• Guest Post – The Thinker’s Evolutionary Argument Against God (EAAG)

    It’s time to welcome our first guest post here. The Thinker has occasionally dropped a line and commented on various arguments. He runs his own blog called Atheism & The City, being a secular urbanite living in New York. His philosophically minded blog is worth reading here. His formulation of today’s post can be found here. This post is concerned the incompatibilism of God and the truth of evolution. Ie theistic evolutionary is problematic. This is very closely connected to my point and post on photosynthesis and the necessity of suffering to merely exist.

    Thanks so much to the Thinker for contributing this post. Anyway, over to The Thinker himself:

    Atheists generally tend to not rely on deductive arguments or syllogisms to make their case against God. However, while recently debating a challenge I proposed to theistic evolutionists against the incompatibility of an omni-benevolent creator with evolution, I’ve come up with a counter argument to Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism called the Evolutionary Argument Against God or the EAAG.

    This argument is predicated on the traditional concept of God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good and the notion that God either started the evolutionary process as a means to enable human existence or that he both started and guided the evolutionary process along some of its steps to ensure humans would evolve.

    The argument goes as follows:

    1. If God chose to use evolution as the process by which he created human beings and all other forms of life, then God knowingly chose a process that requires suffering that is logically unnecessary.
    2. If humans are the product of gradual evolution guided by God, then at some point during the process the soul appeared.
    3. Once the soul appeared, humans could be rewarded in an afterlife for the suffering they endured while they were alive.
    4. If higher level primates are capable of third level pain awareness (knowing they are experiencing pain) then our pre-human hominid ancestors also did and they did not have souls.
    5.  This means God chose to create humans using a method that knowingly would involve conscious suffering that was not logically necessary.
    6. An all-good, perfectly moral God who is incapable of unwarranted cruelty would not create beings that could consciously suffer in a way that was not logically necessary.
    7. Therefore, the traditional notion of God who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good does not exist.

    Since almost every premise here is a conditional, let’s examine each of the premises to see what objections we might find.

    (1) If God chose to use evolution as the process by which he created human beings and all other forms of life, then God knowingly chose a process that requires suffering that is logically unnecessary.

    Premise 1 asserts the fact that the evolutionary process logically requires suffering, which God would of course have known before using the evolutionary process to create humans. Some theists like William Lane Craig think of God like an artist who takes pleasure in the method for creating life using evolution. Another theory is that God chose to use evolution contingently as a punishment for original sin which God decided would be applied retroactively to the millions of species that existed before human beings. Alvin Plantinga has proposed the idea that “Satan and his minions” have tinkered with the evolutionary process and have caused the natural evils it produces[i]. Regardless of what explanation a theist has in mind, God still willingly chose to create man using millions of other species merely as a means to an end, and many of those species contained sentient beings who consciously suffered tremendous ordeals. It seems odd to me that a wholly good and omni-benevolent God would intentionally choose a method of bringing about human beings that requires millions of years of suffering as there doesn’t appear to be an logically necessary reason apart from wildly absurd and ad hoc conjecture.

    (2) If humans are the product of gradual evolution guided by God, then at some point during the process the soul appeared.

    For premise 2, even if a theist believes that fully rational humans appeared at once in a single generation as some theistic evolutionists do, or that “humans” can only be body + soul composites, we still have enough evidence that our hominid ancestors and cousins like Neanderthals had language capability (via the FOXP2 gene that we share) and that means they certainly had more advanced functioning rational and cognitive faculties than modern day chimps and gorillas. So millions of years would have passed before we get modern humans during which our pre-human hominid ancestors and cousins lived and were capable of conscious, apperceptive suffering.

    (3) Once the soul appeared, humans could be rewarded in an afterlife for the suffering they endured while they were alive.

    Most theists believe that the soul gives humans the possibility of being rewarded in an afterlife and that this compensates the suffering that humans endure in their physical form on Earth. Natural evils like disease all have a purpose, according to some theists, in that they bring people closer to God, or that they are the byproduct of original sin. But, if a human is defined as a body + soul composite, then our pre-human hominid ancestors lacked souls and were suffering from the same diseases and natural evils that we are. God must’ve chosen not to compensate their suffering, while at the same time he allowed them to evolve the ability to be consciously self-aware of their suffering. The original sin argument doesn’t make sense either. There’s no evidence that there were ever just two people, and, the theist would have to believe that the punishment for original sin was retroactively applied to animals before humans even evolved! Not only is this cruel, this doesn’t make sense considering evolution requires suffering (which God would’ve known beforehand). It is impossible to have an evolutionary process unfold without suffering. So theists who bring up original sin are logically incoherent. (All this exists in addition to the problem that compensation doesn’t logically equate to justification).

    (4) If higher level primates are capable of third level pain awareness (knowing they are experiencing pain) then our pre-human hominid ancestors also did and they did not have souls.

    If premise 4 is true it logically follows. Our pre-human hominid ancestors and cousins like Neanderthals would have had evolved advanced levels of cognition that may not have been quite as advanced as a modern human, but necessarily must have been more advanced than a modern day primate like a chimp or a gorilla.

    (5) This means God chose to create humans using a method that knowingly would involve conscious suffering that was not logically necessary.

    Premise 5 suggests that God is just a mere utilitarian who uses millions of other species as a means to his end goal of creating human beings, but what makes God different from other utilitarians is that since evolution requires massive amounts of suffering, God actually chooses the greater of two evils rather than the lesser of two evils! It’s kind of odd since he’s supposed to be morally perfect.

    (6) An all-good, perfectly moral God who is incapable of unwarranted cruelty would not create beings that could consciously suffer in a way that was not logically necessary.

    Premise 6 states the most important logical aspect of the argument – that a morally perfect being like God is incapable of unwarranted cruelty, which evolution requires. There seems to be no plausible way that a theist can justify the suffering that evolution requires. I have heard theists like William Lane Craig argue that animals are not consciously aware that they’re in pain, but he even admits this does not apply to the higher primates, and that logically means it wouldn’t apply to our hominid ancestors. That’s really all I need to show in order for my argument to work. And so if our human suffering is logically necessary for some unknown purpose because we have souls, then this fails to logically explain why soul-less conscious animals would have to suffer under the evolutionary process.

    (7) Therefore, the traditional notion of God who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good does not exist.

    If my premises are correct, then the conclusion in number 7 logically follows because an all-good God is incompatible with creating unwarranted cruelty, and because it requires the ability or at least the capacity of intentional cruelty or indifference.

    If this argument is successful this means theists like William Lane Craig and Alvin Pantinga have to accept that God is intentionally cruel and capable of committing unwarranted suffering, which means of course he cannot exist!

    In order for the theists who holds to the view of God this argument is predicated on the refute the EAAG, they would have to show how the argument is somehow logically invalid, or show how a wholly good, morally perfect God is compatible with the existence of gratuitous, logically unnecessary apperceptive animal and pre-human hominid suffering, in which case they’d have to attack the science backing up third level pain awareness. If the theist cannot do this, they must admit that their notion of God is either incompetent, indifferent, or intentionally cruel, in which case their concept of God would be logically incoherent with what they’d be conceding. That would mean that this concept of God cannot logically exist. And since this concept of God must exist in every possible world, as per the ontological argument, if there exists a single possible world that this God is incompatible with, then it destroys the possibility of this God existing in any possible world. That world of course is the actual world.

