Until we get this order right in the minds of believers, this is the inevitable cost to respecting the lunacy of god’s law:
Shaher Bano Shahdady was just 21, a young mother who wanted to live her Canadian life as a free Canadian woman. And for that, she was strangled to death in front of her toddler.
Between 1 and 2 a.m. on July 22, neighbours in the building at 3131 Eglinton Ave. E. (Toronto, Ontario) heard the shrill screaming of a child that went on for 15 minutes. And then silence. More than 15 hours later, Shahdady’s distraught father discovered his 2-year-old grandson alone in the apartment with his daughter’s dead body. She had been strangled on her bed.
Her estranged husband Abdul Malik Rustam, 27, turned himself in to police the next morning. He’s been charged with first-degree murder.
“Absolutely, it was an honour killing,” contends Fatah. “This is the fundamental issue here that no one wants to address. Nobody wants to tell Muslim men that women are not their possessions. It’s about women’s sexuality and men who say they own the franchise to it.”
Read the entire article here and weep at the stupidity and waste of yet another young woman’s life on the despicable alter of religious honour and think of her orphaned son who pays the price.
tildeb
Questionable Motives 
This story makes me angry at the stupidity and malice people are capable of. But I want to greet you, Tildeb, with a simple observation: atheism does not abolish or even reduce murder and other crimes of hate and passion. Don’t blame any god for the crimes of man. It’s man’s fault for being duped.
Comment by Carly Jo — August 6, 2011 @ 12:36 am |
Atheism is not a solution to crime, I agree. But in the same way antibiotics is not a cure for death, it sure can help alleviate some of its causes.
The growing body of evidence suggests that the less religious a society is, the healthier it is in terms of lower rates of negative social behaviours… including murder rates. In this post, I mention three in the very first sentence. There is also a very strong positive correlate between religiosity and various injustices like institutionalized bigotry, misogyny, and the ill-treatment of minorities. We know that religious belief alone does not mitigate these social behaviours nor successfully address inequalities. For that process to be successful, we need secularization – meaning the establishment and enforcement of law based not on what some people claim (without good evidence) is god’s revealed ‘law’ but on the Enlightenment principle of legal equality of individual autonomy. In other words, we need to respect human rights and human dignity over and above any other chauvinism if we wish to effectively address the rates of socially negative behaviours.
I find it odd that inequalities in the rights and freedoms of some – directly promoted by religious doctrines in the name of respecting god’s wishes for these inequalities to be maintained – seem to result in higher rates of what you call ‘crimes of man’. Don’t you find that labeling rather revealing? As long as you give belief in god full exemption from promoting exactly that which bolsters the motivation for crimes like the one I have posted here, then of course any criminal result will be a crime of man. But by doing so you also avoid addressing why certain behaviours and in their frequency occur if you exempt the important role religious belief plays in their promotion. I don’t think merely treating the symptom of a problem (the crimes of man) is an effective way to bring about necessary change to a central problem that fuels criminal behaviour (religious belief reduces respect for secular law). I want to go after the root problem, the irrationality of believing in woo, and one of the benefits from this sustained critical review is usually practical atheism for the honest and prevaricating agnosticism for the less brave.
Comment by tildeb — August 6, 2011 @ 8:36 am |
Well I guess those in communist countries will disagree with you about the issue of lower rates of negative and social behaviours, reduced racism, institutionalized bigotry and misogyny and ill treatment of the minority.
Comment by Craig Benno — August 10, 2011 @ 8:39 pm
Wait, wait. I’ve got this one.
I know the answer!
Ready?
It doesn’t count because the guy wasn’t a “real muslim”, right?
(…and from far away, the melancholy sound of bagpipes wafts over the heather from deep within the highlands…)
In the Name of the Fodder
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/in-the-name-of-the-fodder
Comment by Cedric Katesby — August 6, 2011 @ 9:16 am |
Unfortunately, here in Canada the Daily show is blocked from appearing except through Comedy Central’s main website.
But your point is exactly right for those who continue to excuse behaviour motivated by religious belief to be somehow and magically exempt from the other supposedly ‘true-er’ version.
