End of Year

Government Master Card

I just love the new Government Master Card. It is a great way to get a conversation started about the truth of Godonomics. An economy not based on God’s ways inevitably leads to problems.

Finally—a master card that is yours exclusively! Inspired by the work of Karl Marx, the “Spend Like There Is No Tomorrow” card is priceless. Actually the size of a credit card, it is a constant reminder that a large government takes what is yours and leads you to become its servant.

These cards are great to hand to a cashier or to give to a complete stranger and say, “Here, let me put that on my new Government Master Card.” They will get a kick out of the card and it will remind them of Godonomics: God’s principles as they apply to an economy. Don’t become a slave to the lender. Use GODONOMICS.

Watch the video of Karl introducing the card himself!

The back of the card reads:

GOVERNMENT MASTER CARD. Inspired by the work of Karl Marx. You deserve more than you can afford. Use your card to earn reward dollars that add to the current 13.5 trillion dollars in national debt. As you bail out failing companies or pay your neighbor’s mortgage, remember you’ll be dead before your great-great-great-grandchildren get the bill. Ignore the fact that you’ve empowered the government to steal from others, violating one of the 10 commandments. Try not to think of how you’ve violated others’ properties rights, and flushed incentive down the toilet, spitting into the wind of God’s commandment, if you do not work, you do not eat! Ignore the road to serfdom – it violates God’s warnings of Socialism in 1 Samuel 8 – that a large government takes what’s yours and leads you becoming its servants. Socialism: a great way to ruin your country.

,

Leave98 Responses to testGovernment Master Card

  1. tim fast December 19, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

    “Socialism would be closer to artificial selection”

    Hello; this guy is totally wrong. He does not speak for modern biology and evolutionary theory.

    Socialism is in no way like artificial selection. However, it is much more likely a result of sexual selection, as is intelligence.
    Before you god bots go mis-quoting science, learn something first.

    Learn about evolution before you cherry pick ideas to suit your immature economics. I have read your bible, and it really only makes sense the way star wars and lord of the rings make sense – suspension of disbelief.

    I really like that part with the virgin birth, the walking on water, the zombies rising from the dead… comedy gold!

  2. tim fast December 19, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Hi andrew Ryan,

    Pardon me if I come across hard. My only criticism is your comparison of socialism with artificial selection. Otherwise I like your posts.

  3. Alfred Russell Wallace December 19, 2010 at 11:12 pm #

    Mark James,

    This will be the last time I will explain this to you:

    You wrote:

    >Mutation is a failure of DNA repair. DNA undergoes chemical change, especially when being eplicated, and changes that are not repaired result in mutation.

    No, it is not. You seem to misunderstand mutation. You think it means something deleterious ONLY. If an organism mutates, it does not mean that information is lost. I don’t know how else to explain this to you.

    Here is the definition again:

    mutation
    noun
    2 the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.
    a distinct form resulting from such a change.

    Mutation simply means alteration of the original DNA sequence. Would you or would you not agree that through the process of Meiosis (sexual reproduction) the DNA of the offspring is an altered form of the original parent DNA sequences?

    Have you heard of the natural process of genetic recombination? Eukaryotes use this process in Meiosis, when the chromosomes fashion themselves together to produce the genetic information for the offspring. This crossover creates differing genes from the parent.

    I challenge you, Mark James, to provide me with a definition that ONLY provides your limited view of mutation from any peer-reviewed and accepted genetics textbook. Good luck.

  4. Alfred Russell Wallace December 19, 2010 at 11:30 pm #

    >> And, much as you (Alfred) don’t like the idea, evolution requires that this information can only have been added by chance.

    I get it. You don’t understand evolution.

    If an organism possess a beneficial trait via mutation (longer neck, thicker beak, larger brain) it will allow the organism to survive and breed more successfully than others.

    OR

    The trait will appear attractive to the opposite sex, thus being sexually selected for propagation.

    OR

    The trait will become propagated even if it doesn’t prove beneficial, it just can’t be detrimental.

    All three cases provide a framework in which non-harmful mutations could be propagated. In the most harmful cases, a poorly mutated organism would become sterile. (Majority of men with KIinefelter’s syndrome are sterile). I would hardly call that chance.

    I will repeat my challenge again to you,

    I challenge you, Mark James, to provide me with a definition that ONLY provides your limited view of mutation from any peer-reviewed and accepted genetics textbook. Good luck.

  5. andrew Ryan December 20, 2010 at 2:16 am #

    Tim Fast, my point was that socialism is nothing like evolution, in that the latter is a naturally occurring phenomenon, more like free Market economics. Socialism involves an outside agent artificially keeping businesses afloat, hence is closer to artificial selection. Make more sense?