    This argument is admittedly in its first draft and will most certainly need to be refined with time. I’ve considered shortening it down to just 3 premises but I want this argument to be part of the public domain, so if you think it works and you think you can improve it, by all means customize it to your liking. A shortened version of the argument below uses just premises 1 and 6 of the original and the conclusion:

    1.  If God chose to use evolution as the process by which he created human beings and all other forms of life, then God knowingly chose a process that requires suffering that is logically unnecessary.
    2. An all-good, perfectly moral God who is incapable of unwarranted cruelty would not create beings that could consciously suffer in a way that was not logically necessary.
    3. Therefore, the traditional notion of God who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good does not exist.

    [i] Plantinga, A, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (2011, Oxford University Press). pp. 58-59

    Category: AtheismEvolutionPhilosophical Argument Against God

    Tags:

    Article by: Jonathan MS Pearce

    One Pingback/Trackback

    • Honest_John_Law

      This is an excellent article, The Thinker. Well done.

      Jonathan, I noticed that you recently wrote an article on Dr. Randal Rauser’s website summarizing why you are not a believer. I noticed you made a strong point re. photosynthesis vs. carnivorousness that Dr. Rauser seems to have completely avoided in his remarks. re. your article. Perhaps he has no logical rebuttal to that point. I think it is an excellent point that needs to be repeated over and over.

      • Thanks for the feedback, John, really appreciated. I will keep plugging away at the point!

    • Joseph O Polanco

      A few problems:

      I. The Theory of Evolution presupposes Gradualism and Common Descent: http://bit.ly/17PMEwz

      II. Christ Jesus, and his sedulous followers by extension, endorse creation by God as delineated in Genesis, not evolution –

      ““Did YOU not read [in Genesis] that he [God] who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female?” – Matthew 19: 4,5 (Genesis 2:7, 21-24)

      • Andy_Schueler

        I. The Theory of Evolution presupposes Gradualism and Common Descent

        How often do you plan to repeat these idiotic lies?

        • Joseph O Polanco

          Argumentum ad Lapidem. You’ve done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the brute facts that support them. Try again.

          • Andy_Schueler

            I did, because you posted the same idiocy on another blog just an hour ago – and now you (again) post the same “there are no transitional fossils” lies, then you´ll (again) shift the goalposts to demanding a fossil for every single organism that ever lived after I point out that we have indeed thousands of fossils documenting key transitions, and then I will call you a fucktard (again).
            Since you are a despicable lying scumbag, you should think about letting some of your JW brothers who are not quite as dishonest as you are do the job – your lies kind of contradict your earlier claims of the Jehovah´s witnesses being “loving, good, joyous, kind, patient, altruistic, loyal, forgiving, peaceful, compassionate, in effect, everything that represents the very best attributes of mankind” (hint: honesty is usually included among the “best attributes of mankind”)

            • Joseph O Polanco

              That’s a strawman. I’ve always maintained, based on the findings of scientists in a host of fields, that the fossil record does not “show a series of infinitesimally gradual changes from one being to another.” (http://bit.ly/17PMEwz) Hence, Gradualism and Common Descent are canards. This explains why the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium had to be fabricated. No wonder so PE as nothing more than just a bad euphemism for divine creation.

            • Andy_Schueler

              that the fossil record does not “show a series of infinitesimally gradual changes from one being to another.”

              Creationist logic 101: There is not an “infinitesimally gradual change” between you and your parents, which conclusively proves that you were not actually born from your mother but magically created by a wizard and brought by a storch.

              Hence, Gradualism and Common Descent are canards.

              If you are a Creationist fucktard who doesn´t even know what gradualism means (and that the word has multiple meanings), then maybe.

              This explains why the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium had to be fabricated.

              No, this had to be “fabricated” because the rates of evolutionary change indeed do vary over geological timescales. Moron.

              No wonder so many see PE as nothing more than just a bad euphemism for divine creation.

              You consider evolution from a common ancestor to be a euphemism for divine creation? Hint: you might want to look up fancy words like “euphemism” before using them.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. What’s a storch? Is it like a crocoduck?

              II. False analogy. The progression of a zygote into a fully developed baby including all of the minute gradual changes involved are well documented. Try again.

              III. I do not respond to ad homs. Try again.

              IV. See III. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. What’s a storch? Is it like a crocoduck?

              No, finding a crocoduck would refute evolution, finding a stork would
              not.

              II. False analogy. The progression of a zygote into a fully developed baby including all of the minute gradual changes involved are well documented.

              And neither for the Zygote, nor for it´s genes, nor for the adult organism, do we see an “infinitesimally gradual change” connecting you to either the phenotype or genotype of your parents. Thus conclusively proving that you were created by a wizard and brought by a stork. Isn´t creationist “logic” fun?

              III. I do not respond to ad homs. Try again.

              Learn what an ad hominem is you moron.

              IV. See III. Try again.

              See III. Try again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Wait. Are you saying you’re some type of alien species that didn’t originate from a zygote nurtured in your mother’s womb? It sure would explain a lot … lol

            • Andy_Schueler

              See, that is why I called you a lying scumbag. Because you are a lying scumbag. You realized that “infinitesimally gradual change” is an idiotic standard which, if applied, would prove that you are not related to your parents – you could have admitted that, but no – you have to try shit like this.
              Lying scumbag.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              As I’ve made clear, I don’t respond to ad homs. Given your insistence on relying on them, your position is forfeit. Be well.

            • Andy_Schueler

              So you still don´t know what an ad hominem is eh?

            • We can empirically see very fast evolution in, say, guppies and italian wall lizards. Climate change is also causing rapid evolution. Evolution is ALL about environment and adaption to it. Thus if the environment changes rapidly, the survivors will be those organisms which can rapidly adapt. It’s all fairly obvious and logical. And not ad hoc. And offering no prediction, like your theories.

              Maybe check some science…
              http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130409095414.htm

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Really? How long before those guppies or wall lizards evolve into something that are not guppies or wall lizards?

            • Er, you do know how long a million years is? You do know how long 8 years is in comparison?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              So you’re just assuming guppies and wall lizards will evolve into kinds that are not guppies or wall lizards?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Btw, I’d be careful with all your bigoted hatemongering. It’d be a real shame to see you get banned, he h e hehe :)

            • Andy_Schueler

              Stop being a lying scumbag and you won´t be called a lying scumbag.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              When have ad homs ever won anyone a single debate, huh bigot?

            • Andy_Schueler

              An ad hominem is a personal attack substituted for an argument, an actual argument coupled with a personal attack is not an ad hominem.
              Moron.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Feel better bigot? What now? Are you going to send me to the gulags? lol

            • Andy_Schueler

              I accept your submission.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You forfeited. You’re the one who’s been dominated.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Trying to teach a complete idiot like you what an ad hominem actually is, is not forfeiting.