Comment by tildeb — August 6, 2011 @ 9:51 am |
How is this God’s law? if people misinterpret the Bible then that’s their issue – not God’s.
No one owns another person nor does anyone have the right to kill – that’s clear in the bible and what is taught.
Just because one religion misunderstands, misinterprets and misuses religion – does not mean that God’s law is no good. The Ten Commandments Tildeb!
Comment by 4amzgkids — August 6, 2011 @ 5:28 pm |
It’s god’s law in the quran, 4ak.
I disagree with you about killing (sometimes it’s the right thing to do) but as for owning another person, I agree with you. I’m so pleased that you recognize your own morality to be superior to anything you might find in the bible that addresses this issue. (A slight oversight, I’m almost sure.) Well done and keep up the good work. The next step is to admit that your primary allegiance regarding your behaviour must be subject to secular law, while what you believe contrary to that cannot be acted upon without breaking your allegiance to the state. It’s hard, I know, but you’ve already started down that path by insisting that no one can own another so you might as well keep going and trust your own sense of what is moral – not to inflict it legally on others and claim it’s from god (which is a load of crap as I’m sure you’ll agree) but to administer to your own behaviour as you see fit… as long as it doesn’t break your primary respect for secular law.
Comment by tildeb — August 6, 2011 @ 7:01 pm |
What? administer to your own behaviour – interesting – so those without morals and values should just go at it right? Isn’t that why we have rape, murders, robberies, and so on?
It’s never the right thing to kill someone else – you didn’t give life and you have no right to take it – now you sound like you’re trying to be God.
My morality is up there – thanks for the kind words. However, I was not speaking of my morality but of Christian morality and that is what is taught.
There is no problem with following the laws of the land as long as they don’t kill or harm another.
Comment by 4amzgkids — August 8, 2011 @ 8:53 pm
if people misinterpret the Bible then that’s their issue – not God’s.
So if god’s words are so easily misused then they cannot be a very good prescription of ethical or moral value.
Tildeb, I notice you have your own stable of apologists on your blog as well. How nice.
Why are the first 4 commandments all about how, where, and when to worship? Ever notice the distinct lack of commandments against rape or slavery versus oh say, taking the sabbath off…now that’s important.
If you turn the brainwash down from 11, you might realize how repugnantly immoral “god’s law” is.
Comment by The Arbourist — August 7, 2011 @ 1:45 pm |
When most four year olds can improve on the list (be nice, don’t hurt others, be fair, and so on), I think to myself surely a god could have done better. Why this doesn’t strike believers as poor fare indeed, I honestly don’t know.
Comment by tildeb — August 7, 2011 @ 2:07 pm
Really? this just shows your complete ignorance of the Christian religion. The commandments summed up into two is TO LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and TO LOVE GOD – wow – that’s tough isn’t it? If we love our neighbor and treat others as we wish to be treated well then, we wouldn’t have these issues of crime now would we genius.
I love how you can argue something you are completely ignorant to.
Comment by 4amzgkids — August 8, 2011 @ 8:49 pm
No one owns another person…
Oh, yes. The bible goes on and on about how terrible slavery is and how the big, invisible, magic sky daddy wants it stopped right now with no excuses or wiggle room. It’s the 19 commandment or something. Maybe…or maybe not.
…nor does anyone have the right to kill – that’s clear in the bible and what is taught.
Oh yes, nowhere does the big, invisible, magic sky daddy endorse killing anybody for any reason. Pacifism was the watchword of the day. Live and let live. The big sky daddy never killed anybody himself at all. That’s a well known fact. He might give someone a stern talking to but kill people? Destroy entire cities? Global genocide? Grant explicit permission to stone people to death or wipe out entire tribes to the last man, woman, child and livestock? Pshaw, I say. Pshaw.
Atheist Experience – Tallying God’s kill count in the Bible (Part 2)
Comment by Cedric Katesby — August 7, 2011 @ 2:07 am |
Those things you mention are laws of the land at the time – not God’s commands. Helloooo – does anyone know what they are talking about or do all of you just sit around and have a hate fest because you maybe are immoral yourselves and by not being religious or believing the bible is good – you appease yourself for the crimes you commit?
