A reply to a video covered in bigotry

There's a video that's been clogging the internet lately. I decided that I would mirror it, then reply to it, point by point. Here we go!

01:36 Notice what was said there, but more importantly, notice the emotion behind it. This is not a logical argument. It is an appeal to emotion, specifically fear. But more importantly, it treats the world’s changing demographics and culture as something that is novel and negative, when it is neither. It is natural, and unavoidable.

01:55 “According to research”? Whose research? Has it been peer-reviewed? Was it done by an expert in sociology or anthropology? What methods were used? Why is this being stated as fact? In all likelihood, this is a “fact” repeated from another unverified source that we’re expected to not research at all.

02:18 Can I get a source on any of that? Those are rather bold claims…and based on those claims, about half of all cultures on the planet will decline pretty quickly, and Mali, Niger, Uganda, Somalia and Afghanistan will rule us all soon. Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_tot_fer_rat-people-total-fertility-rate

02:41 Note what they did here. They switched to common-sense and easy math, AND they finally gave a source…one which is completely unreadable, even in full screen and high-quality. They can claim they cited their sources, and those sources may be bunk, but we can never tell.

02:47 Good thing the population isn’t shrinking then. Remember this part, it’ll be important later on.

03:07 Another “cited but not seen” citation. And it’s wrong. All of these “fertility rates” are wrong, in fact. The actual fertility rates of these countries, according to NationMaster: France-1.98, the UK-1.66, Greece-1.36, Germany-1.41, Italy-1.3, Spain-1.3.

03:17 Actually, it’s 1.5. This clearly wasn’t well researched. That’s my point here.

03:29 Are you scared yet? Well, you shouldn’t be. This is committing a grievous error in logic. It assumes that current trends will continue indefinitely, when there is no reason to believe this will be the case. An example: in 1920 Henry Ford argued that Jews and Blacks will outnumber white people in the U.S.A. by 1940…and by the birth-rates of that time, they would have, if the trends continued. But he was wrong. I’d be willing to bet these dire predictions will mostly be wrong too.

03:33 And thus, by your own logic, the culture won’t decline. That’s exactly what you said at 02:47 of this video…unless you’re not counting brown people who moved to Europe as “European” here.

03:35 I KNEW IT!

03:46 That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This was asserted without evidence, and I am rejecting it likewise.

03:53 Source? I can’t read that, and I’m not going to blindly swallow anything without checking it out first.

04:07 So what? Given where they live, the likelihood of them staying religious is slim, given how unabashedly secular France is.

04:26 Why are these figures being stated as fact? The future isn’t set in stone. Oh, yeah, I forgot. “In 39 years France might possibly be a majority-muslim country, if current trends continue exactly as they have been” is not scary enough.

04:38 In the 2001 census, the number of registered Jedi Knights in the UK went up from zero to 404,179. That puts Islam’s 30-fold increase over 30 years to shame. By my math, and your logic, everyone in the UK will be a Jedi Knight by 2012, and everyone in the world will be a Jedi Knight by 2020.

04:47 AGAIN, we can’t read the citation. Not that this is aimed at people who read citations…or anything else.

04:54 No, we’ve already concluded that they’ll all be Jedi Knights by then. The religion of Jedi is easily outgrowing Islam. As is atheism, FYI.

05:00 Russia’s always had a fairly large muslim population, even in the Soviet years, and they’ve always had a healthy birth rate. It serves as a fairly decent counter-example for this person’s argument.

05:07 Where do they get these statistics? Can you tell me the percentage of Zimbabwean used car salesmen that will be muslim by the year 2015? And so what 40% of the Russian army will be muslim “in just a few short years”? They’ll still be under the command of the Russian army either way.

05:27 Firstly, the numbers are WAY off. 25% of Belgium is muslim? Try 3.5% Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/be-belgium/rel-religion Secondly, why would the government of Belgium issue a press release about religion in all of the continent?

05:45 Except they didn’t say that. I can’t find that quote in any language other than English, and on no official German statistics sites.

06:08 Firstly, it’s clear they used Qaddafi because of his reputation as a nasty dictator, not because he’s an expert. Secondly, Turkey’s a muslim country in Europe with over 60 million muslims, so he’s wrong there. Thirdly, Qaddafi was clearly just issuing a rallying call to muslims, trying to encourage da’wah. Nothing more should be read into that statement, assuming it’s legitimate.

06:22 Do we have stats from the UN or the EU? Or from anyone who knows the future with 100% certainty?

06:40 I love when ignorant people talk about my country. Islam is the fastest growing religion? Percentage-wise, it’s only growing slightly faster than christians who aren’t affiliated with any church. Numerically, almost every religious affiliation with a positive growth rate outpaces Islam. The religious affiliation that’s actually growing the fastest in Canada is “no religion”.

06:51 The top 5 countries that give Canada the most immigrants are (in order) China, India, the Philippines, Pakistan and the USA. Of the top 10, only 2 (Pakistan and Iran) are muslim majority. Aside from China, India and South Korea, the rest are Christian majority. Please, do your research.

07:08 Actually, the fertility rate of citizens of the USA is 2.1, and that’s not including immigration. It only counts birth. But I see what you did there, subtly implying that only white English speakers are true “Americans”. Good job on subtlety there.


07:17 No accurate report on the muslim population of the USA exists as the US Census bureau doesn’t record religious affiliation. The highest estimation I’ve found is Newsweek’s 7-8 million estimation last year. Most of these are converts who leave the faith within 2 years.

07:38 This sounds a lot like what evangelical chistians do several times every year. Why is it suddenly sinister when muslims do it?

07:46 We’ll see it if that’s reality in 30 years. Unless the Census Bureau starts recording religious affiliations, however, we’ll actually never know.

07:53 And the world you live in is not the one your parents and grandparents lived in. What's your point?

To end this off, I must simply say that videos like this will hasten the demise of western culture, as muslim immigrant (also known as "new westerners") will be turned off of it by such bigotry, and will be more likely to hold true to the more radical elements of Islam.

Read more!

One more time with VenomFangX

The story thus far: Noted youtube creationist VenomFangX challenged noted youtube evolutionist Thunderf00t to a debate. TF said he couldn’t debate VFX in science as VFX knows nothing about the subject. VFX made a 2 ½ minute video “disproving evolution” which he claimed would win him a Nobel Prize. TF mocked that video, and VFX made a second video trying to disprove evolution. It was riddled with flaws, which I merrily pointed out and showed to him. Less than a day from my posting of that essay, VFX took down his second video and uploaded a third. I asked for a transcript, and he complied. This is the analysis of that transcript. I have not altered any of his text, so there will be some spelling errors. I won’t remove any text either, even though some is rather redundant. As before, this will be in script format. Shawn=Fang, me=Ben. Links will be noted by the words “Click Here”.

Fang: How to Falsify Evolution by Shawn

Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?

You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon. Therefore we can dismiss the theory of the blue interior of watermelons as being pure speculation and guess work, not science. You can not say something is true without demonstrating how it is not false, and you can not say something is not true without demonstrating how it is false. Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously. If one could demonstrate clearly that the watermelon appears to indeed be blue inside, without being able to demonstrate what colors it is not, we still have no absolute confirmation of its color. That is to say asserting something is the way it is, without being able to assert what it is not, is a useless claim. Therefore, in order for any theory to be confirmed to be true, it must be shown how to both validate and falsify its claims. It is circular reasoning to be able to validate something, without saying how to falsify it, or vice versa. This is the nature of verification and falsification. Both must be clearly demonstrated in order for a theory to be confirmed to be true or false. Something can not be proven to be true without showing that it is not false, and something can not be proven to be not true, unless it can be proven to be false.

Ben: Thus far I don’t disagree with you. I didn’t expect this…this could get me kicked out of the atheistic evolutionist club! Quickly, say something I don’t agree with!

Fang: Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest.

Ben: OK then. There are a few things wrong with this sentence.
1: Falsifiability was proposed by Karl Popper in his 1934 book Logik der Forschung (The Logic of Scientific Discovery in English.) The Origin of Species was published in 1859. What you’re doing is expecting Darwin to adhere to a philosophical principle (which is what falsifiability is-a principle of philosophy of science) in a book published 75 years before the principle was conceived. This is patently ridiculous. If you applied this idea to all pre-Popper science, this would also eliminate all science done by ancient Greeks, Persians, and Sumerians, as well as some ground shattering discoveries by Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, and many others.

2: I’m a naturalistic atheist. You’re a creationist with a vested interest in disproving evolution. I’ve never read the Origin of Species, and I highly doubt you have. And neither of us has to. In fact, it would almost be counter-productive. Why? We’ve found the flaws in Darwin’s work, and corrected them in later works. If Darwin didn’t include a falsification method in said book (I don’t know if this is true-remember, I haven’t read it) that doesn’t mean one wasn’t added later. TalkOrigins indexed the claim that evolution can’t be falsified in its index of creationist claims (which I recommend all people involved in this debate read. Click Here )They stated:
There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
• a static fossil record;
• true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
• a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
• observations of organisms being created.
And those aren’t all the ways to falsify evolution, by far. So, evolution can be falsified.

3: Even if Darwinian evolution is falsified, there are still other versions of evolution (Lamarckian evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium, strong panspermia, etc.) that the creationists have to disprove.

4: How can creationism be falsified? I mean, aside from the many ways it already has been.

Fang: In the event that evolution is not true, there should be a clear and defined method of reasoning to prove such by demonstrating through evidence that one could not possibly make any alternative conclussions based on said evidence. It is for this reason we must be extremely skeptical of how the evidence has been used to support evolution for lack of proper method of falsification, especially when the actual evidence directly contradicts the theory. If it can be demonstrated how to properly falsify evolution, regardless if evolution is true or not, only then can evolution ever be proven or disproved.

Ben: *ahem* It has been demonstrated how to falsify evolution. Once again, you build a case on one flawed argument.

Fang: It will now be demonstrated that Darwin never told us how to properly falsify evolution, which will also show why no one can claim to have disproved or proven the theory, until now.

Ben: How can it be demonstrated that Darwin never told us how to properly falsify evolution without giving us everything he ever wrote? How can THAT be the reason that evolution hasn’t been proven wrong? Could it not be that evolution fits the most properly with the facts? Are you even going to consider this?

