
My dear fellow, what I presented forthrightly, logically, and empirically, is only 'incredulous' to you, because you're another Atheist 'whistlin' past the graveyard', projecting your personal fears onto others (me in this case).
Again, I've proven my point empirically, but since you don't have the gumption apparently to actually research the issue of whether magic/magick is biblically allowable and if Neo-Pagans are the people of faith who do practice it (Wiccans to be specific), rather than biblical Jews and Christians, you resort to the usual Atheist vitriol.
Atheists who hold to your paradigm here displayed for all to see, have basically chosen to become non-thinking human beings.
You strive to rant and rave, belittle, denigrate, and engage in personal attacks, but flee as fast as possible from the specifics of any argument.
Your elitism is not healthy for you and I hope you will choose to abandon it and actually RESEARCH issues for a change.
Chee
Hey Jr.,
As I’ve been reading through your comments I’ve started to notice, you’re not talking about atheists, you’re talking about Christians. In his book, “God is Not Great,” Christopher Hitchens lay out logically and scientifically why he didn’t believe in God. Yes, he does rant and rave, but he takes the physical facts head-on and I’ve yet to see a creationist address his scientific facts. Instead, they have done just what you’re doing: claiming to have empirical proof of something not even supported by basic physics, yet not offering it. Fact: Earth started from a singularity. Fact: our Universe evolved. Fact: we as a species evolved. Speculation: there is a God who is present in the workings of the Universe. Speculation: There is a purpose or a place for all of this. Speculation: anything recorded in the Bible is true.
I personally am not an atheist, I’m agnostic. If there is a God, it has refused to express itself, and it has refused to connect.
(continued)
Or maybe God is part of our evolution and, like air travel, when we’re evolved enough to understand it, we will. Until then, we’re just making it up.
Martin Luther King, a man of God who had a dream was gunned down outside of his motel room in Memphis. Jesus hung on a cross and cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.” Catholic priests (men of God) abused and molested children over and over again worldwide. In each one of these cases, there was no help from above. The Universe kept on going, leaving those in agony to suffer alone.
The truth is, life happens, and it doesn’t matter whether the people it happens to were good or bad. The Universe doesn’t care… or does it? Unfortunately, it won’t tell us either way.
As to your “whistling past the graveyard,” comment, it takes more guts to stare the Universe in the face and admit that you just don’t know, than to pretend that you somehow have empirical evidence that your viewpoint is true.
Hey there Ben,
Actually, Hitchens was in fact answered, and if you bothered to actually take the time to Google such information for those refutations, you'd find them rather easily, though the responses would not make you FEEL 'easy' considering they utterly overwhelming Hitchens' arguments.
Secondly, I must note that you don't seem to be a fan of Free Will. You like exercising Free Will, but you don't like to accept the consequences for the exercise thereof!
The quote from Jesus is a perfect example of your lack of knowledge: Jesus wasn't crying out for help; He was literally teaching Old Testament doctrine and prophecy while dying on the Cross.
Jesus was citing Psalm 22, a prophecy of King David, made a 1000 years before He was crucified. Even the form of execution used on Him was a prophecy in itself: crucifixion wasn't invented by the Persians until 400 YEARS after the prophecy was made.
Facts you really won't like, but hey, nothing new there really.
Cheers.
If you want to talk facts, the Psalms were written during the Babylonian exile over a period of two-hundred years, which would put them around 500 years before Yeshua (Joshua—whom you call Jesus) was born, not one thousand years as you erroneously suppose. This quotation is only reported in Matthew, who was culling the Old Testament in an effort to promote his political agenda of turning Jesus into God… a concept that met with considerable resistance from the Jerusalem church, including Joshua’s own brother James. Let’s also remember that the synoptic gospels were written seventy to one-hundred years after Jesus had died, and so therefore they have no idea what Jesus really said. There were no eyewitness accounts because everyone who would have seen it wasn’t there. The Bible as we currently know it wasn’t canonized until the Council of Trent in 1546 which meant that many apocryphal books were also being distributed and read during that time, including the books of wisdom/Psalms.