            • John Grove

              Denying evolution in this day and age to me is analogous to being a Holocaust denier or the “we didn’t land on the moon” crowd. Perhaps a member of the Flat Earth Society. It really is not up for debate anymore. It is as much a fact as gravity, thus debating a Christian would makes absurd caricatures of it merely shows that he doesn’t even understand what he is rejecting.

            • i think deniers of evolution almost always do not understand it, certainly to the level of full understanding. They are rejecting a consensus view of evolution with an AiG understanding of it. It is such an insult to those who have been involved in a 200 year journey toward what is now a really robust understanding and synthesis of the research. I pity the fool!

            • John Grove

              Also, what Joseph really fails to understand is that even though the fossil record supports the notion of evolution by natural selection to such a high degree, it would be supported and confirmed anyhow without it. To such a degree that it has been rightly said, that even if we didn’t find one fossil, evolution would be confirmed. But the fact that it does really seals the deal.

              In other words, he simply does not know what the hell is is talking about.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Also, what Joseph really fails to understand is that even though the fossil record supports the notion of evolution by natural selection to such a high degree, it would be supported and confirmed anyhow without it.

              He does know that there are other lines of evidence supporting common descent, but he is extremely dishonest (not JohnM level dishonest, but close) and only interested in spamming his JW links.

            • John Grove

              I just read one of the papers that Joseph pointed us too, it contained so much misinformation on one page that it would take a huge correspondence just to clear up the distortions and lies and misrepresentations. It just isn’t worth it.

            • I got 2 paragraphs into one of them and gave up. If you don’t realise that that shit has been refuted time and again, and if you don’t read books about evolution BY evolutionary biologists, then there’s no hope for you…

            • Joseph O Polanco

              No problem scholar. Just pick one. This outta be fun :)

            • John Grove

              The very language and tone that Joseph employs is one of religious certainty, unfalsifiablity and invincible ignorance. It is as if he is baiting you with his arrogance, but based on the papers he pointed us to, it simply is not worth it. There is so much misinformation that all I can say, and sorry to say, he is deluded grossly.

              Fossils is just one category, and it is not nearly the most important (genetic and molecular evidence is even *more* convincing … to the point that even if no fossil had ever been found, the evidence for evolution, including common descent, would be overwhelming).

              1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:
              a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span … i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)
              b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).
              c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.
              d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

              2. Fossil evidence – (So much to list). The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development … more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.

              3. Genetic evidence – E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes … and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).

              4. Molecular evidence – These are commonalities in DNA … which is separate from genetic commonalities … much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically ‘typos’) enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the ‘molecular clock’ and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).

              5. Evidence from proteins – Proteins – E.g., things like blood proteins (the things that give us our A, B, O blood typing and the Rh factor (the plus/minus thing) which incidentally stands for ‘rhesus monkey’); the exact structure of the insulin molecule; and my favorite, the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates (the great apes and the monkeys found in Africa and Asia). These proteins are absent in New World primates (the Central and South American monkeys), and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision … but these use slightly *different* proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the OW primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the OW primates.

              6. Vestigial and atavistic organs – E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).

              7. Embryology – E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human embryos; snake embryos with legs; marsupial eggshell and carnuncle.

              8. Biogeography – The current and past distribution of species on the planet. E.g. almost all marsupials and almost no placental mammals are native to Australia … the result of speciation in a geographically isolated area.

              9. Homology – E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.

              10. Bacteriology, virology, immunology, pest-control – I.e. the way that bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics (we can compare strains of tuberculosis today, with samples of older epidemics and can see the specific structures), or viruses (like HIV) respond to antivirals, or insects evolving in response to pesticides.

              Each of these categories has literally so much evidence for common descent that evolution is as much a fact as the fact of the Holocaust. To deny this is simply to play the ostrich to mountains of evidence. It is not up for debate anymore, there are just too many facts. But arguing with one, especially a JW simply is an exercise in futility.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. How does any of this change the fact that Gradualism and Common Descent are suppositions?

              II. Did those flies evolve into something that wasn’t a fly anymore?

              III. Did those mice evolve into something that wasn’t a mouse anymore?

              III. And in what units is the congruity between fossils actually measured in?

              IV. Change observed today doesn’t prove that evolution happened in the past. Otherwise the Iraq War would prove that the War of 1812 actually occurred. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. How does any of this change the fact that Gradualism and Common Descent are suppositions?

              This has been explained to you at least four times now, you ignored it and simply spew the same BS over and over and over again.
              Why do you lie so much?

            • John Grove

              Joe,
              Most of your questions are creationist questions which show that you simply do not know or understand evolution at all. They are superficial shallow questions that demonstrate you read creationist material and not books from any evolutionary biologists.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You mean evolution does not profess that successive generations move in an identifiable direction as certain characteristics in individuals increase the chance of that individual’s survival and chance of passing on those characteristics to their offspring?

            • Do you understand the Sorites Paradox and the Problem of Species, out of interest? Since you have shown untold ignorance already, I expect not.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Certainly. These buttress my earlier assertion that the interpretation of data is colored by the observer’s philosophical predispositions.

            • ManhattanMC

              I BS creationist talking point and completely wrong.

              II BS creationist talking point and completely wrong since that would disprove evoluti9on.

              III BS creationist talking point and completely wrong-see II

              IV (Why is it you’re too stupid to count correctly, moron?)
              BS creationist talking point and completely wrong. And the fucking dumbest false analogy I’ve seen in months.
              Congratulations.

              Oh…and John Grove just kicked your ass.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ad lapidem. You’ve done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the brute facts that support them. Try again.

            • ManhattanMC

              Silver bullet phrase-tiresome and wrong.

              No, fool, John used sound argument, evidence and logic and…..
              he kicked your ass. It’s not a matter of opinion.

            • ManhattanMC

              Pull Chatty Cathy’s string-get the usual catch phrase. LOL

              If you can’t argue perhaps you should…..uhm…stop posting.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Oh really? Tell me, then, in what units are Gradualism measured in and Common Descent quantified?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Ah, [sarcasm]haven´t seen that one before[/sarcasm]. What a dishonest and boring asshole you are, incredible.

      • I Does it? I would say if predicts common descent. And what are your theories on gradualism, since you are good at asserting, not so good at defending assertions. Although you and Andy got off on the wrong foot, I imagine, as a PhD molecular evolutionary biologist, he would fairly easily school you on the science.

        II So what. What does that have to do with truth, especially empirically testable ones?

        III WTF? Who cares what a 2000 year old book has to say about science when the book in focus, Genesis, is not even remotely of that genre! You really think that book is to be read literally? Honestly? That light came before the sun? Really? Given that we can empirically show from DNA and population statistics and genetics that Genesis is not literally true? And you think that that argument will convince US?

        • John Grove

          Just finishing up Forged by Bart, I have even a less view of the Bible now than I had before. But with every book I read on science, I grow impressed and awe inspired.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Speaking of awe, I’m curious, how does Ehrman explain the preternatural ability many Bible amanuensis had to accurately predict specific events hundreds of years before they happened? http://bit.ly/14Ckccl

            • ManhattanMC

              I assume ‘maxximiliann’ is you?