    Mark James: “Where in this statement do you place Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and a host of other mass murderers?”

    Well Hitler was a Catholic, Stalin was brought up religious, Pol Pot believed in an afterlife, and all of them worshipped either fascism or communism.

  6. Duane December 20, 2010 at 2:41 am #

    Enough with the Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao references. They were madmen who don’t represent Atheism (and Hitler wasn’t even an Atheist, he was a Catholic.). When Christianity ruled the world in the Middle Ages, it was average, everyday folk that burned witches in the NAME of Christianity. This wasn’t based upon some deviant who achieved power, this was based upon the basic ignorance of people encouraged by the Church. Once people started thinking rationally, it was discovered old widows and pagans didn’t cause crops to wither or put people under spells. Christianity has a long sordid history it needs to account for before it starts casting aspersions on those who merely don’t believe their nonsense.

  7. David Ray December 20, 2010 at 6:28 am #

    “David: You just need to read their website and artiicles. But you are only interested in taking things out of contxt and turning it into your own meanings. God is not mocked and neither are His people. Why are you even here? If your position is so true why even take the time to write here? Oh, I know. You want to stop the crazy people who believe in a God. every word we write is a testiment to your hate and need to be your own God.”

    Jeff,

    First, thank you for your claim to know exactly what is going on in my brain. How could I be so foolish to think that someone who doesn’t know me at all wouldn’t know my thoughts better than me?

    As far as reading the Hovind’s articles and websites. I have. That is why I continue to ask for evidence to support their position. Ok, maybe I missed it in my reading. You seem to think that the evidence is here somewhere so I will ask you to provide it for me. We aren’t allowed to post urls. Find some other way to direct us to it. Here is the request – we have asked for a single citation to support Kent’s claim in the first sentence of the “Lie” thread.
    I quote:
    “When you die, you cease to exist – This is one of the most dangerous lies textbooks teach.”

    Show us one example of an evolution textbook that states this. One. One. Just one. All we are asking for is one single citation. Kent says “textbooks”. Note the plural. Finding a single one should not be that difficult.

    The fact that neither you, nor Kent, nor Eric has been able to do it just goes to show that Kent et al. are making claims that are unsupported by evidence. And you support them in making these false claims. Oh, the pride God must feel when he looks at you all [if he existed]. If Kent et al. will make unsupported claims about something as simple as this, what other claims do they make that are equally unsupported?

  8. james chanco December 20, 2010 at 6:53 am #

    Joe Shlabotnik, this pledge is laughable.

  9. David Ray December 20, 2010 at 7:08 am #

    O-N-E. Did I mention that all we’re asking for is one?

  10. Billy Joe Grace December 20, 2010 at 7:42 am #

    “No, Jeff. You need to read a book or two on evolution written by knowledgeable biologists rather than the AIG tripe you uncritically consume.”

    we’ve obviously read the dumb lies you folks swallow, or we wouldn’t try to convince you otherwise. . evilution is unproved and unprovable, hmm… I’ve heard that somewhere before. why do you persist in believing research and “data” that you yourself didn’t come up with or observe? because GOD has sent you strong delusion that you should believe a lie. check out Romans chapter one. you know in your heart of hearts that there has been a time when you acknowledged HIM for who and what HE was. Either in a positive or negative context. You had to convince yourselves that there is no GOD. evilution is a lie.

  11. Jeff Brace December 20, 2010 at 7:46 am #

    Hey John, I have enough education to figure out that when someone is losing an argument they tend to start defending their ideas by attacking their oponent with personal attacks on how ignorant they are for believing the way they do. I see that all the time around these sites and it’s a sad thing.
    You and many others continually attack something you have no blief in. You try to convince us that your only reason for being here is to educate us morons. The reason you are here is because you are fighting within yourself to get to the real truth. It comes down to this, was the world created by a loving and perfect God, or did it come about from nothing into something. John and friends, I need no convincing of those facts. And since you have resorted to personal attacks I can only assume that the good Lord is working on your heart which fills my heart with joy. I’ll keep praying that God will soften your hardened heart. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. The day of salvation is near, please don’t waste another one. God Bless.

  12. Billy Joe Grace December 20, 2010 at 8:11 am #

    Alfred Russell Wallace December 15th at 1:33 pm

    What does this have to do with Science of your particular brand of mutant propaganda (creation science)?

    What does your question have to do with where you will spend eternity? There must be something to it or you wouldn’t bother responding. Kind of like saying that there is no GOD, and saying gd when your angry. Your own refutation is an acknowledgment of what you deny.