Fang: It must be able to be demonstrated that if evolution were false, how to go about proving that, and while Darwin indeed made a few statements on this issue, his statements were not adequate or honest. In order to show Darwin's own falsification ideas are inadequate, rather than discussing them and disproving them individually, all that needs to be done is demonstrate a proper falsification argument for evolution theory. That is to say if the following falsification is valid, and can not show evolution to be false, then evolution theory would be proven true by way of deductive reasoning. That is the essence of falsification; if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true.

Ben: Not quite. No theory is ever proven true, even if an attempt to falsify anything fails.

Fang: So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method, and would therefore prove evolution to be true in the event this falsification method can not show evolution to be false. As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true. This would confirm the accuracy of this falsification method, which all theories must have, and show that Darwin did not properly show how evolution could be falsified, in the event that evolution was not true.

Ben: How would falsifying evolution show that Darwin didn’t show how it could be falsified? You’re not even making sense there.

Fang: In order to show evolution is not false (thereby proving it to be true), we must be able to show how it would be false, if it were. Without being able to falsify evolution in this manner, you can not validate it either. If something can not be shown to be false, yet it is said to be true, this is circular reasoning, since you have no way of confirming this conclusion. Example; If we told a blind person our car is red, and they agreed we were telling the truth, the blind person could not tell another blind person accurate information regarding the true color of the car. While he has evidence that the car is red by way of personal testimony, he has no way of confirming if this is true or false, since he might have been lied to, regardless if he was or not.

So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such. To say evolution is true, without a way to show it is false, means evolution has never been proven to be true. If evolution be true, and this method of falsification be valid, then by demonstrating the falsification method to be unable to disprove evolution, we would confirm evolution to be right. Alternatively, if the falsification method is valid and demonstrates that Darwin's validation method does not prove evolution, then evolution is false indeed.

Ben: Then DARWINIAN evolution is false. There are other forms of evolution. But anyway, on with the show (finally).

Fang: Firstly, the hypothesis. If evolution is incorrect, then it can be demonstrated to be so by using both living and dead plants and animals. The following is the way to do so and the logical alternative to the theory. The fossil record can be used as well, but not as evolution theory would have us believe.

Ben: Justification?

Fang: In order to properly falsify something, all biases must be removed, since assuming something is correct without knowing how to prove its false is akin to the blind person who can not confirm the color of someones car.

Ben: Done. Science has no biases aside from a bias for fact and for the scientific method.

Fang: Since evolution has not correctly been shown how to be falsified, as will be demonstrated, we must be open to other possibilities by way of logic, and ultimately reject evolution by way of evidence, should the evidence lead us in such a direction.

Ben: You can’t demonstrate how evolution has never been shown how to be falsified by Darwin unless you comb through all the things Darwin ever wrote. You can’t demonstrate how evolution has never been shown how to be falsified by ANYONE unless you comb through everything everyone has ever said on evolution, pre and post Darwin. Stop making such ludicrous claims.

Fang: If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design.

Ben: No. Everything could have simply popped into existence as it currently is without any supreme being or beings, and not evolved at all. To me, this makes more sense than the Abrahamic god.

Fang: This would predict that all life since the initial creation has been in a state of entropy since their initial creation, which is the opposite of evolution. If this be true, then animals and plants are not increasing in genetic complexity or new traits as evolution theory would have us believe, but are in fact losing information.

Ben: OK. But that prediction would be demonstrably false.

Fang: This would explain why humans no longer have room for their wisdom teeth and why the human appendix is decreasing in functionality.

Ben: Would it explain why children are becoming gradually taller and more obese, on average? What about the advances in science and scientific understanding? Surely that would at least suggest some increased complexity in the brain since the beginning of human civilization.

Fang: The only objection to this claim that evolution theory would propose is that evolution does not always increase the genetic complexity and traits of an organism, but rather, sometimes decreases them as well. This objection is only made because we have only ever actually observed entropy in living creatures, which suits the creation model far better than evolution, which shall be demonstrated.

Ben: In my last blog posting about you (which I’m fairly sure you’ve read, given the changes you made in your case against evolution) I showed you links regarding macroevolution and mutations. I know all my articles have been from TalkOrigins, but frankly, it’s such a comprehensive source that I don’t need to reference anything else. Anyway, those articles show cases where complexity has increased.

Fang: If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution. For example; the creation model states that life was created diversified to begin with, with distinct "kinds" of animals, by a supernatural Creator that did not evolve Himself, but rather always existed.

Ben: You still need to define “kind”. That was a major flaw in your last most important video ever. Remember?

Fang: Without going into the debate on how such a being is possible to exist, it must be said that either everything came from nothing, or something always existed.

Ben: Fair enough. It’s probably good that you don’t debate on how such a complex being could have always existed without evolving, because this is supposed to be scientific as opposed to religious. Plus, you’d lose that debate due to your side’s lack of logic.

Fang: To those who say the universe always existed; the claim of this hypothesis is that the Creator always existed, which is equally as viable for the previous logic.

Ben: Not quite. No one suggests that the universe always existed as it does currently, but that it developed over time. The universe itself always existed, but at one point it was a highly condensed piece of matter and a lot of emptiness, and now it is a vast array of planets, stars, galaxies, asteroids, life forms, gasses, rock, etc. Your creator always existed, however it started out as vastly complex and mighty, and hasn’t changed at all over the millennia (though he did change because he no longer floods the world and forgives people of their sin…yet he’s the exact same today, yesterday and forever according to Hebrews 13:8). The creator is a little less viable, I think.

Fang: In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined. A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!

Ben: Where do we draw the line of “kind”? Do we draw it where you do, or further down the line? There are 6 subspecies of cheetah, for example. Is Acinonyx jubatus jubatus of southern Africa of the same kind as the Northwest African Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus hecki) since they’re both cheetahs, though they’re different subspecies? Does that suggest a common ancestor? Would it still suggest a common ancestor when those subspecies become species of their own? Furthermore, if “kind” is now defined as what scientists would call a “species” (I think this is what you’re saying, as lions and cheetahs are different species) then wouldn’t the emergence of new a species prove you wrong? We’ll go with the basic definition of species, that is, any group of animal that can produce fertile offspring. If you’d agree, then I have some examples. Click Here and Click Here
Now, on top of this, you’re creating a straw man here. People who accept evolution don’t simply use homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry. Genetic evidence is more often used as it’s more compelling, and THAT proves common ancestry between cheetahs and lions.

Fang: The idea of kinds is in direct contrast to evolution theory which says all cats share a common ancestor, which the creation model does not hold to be true. If evolution theory is true, the word kind is a superficial label that does not exist, because beyond our classifications, there would be no clear identifiable division among animals or plants, since all plants and animals would therefore share a common ancestor.

Ben: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold on! Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. These are the basic taxonomic ranks, obviously not including minor ranks such as subspecies. Even if the differences between these were superficial (and they aren’t) the differences still exist under evolution. Even with a common ancestor, the descendants of said ancestor are clearly distinct. We can show this with genetic evidence as well as structural differences in the organisms themselves. While DNA often does show relation between species, it also shows diversity.

Fang: The word kind can only be applied in the context of the creation model, but can not be dismissed as impossible due to the evolutionary bias, simply because evolution has not been properly validated nor can it be held to be true until it can correctly be shown to be impossible to falsify.

Ben: No theory is impossible to falsify, and if any is, we’ll never know. We may never know the truth, but we can eliminate the non-truths. That said, “kind” is a useless word due to non-specificity. It’s never been truly and specifically defined by a creationist, and when it has, that definition has never stuck.

Fang: One must look at the evidence without bias and conclude based on contemporary evidence (not speculation) if indeed evolution is the cause of the diversity of species, or not. It must also been demonstrated if the clear and distinct species do or do not share a common ancestor with each other, regardless that they may appear to be of the same family or design.

Ben: I’m starting to think that you think we only accept evolution because different species of cat look kind of similar. You need to do a lot of reading, sir, if this is the case.

Fang: In order to verify this, all that needs to be done is to demonstrate that a lion and cheetah do or do not have a common ancestor; if it can be demonstrated that any animal or plant within a family (cats in this case) do not share a common ancestor with each other, this would disprove evolution immediately and prove supernatural creation of kinds.

Ben: Not necessarily. What if a species appears to be a felid, and is proved to not be a felid at all? While it’s fairly close to impossible, it is possible that creature was dropped here from a parallel dimension, or outer space, and originated on a planet where evolution occurred in a similar manner as it did here. More plausibly, it could be that the creature actually is from another family. Take the example of the panda. At one point, it was classified as a member of Procyonidae which is the family that includes raccoons. It was found to not be part of this family at all. Was evolution disproven? No. It was shown that the panda was in fact a member of Ursidae, the “bear” family. You’d have to show, when any species is shown to not be related to its family, that it isn’t part of another one.

Fang: However, since lions and cheetahs are both clearly of the same family or design, and can potentially interbreed, we must be careful not to overlook the possibility of a very recent common ancestor.

Ben: Define “recent”. In evolutionary terms, “recent” can mean millions of years.

Fang: If such is the case, this does not exclude the possibility that the two are originally from two separate kinds that do not share a common ancestor previous to them having one.

Ben: This is why I am actually bothering to do this. You show at least a modicum of openmindedness, which shows that we’re getting through to you, slowly.

Fang: It is therefore necessary to build an ancestral history based on verifiable evidence (not homogeneous structures in the fossil record) that can clearly demonstrate where exactly the cheetah and the lion had a common ancestor.

Ben: While it may appear to be so, fossil records show enough difference to not be homogeneous. Regardless, with cheetahs and lions, and with some fossils, we can analyze DNA to get a more accurate picture of common ancestry.

Fang: If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias, and this test is performed between two or more of any plant or animal life without ever finding anything to the contrary, we can confirm with certainty evolution did not happen, and that kinds do exist.