              And that you wrote this:

              ” In like manner, the fact that not a single one of fulfilled Bible
              prophecies has ever been wrong constitutes irrefutable indirect evidence for the existence of it’s author, Jehovah God.”

              Is it more ‘argumentum ad Lapidem’ to point out that is the most circular assertion I have ever read online? LOL

              Read this and then contemplate the ‘Texas marksman fallacy’.

              http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Actually, the author of your link is a complete fraud. Babylon continues to be uninhabited despite the efforts, mind you, of Alexander the Great and Saddam Hussein. The same holds true for Edom. The infallibility, then, of Bible prophecy stands affirmed.

            • ManhattanMC

              Hahahahahaha-
              And is it underwater?

              “51:42 The sea is come up upon Babylon: she is covered with the multitude of the waves thereof.”

              Seen any dragons there?

              “51:37
              And Babylon shall
              become heaps, a dwelling place for dragons, an astonishment, and an
              hissing, without an inhabitant.”

              And Jordan is uninhabited? Really?

              Can you say ‘fallacy of composition’? I knew you could.
              ‘Texas marksman fallacy’, fool. Two out of 231 isn’t a very good record.

            • If the bible is infallible then human slavery is objectively morally right then. So much for the 13th amendment…

            • Joseph O Polanco

              False analogy: http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

            • That link does not refute the fact that the bible condones human beings being owned by other humans against their will who are allowed to beat them when necessary.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. On what objective moral basis do you dare condemn anyone’s moral values? Who made you God?

            • I’m arguing under the assumption of your ‘objective’ moral values. If you can’t defend them, that’s not my problem.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              How can you argue what you don’t know?

            • I think that question is better applied to yourself considering that you are demonstrably ignorant about evolution. So let me ask you, under your ethical values, is it objectively morally right for humans to be owned by other humans against their will who are allowed to be beaten when necessary? Yes or no and what biblical foundation do you have for it?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              No, which is why the kidnapping and selling of individuals into slavery was a capital offense in ancient Israel. (Exodus 21:16) Your complete obliviousness of this common known fact is the reason why your squabbling does not sway.

            • Andy_Schueler

              which is why the kidnapping and selling of individuals into slavery was a capital offense in ancient Israel

              :-D :-D :-D
              “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
              Leviticus 25:44-46

              “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”
              Exodus 20:20-21

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Again, on what objective moral basis do you dare condemn anyone’s moral values? Who made you God?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Buying slaves from neighboring nations and beating them up (as long as you don´t kill them) is part of your moral values???
              WTF, that´s crazy shit dude.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Again, on what objective moral basis do you dare condemn anyone’s values? Who made you God?

              II. So let me get this straight, temporary indentured servitude rubs you the wrong way but the yearly infanticide of millions of innocent babies is honky-dory?

              You should be grateful fatuity isn’t painful ‘cause you’d be in complete agony right now.

            • Andy_Schueler

              II. So let me get this straight, temporary indentured servitude rubs you the wrong

              Ah, now that is interesting. Because this means that you are either completely ignorant about the OT, or you are lying. Temporary indentured servitude was for hebrews, non-hebrews could be enslaved for life, kept as property, passed on as inheritance to your sons, and legally beaten to the brink of death.
              Were you just ignorant about that or were you lying?

              I. Again, on what objective moral basis do you dare condemn anyone’s values?

              Define “objective”.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Your excoriation for the way of life of these ancients commits the fallacious blunder of Presentism. Had you been living in that era you would have done the same. After all, you only have your herd morality to guide you.

              II. Are you implying the ancient Israelites were forbidden from letting their foreign national servants go free? Where do you find such a proscription?

              II. Objective: That which is “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased”

            • Andy_Schueler

              :-D
              Phase 1: Deny that the Bible explicitly allows slavery and cruelty towards slaves. If opponent has actually read the Bible proceed to
              Phase 2: Lie about the distinction between hebrews and non-hebrews when it came to slavery and pretend that the regulations for hebrews applied to everyone while the regulations for non-hebrews don´t exist. If opponent remembers that this is not true, proceed to
              Phase 3: Say that it´s all a matter of culture, it was ok back then because those were different times.

              Hilarious, fundies are so predictable ;-).

              II. Objective: That which is “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased”

              Cute, and you totally do believe in these objective moral values that are always valid, independent of context, and that we can know them from the Bible, no, wait…

              Your excoriation for the way of life of these ancients commits the fallacious blunder of Presentism. Had you been living in that era you would have done the same

              :-D So much for your objective moral values.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawmen. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Strawmen. Try again.

              Oh really? Let´s see:

              I said:
              “Phase 1: Deny that the Bible explicitly allows slavery and cruelty towards slaves”

              Strawman? Nope, you actually said:
              “No, which is why the kidnapping and selling of individuals into slavery was a capital offense in ancient Israel. (Exodus 21:16) Your complete obliviousness of this common known fact is the reason why your squabbling does not sway.”

              I continued:
              “Phase 2: Lie about the distinction between hebrews and non-hebrews when it came to slavery and pretend that the regulations for hebrews applied to everyone while the regulations for non-hebrews don´t exist.”

              Strawman? Nope, you actually indeed did proceed to say:
              “So let me get this straight, temporary indentured servitude rubs you the wrong way”

              I continued:
              “Phase 3: Say that it´s all a matter of culture, it was ok back then because those were different times.”

              Strawman? Nope, you actually did say:
              “Your excoriation for the way of life of these ancients commits the fallacious blunder of Presentism. Had you been living in that era you would have done the same.”

              Why do you lie so much Joseph? I´ve seen dishonest people before, but this is really extreme. Try actually reading the Bible, it might be pro-slavery but it actually mostly condemns dishonesty.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Strawman. This is what the Bible actually teaches: http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

              II. Strawman. Nothing in the Law proscribed ancient Israelites from freeing their foreign national servants.

              III. Strawman. God did not institute slavery. While he did permit it, he placed strict safeguards to prevent the kind of abuses characteristic of, for instance, slavery during the American Colonial Era.

              0 for 3. Go home. You’re done.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. Strawman. This is what the Bible actually teaches:http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

              Try reading the Bible first.

              II. Strawman. Nothing in the Law proscribed ancient Israelites from freeing their foreign national servants.

              And there was no law saying that american slavers in the colonial era could not release their slaves.

              III. Strawman. God did not institute slavery. While he did permit it, he placed strict safeguards to prevent the kind of abuses characteristic of, for instance, slavery during the American Colonial Era.

              Right, God did not institute slavery!
              No wait….
              “The LORD said to Moses at Mount Sinai, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: …

              ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

              And “strict safeguards” like:
              “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”
              Exodus 20:20-21″

              So much for your “objective moral values”.
              Next time, try reading the Bible first before embarrassing yourself like that.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. LOL, I’ve been reading and studying the Bible for decades. THAT’S why your specious and fatuous arguments against it don’t sway. Your waaaayyyyy outside your depth.