Comment by 4amzgkids — August 8, 2011 @ 8:55 pm |
Those things you mention are laws of the land at the time
So when the Bible says your magic god did or said something, it’s NOT what actually happened? Extraordinary. Guess nobody told the Amalekites.
It’s just “the laws of the land”? The laws are not “holy”. Wow. The laws were NOT laid down by any magic, invisible sky person at all? He gave no orders from on high to do stuff? Hmm. Interesting variation.
What about the nasty bits in the commandments? Are they not “holy”. Don’t even they count either? They have nothing to do with the magic, invisible, sky person? You may want to re-think that one.
You need to sit down and read the Bible as opposed to cherry picking the parts they read to you as a child in Sunday School. You won’t like what you will find. The magic, invisible, sky daddy has an impressive body count and he had a lot to say in his commandments about ….y’know…slaves.
Slavery In The Bible
Comment by Cedric Katesby — August 9, 2011 @ 7:06 am
There is a similar discussion on this topic at Butterflies and Wheels
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/women-are-not-their-possessions/
Comment by Veronica Abbass — August 8, 2011 @ 11:23 am |
4amzgkids
Today @ 8:49 pm you said, this just shows your complete ignorance of the Christian religion; however, your posts show a complete ignorance of English grammar and sentence structure. Take a break from reading the Bible (always capitalize the B) and read a couple of writers’ style guides.
Comment by Veronica Abbass — August 8, 2011 @ 9:26 pm |
Oh, but I like the frothy style and grammatical edge it gives to 4ak’s ‘arguments’. Do not change a thing 4ak. In fact, change your font to Comic Sans MS, it is great for legibility and serious arguments. 🙂
Comment by The Arbourist — August 9, 2011 @ 11:50 am |
I’m so sorry I’ve stayed away for so long! Missed all of these lovely comments 🙂 I didn’t realize we were writing for an English course Veronica – interesting indeed! You should actually take your own advice to heart 🙂
The Bible is full of stories that help get the message across to people that really cannot understand the deeper meaning. I can see that a few of you have a difficult time with comprehending the stories. Go to legitimate websites – not hateful atheist sites – what are you learning and from whom? this is laughable!
Please visit newadvent.org and look up the teachings you believe to be hateful. God is love and that is it. Anything that is not loving, is not of God. Can you see what I mean now? You go on and on and think you understand something when you clearly do not. You then go forth and breed hate. I will NEVER understand this.
I apologize for being so negative myself. I make mistakes and get really upset at times when I read things like this. Then why do I keep coming back – you may ask. I’m always hopeful that things on this site will change for the better. I have high hopes for tildeb. Great person – just misled through life’s difficulties (I believe). I know there is hope for all of you to find the truth. I just wish that everyone would really have a clear understanding of the Christian religion before bashing it. It is clear in all that I read on this site and others, that many do not.
Comment by 4amzgkids — August 22, 2011 @ 8:09 pm |
If we put aside strong feelings for a moment, 4azgkids, I want you to consider what it looks like from my side of the keyboard: you insist that god is love and that anything else is not god. Presumably you have a source for this information (…and the greatest of these {commandments} is love…). So here’s the very serious question: how do you determine which parts of scripture are to be taken as figurative and which as literal?
As far as I can tell, any and all scriptural passages that are factually wrong (let’s say pi equals 3) is to be taken sort of metaphorically, or altered from a straightforward meaning to a contextual one that always, always, always excuses the inaccuracy that we KNOW to be inaccurate, yet – lo and behold! – other ‘facts’ for which we have every reason to doubt – like the virgin birth, the immaculate conception, the reanimation of jesus, and so on – we are to take literally in spite of being contrary to all known laws of physcis and chemistry and biology. This easy selection of what’s true literally and which is true metaphorically rings hollow to me. This smells bad. This reeks of apologetics to suit someone else’s theology rather what’s true in reality.