Ben: The “without bias” part gives me both hope and fear. Hope, because it admits you’re willing to shed creationist bias, fear, because it gives you an easy out if you’re shown wrong.
Regardless, kinds DO exist. Since you’ve not defined them satisfactorily, they can be anything and everything biological, and can be as specific or non-specific as possible. I’m a human of the Kanien’Kahake/Caucasian male kind. Earlier today, I ate some fried-egg of the chicken kind with some ham of the honey-glazed kind. As I type this, I’m also reading an article about the Mokele Mbembe, a dinosaur of the probably-mythical-but-possibly-actually-a-rhinoceros-that-bad-translators-confused-for-sauropod kind.

Fang: In the event that fossils are too elusive (compounded with the fact that they can not be used as evidence of common descent due to circular reasoning e.g. homogeneous structures), then there is a superior and far more effective way to falsify evolution.

Ben: Luckily, fossils aren’t “too elusive” and aren’t homogeneous enough to dismiss.

Fang: Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy) that the first lifeforms increased in complexity and size by introduction of new traits, slowly increasing step by step to more complex life forms. Notice that the addition of such traits can not be attributed to the alteration of old ones, for obvious reasons, since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.

Ben: They can be, however, attributed to allele frequency increasing. As I stated before, evolution is the change in frequency of alleles. That’s a minor change. More alleles, however, means more genetic material. That genetic material can be altered, thus adding more complexity and diversity.

Fang: That means a bacteria becoming able to digest nylon is a mere mutation of already existing digestive capabilities, and can not be classified as an increase in traits.

Ben: You’d have to be pretty flexible to accept this. When bacteria that has the “trait” of being able to digest one particular thing, which evolves to be able to digest that as well as another particular thing (like nylon) then that second ability is in fact a new trait. It may be a mutation of its existing digestive capabilities, but it’s still a new trait.

Fang: Evolution theory would predict that the process of gradual change and increase in traits is an ongoing process, and therefore should be observable in todays living animals and plants through new emerging traits that any given plant or animal did not possess in its ancestry. Those who say such changes take millions of years and can not be observed today only say so because no such trait has ever been observed to emerge or be in the process of emerging in contemporary history, which is what the creation model predicts.

Ben: Nylon eating bacteria is a perfect example of such a trait. Your definition of “new trait” in the previous video is discounted by evolution, as I stated last time. OK?

Fang: If evolution theory be true, we would expect that at least one animal or plant would contain a new trait or be in the process of growing such a triat over its known common ancestors (that is not simply a multiplication or alteration of a trait it already had).

Ben: Addressed it in the last post.

Fang: At this point, the fossil record can not be used as evidence to prove that evolution can produce new traits due to the fact that two animals that appear to be of the same family (T-rex and Brontosaurus, dinosaurs), while they do indeed exhibit distinct trait differences, may not have a common ancestor, but rather were created differently with all their different traits.

Ben: Since when were dinosaurs all counted as one family? Tyrannosaurus Rex is of the family Tyrannosauridae, Apatosaurus (formerly known as Brontosaurus) is of the family Diplodicidae. Regardless, you are simply saying that creation is possible without showing evidence for it. That’s how this entire thing has gone so far.

Fang: It is therefore of paramount importance to show a single instance of such an increase of traits exists within a provable ancestry (stress provable) in contemporary times, and not assume anything concerning where the traits in the fossil record owe their origin. If it can not be shown that any animal or plant living today (or very recently deceased) exhibits any trait variance that can clearly and thoroughly be proven to be a new addition over its (stress) provable ancestors, compounded with the reasoning that two similar animals (such as a penguin and a woodpecker) do not necessarily or provably share a common ancestor, then evolution is clearly absent entirely, and supernatural intelligent design and creation is thereby proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Ben: This sounds familiar. I think it’s because I addressed it previously.

Fang: In conclusion, should any two animals or plants within a family (a palm tree and a coconut tree) be proven to not share a common ancestor, or if no provable increase of traits can be demonstrated to be in its beginnings or actively present in the animals and plants living today over their provable ancestry, then The Bible is correct when it says God created all the animals and plants as distinct kinds with their traits to begin with. This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.

Ben: Incredible. First, the palm tree IS the family that the coconut tree is a part of! In fact, the proper name of the Coconut Tree is the Coconut PALM Tree. Look up Family Arecaceae please.
Second, this is a false dichotomy, as I’ve said before.
Thirdly…while the fact that you said that evolution being disproven proves any form of creation is fallacious, the fact that you said it proves a very specific form of creation (biblical, christian creation, presumably protestant young earth creationism) as opposed to any of the thousands of other forms of creation (christian old earth creationism, other Abrahamic traditions such as islam, the dharmic ideas of creationism, the various creation myths of indigenous peoples around the world, and every form of creationism we’ve not come up with) is just stupid.

Conclusion: You’re getting better, but you just can’t prove creationism, and you can’t prove evolution wrong without using science. And you aren’t.

I'd also like to formally, publicly challenge VenomFangX to a debate on all this, and on the existence of his god. Will he accept? We'll see.

Read more!

Epic destruction of VenomFangX's Magnum Opus

VenomFangX posted a video that supposedly destroyed evolution. I’m here to destroy that video. In the original form of this video (which has been taken down) he claimed that this would earn him a Nobel Prize. Of course, we can expect nothing but the best in scientific research from Shawn.

Here is a re-upload of his video (I won’t give him any more views)
I’ll do this in “script” format. Shawn’s words=Fang, my words=Ben. Links will be noted by the words "Click Here".


Fang: How to falsify evolution by Shawn VenomFangX

Ben: You have been doing that all along, Shawn. According to answers.com, the first definition of falsify is:

To state untruthfully; misrepresent.

OK, that was a cheap shot. I’ll steer clear of those from here on in.

Fang: If it can be clearly demonstrated that no single living creature contains a trait that it's ancestors did not posses (e.g. a new limb, organ, sensory ability, or similar clearly new traits over its provable ancestors), and are not repeated or altered versions of old traits (evolution can not work unless new traits emerge to increase a single living cell to something the size and complexity of an elephant), then it can reasonably be concluded that the variations of traits across the various species of all life forms are not the result of increased genetic complexity by way of evolution, but rather the result of active creation by way of intelligent design. In other words, the animals and plants alive today should logically be in a state of entropy from the original creation (that is to say, animals were created as distinct and varied kinds by a designer, in their full complexity, rather than through a process of evolution), and have since been losing the fullness of those traits, not gaining new ones.

Ben: There are some massive problems here. Firstly, Shawn has previously made the statement that one can’t claim there is no god without knowing all there is to know, because if you only know half of all there is to know, what is to say that god doesn’t exist in the other half? (He said that in this video from about 02:19 to 02:43: Click here ) This goes for his argument here as well. If you know half of all there is to know, how do you know that a creature that possesses a trait its ancestors didn’t possess doesn’t exist in the half you don’t know? Would that not obliterate your entire hypothesis? Since we haven’t explored the entire universe, and we are discovering new species regularly how do you know there isn’t a life form in some distant galaxy, or even on this planet, that fits this bill?

Secondly, you’re demonstrating a marked misunderstanding of evolution by saying that new traits will suddenly emerge that are not altered versions of old traits. (In fact, I could say that you are “falsifying” evolution, according to the first definition of the word) A mouse didn’t just give birth to a bat, for example. Over many generations, the forelegs of the common ancestor of the various species of bat grew more and more long, and had larger and larger flaps of skin between the forelegs and the sides of the body. Eventually, these legs became wings, which are, in reality, altered versions of legs (if you use a definition of “altered” which doesn’t suggest that someone consciously changed them). There are several other examples of this (scales to feathers, gills to lungs, etc.) Evolution claims that there are changes in allele frequency in species from generation to generation, and this gradually causes new traits to emerge from older ones and new species to develop. It never claims that new traits pop out of thin air, and in fact denies this. What you’re doing is saying that evolution is proven false if a phenomenon which evolution says can not happen does not happen. This is fairly absurd, to say the least.

Thirdly, why must this creature be living? Wouldn’t a fossil of a creature which possesses traits its ancestors didn’t prove you wrong?

Fourthly, how does evolution being wrong prove that there’s a creator? There are other options possible. For example, it could be that all life forms popped into existence as they currently are without any intervention, divine or otherwise. When you think about it, this makes almost as much sense as a perfect being having a need to create something to be fulfilled.

Fang: It is important therefore to define what a "kind" is, and where and how it can be applied. If evolution be true, the word "kind" has no significance, as there would be no clear distinctions between when one animal became another "kind" of animal beyond our superficial labels.

Ben: False. Depending on your definition of “kind”, if it dwells within the Animal Kingdom, “kind” could mean Phylum, Class, Order, Family, etc. These aren’t superficial labels by any means, and they are quite significant within evolution.

Fang: However, if my theory be true (that by act of creation all animals and plants were made varied and distinct), then a kind is the original prototype, or the first ancestor in a family line.

Ben: So your definition of “kind” is, essentially, “common ancestor”. That is what I gather from this.

Fang: Going against conventional evolutionary thought; a lion, a tiger, a cheetah, and a leopard are clearly all cats, but they do not necessarily belong to the same kind. That is to say even though they share common design and might even be able to interbreed, they might very well have a separate ancestry.

Ben: I would really like to know how.

Fang: If it can be demonstrated that no animal or plant within its kind presently living (that is to entertain the idea that my hypothesis is true, and treat each animal as distinct with its own ancestral past) contains any trait that can not be found within its provable ancestral history, then evolution can be falsified. Once again, when speaking of traits, it must be as defined above in the first paragraph, with the exclusion of detrimental or beneficial mutations that alter traits that already existed in the past, without actually introducing a new trait. This would undeniably prove that the types of changes evolution theory requires to bypass the distinct families of animals (e.g. mammals and reptiles) from one to another is a physical impossibility, both in the present and the past, as no living creature alive today would therefore show any signs of gradual change to any of its traits (or the addition of new ones) that can be classified as being the precursors to an act of evolution into another kind of animal by introduction of new traits (not simply multiplying or subtracting or otherwise altering old traits).

Ben: It might be beneficial now to plug TalkOrigins. Here’s a link to an article on “macroevolution”. Click here.

It can certainly explain things better than I can. Plus, I’ve already covered this misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.

Fang: The mutations witnessed today have never shown to introduce new features such as an animal growing wings, or the beginnings of such an ability, where its ancestors did not possess such a trait.

Ben: I’ve already explained, in a brief and simplistic manner, how wings developed in bats. As I described, they aren’t “new features” so much as changes to older features.