              II. False analogy. Your comparison has no basis in reality. Try actually reading the Bible then try again.

              III. Correct, the buying and selling of labor existed long before Israel was a nation.

              IV. Correct. Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, soul for soul. – Exodus 21:24

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. LOL, I’ve been reading and studying the Bible for decades…

              And never noticed that mosaic law distinguishes between hebrews and non-hebrews. In that case, the problem seems to be a lack of reading comprehension.

              II. False analogy.

              False charge at fallacy.

              III. Correct, the buying and selling of labor existed long before Israel was a nation.

              We are not talking about buying labor, we are talking about buying people – which your God is totally cool with.

              IV. Correct. Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, soul for soul. – Exodus 21:24

              More bronze age barbarism.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. The Law proscribed the oppression of foreign nationals residing in Israel. Try again.

              II. Yes, we are. The kidnapping and selling of individuals into bondage was proscribed in ancient Israel under penalty of death. – Exodus 21:16.

              III. Which is why, on top of being Pro-Life, you’re also against the death penalty, right casuist?

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. PRATT.
              2. PRATT.
              3. WTF??

            • ManhattanMC

              I cherry pickin’ ain’t readin’, fool.

              II No strawman-a defeater for your piss poor argument.

              III buying and selling of labor is in no way synonymous with slavery you lying POS.

              IV that’s actually a disputed translation. KJV says:

              “….if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”

              Meaning it’s okay to beat your slave to death as long as the slave doesn’t die for a couple of days.

              You kid yourself, son.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. But that’s what was in reality part of the economic system employed in ancient Israel. Your insistence on drawing dogmatic parallels between it and what took place during the American Colonial Era is specious and disingenuous: http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

            • ManhattanMC

              I didn’t bring up slavery in the southern S, @$$$wipe, you did. And your dogma is the only reason you claim it was worse than ancient hebrew slavery for non-hebrew slaves.

              You fail on every attempt-give it up.

            • I can’t believe I’m seeing a black man defend slavery in the 21st century. I don’t think anything but religion could do that.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. I’ve done no such thing. I’m not black either.

            • You look like you have African roots to me.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What a racist thing to say, bigot.

            • ManhattanMC

              Yes you are and it’s nothing to be ashamed of.

              And you are defending biblical slavery-don’t kid yourself.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. What an extremely racist thing to say, bigot. And atheists have morals, riiight ….

              II. The system of indentured servitude employed in ancient Israel was absolutely nothing like the vicious and oppressive slave trade that persisted throughout the American Colonialism Era: http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

            • ManhattanMC

              I Oh boo hoo. Get over yourself and join the real struggle.

              II Strawman-and how the fuck would you know that?
              You do understand that southern slavers in the US argued that their slaves were never mistreated and were much better off as slaves than in the ‘wildernesses of Africa’, no? Why do you assume ancient hebrews weren’t just as capable of self delusion-after all you seen such in yourself close-up in real time.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              False analogy. African slaves were kidnapped and sold into slavery against their will. Had this taken place in ancient Israel, the slave trader and his accomplices would have been tried and, if found guilty, executed for their inhuman crimes – Exodus 21:16. This is why all your squealing is just that, noise.

            • ManhattanMC

              Hahahahaha-

              You’re still not willing to admit ancient hebrew slavery was a two tiered system. Pathetic.
              How do you think ‘foreign’ slaves became slave, moron?
              And you have been given enough passages from your ‘holy’ book showing your ‘god’ ordered the taking/kidnapping of foreign slaves-and the slaughter of their families-to know what you’re saying is bullshit.

            • Joseph O Polanco
            • ManhattanMC

              Another JoHo WatchTower link that doesn’t even relate to the topic at hand.
              Pathetic.

              Chatty Cathy-pull the string get a JoHo link. LOL

            • ManhattanMC

              It’s not me that thinks there’s something wrong with being black, @$$wipe-it’s you. That makes you the bigot not me.

            • Yes it was. Non-Hebrew slaves were allowed to be treated about as bad as black slaves were in the south according to your slave-allowing god.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum assertio. Try again.

            • “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

              Here’s your proof.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Black slaves in colonial times were treated with unspeakable cruelty and tyranny. These were kidnapped, murdered, raped, and tortured. Prove the Israelites practiced the same with their foreign national servitude.

            • Well the fact that even Israelite slaves were allowed to be beaten…just not to death, alone proves that slaves were “treated with unspeakable cruelty and tyranny.”

              And the last line that stipulates “but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly” indicates that foreign slaves could be treated even worse. Can you erect a positive case showing how foreign slaves were not under any circumstances to be “treated with unspeakable cruelty and tyranny”?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Strawman. Try again.

              II. Certainly.

              ““And you must not maltreat an alien resident or oppress him.” – Exodus 22:21

              “‘And in case an alien resident resides with you as an alien in YOUR land, YOU must not mistreat him.” – Leviticus 19:33

              ““‘And in case your brother grows poor and so he is financially weak alongside you, you must also sustain him. As an alien resident and a settler, he must keep alive with you.” – Leviticus 25:35

              “Do not rob the lowly one because he is lowly, and do not crush the afflicted one in the gate.” – Proverbs 22:22

              “Defraud [] no alien resident.” – Zechariah 7:10

            • 1. Prove it.

              2. All that shows is that the bible contradicts itself…which means god contradicts himself…which means he’s fallible…which means he cannot exist.

              And it still does not repudiate that non-Jewish slaves could be kept for life and treated harshly.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Nowhere does the Mosaic Law give Israelites authority to beat anyone to the brink of death.

              II. Argumentum assertio.

              III. Yes, foreign national servants could have jobs for life.

              IV. Strawman. I just finished proving otherwise.

            • 1. Exod 21:20-21 A slave was permitted to be beaten, even beaten to death, so long as the slave did not die immediately from the beating.

              2. You can’t disprove it.

              3. Jobs? It says slaves for life.

              4. See 1.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Strawman. Try again.

              II. I don’t need to disprove your fallacious argumentum assertio. It’s fallacious!

              III. Yes, jobs. You don’t think these worked for free, do you?

              IV. See III.

            • 1. You can’t disprove it.

              2. Because you can’t do it.

              3. Where does it say they were paid?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Do you really expect someone to defend an argument they haven’t advanced? Try again.

              II. Give me an argument to disprove and I will.

              III. Are you hard of reading?!?!?!?

              ““‘And in case your brother grows poor and so he is financially weak alongside you, you must also sustain him. As an alien resident and a settler, he must keep alive with you.” – Leviticus 25:35

            • 1. You said OT law doesn’t allow beatings to the “brink of death”. I proved to you that you are wrong.

              2. See 3.

              3. All that shows is that the bible contradicts itself…which means god contradicts himself…which means he’s fallible…which means he cannot exist.

              And it still does not repudiate that non-Jewish slaves could be kept for life and treated harshly as Lev 25:44-46 shows. Do you not understand the difference between a slave and a non slave?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Argumentum assertio. Try again.

              II. Non sequitur. Try again.

            • ManhattanMC

              I Hahahahaha-‘This is what the bible actually teachess…” followed by a link to WatchTower. You couldn’t make up stuff this stoooopid.

              II And how often do you think that happened, genius?