  13. Billy Joe Grace December 20, 2010 at 8:20 am #

    Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

    The fool hath said in his heart: there is no GOD.

    No GOD? Prove it. Then through your fairytale propaganda tell me how life came from non-life. Perhaps you adhere to the prophetical works of richard dawkins . Aliens did it. Now there’s some irrefutable evidence for ya! Maybe “on the backs of crystals” Even an honest fortune teller could refute that one for you. Oh! Maybe it was from that pipping hot bowl of non-observable primordial soup! Man, you guys have great faith!!!

  14. Billy Joe Grace December 20, 2010 at 9:29 am #

    the pied pipper? maybe I should learn to spell:)

  15. Billy Joe Grace December 20, 2010 at 9:32 am #

    When Christianity ruled the world in the Middle Ages, it was average, everyday folk that burned witches in the NAME of Christianity

    sorry Duane. those were catholics too. at least they are consistent.

  16. Alfred Russell Wallace December 20, 2010 at 9:47 am #

    BIlly Joe Grace,

    Theism is a positive claim. You are asserting that there is an agency out there controlling the universe, creating life, and supervising your life.

    My atheism is a rejection of your assertion. You are the one making the positive claim, you need to provide evidence for it.

    You said: “No GOD? Prove it.”

    If I told you that a big green invisible monster is living in my fridge, it’s like saying “Prove to me that my monster is not in the fridge.” In that case, I have the burden of proof. Not believing that there is a big green invisible monster in my fridge is the default position. You would be quite right in saying: “Big invisible green monster in your fridge? Prove it.”

    Not believing in your fable is the default position. Children are born as atheists, if you take a laissez faire approach to their belief system, they won’t magically become theists.

    So to respond to your demand, “Invisible magic man in the sky? Prove it.”

  17. John Bebbington December 20, 2010 at 10:32 am #

    Mark James wrote: “But the beneficial mutation has to start in one individual organism.

    Correct. A beneficial mutation does start in one individual but that individual has not “evolved” because individuals don’t evolve, only populations evolve. Unless the mutation spreads throughout the population the mutation will disappear – by definition.

    For evolution to take place that beneficial mutation has to become fixed in the interbreeding population. It achieves this through the mechanism of natural selection. If the individual with the beneficial mutation does not reach maturity and then pass the mutation to its offspring the mutation will disappear with the individual’s death. Even if it manages to pass the mutation down through a few generations then evolution will still not have occurred. It is only when the mutation has become fixed throughout the population (rather than present in just a few temporary individuals) that we can then say that the species has evolved. Evolution is a retrospective rather than an immediate event.

    But this deals only with mutation. There are other mechanisms which cause evolution such as gene duplication where entire sections of a genome are duplicated. The duplication itself is not an evolutionary event in the sense that it causes, say, morphological changes to the organism but it creates a well, a resource, a potentiality which allows later mutation within those copied sections which can then give rise to an increase in information. Check out how the modern rice plant has developed.

    “The implication otherwise is that the same mutation happens in more than one organism in the breeding population at the same time. The chances of this happening are so miniscule that evolution would be impossible (even more impossible than it already is).”

    You have erected a straw man. This is not any part of evolutionary theory.

    “I repeat, natural selection does not cause evolution. It is a part of the process of evolution but it is not the cause.”

    None of us said it was. The evolutionary process is mutation followed by natural selection. Without mutation natural selection has nothing to act upon and without natural selection a beneficial mutation will not spread throughout the species.

    “No reputable evolutionist would suggest that the DNA molecules started out as complex as we now know them. At some stage in evolutionary history the information for arms, legs, eyes, etc has to have been added. And, much as you (Alfred) don’t like the idea, evolution requires that this information can only have been added by chance.”

    Mark, this is where you are going wrong. The mutation comes about by chance but natural selection is what takes that chance event and spreads it through the population. Natural selection is not chance but a mechanism which enables a beneficial mutation to spread through the species simply by enabling those individuals with the mutation to be more successful in terms of numbers of off-spring than those without it.

    “We do not know of any such mechanism.”

    Wrong. See above.

    “Mutations make changes to the genetic material already available.”

    Not necessarily. See my comments on gene duplication – only one of a number of evolutionary mechanisms.

    “By the way, when compared to the timing of the post, your “getting dark” comment would suggest that you, too, are in a very different time zone to the blog.”

    Yes, I’m six hours and 150 years ahead of Eric.

  18. John Bebbington December 20, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    Billy Joe Grace wrote: “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.”