Fang: It is therefore possible to conclude with absolute certainty based on this line of reasoning that the variations of animals and plants throughout the world living today are not the result of evolution (the act of increased genetic and physical additions and/or traits that any given ancestor did not possess), but rather the survival of the offspring of an original prototype.

Ben: In science, one can never conclude something with absolute certainty. If you wish to falsify a well respected theory like evolution, you must be scientific about it.
I must criticize your grammar here. You define evolution as the act of increased genetic and physical additions and/or traits that any given ancestor did not possess. That, sir, is not grammatically correct in the least. A better way of saying that would be to remove the words “the act of” since “increased genetic and physical additions” is a noun with two adjectives, a conjunction, and a past tense intransitive verb, but there’s no “action” verb. It’s also not a satisfactory definition of evolution. A good textbook definition of evolution (literally) is:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Notice how she said “any change”. This can mean subtractions as well as additions.

That said, what you essentially said was “the variations of animals and plants are not the result of evolution, but rather of evolution.” See, the survivors of the offspring of the original prototype, and their offspring, will have differing allele frequencies-and thus, they will have evolved.

Fang: Should evolution theory be true, we would expect at very least one single animal or plant to show clear signs of development of new traits from its likewise kind (a bird for example that has something no other bird from its ancestral history has).

Ben: Depending on how strict you are, we’ve seen many of those. If you’re going to hold to what you said initially, then it’s clearly impossible to show this-which is something that evolutionary theory predicts. If you are reasonable about this, it’s rather simple to show clear signs of development of new traits. Here’s a TalkOrigins FAQ on mutations, which has some examples of clear signs of development of new traits. Click here.


Fang: However, to assume just because two birds are radically different (for example, a penguin and a woodpecker) and conclude based upon their differences that they must have evolved from a common ancestor, is a bias and can not be used as evidence of evolution.

Ben: There are three things to point out here. One is that you yourself can be accused of having a bias against evolution, as evidenced by the false dichotomy you used earlier when you said that if evolution was disproved, creationism would be proved. Another is that there really is no bias here, except a manufactured one. It is concluded, based upon their SIMILARITIES, that they must have evolved from a common ancestor. This is a logical conclusion, if the similarities are sufficient. And that is my third point. Many species that appear radically different are, in actuality, quite similar. Penguins and woodpeckers are both carnivorous birds, they both have feathers, wings, and beaks, they’re both bipedal, warm blooded, their general physiology with regards to internal organs is remarkably similar, and both lay eggs rather than live birthing. There are differences (penguins are larger and cannot fly, the shape of woodpeckers’ beaks differ from penguins’, etc.) but hardly enough to constitute radical difference.

Fang: The penguin and the woodpecker do not necessarily have a common ancestor, as I've stated in the above paragraph using the example of the cat family.

Ben: This is the problem with your previous statement: it was just a statement. There was nothing to back it up. You can’t use that previous unsupported statement to support this unsupported statement.

Fang: If it can not be demonstrated due to lack of provable evidence that these two birds share a common ancestor, compounded with the fact that you can not prove the penguin or the woodpecker did not have the traits it now possesses in its ancestral history, compounded yet again by the lack of new developing traits; it is possible to conclude that these two animals (while both birds) were in fact designed to be birds originally, with distinctions from other birds, as with every single animal and plant on the planet with a clear and provable ancestry. Should no single trait be found to have been added or is the process of being added within the provable ancestral line of either the penguin, woodpecker, or any animal or plant; this means the radical differences we see within a kind (such as within the plant world, for example a maple tree and a palm tree) are most obviously surviving remnants of the original creation and design which was created with diversity from the beginning, and has survived until today as a separate kind, and are not the result of an evolutionary history or common ancestry.

Ben: The good thing about fallacious arguments is that they often start with a fallacious foundation and build upon it. Once the foundation is damaged or destroyed, the whole thing collapses. Of course, Shawn is right here, assuming his understanding of evolution is good. However, some of these challenges have been met (common ancestry is a fact) and others have been shown to be impossible by evolutionary theory, and therefore, the fact that we don’t see them should be evidence for evolution, not against (the “new trait” thing).

Fang: It is therefore also useless to use the fossil record in this demonstration, because it can not clearly be shown that two similar animals that are radically different by way of distinct traits (e.g. a T-rex and a Brontosaurus) shared a common ancestor and are therefore the same kind. It is also useless to show the difference between living creatures (such as a house cat and a lion) who exhibit slight alterations of features, like the lions mane, without being able to prove a house cat and a lion share a common ancestor.

Ben: Fair enough. But how many common ancestors must we show you? The evidence for house cats and lions having common ancestry is fairly solid. Click Here and then Click Here



Fang: If my theory be true, the cat family (along with all other kinds of animals and plants) were created diversified originally, and they have maintained through survival of these separate species many of their individual characteristics without becoming a new kind of animal or plant, while remaining the kind of animal they were originally created to be, with the possibility of interbreeding (thus introducing traits that may be new for a species or kind, but not for the overall family). That is to say a tiger may never have had a lion's mane in its history, but through interbreeding would gain one.

Ben: You should start using the word “is” rather than “be”. It’s starting to get annoying. You do also have to clarify how you know what kind of animal any animal was originally created to be. What if a tiger was created to be a kind of animal that does not have a mane, but did gain one through interbreeding? Would that disprove your theory?
One other critique-please pick a definition of “kind” and stick with it. Earlier on you said that a “kind” is the original prototype, now you’re saying that all animals are the “kind” of animal they were made to be. They can’t all be original prototypes. So what do you mean by “kind”?

Fang: However, this is not evolution; this is the mixing of traits that already existed previously in the lion's ancestral history, and potentially was created in the beginning with that trait.

Ben: Actually, that is evolution, in part, though you don’t need to add the part about the trait being created.

Fang: It can not therefore be demonstrated where the trait of the mane itself originated, and therefore can not be said to be evolution.

Ben: Wait, where and how exactly did you show this? That it can not be demonstrated where the lion’s mane came from?

Fang: To further elaborate, the theory of evolution states that simple life increased in genetic material and complexity, thereby introducing new organs, functionality, design and intelligence (in the case of humans). A supporter of evolution would claim evolution takes too long to see any of the traits I am describing emerge.

Ben: I guess you won’t tell me where you showed that we can’t determine where the lion’s mane originated. Oh well. The traits you are describing don’t happen, period, so no relatively educated supporter of evolution would say that they did.

Fang: This objection is simply not fair; it does not explain why not a single animal or plant living today exhibits any single clearly identifiable addition of traits or the process of adding one that would otherwise be defined as an event potentially leading to the kinds of radically changes evolution theory needs to be possible, or simply be inarguably the beginning of such a transformation or new trait (as defined originally).

Ben: I think I’m seeing where you’re coming from…the problem is, however, that the beginning of such a transformation or new trait is fairly hard to pinpoint. That’s why it’s called “gradual” changes rather than “sudden”.

Fang: It must be noted that any and all assumptions must not be made concerning what is related and what is not, even if it looks very similar, e.g. a lion and tiger, when provoking the idea that animals and plants were supernaturally created instead of evolved naturally. Without the bias that evolution theory imposes on the natural world, we can not so quickly determine what is related on an ancestral level and what is not.

Ben: Evolution doesn’t impose any bias anywhere. No science does. There are a lot of theistic evolutionists, not the least of whom is Dr. Kenneth Miller who has dedicated a considerable amount of time to debunking creationism.

Fang: Therefore, when comparing two species of animals that are not clearly the same kind (as defined) such as a donkey and a zebra, to assume they share a common ancestor is an error, simply because they share common design. Even if the Zebra had a new organ (or in this case, a stripe pattern that other horses do not), this is not evidence of the fact that zebras and donkeys shared a common ancestor and the zebras "evolved". While they are of similar design and can even potentially interbreed, they do not necessarily share a common ancestor and were potentially created as different prototypes (kinds) to begin with.

Ben: You’ve not satisfactorily defined “kind”, though this does narrow it down-sort of. Donkeys and zebras are, in fact, of the same genus, specifically, Genus Equus. Donkeys are of the subgenus Asinus, and zebras are, depending on which species of zebra you are speaking of, subgenus Dolichohippus or subgenus Hippotigris. So, I am assuming, based upon what you’ve said, that the “kind” is the original prototype of a particular subgenus (or species) and the individual member of that subgenus (or species)? If this is correct, then you’re taking a page from Aristotle’s version of metaphysics. Just replace the word “kind” with “form” and tweak it a bit, and there you go. The problem is that philosophy and science are separate fields, so you should not confuse them as you seem to have.

Fang: To falsify this claim, it must be clearly demonstrated that the zebra and the donkey share a common ancestor (as opposed to a common designer who created them separately and slightly differently) and that not only did the zebra gain its stripes through mutation, but that no other explanation exists whereby the zebra and the donkey could logically be so different, yet similar.

Ben: How can we determine that there is a common ancestor? Obviously, there are the physical and physiological similarities. There’s the fact that they can sometimes interbreed, which IS evidence for evolution. Then there’re the genetic similarities. All of these are readily available to you, yet I assume that you want more. You don’t need more evidence than that.

Fang: Evolutionists are guilty of assuming all horses (donkeys, zebras) share a common ancestor for their bias against the possibility of a designer who made the horse kind diversified to begin with.

Ben: Donkeys and zebras aren’t horses. I’ve already mentioned the subgenus of the various species of zebra and donkey, all of which are in Genus Equus. Horses are in Genus Equus, subgenus Equus (sorry if this confuses you. There is both a genus and a subgenus called “Equus”). That said…I’m beginning to think you don’t know what a “kind” is. You said it was a prototype. You said it was the animal itself. You said that donkeys and zebras were not of the same kind. You said that horses, donkeys and zebras are all of the same kind. If you wish to be taken seriously, PLEASE revise this.

Fang: To falsify these claims, again, it must be demonstrated that a zebra and donkey share a common ancestor, and that by the introduction of new traits they diversified, as opposed to the possibility that the two were never related to begin with and were created differently, yet with many similarities (being the same family or design of animal, a horse, with the ability to interbreed).