              III. Yes ‘he’ did. And permitting it to continue robs ‘him’ of all moral authority.

              “…he placed strict safeguards to prevent the kind of abuses characteristic
              of, for instance, slavery during the American Colonial Era….”

              Utter horse shit-you should be ashamed of yourself for committing such lies to bits and bytes.

              “Exodus 21:20-21
              20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”

              Some ‘safeguard’, you friggin’ liar.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Yeah, safeguards: “16 “‘Now if it was with an instrument of iron that he has struck him so that he dies, he is a murderer.+ Without fail the murderer should be put to death.+ 17 And if it was with a small stone* by which he could die that he has struck him so that he dies, he is a murderer. Without fail the murderer should be put to death. 18 And if* it was with a small instrument of wood by which he could die that he has struck him so that he dies, he is a murderer. Without fail the murderer should be put to death.” – Numbers 35:16-18.

              Do you really think an ancient Israelite would risk doing serious harm to his servants if it meant he would be executed? Get real. (Notice too no distinction is made between an Israelite or a foreign national. So much for racist bigotry …)

            • Andy_Schueler

              Do you really think an ancient Israelite would risk doing serious harm to his servants if it meant he would be executed? Get real.

              If it doesn´t kill you immediatly, it´s not serious harm! Great reasoning there, genius.

              (Notice too no distinction is made between an Israelite or a foreign national. So much for racist bigotry …)

              In 1791, the North Carolina slave code established that killing a slave is illegal. So much for racist bigotry!

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. You’re forgetting Numbers 35:16-18.

              II. False analogy. You’re comparing apples to grapes: http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. Nope. Because murder was actually also illegal in 1791 in North Carolina.

              II. False charge at fallacy.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Oh so blacks weren’t lynched in North Carolina?

              II. Argumentum ad lapidem. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. Which was illegal.

              2. False charge at fallacy. Try again.

            • ManhattanMC

              Numbers 35:16-18 has nothing to do with slavery-but nice desperate googling there, pard.

              Some ‘safeguard’, moron-being allowed to beat your slave almost to death. Doubtless the opinion of the slaves so treated differed.

              You are so full of shit your breath must turn the air brown.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ad lapidem inbred with a Strawman. Wow! You’re really not good at this, are you, lol.

            • ManhattanMC

              Ridiculous straw grasping is ridiculous straw grasping. Calling it a strawman doesn’t help your case at all.

              You’re an idiot if you think the law applied equally to hebrews and foreign salves.

              You are so bad at this your fellow JoHos must cringe every time you post.

            • ManhattanMC

              Bullshit. Do us all a favor and don’t bother trying again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Come now. There’s no reason for you to treat Andy like that. I thought you two were buddies? What happened?

            • ManhattanMC

              WUT?

              You do understand that the poster being replied to is printed right next to…….

              Oh never mind, you fucking moron.

            • Your definition of objective would discount everyone’s interpretation of the bible since they’re all filled with personal feelings and interpretations and prejudice. So why should I trust your interpretation of the bible?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You shouldn’t. What you should do is read it for yourself in full.

            • ManhattanMC

              We’ve all read your ridiculous book. Most of us in fact, started out as christers and found our way to atheism because of the nonsense in your book.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Such as?

            • Um, for starters, talking snakes.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Snakes don’t talk. What’s the matter with you?

            • Exactly. Genesis is nonsense. Glad you agree.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. Try again.

            • ManhattanMC

              Strawman, moron?
              So you are saying that genesis doesn’t claim there was a talking snake?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. Try again.

            • if you only had a brain,

            • ManhattanMC

              Illegitimate charge of a logical fallacy-fuck yourself.

              Darby Translation (DARBY)

              ” And the serpent was more crafty than any animal of the field which Jehovah Elohim had made. And it said to the woman, Is it even so, that God has said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

              Hahahahaha-

              Hey-you know what you could do to save face?
              You could google a shit load of translations and try to prove the ‘snake’ is just a metaphor.

              Get choppin’, shit tongue. Dance for me.

              Earn those big bucks from the Watch Tower frauds.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Revelation 12:9

              bit.ly/10c1msy

            • ManhattanMC

              Utter horse shit.

              It doesn’t say ‘great dragon’. It says the serpent was a clever little field animal.

              Your link BTW, is hilarious. Taking all the absurdities of a comical myth at face value and positing ‘satan’ as a ventriloquist.

              You can’t be stupid enough to buy that shit.
              How much are they paying you?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What an idiotic question to ask, lol.

            • ManhattanMC

              Ad hominem, idiot, and describing idiocy isn’t idiotic.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Still doesn’t change the fact that you asked an idiotic question, noob.

            • Have you read anything linked by Andy? Have you ever read a book on evolution by an evolutionary biologist? Be honest now…

            • ManhattanMC

              I Your response represents a retreat from your position. Man up.

              II irrelevant. Who would chose to give up their ‘property’ as defined by your ‘god’?

              III how can judgements of the mistreatment of slaves discount personal feelings, dumb shit?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Remind me again, are you for or against the legalized infanticide that is abortion, casuist?

            • Andy_Schueler

              No one is “for abortion” you moron.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Wow! You’ve really bought the Pro-Choice’s propaganda hook, line and sinker, huh. So much for being a critical thinker …

            • Andy_Schueler

              And which propaganda would that be?

            • ManhattanMC

              What is a ‘casuist’, moron?

              No one is in favor of abortion-especially late term abortions.
              But you will not be allowed to turn women once again into virtual chattel slaves by equivocating on the words ‘infant’ and ‘fetus’.

              Ever.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Women bearing children makes them “virtual chattel slaves”? And they say atheism doesn’t dehumanize its followers … (shaking head)

            • ManhattanMC

              Forcing a woman to bear a child most certainly does, fool.

              And they say christianity is a compassionate religions….

              http://img.wonkette.com/wp-con

              http://img.wonkette.com/wp-con

              http://img.wonkette.com/wp-con

            • Joseph O Polanco

              No problem. Those women who don’t want to be “forced” into having children can get a radical hysterectomy. Problem solved.

              (Notice that childbearing is a biological function exclusive to their design.)

              No wonder they say atheism dehumanizes its fanatics …

            • ManhattanMC

              The fuck you say.

              You don’t get to dictate medical procedures to women-not on this planet.

              And you illiterate twerp, a large percentage of women who have abortions have families later. Oops.

              “(Notice that childbearing is a biological function exclusive to their design.)”

              You mean their evolution-and fuck you for assuming biology should be destiny. if that were the case you would be selling pencils on the street corner.

              No wonder they say christianity replaces genuine human feeling with rote dogma.

            • Leviticus 25:44 says slaves can be kept for life. So how is lifelong slavery objectively morally good? Please give me your best justification and do not try to answer it with a question, because I will assume that means you cannot defend the bible.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I don’t have to justify anything because you’re the one who’s making the claim – a claim without an objective moral foundation I might add. So, again, I put to you, on what objective moral basis do you dare condemn anyone’s moral values? Who made you God?

            • Andy_Schueler

              We´ve seen your “objective moral foundation”, lets reinstate slavery amirite?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What are you squealing about now, wage-slave?