    Nobody here on the evolution side of the conversation is pretending to be wise. We leave such claims to the religionists and prefer to keep our minds open in order to learn.

    “The fool hath said in his heart: there is no GOD.”

    Maybe the fool was right. However, few, if any, on this blog make the claim.

    “No GOD? Prove it.”

    We don’t have to. Let God prove it if he is capable of it.

    “Then through your fairytale propaganda tell me how life came from non-life”

    Don’t yet know. That’s why science is looking. It certainly wasn’t by piff-puff-poof Alakazam.

    “Perhaps you adhere to the prophetical works of richard dawkins . Aliens did it. Now there’s some irrefutable evidence for ya!”

    If you had ever read anything substantial by Dawkins you would understand why he believes no such thing.

    “Maybe “on the backs of crystals” Even an honest fortune teller could refute that one for you. Oh! Maybe it was from that pipping hot bowl of non-observable primordial soup! Man, you guys have great faith!!!”

    Certainly not on the back of crystals but possibly the bedding planes of crystal laminates might prove a good site for complex molecules required by primitive life forms to be synthesised – unless Billy Joe on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever says not, of course. As for soup, I had a fly in mine once but I don’t know whether it was the first of a brand new species.

  19. andrew Ryan December 20, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    Billy Joel Grace: “The fool hath said in his heart: there is no GOD.”

    Billy, that might actually be relevant if anyone on this thread had said there is no God. Can you quote anyone here who has made such a claim?

  20. John Bebbington December 20, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    Stephen Holshouser wrote: “John Bebbington, Do you have to give someone currency to be a philanthropist? Money itself does nothing for people, it is what is purchased with money that is of use to people.”

    What a weird argument. Do you think that philanthropists give away anything other than wealth which answers in money of some description or other?

    “Jesus fed thousands of people.”

    Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day…etc.

    “John, can you name one person that has done more good for humanity than Jesus Christ?”

    I’ll give you three off the top of my head out of a very great many.

    Firstly, when it comes to feeding people look how many billions of mouths are fed by the production of artificial fertiliser, a process invented by the German Fritz Haber.

    Secondly, how many lives have been saved through vaccination invented by the Frenchman Louis Pasteur?

    Thirdly, an American. Check out how Brigadier General Carl Rogers Darnall benefitted mankind.

    As an Englishman I am far too modest to mention the inventors of the steam engine, the internet or the ceramic low-level close-coupled anti-syphonic dual-flush w.c.suite.

    Now what was that you were saying about Jesus?

  21. John Bebbington December 20, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    Jeff Brace wrote: “Hey John, I have enough education to figure out that when someone is losing an argument they tend to start defending their ideas by attacking their oponent with personal attacks on how ignorant they are for believing the way they do. I see that all the time around these sites and it’s a sad thing.”

    Jeff, I’ve looked through the last six threads and nowhere have I made a personal attack on you.

    “You and many others continually attack something you have no blief in. You try to convince us that your only reason for being here is to educate us morons.”

    I don’t share your opinion of your own mental condition. :-) I’m not here to change your religious beliefs but to correct as far as I am able the poor understanding that creationists have of evolutionary theory. See my responses to Mark as an example.

    “The reason you are here is because you are fighting within yourself to get to the real truth. ”

    Please don’t fool yourself. I was bought up in fundamentalism and even as a relatively ignorant teenager I was thoroughly dismayed at the complete lack of any scientific understanding in my fellow church members. I may not yet know what the “truth” is but I’m fairly certain I know what it isn’t.

    “It comes down to this, was the world created by a loving and perfect God, or did it come about from nothing into something.”

    Unlike you, I don’t believe the universe came from “nothing”. As for God being loving and perfect, if he is so why would he create a physical universe in the certain knowledge that his action would condemn untold numbers of human beings to an eternal fundamentalist hell? Philosophically, it is an inadequate response to suggest that human kind consigns itself to hell.

    “John and friends, I need no convincing of those facts. And since you have resorted to personal attacks I can only assume that the good Lord is working on your heart which fills my heart with joy.”

    I challenge you to point to any comment of mine which is a personal attack upon you.

    Meanwhile, I still await to hear from you concerning the Ice Core project. Why do you refuse to respond but rather waste a post complaining about non-existent personal attacks?

  22. Jennifer Preston December 20, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    Billy Joe Grace said:
    “we’ve obviously read the dumb lies you folks swallow, or we wouldn’t try to convince you otherwise. . ”

    Right, so basically scientists everywhere are faking their observations/lying about what they observe??