Ben: And it’s been done. They’ve been demonstrated to have a common ancestor. The “new traits” thing did happen, but not the way that you claim they have to have.

Fang: In the event that the donkey and zebra do have a common ancestor, that still does not prove evolution; for the minor changes between a zebra and a donkey may very well be attributed to natural selection, mutation, and adaptation (not evolution, despite the claim that evolution works on these principals).

Ben: Now you’re redefining evolution so that it doesn’t include what the theory is essentially based on? On what grounds do you do this?

Fang: To prove evolution, it must be demonstrated that two creatures of the same ancestral line exhibit differences that were not present during its ancestry (in other words, gained traits its ancestors did not possess) beyond any reasonable doubt (the fossil record is inadequate at this point).

Ben: As I’ve stated before, it’s impossible to find a new trait, in the way that you’ve defined “new trait”. However, new traits do develop out of old ones-and the fossil record does show this gradual development.

Fang: It must be proven by way of hard evidence on living plants or animals (or recently deceased) that an animal or plant with a clear and distinct ancestry (not speculation or lining up fossils to create some fantastical, unverifiable story) possesses a trait or is developing a trait that it did not possess in its ancestry.

Ben: Why must we have living plants or animals to demonstrate this? When do we decide that a new trait is developing? Why do you think that fossil records are unverifiable? I can’t see any actual reason for any of this-at least not an intellectually honest one.

Fang: Should such an animal or plant be found, it must also be shown that on a genetic level the traits it is now developing are not dormant genes expressing themselves due to adaptation, mutation, or natural selection, that its ancestors possessed previously. In order for the trait to be considered new (thereby verifying evolution), the trait can not be the result of anything from the past, which can simply be understood to be a capability it was programmed with from its original design.

Ben: Even assuming that we DO find a definite “new trait” under your definition, what’s to say you won’t ask us to find the “original horse design” to verify that it didn’t have that trait?

Fang: For example, for those who claim that a bacteria becoming able to digest nylon is proof of evolution, this is simply dishonest; the digestive capabilities of bacteria can indeed be changed (as can many traits within all kinds of plants and animals that already exist, which is easily understood as an ability that life was designed with).

Ben: The digestive capabilities of an individual bacterium cannot change. It’s only the offspring of that bacterium who show any change in relation to its ancestor. It’s not as if a bacterium says “today, I will be able to eat metal!” and then proceeds to munch away on a steel girder.

Fang: The problem is that those who use such arguments believe that bacteria do not possess the capability to change their digestive abilities without attributing such a micro-level alteration to how bacteria themselves are designed to be able to adapt. This gross error extends to all forms of animals and plants, and this bias too must be set aside.

Ben:…I’m speechless.

Fang: In conclusion, if no single animal or plant exhibits any new traits from its clearly defined and proven ancestry (and not members of the same family or design that differ such as a house cat or lion), or a species can be shown not to share a common ancestor with its family (I am highly suspicious of the penguin) then not only can evolution be confirmed to be impossible both now and in the past for its lack of present day appearance in any living creatures or plant life, but it is also inadequate to explain the sudden appearances of specific kinds or species that do not share common ancestry with its family as evolutionary theory would predict.

Ben:…wow. Shawn, you have blown my mind. Firstly, your arrogant assertion of knowledge in a subject you know nothing about is beyond astounding. Secondly…WHAT SPECIFIC KINDS OR SPECIES HAVE SUDDENLY APPEARED AT ALL? AND WHAT KINDS OR SPECIES DO NOT SHARE COMMON ANCESTRY WITH ITS FAMILY? (Nevermind that you have NO real definition of what a “kind” is) Seriously. Do you expect to be taken seriously with this?

Fang: For evolution to be true, it must be a continual process that does not simply "end" when it is convenient or when looked at under a microscope.

Ben: Who ever said it ended, ever? It only happens between generations. I’m not evolving right now, you’re not evolving right now, but when/if either of us ever reproduces, our offspring will have evolved slightly. That doesn’t mean evolution has “stopped” by any means.

Fang: There must be a single provable example living today (although there should be countless of such examples across every single form of plant and animal life, yet there are none), whereby an animal or plant possesses a trait (or beginning of) that its provable ancestors did not possess.

Ben: I hate repeating myself, but your definition of “new trait” is ruled out by evolutionary theory.

Fang: Also, if such an enigma should arise as to present an animal or plant that is clearly misplaced and clearly not a descendant of its own family, and if no such trait can be found to conclude beyond any doubt that evolutionary changes are possible as defined in this hypothesis, then evolution is officially impossible and should be proclaimed to be so immediately.

Ben: That scenario would itself be impossible. If any animal or plant (or a member of any other kingdom) was found that wasn’t descended from its family, then it wouldn’t be in that family. It would be in another family, or it would be its own.

Fang: This would also verify the existence of a Creator God.

Ben: No, it wouldn’t. I gave a perfectly reasonable alternative, which is every bit as reasonable as the idea that a perfect being had need of anything else to be fulfilled.

Fang: To verify my claims look up the Penguin, or a particular animal that seems to stand out from its family (in this case, the bird family). You’ll notice that the evolutionary history of the Penguin is missing entirely! The evolutionists don’t know where to put it!

Ben: There is no “bird family”. There’s the bird CLASS, more properly known as Class Aves. We do have the penguin’s evolutionary history. We also know where to put the penguin. It’s in the subclass Neornithes, in the infraclass Neognathae, superorder Neoaves, order Sphenisciformes, family Spheniscidae. It’s essentially its own family, where the 17-20 penguin species (depending on who you ask) are placed.

Fang: In fact, the Penguin has been proven to be MUCH larger in the past, which complicates matters.

Ben: No it doesn’t. The oldest horses were about the size of modern foxes, which is a larger size differential than the human-sized penguin vs. the tiny penguin. If that didn’t pose a significant challenge to evolution, your man-sized penguins won’t either.

Fang: They discovered a man-sized penguin fossil in the Peru Desert.

Ben: It’s called, alternatively, the Sechuria Desert, the Peruvian Desert or the Peru-Chile Desert, and it’s part of the Atacama Desert, assuming we’re talking about the same desert. But, the more important point-who are “they”?

Fang: Supposedly it is 30-65 million years old (and while I believe the Earth is six thousand years old like The Bible teaches), and it is interesting to note that if you place the penguin back to the time of the emergence of birds, you need a man-sized penguin to come form a 500 millimeter (that’s 1.6 ft) archaeopteryx. Sorry, I don’t buy it.

Ben: The bible doesn’t claim that the world is 6000 years old, that’s an estimate based on the bible made in the 19th century. As for archaeopteryx, it existed 155-150 million years ago. Obviously, your man-sized penguins (how big exactly is “man sized”?) evolved from something else, which was descended from archaeopteryx. Also, the last little bit is the logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity. I haven’t kept a running tally of the logical fallacies you’ve made, but this is far from the first one.

Fang:[screen shots of articles about the man-sized penguins, and the skull of one of these penguins compared with one of a modern penguin, followed by a plug for one of Shawn’s videos about the “Great Flood”. I won’t advertise his other videos, which are full on nonsense]

NONE of these have a clear and provable evolutionary history and are therefore likely proof of my hypothesis.
[pictures of, in order: a bat, another bat, an Amazonian giant centipede, a scorpion, a platypus, a rattlesnake, another platypus, a spider]

Ben: You’re wrong, the history is there, you just didn’t look hard enough. Or at all. Seriously, any encyclopedia will tell you how to classify penguins, yet you claimed we don’t know how to classify them. That shows a phenomenal lack of study.

Fang: Evolution is a lie.

God is real.

Now you have no excuse.

Come quickly Lord Jesus.

-VenomFangX from YouTube (Shawn) May 19, 2008

Ben: The perfect way to end a serious scientific paper.

Conclusion: Based on the response to this video, I can safely conclude that people don’t seriously want to look at any argument that supports their point. Based on Shawn’s arrogant claim to have disproved evolution while displaying no grasp of it, I can safely conclude that human arrogance is fairly powerful compared to inquisitiveness. Based on the fact that Shawn has no idea what a “kind” is, pretends that a phenomenon that evolution predicted would not happen…not happening is evidence AGAINST evolution, and blatantly redefines evolution to not include natural selection, adaptation or mutation, I’d have to say he is an insidious propagandist of the worst kind. And no, I don’t mean “prototype”.

Edit: After I made this blog posting, VFX took down the video and made another version of this argument. I asked him to send me a transcript so I can debunk the new one. Watch this space.

Read more!

ATHEIST BLOGROLL!

We're now signed up with the atheist blogroll! You can check out other atheist weblogs on your right, it's in scrolling marquee fashion. Also, now that I have more free time, expect more updates soon!Seriously. Lots of updates. It'll rule.

Read more!

Evolution is the Easiest Thing To Debate About.

One of my favorite debates to date.

Me:
Why do you oppose the theory of evolution? I don't mean why do you think it's wrong, I mean why do you personally dislike the theory?
What is your interest in disproving this theory? What do you think disproving this theory will accomplish?
Would you still oppose the theory of evolution if it did not conflict with your theistic beliefs?
Are there other scientific theories that have nothing to do with evolution or the big bang that you oppose? Do these theories have any negative theistic implications?
There are scientific theories that are far more controversial, why do you not debate those?
If anyone has the time to answer these, I'd greatly appreciate it.

CJ:
1) I do not oppose the theory of evolution. I just know that it is not true. I do oppose it being taught as more then a theory, which it commonly is. I believe if you are going to teach one theory that is excruciatingly void of proof, you should be teaching more then just this theory.

2) I do not have an interest in disproving this theory, because it hasn't even begun to prove itself. This is like saying that I have interest in disproving the theory that my neighbor has that another neighbor was abducted by aliens. There is no support for this theory, therefore, nothing to disprove.

3) Yes, if this theory did not conflict with the truth then I would "oppose" it. (If by oppose you mean not believe it's ridiculous claims and encourage other's not to believe it as well or anxiously await the day that everyone realizes it belongs on the long list of obsolete scientific theories.)

4) Yes, I do disagree with other theories. I do not agree with the giant impact theory because of the lack of momentum. (If the theory was true it could oppose Christianity, because the Bible says God created the sun and moon, but it does not say how He he created either, so it could actually be accepted by a Christian without conflictions. The theory, however is not true.) This is just an example of one.