It seems very strange to me that I am to read the same scripture as catholic theologians who write the articles you quote from newadvent, but you want me to simply believe that these other people’s excuses… pardon me, explanations about which is literal and which is figurative language… are able to alter those inaccuracies we know are inaccurate (thanks to those same laws of physics and chemistry and biology that informs our modern knowledge and technologies that work consistently and reliably well) to make them metaphorically accurate (like Adam and Eve as the founding couple for modern man). So then I ask, how do they know which scripture is to be taken literally and which parts figuratively?
So I’m left wondering how you know which bits are to be taken which way with enough confidence to assert that I am to ignore many scriptural commandments supposedly from god and trust you to know better than I. As far as I can tell, I have exactly the same reason to hold jesus’ resurrection to be figurative and the psalm telling me to distrust the world and all human knowledge literally (meaning I should automatically reject anything coming out of newadvent about scripture as a despicable example of inadequate interpretive worldly knowledge). I fail to understand how you and so many christians seem quite certain that your understanding supersedes – not only mine when it comes to understanding which bits of scripture are literally true and which are sort of metaphorically true given the context of the times in which they were written but – all those contrary readings that form the basis of nearly thirty thousand different christian sects.
I do hope you see my problem. As far as I can tell, I have no reason to trust or grant authority to newadvent and much reason to doubt its conclusions unless they can show me exactly how their knowledge about which bits of scripture are to be taken literally and which bits figuratively are trustworthy enough for me to know what’s true in reality.
Comment by tildeb — August 22, 2011 @ 8:38 pm |
We know which parts are actual and which are not based on what the church teaches. They know this information from as far back as humans were writing it. It has been passed down. Much of what we know in the NT is from Jesus’ teachings. But do you see how Jesus teaches in parables? He does this so people have an example to follow in order to comprehend the message. New Advent goes into great detail on all of this. Look at each piece.
As for the story of Adam and Eve – who knows what their names were or what fruit it was – that is not the point of the story. We do know there were first parents out there but the main idea of this story is that after the fall, the first sin was murder. So falling from God – is not a good thing.
Jonah and the whale – don’t get caught up in the actual story – it’s about having faith in God no matter what – as is Daniel in the Lion’s den and so on.
The virgin birth is real – that is truly complicated but God could not be born of any one with sin. Jesus was God on earth. Real, historical proof for this.
Why do you insist on science when so much of it is theories? and you trust it as if it is the only way – The bible is historical. I have no reason to trust or grant authority to newadvent and much reason to doubt its conclusions unless they can show me exactly how their knowledge about which bits of scripture are to be taken literally and which bits figuratively are trustworthy enough for me to know what’s true in reality. It’s all there tildeb. It makes perfect sense.
But science – while some things are proven, like gravity, others are not. Everything is a guess – what a dinosaur looked like, its colors, what it ate, how it walked, slept, etc…
carbon dating – a guess!
The theory of evolution – the missing link?
The big bang theory and so on….
Why would you think we evolved here to live, fight, kill, etc…to not go on? Don’t forget about all of the paranormal research, metaphysics, etc…the complexities of our world and how it all works so perfectly. The complexities of DNA, how everything on earth works so perfectly. I think about how vultures eat road kill, how insects in the forest eat the dead animals and so on – all in a very fast cycle. The cycle of rain from lakes, rivers, ocean to the clouds to rainfall and so on. How there is a cure for everything in this world right here on earth – we just need to find it – all of the amazing things in the rain forest, etc…I could go on and on. I hope you see the point I’m trying to make here. I wish you would just give it some time and thought. What if there is a realm right along side us, that we can’t see but some can? science hasn’t found it yet??
Comment by 4amzgkids — September 5, 2011 @ 2:27 pm |
We know which parts are actual and which are not based on what the church teaches.
How? By what process do you, mere mortal, determine what is the word of God and what is just dramatic fluff?
We do know there were first parents out there‘
Funny how then Adam and Eve are almost never depicted as Negroid or as coming out of Africa but then again facts really don’t matter when it comes to the mumbo-jumbo in the bible.
The virgin birth is real
Oh do try and rationally prove that it happened (pro tip – you can’t use the bible as source unless you cherish circular argumentation). Why not choose a more interesting myth like Zeus and Athena…now there is some drama, unlike the icky raped by a ghost christian silliness.