As to Free Will, I don’t know what you mean when you define free will, nor do I understand why it’s relevant to this conversation. However, if you want to talk free will, then I would say that evolution is the perfect example of free will. At each turn in the evolution of our solar system the Universe allowed evolution to make its own decision. Early on in our evolution, a type of algae started producing a toxic gas that destroyed most of life on Earth… known as The Great Oxygen Catastrophe. From that moment on life on Earth on a grander scale became possible. At some point, hominids decided that they preferred life on two legs rather than four, and stood up out… the Universe provided protection. Since the most metabolic energetic part of the human body is the brain, the Universe provided hair to protect the head and keep it cool.
(3)
Since it was necessary for our primate forefathers to make distinctions as they were swinging through trees, the Universe provided the eyes with the ability to see colors so that they could make distinctions between the subtleties of colors to prevent them from falling. And the ape stood, and became man. And man raped the land and destroyed his own environment, and the Universe allowed him to do so. So I would answer your accusation (a false accusation to say the least) that I believe in a Universe that is all about free will.
I did a Google search on “credible refutations to Christopher Hitchens” and only sixteen-hundred hits were returned, as opposed to ninety-six million for Christopher Hitchens. Creation versus evolution returned one-million two-hundred-sixty-thousand hits, and most of those were in favor of evolution. Finally, if you go to NASA’s Web site, you will find all the support you need for the evolution of our planet.
(4)
Finally, you said at the end of your comment: “Facts you really won't like, but hey, nothing new there really.” Here’s what I would love… for you to actually provide some facts. An intelligent debate must contain actual argument, an intellectual process, not just gainsaying, not mouthing dogma and promoting it as fact. I’ve not seen a single fact, but you keep insisting that there is. Let’s see your facts… if there are any. Methinks you’re woefully unprepared for this discussion.
No, JR. "Life is 'highly improbable' therefore Goddidit!" is not in any fashion at all whatsoever an example of 'empirical evidence & logic'. Your response I'm afraid is nothing more than ad hom and a serious case of projection, mixed in with some Christian martyr complex. I am aware of the fundie opinion of 'magic' yet you failed to explain the difference between violations of physics by God and violations of physics by someone/thing else. Also let us not forget that those that burned witches invoked the power of God/Jesus/Angels/whatever, probably in latin, in order to protect themselves from magic attacks from said witches while they subdued them. (In other words, they cast a SPELL). Of course arguing over semantics helps you avoid the original point that your beliefs require the supernatural, which no-one on Earth has evidence of.
And before you go on another martyr rant about 'vitriolic atheists', remember you are just as guilty.
I see where Junior Bailey hoists the old "mathematically impossible" claim - demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, chemistry, biology AND the limitations of statistical analysis.
Actually, Junior, the chem/physics stemming from the Big Bang make it virtually statistically impossible for life NOT to emerge somewhere in the resulting Universe - and almost certainly many, many times - and that some significant fraction thereof would evolve to highly complex forms.
Hey Pasta-Grass Man,
I love the Big Bang Theory (please note the word 'theory' in that title...not scientific FACT, still just a theory....just like all the myriad, competing, and for some of them, contrary 'theories' of Evolution):
No space, no time, no 'matter', but WAIT....there really was some 'matter', floating 'around' in a vacuum, which apparently 'collided' with some 'other matter' and viola'!: The Big Bang!
Never mind that if matter existed, then space/dimensions existed, as 'matter' denotes size, which denotes dimensions.
Since the 'matter' was 'floating' in the vacuum, that denotes both travel AND time, which means that 'space' actually existed, prior to The Big Bang......oh, but wait, was there one, no, two REVISIONS of The Big Bang Theory....no wait, I seem to recall a third....some tweaking here and there with some particulars with it.........ah never mind, you're an Atheist....you can just sit there and make up another 'theory' to suit your needs......yup.
Well Junior, since you cannot even comprehend the proper use of the term "theory," it's hardly surprising that you also have no clue as to what real cosmologists and physicists are saying about the Big Bang.
But how and why it occured are irrelevant to the topic at hand. The fact that there WAS a massive sudden expansion of the Universe and that it resulted in certain physical laws is sufficient to take you to the Universe we have today.
Hey JR Bailey Casper, try to learn some basics about science before you start criticizing it. A "theory" is the closest science gets to saying something is a fact, e.g. the theory of gravity. A theory means that it is the best explanation of the available data at the moment. It is not just an idea - that would be a hypothesis. And there are not myriad, contradictory theories of evolution. There is debate about some specifics of evolution, but the overarching theory is believed by everyone with any knowledge of the subject.