5) If someone approaches me trying to debate another theory that is more controversial (I don't know which theory you are referring to) like maybe the steady state theory and I have appropriate knowledge of the theory, I would debate that, as well. I am not selective towards evolution, although it is the most widely accepted of the ridiculous and controversial theories that I know of. It is accepted for the wrong reasons, though. Never accept a theory for the mere fact you lack an explanation that suits your purpose.

Hope this answers all your questions, Meagan.

Me: Misconceptions About The Theory Of Evolution

What is Science?


Statistically, the American public doesn't understand what science is, or how it works, which is why I include this.
Science is a particular branch of knowledge that deals with how humans categorize, study and view the world.
Science is a system that is free from passion; what I mean is that it is a rational, methodical process that does not allow personal feelings to come into play.
Any and every scientific law or fact has been tested using the scientific method.


What is the Scientific Method?

The scientific method is comprised of several separate steps. The most important of which are Hypothesis, Test, Conclusion, Falsifiability and then the experiments are subject to Peer Review.

Hypothesis is an idea about how something works. The scientist sees a natural phenomena and postulates an idea as to how said phenomena could work.

Test is when the scientist gathers evidence that would support the hypothesis. This is achieved through scientific experimentation in a controlled laboratory setting and a lot of research.

After testing, the scientist arrives at a Conclusion. In a conclusion the scientist verifies that the collected evidence supports his/her original hypothesis. If the evidence does NOT support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is thrown out. It can also be revised, but if it is, the scientist must go back to step one.

Falsifiability.
For an assertion to be falsifiable, one must be logically able to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. Remember, 'falsifiable' doesn't mean 'false'. For more on Falsifiability.

Peer Review occurs when the scientist has concluded that his evidence supports his hypothesis. He then submits his findings to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Then, accredited scientists worldwide attempt to disprove the original hypothesis. If the hypothesis can not be disproved by any scientist in the world, then the hypothesis becomes a scientific theory.

What is a Scientific Theory?

A scientific theory is something that has been proven true multiple times by using the scientific method.
The misconception is that when you use the word 'theory' in layman's terms, it means 'idea you made up'. However, when it is used in a scientific context, the word 'theory' takes on a much more serious meaning.

Theory, when used in a scientific context is an explanation that best fits all of the evidence available. A theory can take years to prove, and it must be agreed upon by the scientific community.

The reality is, that if evolution were erroneous, then it would have been thrown out again years ago. Scientists don't play favorites with their theories. In example, Newton's laws of Gravity were revised by Einstein when they were found to not adequately explain gravity in many adverse situations; this was Einstein's theory of relativity.
Gravity is "only" a theory.
Heliocentrism is "only" a theory.
In general, a theory is a collection of smaller scientific facts that are placed together to allow for an explanation of a larger topic.

Theory refers to a "logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts." - National Center for Science Education.

What is the Theory of Evolution?

The theory of Evolution is held up to the same level of scrutiny that any other scientific finding is subject to. Perhaps more, due to its controversial nature.
It is erroneous and kind of foolish to assert that the same scientific method that brings us flight, electricity, open heart surgery, space travel, the internet(I could go on like this) - was CORRECT about all of these things, but completely wrong about the theory of evolution.
The fact of the matter is that if there were compelling evidence against evolution, the theory would have been discredited and thrown out. For all of the criticism evolution has received from theists, not one piece of evidence has ever been able to discredit evolution, and they've been trying for 150 years.
Modern biology(ie medical science) is based on and dependent on the theory of evolution.

Evolution works off of at least 3 independent processes, and when taken together form what we mean by 'evolution'. These are replication, variation and selection, and they are all observable facts.
a> Replication is simply reproduction. Everything alive in nature reproduces, from the orchid to the oyster to the human.
b> Variation- How things change from the parent to the offspring.
-"shuffling": involves the various genes in male and female sex cells after these cells combine. The 'shuffling' puts together new gene combinations, thus making the offspring different from their parents(You have brown hair, your mother doesn't, etc).
-Mutation: rare changes in genes, usually inherited. Can occur as copying errors in early stages of cell reproduction. Mutations can be neutral, harmful or beneficial to the organism.
Yes, variations are random, but to deny they exist is an exercise in tedium.
c>If you've followed so far, you'll realize that things reproduce, and when they reproduce their offspring can be different from the parents in many ways, both good and bad. Some of these changes, say better eyesight, can be beneficial to the organism in question. Now we're down to Selection.
-Natural Selection is where these variations get tested. If a certain variation gives that individual a higher chance of survival, the odds increase that this individual will live long enough to reproduce and pass along this new trait. Natural Selection is not random. It does not 'decide' to let a particular variation get passed along to new generations en masse, rather it only allows that the beneficial variations do. To state that such a process is 'random' is to misunderstand it entirely. What can be random about only allowing beneficial deviations to pass en mass to future generations?
-Sexual Selection involves members of one sex preferring certain characteristics in the opposite sex and then choosing a mate based on those characteristics. How is this random? The preferred characteristics are the ones that are passed on because those are the animals that mate.
Put all of those things together, and that's how evolution works.
Once again, each and everything I've listed is an observable scientific fact.

Micro-evolution: small changes within a particular species.
Macro-Evolution: small changes that, over thousands or millions of years can lead to new species.

CJ:
I hope this was not the blog you said you would be posting in order to respond to my answers to your questions. I was under the impression that the promised blog would be telling me how wrong I was, but this one has nothing to do with my answers, so perhaps that blog is not yet posted. I am just going to comment on this point by point.

Good job. You were able to provide detailed explanations of science, scientific method, and scientific theory.

Secondly, I just need to verify something. Do you mean to say that the theory of evolution is true just for the mere fact it is accepted? That is not very logical. You can not possibly say that it is accepted because it is true, because as I have said to you before, you can not give evidence that it is true, which is going to lead to my next point, but first, let's look at scientific theories that were once widely accepted as true. The Phlogiston Theory stated that there was a fifth element called phlogiston that was contained within combustible bodies. (Accepted for almost 100 years.) The Aristotelian Gravitational Theory stated that all bodies moved towards their natural place. For certain objects, Aristotle explained that their natural place was perhaps the center of the Earth. For gases and such, he explained that their natural place could be the moon. (This was accepted from the 4th Century BC until the 16th Century.) It is irrelevant how long a theory is accepted. People can go on being ignorant as long as they want, a theory does not become more true the longer you state that it is.

Now, about the evidence. You said that you could show me empirical evidence that I would just dismiss. The definition of empirical is "derived from observation or experiment." We are unable to "observe" evolution. We could not possibly "experiment" with evolution. We are missing necessary material evidence not empirical evidence.

Also, back to scientific method for a moment. A major part of the scientific method is scientific testing. Can you tell me how this theory was tested.

I enjoyed your list of things that science has been correct about. However, once again, how completely irrelevant to another theory. Scientific method does not always fail, and being able to see that a theory is incorrect does not imply a lack of support for the scientific method. I have already gave a couple of examples about things that science has been wrong about and if you would like, I could go on as well. If you are attempting to be logical and present an acceptable debate, do not use a completely extaneous statement as validation.

"Modern biology(ie medical science) is based on and dependent on the theory of evolution." Would you call this a fact or an opinion? And are you referring to micro-evolution or macro-evolution?

I would love to go on, but I may be late for class.

Me:
"I hope this was not the blog you said you would be posting in order to respond to my answers to your questions. I was under the impression that the promised blog would be telling me how wrong I was, but this one has nothing to do with my answers, so perhaps that blog is not yet posted. I am just going to comment on this point by point."


Yes, this post was a refutation to everything that you had asserted previously.
It was obvious to me that you had little to no knowledge about what a scientific theory is and how they come into existence. I discerned this fact from reading your analogy where you liken a scientific theory to a theory your neighbor has about aliens. If you truly understood what a scientific theory was, you would understand that this is a completely ridiculous thing to say.
I also noticed from your statements about the 'ridiculous claims of evolution', that you didn't seem to grasp what the theory actually postulates. Therefore, I decided it would be best to break it down into small pieces and explain it to you. In doing so, I assumed that you would understand that all of the basic principles of evolution(replication, variation and selection) are very simple, observable scientific facts.


"Secondly, I just need to verify something. Do you mean to say that the theory of evolution is true just for the mere fact it is accepted? That is not very logical. You can not possibly say that it is accepted because it is true, because as I have said to you before, you can not give evidence that it is true,"


I am, in fact saying that it is accepted because it is true - because it is true. Because it is the explanation that best fits all the observations and data that we have available we assert it to be true. The fields of paleontology, biology and genetics are largely based on and completely support evolution. Creationism cannot make the same claim.
I'll ask you again, what type of evidence do you expect to see?

"which is going to lead to my next point, but first, let's look at scientific theories that were once widely accepted as true. The Phlogiston Theory stated that there was a fifth element called phlogiston that was contained within combustible bodies. (Accepted for almost 100 years.) The Aristotelian Gravitational Theory stated that all bodies moved towards their natural place. For certain objects, Aristotle explained that their natural place was perhaps the center of the Earth. For gases and such, he explained that their natural place could be the moon. (This was accepted from the 4th Century BC until the 16th Century.) It is irrelevant how long a theory is accepted. People can go on being ignorant as long as they want, a theory does not become more true the longer you state that it is."

The claim that 'science was wrong before' is one commonly used by people espousing quack theories such as dousing, astrology, psychic ability, ect. Normally the people that make this claim have a vested interest in a currently accepted theory being incorrect or incomplete. The difference between people like that and actual scientists using the scientific method is that science is a self correcting enterprise. Meaning that as new evidence comes available that contradicts the current theory, the said theory is modified to accommodate the evidence or discarded in favor of one that does. Science is honest.It is the scientific method that has proven the theories that you have mentioned - to be false. And it was the evidence that did this.
The difference between this and the quack theories I listed earlier is that they make claims without evidence, as you have done. Simply saying an explanation that best fits all the data is wrong, while not having any evidence to support your claim is arrogant in the extreme.
Another thing I'd like to mention is that Aristotle based his theory on the best evidence that was available to him at the time; which was - given the technology of the era - quite small. And given the context of his limited observations, it made sense. It pains me to have to remind you that we are far more technologically advanced than Aristotle was when he first set forth his theory. In addition to that, it was Aristotles original theory that allowed Galileo and in turn Newton and in turn Einstein to postulate the improved theories that accommodated the new observations they were capable of making given modern technology. It wasn't so much that the theory was wrong as it was that it was limited to the scope of the observations that they were capable of making at the time.

