51. Come Out!

Comment #59701 by Wadsworth on July 30, 2007 at 9:42 am

How about a "I love Richard Dawkins" T-shirt?

That would get them going here in the U.K. (We love PZ too)

52. Reading of The God Delusion in Lynchburg, VA

Comment #59403 by Wadsworth on July 29, 2007 at 12:55 am

Re Comment #6118 Yinka

What an extremely rude, bad-mannered as well as illiterate sample of what passes for Christian apologetics!

53. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #59197 by Wadsworth on July 28, 2007 at 5:10 am

"Take that Golgotha-sized chip off of your shoulder and just relax in your newly won freedom from religious tyranny, alright?"

And just how did we acquire this "newly won freedom"? By appeasemnt? Surrender? Submission and rolling over and letting the Theists tickle our tummies?--more likely to walk all over us.

54. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #59192 by Wadsworth on July 28, 2007 at 3:58 am

"So put down your Skeptics Annotated Bible. Amp down the volume and rage on your anti-apologetics web sites. Stop e-mailing your friends, family and your old pastor to pick a fight over their religious mania, and start smelling the roses, instead of smelling a rat. It may well be rotten in Vatican City, but unless you're a resident it doesn't concern you. Take that Golgotha-sized chip off of your shoulder and just relax in your newly won freedom from religious tyranny, alright? We've got more than enough would be dictators telling everyone ELSE what to do. We don't need you adding to the signal-to-noise ratio, further confusing the picture so that no one can tell the apologists from the apostates."

I was just wondering how the above "newly won freedom from religious tyranny" was accomplished;-
by appeasement? surrender? Christian tolerance perhaps? submitting and rolling over and letting them tickle our tummies?

55. How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Comment #59190 by Wadsworth on July 28, 2007 at 3:43 am

It is useless trying to give a reasoned response to such rubbish as this article; a better way is to dismiss it with the contempt it deserves. No wonder atheists exist if the alternative is Theism.

56. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #58351 by Wadsworth on July 24, 2007 at 3:09 pm

re: #58307 Darwin's badger

Thanks very much.

57. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #58197 by Wadsworth on July 24, 2007 at 2:17 am

22. Comment #57158 by darwin2 on July 18, 2007 at 12:31 pm

The term "theistic evolution" describes the true nature of evolution. God the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe and all other universes could have created our universe in 6 days if He so chose but Darwin clearly demonstrated and proved that He didn't use this method but rather used evolution and natural selection to create all life forms on our planet and probably throughout our universe and all other universes that may exist.
My Response:

Theistic Evolution

1. Recent research demonstrates higher semen viscosity in primate species that have a high degree of female promiscuity. In such species there is more intense sperm competition between rival male's semen for the female's attention. Natural selection encourages the evolution of increased sperm viscosity as an aid to preventing successful fertilisation of the female by subsequent male lovers. This means that promiscuity is a driving force in primate Evolution. If there is a God in charge of Evolution, then he is therefore condoning immorality by encouraging promiscuity.

2. 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. If God is in charge of Evolution he is therefore either a monumental blunderer, or an evil sadist, or a squanderer of natural resources.

3. All animals, plants, and fungi live by murder and cannibalism,- ie- feeding off each other;- humans are not exempt either. Could God not do better then this?


4. Some animals exhibit deliberate blood-sports lust, by toying with prey, or by unnecessary overkill; eg cats, and foxes. Did God arrange this? New-born pups are carried off by Jackels, Hyenas , birds of prey etc.

5. The new species Homo floresiensis further blurs the boundaries between Man and animal. Is God confused?

6. Chimps have been discovered to have rudimentary culture and language, and tool use, and not to have any qualitatively different attributes from Humankind. They also commit deliberate murder on their fellows. Capuchin monkeys break open nuts with rocks.

7. The whole concept of the Natural selection of random variations ,ie. Darwinian Evolution is a cruel process, relying on violence, suffering, and enormous waste among living things,-including the obviously sentient and human-like "higher" social animals, eg Whales, Dolphins, cats, dogs, and of course primates. The Ichneumon fly lays its eggs in a live caterpillar, and its grubs devour the caterpillar from the inside out. There are nearly a million so far discovered different species of beetles,-Why?- There is the waste of unused sperms, seeds and fruits and massive infant mortality;--and then God condemns Onan for spilling his seed on the ground!

8. Theists try to suggest that there is a purpose, and that God created and guides Evolution. But as Evolution (the Natural Selection of random variations) is therefore a random process (proved by the 99% extinctions as above),-- and the changes in the natural environment which does the selecting are also random, eg solar flares, asteroid and comet strikes, earthquakes and volcanos, hurricanes etc which cause mass extinctions from time to time,- and which all have naturalistic causes,--how then can a God be said to guide such chaotic processes? It is a self-contradiction, and is made with the desperate hope of tacking "God" onto all aspects of Nature, because of the self-interest of the religious establishment. They ask the question "Why"? There is no "why?",- no purpose. Blind naturalistic Evolution demonstrates that fully.

9. If God set up Evolution then he knew what he was doing. If he set it up, and continues to "guide" it,-he has exhibited blood lust and lack of compassion for his creation. If he set it up then walked away and washed his hands of it,- then he just shows cruel indifference and irresponsibility.

10. Nearly a million known different species of beetles have been documented. This is compatible with Evolution, but totally absurd if created by a God. One would have to ask him-Why?. Christians would no doubt assert that it is a demonstration of his power and love. So should I follow his example and tip a skip-full of live Cockroaches onto our living-room floor, and explain to my wife that I did it as an act of love?

A successful scientific theory is something that explains and predicts by itself,-it is self-sufficient. A theory which needs to be created and sustained and guided is not a theory at all; it is a contradiction.

Christians like to have their cake and eat it . For the reasons given above, Evolution implies Atheism, so Christians have to choose; they can either have Theism or Evolution, but not Theistic Evolution,- it is a nonsense.

58. Darwin or Design

Comment #58044 by Wadsworth on July 23, 2007 at 6:04 am

Why do theists so desperately try to pin the label "dogma" onto atheism,- or "religion" and "Faith" onto Science in an effort to insult them with these apparently dirty words? Should they not be supporting their own side and trying to encourage as much "dogma" etc everywhere they can?

59. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #54275 by Wadsworth on July 6, 2007 at 8:16 am

The YECs here cannot possibly admit to biological evolution, because it would be the logical extension of abiogenesis,or chemical evolution. That in turn would be the logical extension of cosmic evolution,-which would therefore explain the fine-tuned constants as optimum measurements resulting from cosmic natural selection,--and therefore no God required;-and that would never do. Honesty please?

60. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #54274 by Wadsworth on July 6, 2007 at 8:12 am

The YECs here are indulging in their usual game of changing the meaning of a word or term if its suits them. They say there are no transitional forms and therefore Archaeopteryx cannot be one;so what would they call a transitional form?
Presumably not a creature with a bird-like beak but reptile-like teeth? Or a hairy mammal with grasping hands and tool-using ability that looks sort of like a human, but obviously is not one?
Definitions please?