“But one day, Zeus was just chilling by Lake Triton and he started to get the worst headache of his life. I mean, we are talking deathly migraine here. It was so bad that he called for Hephaestus and had him split open his head. From the split leapt Athena, leaping into the air fully armored with a war-cry.”
Leapt out of his freakn’ head! Fully Armoured! Awesome!
Jesus was God on earth. Real, historical proof for this.
Citation needed. And really, are you trying to say that historical record and scientific experimentation are the same? They are not.
bits of scripture are to be taken literally and which bits figuratively are trustworthy enough for me to know what’s true in reality.
Just because it ‘makes sense’ to you, does not mean it passes any sort of reasonable test of factual accuracy for those who choose not to believe in mythology. Belief and knowledge are two different categories. I may believe that the sun revolves around the earth, but in fact it does not. Believing in something does not make it true.
carbon dating – a guess!
Being woefully ignorant of scientific methodology does not mean you get a free pass and get to misrepresent the other side of the argument.
The theory of evolution – the missing link?
What link would that be? Also, I suspect you have are misinterpreting what a “theory” means when dealing with scientific theory.
If you are going argue against a set of ideas, it would be reasonable to inform yourself on what they actually are instead of what you think or have been told they are.
I could go on and on. I hope you see the point I’m trying to make here.
List of complex stuff I don’t understand… therefore god!!11!!! Is ‘ignorance is strength’ your motto or are you just trying to be obtuse?
What if there is a realm right along side us, that we can’t see but some can?
What if elves came to you while you slept and secretly braided and then unbraided your nose hairs and only *you* could see it. Then what? If you began to spread the elf gospel alone you would be branded a lunatic, but if you got enough people aboard the SS Elven Nostril Brigade, we would call that a religion or mass delusional behaviour if you wish to be accurate.
Why do you insist on science when so much of it is theories?
Because they are bodies of factual information that represent reality to the best of our knowledge.
Comment by The Arbourist — September 5, 2011 @ 3:23 pm |
Tildeb, I think I have posted this video to your comment section before, I’m sorry if it is a rerun, but the message it conveys is very concise and is save a lot of explaining in the long run.
Comment by The Arbourist — September 6, 2011 @ 5:38 pm |
Your explanatory videos are always welcome.
Comment by tildeb — September 7, 2011 @ 8:34 pm |
The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.
First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.
The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.
Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
Comment by 4amzgkids — September 12, 2011 @ 2:03 pm |
So THAT’S why my dates with Carbon 14 never pan out! And I brought flowers and chocolates and even had plans for dinner!
Good thing we don’t correlate raw carbon dating with tree rings, and then test with mass spectrometers. Far better to just trust the soda can bible account to make all the data fit no matter how poorly with a flood that never happened. Hey, if that’s what it takes to get lucky…
Comment by tildeb — September 12, 2011 @ 2:49 pm |
However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.
Which experiments? Citation needed! The ones you’re grabbing from your inane christian apologia page? Are you frakking kidding me? Copy-pasta from bullshite sources? How dishonest and intellectually lazy can you be?
This is a serious matter which does have conclusive answer. Carbon dating works, and go here to see the science behind why it works. Also, if you had bothered to do any relevant reading about radiometric dating you would find out that it is not only carbon 14 they use, but a myriad of materials that have very specific decay rates. I’ll list them – (From Dawkin’s – Hardcover – The Greatest Show on Earth – p 102 – 107).
Rubidium – 87 – Decays to Strontium Half-life – 49,000,000,000
Rhenium – 187 – Decays to Osmium – 187 Half-life – 41,600,000,000
Thorium – 232 – Decays to Lead – 208 Half-life – 14,000,000,000
Uranium – 238 – Decays to Lead – 206 Half-life – 4,500,000,000
Potassium – 40 -Decays to Argon – 40 Half-life – 1,260,000,000
Uranium – 235 – Decays to Lead – 207 Half-life – 704,000,000
Samaruim – 147 -Decays to Neodymium – 143 Half-life – 108,000,000
Iodine – 129 -Decays to Xenon – 129 Half-life – 17,000,000
Aluminum – 26 -Decays to Magnesium – 26 Half-life 740,000
Carbon – 14 -Decays to Nitrogen – 14 Half-life – 5,730
All of these radioactive clocks agree with each other, so it just is not carbon dating, but the entire list of clocks (not to mention dendrochronolgy, molecular dating and other clocks scientists use to measure time) that can be measured and in the scientific data, they line up cohesively to put the age of the earth to be some 4.6 billion years old.