"Now, about the evidence. You said that you could show me empirical evidence that I would just dismiss. The definition of empirical is "derived from observation or experiment." We are unable to "observe" evolution. We could not possibly "experiment" with evolution. We are missing necessary material evidence not empirical evidence."

Would you care to explain what 'material evidence' is? If you're referring to evidence that we can interact with in the physical realm, well then, that's ALL evidence. All evidence must exist in the physical realm.
You're wrong again, we CAN observe evolution in creatures with very short life spans, such as bacteria and insects. A very famous example of this is the peppered moth.
I think you misunderstand what 'experiment' means. It doesn't mean that I 'take evolution' and fuck around with it. An experiment is something you do in order to gain data. The fields of biology, paleontology and genetics are constantly 'experimenting with evolution', they gain scientific data through observation and testing.

"Also, back to scientific method for a moment. A major part of the scientific method is scientific testing. Can you tell me how this theory was tested."

It is tested through the observation of the growth and development of creatures that have a short life span, such as bacteria, and again - the peppered moth.
We also often experiment with artificial selection; evolution that is directed by a human hand, rather than natural conditions. The result is greatly accelerated, and it is how you turn a wolf into a poodle, or make a banana fit into your hand and be seedless.

"I enjoyed your list of things that science has been correct about. However, once again, how completely irrelevant to another theory."

See, that's what you don't get. It's not completely irrelevant to another theory.
It is the same method that allows us to arrive at all these theories, including evolution.
The scientific method has been proven time and time again by these examples to be the best method we have to understand and explain with the world we live in.


"Scientific method does not always fail, and being able to see that a theory is incorrect does not imply a lack of support for the scientific method. I have already gave a couple of examples about things that science has been wrong about and if you would like, I could go on as well. If you are attempting to be logical and present an acceptable debate, do not use a completely extaneous statement as validation."

First of all, you make it sound like the scientific method often fails, and that's simply not true.
You are still stating, without any proof to the contrary, that evolution is incorrect. You repeatedly state this without evidence that either contradicts evolution or supports your theory. That's the difference between what you're doing and what modern science is doing. Science cannot play favorites with theories. No matter how long a belief was held or how brilliant its inventor, we will always scrap that theory for one that fits the evidence better. And there is no theory that can explain life better than evolution.
I fail to see why you believe that saying 'god did it,' is a better explanation than evolution is. When you say this, you're not answering anything. Simply saying that 'god did it' is intellectually lazy because it doesn't require any proof, is not falsifiable and doesn't really explain anything.
I could assert that the Universe was created 15 seconds ago with the appearance of age, and I would be no less correct than you are.


I never got a reply to that last post, which was unfortunate because I put alot of effort into it.

Of all the things I can debate with theists, I think evolution is my favorite. You and I could debate the existence of god and get nowhere, the fact of the matter is that a theist cannot empirically prove that there IS a god, and an atheist cannot prove that there isn't. I can prove evolution, and I like that.

Read more!

Long (yet short) discussion with 5thWatcher

Sorry for the hiatus. Seriously, I've been working tons and tons. 12-13 hour days, 5-6 days a week, and often out of town. So, I've been mostly absent. However, I am posting a big long debate (seriously, after editing a bunch of nonsense out that didn't add to the discussion, I still have 8 pages) that centred around this video:
This went into 3 different relatively important tangents. It's evident where each tangent breaks off, and I included it all. The posts are short because these are YouTube comments, 500 character limit (though I put some comments together where they were meant to be) I'll insert commentary between brackets. ON WITH THE SHOW!
TANGENT 1
JesusIsTheLamb [this is the only commentary from him]
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. Collosians 2:8

Wow thought it's nice to get out random phrases. After watching your video I took my Bible and read the passages that you quoted. They are all explained in details to what happens next...
2:28. Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also.

Review your infos

rowsdowersavesus [this is me]
If Jesus is fully human, he's under the Law. If he's not under the law, he is not a good sacrifice. Someone who is not able to sin, no matter what he does, is not a good "sinless sacrifice". Besides, that only attempts to debunk 1 of these.

5thWatcher [this is the guy who stuck around longest, that is, actually discussed with me]
I don't have a hard time believing Jesus over the Bible. The Bible was in fact edited at almost every copy and every translation. Even so, you are as usual taking things out of context.

rowsdowersavesus
As usual? This is my first time commenting on the bible. Regardless, I assure you, the full context doesn't change what the verses I used are about.
[I REALLY should have nailed him here...I make up for it later, though....sorta]

5thWatcher
I say "as usual" because this is SUCH a common folly among atheists. It is so common, in fact, that while I would normally find time to make a video reply to such a seemingly great argument, I'll let someone else get on that, or just assume that any Christian watching knows his Bible well enough. So in order to just save a lot of time for everyone, I'm just gonna stick with this fact: The Bible was severely edited.

rowsdowersavesus
If the bible was severely edited, and we don't have the originals, WHY BELIEVE IN IT?

edwardpeterson [He added little before skedaddling, though he did start a short discussion with 5thWatcher that might have continued privately]
According to textual criticism, we now posses most accurate Hebrew and Greek texts...

rowsdowersavesus
Accurate according to what? [I meant that to question the accuracy of the texts, to question their relative accuracy, that is. I really should have spent more time thinking and less time clicking "submit"]

5thWatcher
They are accurate according to comparisons of the oldest manuscript we have which are still far after the fact.
And these "most accurate texts" are still 200 years removed from the originals and are the results one or two language translations.

edwardpeterson
So, what you are saying is even the oldest texts have been translated improperly? What are your presuppositions in this case? It sounds as though you deny any chance of the supernatural? In any case, in regards to the NT, we have the gospels, writings of Paul, and a few others. The Early Church Fathers within a generation or two accepted much of what Paul wrote.

5thWatcher
The early church did in fact accept much of what Paul wrote. It's a shame we aren't reading the same versions of those texts they got to. I hope some version that old are discovered one day.
Theres nothing wrong with reading the bible we have, you just have to interpret things loosely.

rowsdowersavesus
Right. Read away, but if you believe it, you're being foolish. Hell, believing it even figuratively is a bad idea, given all that we know.

5thWatcher
Believing the text or not believing the texts is irrelevant to this argument you're trying to present.
On second thought, if you say one should not believe in the texts of the bible, this destroys the argument in your video, as you reference the text in the bible in order to make any of your claims.

rowsdowersavesus
What? The bible contradicts itself many times, therefore can't be true. How can I say "the bible contradicts itself" without referencing texts in the bible? How can I say "Jesus did sin, thus christianity is not true" without using the only proof he existed as a person, the Bible?

5thWatcher
The only thing that proves is that we are reading the edited version of the bible, as we have already discussed. The reasonable conclusion here is not that "the entire bible is untrue" but that the bible does not exactly reflect the original words that were written in it. As a result, we shouldn't look at strict interpretations of text.
[This is a very odd argument to me. How can you trust the book at all if you know it has been edited?]

rowsdowersavesus
So we read the edited version of the bible, and we are to believe it...but we can't get the full thing. I can't believe in it unless I have the full thing.

5thWatcher
Although I will point out one thing: Jesus says (Can't be bothered with the verse, Christians feel free to back me up here) "Everything is in parables." By which one could conclude that you are missing the point entirely. Also, if Jesus is God, he certainly isn't bound by the rules that he set for Man.

rowsdowersavesus
"Everything is in parables", fine. Except these were, in most cases, the actual actions of Jesus and his disciples. I don't think Jesus "figuratively" walked to Bethany or "figuratively" stole the grain from the grainfield.

5thWatcher
Heh. I bet you'd be the first to say he "figuratively" walked on water. In any case, as I said, certainly God would not have to follow the rules he set in place for man.

rowsdowersavesus
If Jesus was fully human, he is bound to human laws, at least regarding morality, else he'd be a useless sacrifice. If you want, I'll make a video about this, and go more in depth.
[No christian has countered this with anything more than, essentially, "nu-uh". Sorry, it's the truth.]

5thWatcher
Go nuts, it already sounds like a bad argument. I think it was Ben Franklin who wrote on this: I man who does not sin by this very nature is surely more virtuous than a man who in his virtue, is constantly fighting temptation. Is not a natural virtue virtuous? Therefore, Jesus would in fact be the perfect sacrifice.

rowsdowersavesus
Well then why not sacrifice a rock? Rocks can't sin either. No need to involve a deity. You could have broken up the rock and let Jesus go on healing people and such. My point was, one who can do the things we call "sins" and not have them count is not more virtuous than one who can sin, but doesn't.

5thWatcher
As others have pointed out here those aren't sins. As I have pointed out, the bible is edited and you don't seem to understand the context. As I will point out now: A rock was not sacrificed because a rock was not the son of god. According to you, any rock would do. But there is only one son of god.
[He missed my point, but I went onward anyway]

rowsdowersavesus
So breaking the commandments isn't a sin? [GOOD JOB ENGLISH MAJOR!]I'm saying something that can't sin isn't a worthy sacrifice. "Not sinning" is only an accomplishment if it's possible for the person to sin.

5thWatcher
As pointed out, He was pointing out the true meaning of the sabbath, not breaking it. and you don't understand sin. It is something inherent within us all (Hence we are born sinners). If Jesus had to TRY not to sin then he would already be a sinner and wouldn't be worthy of being the son of God, but he was, so it wasn't a problem.

rowsdowersavesus
"True meaning"? You're making shit up. Stone those who WORK on the Sabbath...how can "working on the Sabbath" bring out the true meaning of the Sabbath, when the older meaning was "DON'T work" on the sabbath?
You're making shit up. How could someone who had to try to not sin be a sinner if they didn't sin?
[I try not to swear in debates unless making a joke in the middle to lighten the mood. I was flabbergasted by the bullshit of that argument]
[here is a typical retreat tactic in this type of debate]
5thWatcher
I can't believe how unfamiliar you are with even the very basics of Christianity. And I bet you are just as unwilling to actually listen to people that would know better.

rowsdowersavesus
Hey, if you know better and can make a good case, go for it.