  23. Jennifer Preston December 20, 2010 at 3:14 pm #

    Plus I showed in “Fossils Don’t Talk” how evolution was testable science.

  24. Tim Matter December 20, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    Billy Joe Grace – Romans 1: 19-20 seems to imply that you will not have any excuse for not knowing about God because of what you can learn about him from looking at nature. Ask any geologist or astronomer if there is any possible way what they see in the rocks and the stars to be only 6000 -10,000 years old. The few who believe that, don’t do so because of the evidence, but against it. They desperately try to fit it all in to the Young Earth Worldview out of fear they will be damned if they believe the delusion of an old earth. I have to ask, why would the God of Truth “sent you strong delusion that you should believe a lie”? I thought the devil was the father of all lies.

  25. Tim Matter December 20, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    Because we have learned about nature, and it does behave predictably, I am told there will be a total eclipse tonight. And we know exactly when they will occur thousands of years into the future, and when they were thousands of years in the past.
    We also know SN1987, a supernova we saw in 1987, was 168,000 light years away, meaning it exploded 168,000 years ago, and the light just reached us in 1987. There are about a dozen attempts to explain “The distant starlight problem”. I invite you to read them, then read the critiques to them. The best one is the “Appearance of Age Theory”, but that causes theological problems because it make God out to be a deceiver on a massive scale. Again, I have to ask, why would the God of Truth “sent you strong delusion that you should believe a lie”? I thought the devil was the father of all lies.

  26. John Poe December 20, 2010 at 8:32 pm #

    You evilutionists crack me up. You guys think that man came out of the mud. If evilution is true, why are there still monkeys?

    You can’t answer that one.

    You just need to look at things with a biblical perspective. I’m lucky that I was homeschooled so I was never indocrinated in evilultion.

  27. Duane December 20, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

    @Billy Joe Grace December 20th at 8:20 am

    “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

    The fool hath said in his heart: there is no GOD.

    No GOD? Prove it. Then through your fairytale propaganda tell me how life came from non-life. Perhaps you adhere to the prophetical works of richard dawkins . Aliens did it. Now there’s some irrefutable evidence for ya! Maybe “on the backs of crystals” Even an honest fortune teller could refute that one for you. Oh! Maybe it was from that pipping hot bowl of non-observable primordial soup! Man, you guys have great faith!!!”

    Fairytale propaganda? You do realize the side you are defending is about an invisible man who said some magic words to make the universe, who created man from dirt, who took a rib from him to make woman, put them in a garden with a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” where a talking snake convinced the man and woman to eat a fruit from that tree “to open their eyes”, years later a man was told to gather animals from all over the world into a boat while the earth was flooded, and years later still this invisible man impregnated a virgin to give birth to himself so he could then sacrifice himself to himself to fulfill some rules that he himself had made, and if you don’t believe this you will be tortured forever…because he loves you….

    And OUR side is fairytale propaganda?

  28. Mark James December 21, 2010 at 1:20 am #

    Hi Alfred,

    I wrote: “Mutation is a failure of DNA repair. DNA undergoes chemical change, especially when being eplicated, and changes that are not repaired result in mutation.”

    You wrote “No, it is not. You seem to misunderstand mutation.”

    I beg to differ. DNA are molecules. Any change to a molecule must involve chemical processes, so any change to DNA must involve chemical processes. Mutations change DNA.

    Changes to DNA that affect proteins are, in the majority of cases, fatal. There is a (quite remarkable) inbuilt mechanism in the cell that repairs these changes. If the repair works there is no change to the DNA and hence no mutation. If the repair fails the DNA is changed and the result is a mutation.

    You wrote: “Have you heard of the natural process of genetic recombination? Eukaryotes use this process in Meiosis, when the chromosomes fashion themselves together to produce the genetic information for the offspring. This crossover creates differing genes from the parent.”

    Chromosome crossover during meiosis, and meiosis itself, do not, in themselves, constitute mutations. These processes do give rise to genetic diversity, yes, but the genes transferred are already in the population and nothing new is created. Meiosis is the process by which mutations are passed on to the next generation but it does not cause these mutations. (Please note that I am not saying mutations can’t occur during meiosis).

    Do beneficial mutations occur? Yes, they do. But they are invariably the result of a loss of information. They may not be deleterious to the organism but at best they have no effect on, and more often than not they are deleterious to, the genome.

  29. Mark James December 21, 2010 at 2:08 am #

    Alfred,

    You wrote “If an organism possess (sic) a beneficial trait via mutation (longer neck, thicker beak, larger brain) it will allow the organism to survive and breed more successfully than others.”