These figures are not from some arcane, densely formatted text in academicese , but from a science friendly easy to understand source. I know because I am NOT a scientist, but I still get it.
So you know what? Until you are ready to challenge the mendacious assumptions you are basing your arguments on, there is really no point in arguing with you further other than to say you’re dishonest, willfully ignorant and most likely will continue to lie to yourself and others about things that have been factually documented and should not be argued about.
Protip: Read the Greatest Show on Earth and then come back and talk about what you think and know about evolution, I guarantee you will not sound as foolish and deluded as you do now.
Comment by The Arbourist — September 14, 2011 @ 7:06 pm |
Yes, you are correct – your information is right and mine is wrong….hmmmm…..Radio-carbon dating is a method of obtaining age estimates on organic materials. The word “estimates” is used because there is a significant amount of uncertainty in these measurements. Each sample type has specific problems associated with its use for dating purposes, including contamination and special environmental effects. More information on the sources of error in carbon dating are presented at the bottom of this page. http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm Last updated on October 28, 2010
What I don’t understand is why you atheists choose one guy – Dawkins – what about the rest of them?? This is sheer laziness on your part – you are being dishonest with yourselves. You must RESEARCH BOTH sides and come up with a conclusion
Comment by 4amzgkids — September 16, 2011 @ 5:37 pm
“you atheists choose one guy – Dawkins – what about the rest of them??”
Dawkins is often referenced because he has written many popular science books for the non-specialist. Hence, his work is rather accessible and easy to understand. quote and learn from.
You must RESEARCH BOTH sides and come up with a conclusion…
This coming from the source of the copypasta inanity in the first place. Oh, the sweet irony. The amount evidence of evolution is truly staggering. Evolution as a theory has shown itself to be extremely robust and accurate set of facts that describe the natural world. Do you have access to google scholar? If so, take a peek at the raw explanatory power of Evolution and all of it is done without magic, without jebus and without delusion.
Comment by The Arbourist — September 16, 2011 @ 6:37 pm
If humans evolved from apes or ape-like creatures, when did this happen? And which creatures were involved at that important point? With more than 5000 fossils or fossil fragments of apes, chimps, and humans allegedly showing stages of human evolution, which ape-like animal had enough human characteristics for us to say “this one has just crossed the boundary from ape to human”?
Homo habilis — it’s actually an apeThe short answer is “it never happened,” and the fossils show this. Here’s what we mean.
First, there is disagreement among evolutionists about where to place many of the fossils, because they don’t all fit into a fully accepted sequence. Many fossils are set aside because they can’t be placed neatly in the ape-to-man scenario, or because they appear in the wrong time-frame.
This is why evolutionists have largely abandoned the idea that human evolution was linear, even though the alternative doesn’t help them either because it leaves them with a whole lot of unconnected fossils.
Second, here is an amazing fact: None of the ape fossils shows enough specific human features for evolutionists to say without doubt that this is the point where an ape turned human, and none of the human fossils shows enough specific ape characteristics to indicate that they have actually evolved from apes.
Comment by 4amzgkids — September 12, 2011 @ 2:09 pm |
The evolutionary website Handprint gives excellent descriptions of the contenders in the alleged ape-to-human transition:
* Australopithecus
* Homo habilis
* Homo rudolfensis
* Homo ergaster
* Homo erectus
* Homo heidelbergensis
* Homo neanderthalensis
This is pretty close to the order given by B. Wood and M. Collard in a paper in the journal Science in 1999 (“The human genus,” Science 284(5411):65-71). So if humans evolved from ape-like creatures that evolved from apes, we should be able to discover a fossil that links them somewhere in this list. If the fossil is not in this list, then why believe it happened? Lack of clear transitional fossils is not evidence for evolution, but against it.