There’s an old saying: You can lead a Fundie to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.
First of all, you obviously have no idea how something becomes a theory in science. In order to be called a theory in scientific practice it has to be tested, vetted, peer reviewed, tested again. There is no “theory” in the history of humankind that has had more scrutiny and has yet to be refuted. Science very rarely claims empirical evidence because, unlike fundamentalists, they don’t think they have to know everything, and they don’t use fairytales and superstition to explain what they cannot. They simply wait until they have more knowledge and better equipment.
Secondly, it’s odd that you accept medicine, which is science, but not evolution. You assume that because an idea changes over time and because it gets updated, tweaked, and otherwise revised that nullifies it. The “theories” of medicine have changed so dramatically over time and we’re much better off because of it.
(Continued)
Secondly, it’s odd that you accept medicine, which is science, but not evolution. You assume that because an idea changes over time and because it gets updated, tweaked, and otherwise revised that nullifies it. The “theories” of medicine have changed so dramatically over time and we’re much better off because of it. Any believe that does not question itself or challenge itself will not survive and will not hold up to the test of nature… which is the case with your Bible. You cling to your Bible which couldn’t even pass as a theory.
So far, every comment you’ve posted is devoid of any specific evidence to prove your point, which doesn’t help your cause, it just makes you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about. By the way, it’s called a vacuum if it’s devoid of matter.
Hey again Pasta Grass Man,
Thanks for reminding everyone of just how talented, viscerally banal (and oxy-moron just for you), and side-stepping you Atheists are when cornered.
If you've got a problem with the issues I've raised with the Big Bang THEORY, then find a mirror in your house and holler at the guy looking back out at you, because YOU were the one who originally raised and used the Big Bang THEORY as an example in the first place, not me.
I know such a fact may come as a shock to you Pasta Grass Man, but there it is nonetheless.
Oh yeah, perhaps you might consider laying off the Weed for a while, to let some of those remaining brain cells garner some Fresh Air for a change?
Who knows, they might actually remember how to fire most of the operative synapses in your Noggin!
Cheers!
Hey there David,
My dear fellow, please at least make an attempt at being honest will you?
A theory is JUST that, a THEORY; ie, Theoretical Science as opposed to Applied Science.
The example you gave of the 'theory of gravity' is NOT just a 'theory' it has been PROVEN as verifiable and verified SCIENCE FACT....hence, no longer JUST a 'theory'.
Secondly, please allow me to point out just TWO of the Contradictory THEORIES of Evolution: Catastrophic and Gradual.
The TWO Contradictory Theories above are NOT compatible with each other: by the very definition of their foundational premises, one MUST be necessarily right, while the other MUST be necessarily wrong.
There is no other alternative to the conclusion for these TWO Contradictory THEORIES of Evolution.
Lastly, allow me to point out that while there are THOUSANDS of specimen's of the Fossile Record, there is NOT a single PROVEN instance of Intra-Species Migration, much less Inter-Species Migration.
Cheers.
Junior, YOU may have a problem with self-medications, but I've managed to get through six decades without the need for such things. I tried to be civil, but screw you, cow-fraker.
Now, when you un-couple from Bossie and sober up, read it all again - I did NOT mention a "THEORY" of how the Big Bang happened - theories are an attempt to explain data and, so far, there is insufficient data to develop a THEORY of the Big Bang; at best, there are HYPOTHESES.
However, there is sufficient data to know that a rapid expansion of the Universe occurred; that event is called the Big Bang. And what happened starting only a few nanoseconds after the beginning of the expansion is fairly well understood - especially the processes by which subatomic particles led to elements and then to more complex chemistry.
Others have already pointed out your complete and utter stupidity concerning the scientific term 'theory,' so I won't repeat it. But your "contradictory" theories... are not.
Now, Junior cow-fraker, I'd invite you to Houston so REVEREND Bob Bakker could educate you on your errors concerning both evolution and the Bible, but Texas already has enough ignorant perverts.
But Laramie is just a short drive; Clementz and Shuman are at the University of Wyoming. Or head up to Bozeman, where Jack Horner would be happy to educate you.