    The examples you give are all good examples of natural selection (and I have no problem with natural selection). But this is where I believe you are confused. You are correct when you state that natural selection is not a random process but, as you so rightly point out above, first there had to be a mutation. If the mutation hadn’t made the change, natural selection would have nothing to work on.

    And mutations are, by their very nature, random. We don’t know where on the DNA they are going to occur, we can’t predict what the change will be and we don’t know (for certain) what the result will be, they are random.

    You can argue ’til you’re blue in the face that evolution does not involve chance but it won’t change the fact that the whole theory depends on a random chance mechanism.

  30. Jack Napper December 21, 2010 at 10:45 am #

    Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

    I think you need passage. This one is getting a bit worn. Seriously. Head over to Ray Comfort’s blog and you’ll quickly lose count.

    The fool hath said in his heart: there is no GOD.

    There is no Easter Bunny. There is no Frosty. Are you seriously gonna tell me that took faith?

    No GOD? Prove it.

    Just as soon as you can explain how to prove a negative. Sadly though we’re still waiting for your proof. It’s rather sad that you don’t realize you’re shifting the burden of proof. I know that theists are probably tired after tens of thousands of years of all the demands for proof but that’s no excuse.

    Then through your fairytale propaganda tell me how life came from non-life.

    You can always spot a creationist (or a hick) because they use poor language like “life from non-life”.

    Perhaps you adhere to the prophetical works of richard dawkins . Aliens did it.

    Quote mining at its finest.

    Even an honest fortune teller could refute that one for you. Oh! Maybe it was from that pipping hot bowl of non-observable primordial soup! Man, you guys have great faith!!!

    FACEPALM

  31. Jack Napper December 21, 2010 at 10:52 am #

    Hey John, I have enough education to figure out that when someone is losing an argument they tend to start defending their ideas by attacking their oponent with personal attacks on how ignorant they are for believing the way they do………

    Really??? All I see is the same old tactic of “I can’t come up with a decent counter argument so I’m gonna run home and cry”.

    Nice APPEAL TO EMOTION by the way.

  32. Jeff Brace December 21, 2010 at 6:17 pm #

    Hey John, when you tell someone to go read a book you imply that they have no knowledge of the subject. To be honest, a child can figure this one out. Nothing you can say would convince even a child that something came from nothing.
    As for whether or not there is a God, we have a true and complete history of God in the Bible as well as the life, crucifiction and ressurrection of Jesus Christ. Our entire calendar system is based on His life and death.
    In the end you still are coming here trying to convince everyone there is no God? Why is that important to you? And since you can’t, why don’t you stop trying.

  33. Stephen Holshouser December 21, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

    John Bebbington

    In response to my challenge for you to name one person that has done more good for humanity than Jesus Christ you wrote:

    “I’ll give you three off the top of my head out of a very great many. Firstly, when it comes to feeding people look how many billions of mouths are fed by the production of artificial fertiliser, a process invented by the German Fritz Haber.”

    You mean the Christian- Fritz Haber, who was educated at the Christian-founded University of Heidelberg, that Fritz Haber? He did contribute a lot to the world of fertilizer, but after reading your posts, I think you could give him a run for his money. : )

    You proceeded with:
    “Secondly, how many lives have been saved through vaccination invented by the Frenchman Louis Pasteur?”

    You mean the Christian- Louis Pasteur who was also educated in the Christian- founded University of Strasbourg, that Louis Pasteur? Interesting that you would pick someone that was quoted from a lecture saying, “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment” when you, John, most assuredly hold to the doctrine of spontaneous generation.

    You continued with:
    “Thirdly, an American. Check out how Brigadier General Carl Rogers Darnall benefitted mankind.”

    You mean the Christian born and raised Carl Rogers Darnall who was also educated in a Christian-founded university? Besides, you would dare to place the guy who invented the chlorinator above Jesus Christ?? I’m embarrassed for you, sir.

    You see, these Christian men, educated at Christian-founded schools could not have been the blessing they are to society without the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ as the foundation of it all.

    Just fyi; you might find interesting the purpose of Johannes Strum in founding Pasteur’s school; “to direct the aspiration of the scholars toward God, to develop their intelligence, and to render them useful citizens by teaching them the skill to communicate their thoughts and sentiments with persuasive effect.”

    When you try to pick someone that is a greater blessing to the world than Jesus Christ, you have to find someone that was not directly or indirectly positively affected by Him… otherwise you are just giving Jesus more glory and praise for the impact His life has on the world… thank you for doing that by the way!

    more to come, hopefully.