            • Andy_Schueler

              :-D :-D :-D
              Good one Joseph!
              This:
              http://www.doolwind.com/images/blog/carmackworking.jpg
              is obviously morally indistinguishable from this:
              http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Slaves_in_chains_(grayscale).png

              Way to represent “the best in humanity” Joseph! How about you continue with some jokes about the holocaust?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              False charge at fallacy, try again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              It’s a Strawman through and through: http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

            • Andy_Schueler

              False charge at fallacy through and through:
              http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25&version=NIV

            • ManhattanMC

              Cheap shot, cult brainwash victim.

            • ManhattanMC

              “I don’t have to justify anything because you’re the one who’s making the
              claim – a claim without an objective moral foundation I might add….and whine whine whine….”

              Yes you do. You claimed that your ‘holy’ book was written by ‘god’.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Nooooooo, I’ve proven that it was authored by Jehovah God: http://bit.ly/1197U6R

            • ManhattanMC

              Hahahahaha-

              You have proven no such thing.
              Remember how I trounced you on that one?
              ‘Texas marksman fallacy’-ring any bells Quasimodo?

              And do still think ‘dragons’ are living in Babylon and that Jordan is uninhabited, you pathetic brain washed dweeb?

              1 out of 231.

              You lose.
              You lose so badly you shouldn’t show your face again-but then, liars for jeebus generally speaking have no shame.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I don’t respond to ad homs. Try again.

            • ManhattanMC

              Hahahahahaha-

              Yes, goober, reminding you of how you lost a recent argument is an ad hom.

              Holy crap you’re stupid.

            • ManhattanMC

              Learn what an ‘ad hom’ is, you moron.

            • So god thinks the earth is flat?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Dunno which god you’re talking about. Andy?

            • Andy_Schueler

              I´m offended – I´m not nearly as ignorant as your God is according to your big book of fairy tales.

            • I’m talking about the god that thinks human slavery is morally right, you know, the one you worship, and the one your slave ancestors did.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Still don’t now who you’re talking about. Does this god have a name?

            • ManhattanMC

              Don’t be jejune-we’re discussing the ‘god’ of your ‘holy’ book.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              The Bible speaks of many gods. Didn’t you know that? No, of course not. How can you possibly know anything about the Bible when you’ve never read it in full.

            • Andy_Schueler

              You allegedly read it in full and are completely ignorant about the difference between indentured servitude and slavery.
              You might want to read it again, this time with an actual Bible instead of the Pink Princess Bible you seem to have read so far.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ad lapidem. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              False charge at fallacy. Try again.

            • ManhattanMC

              I’ve read it cover to cover, fool.

              “I’ve proven that it was authored by Jehovah God” bozo boy two posts above.

              Stop being disingenuous.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I don’t respond to ad homs. Try again.

            • ManhattanMC

              Quoting your own words isn’t an ad hominem, you brainless blathering nit wit. That those words embarrass you simply isn’t my problem.

              And you have responded to dozens of ad hominems at this point.
              You need to get a new catch phrase, fool.

            • How can you be so ignorant to the fact that the bible condones human slavery when you claim to have read it in full?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Are you hard of reading??!?!?!?!

              Kidnapping, murder, cruelty, tyranny, rape, and torture are all objectively morally wrong. Each has always been proscribed in the Bible.

            • Always? Um….

              God said:

              “And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.”

              So let’s see, murder, kidnapping, stealing, cruelty, tyranny, genocide rape of children perhaps through forced marriage have all been prescribed by your lovely deity.

            • Oh yeah and:

              “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

              Did I just catch you in a blatant lie?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Non sequitur. Where are murder, kidnapping, cruelty, tyranny, theft, genocide or rape described here?

            • LOL. This is your brain on religion.

              Perhaps it is you that can’t read or are you not willing to?

              Do you know what slew means?

              What do you think “kill every male among the little ones” means?

              “And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives”

              “and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.”

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Killing and murder (which includes genocide) are two different acts. The former can be justified while the latter is not. Where does it say anywhere in the passages you cite that the Israelites murdered?

              II. Likewise, taking into captivity is not synonymous with rape. Where does it say anywhere in the passages you cite that the Israelites raped?

              III. As I keep telling you “scholars”, context is king. The action the Israelites took against the Midianites was judicial commanded by God. If God saw fit to reward their loyalty at executing a vile, despicable, degenerate, evil people with the cattle, flock and goods of these, who are you to say otherwise?

            • 1. Those passages clearly are talking about genocide, which YOU admit is murder.

              2. What would be the purpose of keeping just the 32,000 virgin females then?

              3. But you said that “Kidnapping, murder, cruelty, tyranny, rape, and torture are all objectively morally wrong. Each has always been proscribed in the Bible.”

              You forgot to add, “Except when god commands you to do them, because then, just like with slavery, it is objectively morally right.”

              Amen.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Where?

              II. Certainly not to rape them, noob: http://bit.ly/11rGfOK

              III. Argumentum assertio. Try again.

            • 1. Killing men women and children of an entire tribe isn’t genocide?

              2. To keep them as chattel and to be spread around to the men.

              3. Try again to redeem your blatant contradiction, and your pathetic cut & paste argumentation skills.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Murdering them would have been genocide. But the Israelites didn’t murder anyone in the passages you cite.

              II. Argumentum assertio. Try again.

              III. See II.

            • 1. Killing men, women and children is genocide, and genocide is murder.

              2. “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. If the Israelites kept many Midianites alive, how exactly was it genocide?

              II. More importantly, the judicial action they were charged to execute against the Midianites is not murder. It’s justice against a corrupt, degenerate, evil people.

            • 1. They killed most of them. Only sparing virgin girls. The Canaanite girls didn’t have it so “lucky”

              2. And what were their crimes that warranted genocide?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. If the Israelites kept many Midianites alive, how exactly was it genocide?

              II. Just in reference to their decadent worship of their repugnant god Ba’al, they practice bestiality, child sacrifice, ritual cutting and all manner of depraved sexual acts.

            • 1. Did the Nazis kill every single Jew? No. Genocide is not defined as having killed everyone, but “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group”

              2. So it’s Ok to commit genocide against those who worship false gods?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum reductio ad absurdum. Try again.

            • Ok thanks for forfeiting.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              How can you write this putrid, mendacious filth without taking a shower afterwards?

            • I do not respond to ad homs. Try again.

            • ManhattanMC

              Hahahahaha-

              You have proven no such thing.
              Remember how I trounced you on that one?
              ‘Texas marksman fallacy’-ring any bells Quasimodo?

              And do still think ‘dragons’ are living in Babylon and that Jordan is uninhabited, you pathetic brain washed dweeb?

              1 out of 231.

              You lose.
              You lose so badly you shouldn’t show your face again-but then, liars for jeebus generally speaking have no shame.

            • By asserting it was authored by jehovah god…

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I’ve proven ad nauseum that the Bible was authored by Jehovah God: http://bit.ly/14Ckccl

            • You’ve asserted ad nauseum that the bible was authored by god, but you’ve offered no proof other than your fallacious presuppositions.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              How do you explain the fact that not a single one of the Bible’s fulfilled prophecies has failed? http://bit.ly/11FdJKT

            • You haven’t proved that the bible isn’t made up bullshit whose authors simply wrote the fulfillment of the “prophesies” down as myths.