With the Australopiths such as “Lucy” now being generally discounted from being ancestors of humans, the first creature with a slight majority of human features must lie shortly after the Australopiths — either Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, or Homo ergaster.
Comment by 4amzgkids — September 12, 2011 @ 2:10 pm |
Yup, I see now why humans must have POOF!ed into existence. I’m sure the evidence for the mechanism of POOF!ism is much stronger than silly little chunks of identical DNA, 98.5% similar genes, one in a hundred amino acid differences, the coat of fur we develop and then discard in utero (sp?), and other trivial bits of linking evidence. How could so many scientists be so wrong when POOF!ism is so obvious? Clearly, creationists are on to something spectacularly simple and it’s those other guys who choose to place their faith in the ludicrous notion of common ancestry.
Comment by tildeb — September 12, 2011 @ 5:27 pm |
Wow – even your science people write this stuff and you still don’t get it. I’m sorry guys but this is beyond helping.
Comment by 4amzgkids — September 16, 2011 @ 5:30 pm
Lack of clear transitional fossils is not evidence for evolution, but against it.
Beating the crap out of strawman still does not make you right. Evolution is gradualchange over time. We share a common ancestor with apes and chimpanzee, with all life on earth really if you go far back enough.
Comment by The Arbourist — September 14, 2011 @ 7:10 pm |
History is proven – science is not in many areas! Guess away – you decide if it’s safer to believe or not believe 😉 Good luck!
Comment by 4amzgkids — September 12, 2011 @ 2:11 pm |
Yes, the accuracy of the historical record from the bible is beyond doubt. Someday soon language and archeology will show up to link the jewish exodus to historical proof; we just have to wait for it. In the meantime, let’s all pretend planes don’t fly and medicine doesn’t work and the internet is powered by prayer. We just can’t trust those silly deluded scientists.
Comment by tildeb — September 12, 2011 @ 5:31 pm |
They’ve already proven the historical accuracy – especially of Jesus – common, this is ridiculous! It’s all out there – you just refuse to see it. PROVEN!!
Comment by 4amzgkids — September 16, 2011 @ 5:28 pm
Of Homo floresiensis, an education source says, “At present, there is no clear consensus among paleoanthropologists as to the place of floresiensis in human evolution.” (Ref: Palomar College, Behavioral Sciences Department)
Of the Dmanisi fossils, instead of providing answers to how apes allegedly evolved into humans, the Dmanisi fossils have only raised more questions. National Geographic reported in its August 2002 edition, “Along with other fossils and tools found at the site, this skull reopens so many questions about our ancestry that one scientist muttered: ‘They ought to put it back in the ground.’”
Erik Trinkhaus of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said, “They were little people with little brains — that doesn’t really surprise me.” (Ref: AiG)
Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum in London said he doubted that the Dmanisi hominids were our direct ancestors. (Ref: BBC News)
University of North Texas News Service said of a new Dmanisi fossil in 2005, “The new Dmanisi skull is among the most primitive individuals so far attributed to Homo erectus or to any species that is indisputably human.” (Ref: University of North Texas news)
So according to evolutionist experts, the Dmanisi fossils are unlikely to be our direct ancestors, because they are “indisputably human”.
Therefore they can’t be the link between apes and humans.
Comment by 4amzgkids — September 12, 2011 @ 2:12 pm |
Oooo! I know this one! Homo floresiensis was POOF!ed into and then out of existence! God is truly great.
Comment by tildeb — September 12, 2011 @ 5:32 pm |
Yes, HE truly is! And your poofing is not proving anything as far as science goes. You must back your answers up!
Comment by 4amzgkids — September 16, 2011 @ 5:27 pm |
Deep-fried stupid. Homeschooling has a lot to answer for.
Comment by Cedric Katesby — September 17, 2011 @ 12:38 pm |
Homeschooling seems almost an oxymoron these days.
Comment by tildeb — September 17, 2011 @ 2:15 pm
[…] for hosting such a informative and useful blog. In the comment section of his article on “Why god’s law must be secondary” we get this gem of comment from […]
Pingback by The DWR Sunday Disservice – Charity? « Dead Wild Roses — September 18, 2011 @ 8:47 am |