Hey again Pasta Grass Man,
My, my, my, your bovine fetish really is a problem for you, isn't it? Hey, to each his own I say, so far as it doesn't impinge upon me past a certain degree.
Therefore, so long as the moo of your choice doesn't mind, the SPCA and PETA do not get upset, have at it.
Pertaining to some of you remonstrations, personal rants even, allow me to point out that no one has provided evidence negating the basic linguistic FACT that 'theory' is an UNPROVEN hypothesis, while 'scientific FACT' is indeed proof of both a hypothesis and subsequent theory.
Further, allow me to point out a basic linguistic fact: the words 'gradual' and 'catastrophic' are contradictory on the face of their definitions, and point of fact, in the context of the two competing Evolutionary Theories are wholly contradictory one to the other.
The proponents of those two theories have nearly come to blows over their differences, so while you may not like it, they are illustrative.......
Pasta Grass Man cont.,
The contradictory Evolutionary Theories and the animus between the Two Camps are indeed illustrative of the serious flaws with the whole Evolution Theory paradigms.
Bakker is a nice fellow, writes well, but like the rest of his profession, relys quite heavily on linguistic qualifiers.
Words and phrases such as 'maybe', 'might have been', 'leads us to suggest', 'perhaps', 'could've developed', 'suggests', 'seems to,', 'may have been', etc., etc., etc.
Linguistic qualifiers are the heart and soul of Paleontology: hard, firm, proven, and unassailable proofs are far and few between.
I noted with no little humour that none of you Atheists bothered to confront me on my assertions concerning the Fossil Records: LOTS of 'bones' but no CONFIRMED Intra-Species, much less Inter-species Migration proofs exist.
LOTS of supposition is proposed: REAMS of it is written, but no 100% verifiable proof.
If you need to, take some time to tend to you Moo.....Cheer
Wow Jr.,
Trying to have an intelligent discussion with you is like trying to have an intelligent discussion with a parrot. You have the intelligence of a two-year-old, and the only thing you know to do is parrot the same phrase over and over again and in the process you only confirm why most of us are so frustrated with Christians in the first place. You can’t think for yourself and you insist on inserting yourself in the midst of conversations for which you are woefully unprepared to discuss.
True wisdom is often quiet and gentle. Ignorance, on the other hand, must proclaim itself from the rooftops. It may be time to take Jesus’ advice and stop casting our pearls before swine.
Be sure and write when you graduate form summer camp.
Seem you still don't get it, Junior Cow-fraker: You are not allowed to define "theory" in your own terms and then claim it means something different than what the people using it mean.
A scientific theory is an explanation of facts. Gravity is a FACT: Masses attract each other. The THEORY of Gravity is an effort to explain WHY they attract each other.
Similar with Evolution; it's a confirmed and observed FACT - in the fossil record, in DNA, in cellular biology, and in every other way it's been tested. The THEORY of Evolution is the effort to explain it; descent through modification being the most significant point.
As for contradictions, you need to enter the 21st Century; there is elegant support that Evolution is BOTH gradual and catastrophic - far from being contradictory, they are complementary.
Then again, in your Humpty Dumpty lexicon of misdefinitions, you assume a self-proclaimed member of a specific belief system is an "atheist" - again showing your ignorance.
The theory of gravity isn't a theory?!? When the heck did that happen? I guess nobody told him that Newton's THEORY was replaced, first by the THEORY of relativity then the THEORY of quantum mechanics. But considering the nonsense he spouted about the Big Bang and evolution, it is hardly surprising that science is not his strong point.
Unlike the colloquial use of the term, a "theory" in science is a coherent model and explanation consistent with observable facts and evidence, capable of making valid practical scientific predictions. "Theory" is the highest it gets in science. They do not get up-graded to "laws". That common misconception was likey due to the term "Newton's LAW of gravity", with most of the general public being blissfully unaware that Newton's THEORY has since been falsified.
As JR has so helpfully demonstrated.
Stick to apologetics, JR. But don't ever claim apologetics has any relevance to science.
Hey, Junior, I see you sniveling elsewhere because someone made a parody of your "identity."
I guess in your world libel - like calling someone an illegal drug user - is okay when YOU do it, but obvious satire goes right through your thin skin.
Good luck with that "identity theft" claim; the feds are going to get a good laugh out of this one.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!