5thWatcher
I could, but it would take so much time when there are others who would sooner hear me. Also, I see you are treating it as a "case". There is no case. You have to accept Christian beliefs in order to refute them, you cannot redefine them as you do and then refute that.
[See? Retreat. He doesn't think I'd listen, even though the fact that I refuted his every argument proves that I DID listen to what he wrote....read what he wrote...whatever. Anyway, that last sentence was likely the dumbest thing he said all discussion. The part about having to accept christian beliefs to refute them.]

rowsdowersavesus
WHAT? I have to accept christian beliefs to refute them? So, I guess in order to refute 9/11 conspiracies, I must believe them? OK, whatever. Where am I redefining christian beliefs? Do you not believe that the bible is true and that Jesus is the son of god?

5thWatcher
Thats a bad analogy. It's more like you are trying to refute one 9/11 theory but refuting specific points from a different 9/11 theory. The Bible and Jesus being the son of God are not where you are going wrong. You get that sabbath thing totally wrong. People have explained it here and you've still not understood.

rowsdowersavesus
I have been shown (on another forum) that part of my Sabbath argument was false. I admitted this. [SEE? I DO LISTEN!]The rest was very weakly attacked. Anyway, you can't question the bible without questioning everything in it. The only way you know Jesus existed is the bible, which you admit is edited and flawed. So, we don't know if he was really a literal person, or a total bastard. We just don't know. So why follow the religion?

5thWatcher
Theres WAAAAY more historical evidence for Jesus than many other historical figures you probably take as fact. Alexander, every Greek philosopher... the list goes on and includes about every historical figure in the BC and some in first few centuries.

rowsdowersavesus
Not by any contemporary source to Jesus, however. And the best non-biblical proof of Jesus' existence, Josephus' account, is a proven forgery.


5thWatcher
WTF? Contemporary? A source is a source.[I was SERIOUSLY tempted to start singing the "Mr. Ed" theme song here] Are you saying that the hundreds of the earliest copies we have of the bible should be taken with a grain of salt because the guys who wrote them believed stuff? We know they were altered somewhat but that doesn't render them completely invalid. If you've read the Iliad you have read a book far more removed from the original than the bible.

rowsdowersavesus
The Illiad may or may not have been contemporary of the battle of Troy, but given that the sequel (the Odyssey) includes mythical monsters like Sirens and Cyclopses, it might not have been intended as a historical document. I take it with a grain of salt too.

5thWatcher
thats not the point; the point is the originals are 4 times as removed from the copies we have, where as the bible's are closer, so we can safely assume Jesus was a real guy.

rowsdowersavesus
Without the originals, we can't safely assume anything. You are making a huge leap of faith here, and when you're trying to prove something, that is NOT the best way. not even close.

Hey, we're talking (in this thread of the conversation) about historical accounts of Jesus' existence. Not a single one from the years 0 CE-c.35 CE give any account of Jesus' existence as a real person, which means they SHOULD be taken with a grain of salt, because they believed in it without knowing. The oldest biblical account is Mark, which describes the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, so that's definitely not contemporary of Jesus.

5thWatcher
So my grandpa has been dead since the 90's. If I write a book about him now or in another decade it would be safe to call in question my grandfather's existence?
[Now who has the bad analogy, eh?]

rowsdowersavesus
If you never met your grandfather and wrote about him 50 some years later, and never met anyone who did meet him, I'd still not call his existence into question, as you are here. You must have 2 grandfathers, as no one can be born without having 2 of them. You'd have to use someone else to make it an appropriate analogy.

5thWatcher
Lets say it is someone else. It doesn't mean he doesn't exist, especially if other people who knew him are writing about him as well. It's the writers interpretation that you need to think about; for the bible, the most major thing is the 2(+?) language translations it's gone through. We can assume some stuff was changed through copies, but it would be ridiculous to think that the main person in it somehow evolved out of nothing, even if, for example, his sayings were scewed somewhat.

rowsdowersavesus
The oldest works on Jesus' life were Paul's letters, which essentially said nothing about Jesus' life or the events surrounding it, and implied heavily that Jesus was a spiritual entity. Only the gospels, much later on, mention his life, and they contradict.

5thWatcher
You're talking copies. It's safe to say the gospels were written before. The copies we have are newer than Paul's letters though.

rowsdowersavesus
Um, no. The copies of Paul's letters are older. [Man, I was REALLY off that day. I should have pointed out how Paul's letters being younger than the Gospels, assuming they are, actually hurt his case. STUPID STUPID BEN!]

5thWatcher
I don't know how much plainer I can say this dude. The copies of pauls letters are older than the copies of the gospels. that DOES NOT mean that the ORIGINALS of the gospels are not older, because it's likely that they are, seeing as how Christianity became a written tradition rather quickly.

rowsdowersavesus
The copies of Paul are actually older. Sorry. [AND AGAIN! A chance to redeem myself, and I go smug and stupid. Way to go, Ben!]



TANGENT 2: THE ROCK (CONTINUED)

5thWatcher
And the reason for a man sacrifice over a rock sacrifice: No one could heed the non-existent words of a rock. It's quite simple , really, and I hope you know not so deep down that these are really silly arguments you are putting out there, no better or worse than VenomFang's bullshit on Islam.

* A man who does not sin by his very nature is surely more virtuous than a man who, despite his virtue, is constantly fighting temptation in order to remain a good person. Is not a natural virtue still virtuous?

Thats the gist of it.

Therefore, Jesus would in fact be the perfect sacrifice.
[Good point, except...]
rowsdowersavesus
The thing is, Jesus DID the things that we do. For example, he stole. Yet it isn't counted as sin, therefore, HOW is he more virtuous?

5thWatcher
That incident has been explained here too. Just read your comments.

rowsdowersavesus
There are good and bad explanations. I've seen none of the former, many of the latter. [I just returned laziness for laziness. One of the incidences of stealing WAS explained, and I recanted. The other was very poorly explained with "well, Jesus owns everything so it was his colt" or something.]

TANGENT 3: JOSEPHUS AND SUCH

5thWatcher
These "word logic" arguments are easy to pick apart in the face of facts and historical evidence.

rowsdowersavesus
What historical evidence? And no, the bible doesn't count.

5thWatcher
Yes, it does, and so do books that doesn't make it into the bible and other historical accounts of the time. The bible is not a single source, it is a collection of many books from different authors in different places at similar times of which we have a bunch of copies.

rowsdowersavesus
No, the bible isn't a collection of historical documents, any more than Crime and Punishment is a historical document regarding St. Petersburg in the 1860s. Non-canonical books are all well and good (I recommend the non-canon gospels over the canonical ones, as they're better reads) but they're also not historical.

Also, you do have to realize that your own argument refutes itself. All we know about Jesus is in the bible, which was heavily edited, by your own admission. Therefore, we can't know with any certainty that it is true, therefore, we can't know with any certainty that Jesus is god and god is Jesus. Therefore, your ideas are built on shaky ground, and you freely admit it.

5thWatcher
Yeah but after textual criticisms we can say that the gospels weren't edited in any redefining way. IE, the stuff that happened probably did, but semantics were probably shifted a lot, and that can make a big difference.

rowsdowersavesus
That's a load of bullshit and you know it. Without the originals, we can't tell. Period. [I stand by this. We can't know the full extent of the editing without the originals]

5thWatcher
The bible didn't intend to be historical, but at certain points, it is anyway. And these historical bits have almost all proven to have manifested themselves in some way. Weather its evidence of a large regional flood about when the bible would place it, or every nook and cranny of old Jerusalem that can still be visited today. Ceaser, the emperor, and other officials of the state, all make some of their first historical appearances in the bible.

rowsdowersavesus
Evidence of a large regional flood? Yeah, maybe, or maybe you're looking for validation of your views? As I said before, there are other works of fiction (Crime and Punishment for example) that include historical events and figures. That means nothing. The main thing you need to prove is the existence of one of the Bible's main characters, whose existence has no extrabiblical proof

5thWatcher
You have even referenced non-biblical books about Jesus yourself, and yet you claim there is no extra biblical evidence for Jesus? I think you even mentioned Josephus, and the passage attributed to him that turned out to be a forgery. Could you not read several lines down and see the stuff he DID say about Jesus and the apostles?

rowsdowersavesus
That's all that was there, bro. Other than one part that mentioned a James, brother of Jesus, there is no "Jesus" in Josephus' antiquities of the Jews that isn't forged. Regardless, if he was the so important, why was so little room devoted to him? 42 chapters for Herod the great, full chapters dedicated to minor criminals, one non-forged line for the Messiah. Sound a bit odd?

5thWatcher
Not so much, he was Jewish after all, and he probably thought it might all be a passing fad of a cult.
[At least he backs away when he doesn't know how to combat that point]
rowsdowersavesus
Other Messiahs got more coverage, and no mention was made of his cult. The entry was about James, brother of Jesus. Passing reference to a man named Jesus (Yeshua), which was a fairly common name then.

AAAAAAAAAAAND that's it.


LESSON LEARNED: MANY ARGUMENTS REFUTE THEMSELVES. BE PREPARED TO POINT THIS OUT.
While claiming the bible was edited, 5thWatcher thought he could believe Jesus was/is divine, regardless of the fact that the edited bible was the only evidence for his divinity. The bible having been edited casts serious doubt on the claims of Jesus' divinity, yet he doesn't see that. I really should have caught that earlier on and pursued it. Which brings me to the second lesson:

SECOND LESSON LEARNED: SAVE YOUR DEBATES AND READ OVER THEM TO LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES
I really should do that from now on....

Read more!

The Worst Debate I've Ever Been In.

You've seen me debate fairly well, now witness the horror that is me attempting to explain the 1st Law of Thermodynamics!



Linky

It goes on for several pages, and gets funnier closer to the end where she starts telling me that many scientists that she knows dispute Thermodynamics.

Be kind, I share this with you only because in retrospect, it is kind of humorous that I even tried arguing with these people.

Read more!