  34. Stephen Holshouser December 21, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    John Bebbington continued;

    When blaspheming Christ, you said;
    “There is no record of Jesus giving any money to anybody. He even made a fish cough up and a widow give him her last two cents. That doesn’t make him much of a philanthropist.”

    Then I commented: Do you have to give someone currency to be a philanthropist? Money itself does nothing for people, it is what is purchased with money that is of use to people.

    You, John, followed with;
    “What a weird argument. Do you think that philanthropists give away anything other than wealth which answers in money of some description or other?”

    Sure, just like Jesus healing and feeding people, there was no money involved. The definition of philanthropy is “the effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind.” …no currency mentioned here.

    Don’t you think it is ironic that you claimed Jesus was not a philanthropist because He wasn’t known for handing out money, but then when challenged to name a greater benefit to the world than Jesus, you didn’t list anyone known for handing out money? I just thought that was funny, you English atheists slay me!

  35. Stephen Holshouser December 21, 2010 at 10:24 pm #

    John Bebbington, one last post for you here;

    You said,
    “Now what was that you were saying about Jesus?”

    I thought you would never ask! Even if you wrongly believe He was only a man, His life is ultimately the reason for most of the good in the world today. He is, indeed, God’s Gift to man. Believers and unbelievers both enjoy great blessings because of the Lord Jesus’ even unbelievers readily acknowledge this.

    What a beautiful life He has! Who do you know that would willingly suffer so much for those who were His enemies? Who do you know that is totally sinless except for Jesus Christ? It is because He was perfectly righteous and also took the penalty that sinners deserved that you and I can be reconciled to God, our Creator. This is the gospel; God has made provision for us to be forgiven and made righteous in His sight because Jesus is the substitute for sinners. We are justified by faith in Christ alone. Romans 5:1

    John, may God grant you the grace to know Him as your own Savior

    SH

  36. Stephen Holshouser December 21, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    Jack the Napper,

    “You can always spot a creationist (or a hick) because they use poor language like “life from non-life”.”

    FACEPALM

    You can always spot an evolutionist because they believe that life came from non-life and hate when creationists point it out.

  37. Tim Matter December 21, 2010 at 10:40 pm #

    John Poe – He who lives in a glass house, shouldn’t throw rocks.
    You ridiculed evolution saying “You guys think that man came out of the mud.”
    But you thing nearly the same thing, that we came from dried mud, which is dust. Genesis 2: 7 , “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground”

    You wrote “If evilution is true, why are there still monkeys? You can’t answer that one.”
    Think about how dogs came from wolves, then think “why are there still wolves?” When you have the answer to the wolf question, you will have the answer to the monkey question. And by the way, evolution says monkeys and humans had a common ancestor, not that we evolved from them.

    I used to look at things from a Biblical perspective, and so many things didn’t add up. Once I found out the truth, that the Bible was written by men, trying their best to explain things 1900 – 3000 years ago, it makes much more sense now.

  38. Alfred Russell Wallace December 21, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    Mark James,

    You wrote:

    “Do beneficial mutations occur? Yes, they do.”

    Thanks bud. That’s all I needed. It doesn’t matter if 99% of mutations are fatal, awful, cause sterility, or are harmful. The 1% of mutations that prove beneficial are the only ones that will be passed on to future generations. In essence, they are the only mutations that matter.

    DNA mutates in almost every case of reproduction (save for some asexual species). If you’re trying to say that the majority of mutations are deleterious, you still don’t get the point.

    In any case, even if we accept your gut feeling that most are harmful, that still allows for the passing of beneficial traits. You sir, have admitted that evolution by natural selection occurs. You’ve made a big step forward, I congratulate you.

    Also, were you able to find that definition of “mutation” in a peer-reviewed and accepted genetics text yet?

  39. Geno Castagnoli December 22, 2010 at 12:40 am #

    Mark James wrote:
    mutations are, by their very nature, random. We don’t know where on the DNA they are going to occur, we can’t predict what the change will be and we don’t know (for certain) what the result will be, they are random.

    You can argue ’til you’re blue in the face that evolution does not involve chance but it won’t change the fact that the whole theory depends on a random chance mechanism.
    **********

    Geno points out:
    Only part of the process is random. Natural selection acts as a filter. Consider throwing dice then having a process that selects only the 1’s. Is the result still random?

  40. Geno Castagnoli December 22, 2010 at 12:42 am #

    Mark James wrote:
    Do beneficial mutations occur? Yes, they do. But they are invariably the result of a loss of information.
    *********

    Geno asks:
    If there is a “loss of information,” there must be a way to measure or quantify biological information. Can you produce it? Is it the gene? The chromosome? The base pair?

  41. Duane December 22, 2010 at 12:53 am #

    @Billy Joe Grace December 20th at 9:32 am

    When Christianity ruled the world in the Middle Ages, it was average, everyday folk that burned witches in the NAME of Christianity

    sorry Duane. those were catholics too. at least they are consistent.”

    Last time I checked, Catholics were Christians, and at that time, they were the ONLY Christians. This is not the same as finding some madman like Pol Pot and laying all of Atheism at his feet. Every time Pat Robertson opens his mouth and claims hurricanes are the result of sin, then it just shows that Christianity has never gotten past its ignorant beliefs.

  42. John Bebbington December 22, 2010 at 2:47 am #

    Mark wrote: “You can argue ’til you’re blue in the face that evolution does not involve chance but it won’t change the fact that the whole theory depends on a random chance mechanism.”

    You could argue that evolution depends upon random chance events but the mechanism of mutation + selection is not random. Evolution is blind in the sense that it does not know where it is going. It is also opportunistic in that favourable traits fill available niches. The one thing it isn’t is random for, if it were, the world would be full of three-legged dogs. Or:

    “My non-dog’s got no nose”.

    “How does it smell”?

    “Well, fortunately, by random chance it’s evolved some smell receptors just underneath its tail. The down side is that, to Rover, everything smells of….”

    which is an example of a random but not very useful mutation.

    Another example would be Billy Joe Grace.

  43. John Bebbington December 22, 2010 at 2:58 am #

    Hey, John Poe. Wonderful stuff. Keep the satire coming.

    That goes for Billy Joe too.

  44. Mark James December 22, 2010 at 4:40 am #

    Hi John,

    If the first step in a process is the result of random chance then, no matter how many guided steps follow that first step, everything produced by the process is the result of chance.

    Here’s a simple analogy:

    I am a “splatter” artist. I throw paint at pieces of paper and random images are formed.

    You notice that one of my random images looks like a duck. You like ducks and you buy (select) my duck picture. You then make thousands of copies and sell them to duck lovers around the world.

    Your input is a guided process but the image on every single one of your prints is, and will always be, the result of random chance.

  45. Mark James December 22, 2010 at 4:51 am #

    John (again),

    I said “Mutations make changes to the genetic material already available.”

    You said “Not necessarily. See my comments on gene duplication only one of a number of evolutionary mechanisms.”

    Surely, for a gene to be duplicated, the genetic material must already be available, otherwise there would be nothing to duplicate?

    I’ll need proof of the ‘six hours and 150 years ahead of Eric.’ Who wins next years rugby world cup?

  46. Stephen Holshouser December 22, 2010 at 10:53 am #

    John Bebbington, okay-last thing for real this time… maybe

    You said;
    “Please don’t fool yourself. I was bought up in fundamentalism and even as a relatively ignorant teenager I was thoroughly dismayed at the complete lack of any scientific understanding in my fellow church members. I may not yet know what the “truth” is but I’m fairly certain I know what it isn’t….

    Should we reject evolution because of those like “Alfred Russell Wallace” who don’t know what they are talking about either? That seems to be one of the reasons you rejected God… because some professing Christians were ignorant.

    You said;
    “As for God being loving and perfect, if he is so why would he create a physical universe in the certain knowledge that his action would condemn untold numbers of human beings to an eternal fundamentalist hell? Philosophically, it is an inadequate response to suggest that human kind consigns itself to hell.”

    The Lord does not love those in hell, or those that are on their way there (although He gives life and breath and good things to all.. Acts 14:15-17, Acts 17:24-28). That doesn’t take anything away from His love and perfection… He is also perfectly just. I’m sure you hate some things as well… that doesn’t mean you don’t love what you love.

    God’s eternal love is only displayed to His elect… those He sovereignly purposed to rescue from the penalty of sin, not according to their works, but according to His will (Eph 1). However, He refuses mercy and deliverance to NO ONE that comes to Him in repentance and believing on His Son, Jesus as their only means of acceptance(John 6:37).

    God does let people go their own way and follow their own will, so yes, men do “consign” themselves to hell… it is truly amazing grace that He does not let everyone continue in their own corrupt way. Why God does what He does is far above what we can understand… right now, I believe that you think you are more righteous and wise than your Creator, and that you would do things much differently… this mindset only comes from a combination of arrogance, ignorance, and pure rebellion… you’ll never believe with this heart of stone. But who knows? you, John Bebbington, may be worshipping God in spirit and in truth before it’s over with… I hope!