              And I already gave you Jesus’ failed prophesy that the world was gonna end soon that you never refuted.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Don’t know how I missed that. Care to cut/paste it here?

            • Ha! Cutting and pasting is your preferred substitute for a real argument.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. Try again.

            • You did exactly what I said you were going to do. Maybe it was a prophesy – maybe creationists are predictable.

              All I heard you say was “I can’t defend biblical slavery because if i do I will have to admit that lifelong slavery is objectively morally right according to the god I worship and that will make me look retarded.”

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Hallucinating voices usually is a sign your meds aren’t working. You should go see your psychiatrist right away!

              II. Strawman. Here’s why: http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

            • ManhattanMC

              I A translation of your paranoid blather doesn’t qualify as ‘hearing voices’, fool.

              II Again with the JoHo links, fool?

              I especially chuckled at this choice bit from your link:

              “Such an examination also reveals that the kind of slavery practiced by
              God’s people in the Bible is not the cruel and abusive slavery that is
              envisioned by most people today.”

              Right. Because foreign slaves never worked in mines under the lash or got raped by their owners.

              You dishonest POS.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              ??? What are you quacking about?

            • ManhattanMC

              I can type slower if this is going to fast for you, moron.

            • You need to be able to make a real case here on this site instead of linking to stupid watchtower pages.

              You still have yet to man up and make a case justifying lifelong biblical slavery.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Responderunt interrogavit. Next!

            • Retardedus pro-slaveryus ignoramus. Does the black community know you support slavery?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. Try again.

            • ManhattanMC

              Bull puckey.
              You didn’t respond to anything-you just punted to your tainted ‘authorities’.

            • ManhattanMC

              I Again-evolved human morality. This isn’t difficult and saying so isn’t playing ‘god’.

              II Horse shit equivocation. You know very well that Hebrew slaves were treated differently than foreign slaves and embryos/zygotes/blastocysts/fetuses are not ‘innocent babies’.

              If fatuity were a stoning offense you would be an even smaller shit stain than you presently are.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Evolved you say? Let’s put that to the test, shall we? http://bit.ly/190Z84b

              II. Wrong again. The Law in ancient Israel was, ““And you must not oppress an alien resident, as YOU yourselves have known the soul* of the alien resident, because YOU became alien residents in the land of Egypt.” – Exodus 23:9 http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

              III. Human offspring are not human? No wonder they say atheism dehumanizes its adherents …

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. Evolved you say? Let’s put that to the test, shall we?http://bit.ly/190Z84b

              Ah, so you say:
              “So, how can moral truths be defined with absolute certainty? And such moral truths do certainly exist for mankind doesn’t treat acts like ped0philia, the gunning down of innocent children, racial bigotry, sadism, genocide, gang rape and serial murder as just socially unacceptable behavior, like, say, picking your nose at the dinner table.”
              and:
              “(5) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.”

              Let´s see what the LORD has to say about that:
              The LORD said to Moses at Mount Sinai, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them:

              Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

              Sorry dude, your “God” demands racial bigotry – so much for your “objective moral values”.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Wrong again.The Law in ancient Israel was, ““And you must not oppress an alien resident, as YOU yourselves have known the soul* of the alien resident, because YOU became alien residents in the land of Egypt.” – Exodus 23:9 http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

            • Andy_Schueler

              “Wrong again.The Law in ancient Israel was, ““And you must not oppress an alien resident…”
              Unless you buy him as a slave.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Even as an indentured-servant an Israelite was proscribed from oppressing an alien resident. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, soul for soul.

            • Andy_Schueler

              ” an Israelite was proscribed from oppressing an alien resident…”

              Because keeping someone as your property for his / her entire life and legally being allowed to beat them to the brink of death is not oppression. Got it.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum reductio ad absurdum inbred with a Strawman. Does your mendacity know no bounds?

            • Andy_Schueler

              False charge at fallacy combined with another false charge at fallacy.
              Lying scumbag.

            • ManhattanMC

              WTF?
              Taking someone as a slave isn’t ‘oppression’?
              And an ‘alien slave’ is a ‘resident’. Pfffft!!!!

              Christier ‘morality ‘is soooo relative.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              If it was so oppressive why would people in ancient times offer themselves as indentured servants in the first place? http://bit.ly/14IY81i

            • ManhattanMC

              It was a two tiered system, you disingenuous phart.
              Stop pretending to be obtuse-you’ve lost this argument so badly you’re bleeding from every orifice.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. Try again.

            • ManhattanMC

              Bullshit.
              That foreign slaves were treated far more harshly than hebrew slaves is beyond dispute and central to the flaws in the case you are so ineptly trying to make.

            • ManhattanMC

              I Yes I say ‘evolved’, fool and I gave you one piece of incontrovertible evidence.

              And more links to your own inane blatherings? Please, fool.

              “Consider the following:

              (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.”

              Objective moral values do not exist.

              “(2) Evil exists.”

              If your ‘god’ created everything he created evil too.

              “(3) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.”

              Nope.

              “(4) Therefore, God exists.”

              Sorry doesn’t even follow from the premises.

              “(5) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.”

              Nope. And the ‘god’ described in your ‘holy’ book is an immoral monster by the standards of just about every society that came after.

              II Horse shit again. You know damned well that the feel good platitudes of your cherry picked quote do not negate the brutal regulation of the miserable lives of foreign slaves by your ‘god’.
              It is obscenely dishonest for you to pretend otherwise.

              III Sorry-offspring means children not embryos/zygotes/blastocysts/fetuses.

              “In other words, as Dostoevsky once mused, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”

              Uhm no. In fact, if there is ‘repentance’ then everything is permitted.
              Religious people have higher crime rates and higher incarceration rates.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. God didn’t “create” evil for evil is not some abstract Platonic Form. “Evil” describes that which is the opposite of “Goodness.” Regardless, the existence of objective evil in the world affirms (2) and (1) by extension. With all premisses affirmed (4) naturally follows.

              II. Satan is indeed a horrible god. No worries, though. His end is nigh and he knows it.

              III. Strawman. This is how the system of indentured servitude was actually administered in ancient Israel: http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

              IV. A dehumanizing distinction without a difference. Loathsome!

              V. Strawman. Try again.

            • ManhattanMC

              I So your ‘god’ isn’t omnipotent, then? LOL

              And you’re a neo-platonist now? LOL

              No, son, defining events as evil doesn’t prove you can define other events as good. It only proves that you can attach definitions to things.

              II Prove ‘satan’ exists’, fool or STFU.

              III Not going around again on this one with you. You know you’re equivocating on foreign versus hebrew slaves. Stop it.

              IV Sorry-a fetus that doesn’t have a nervous system yet is simply not a human being yet and thus not ‘offspring’ only ‘potential offspring’.

              V WTF? Yo don’t think that the doctrine of ‘repentance’ allows people to do loathsome things in the belief that they will be forgiven?

              How stupid are you?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. He can’t make a square-circle, a married-bachelor, a gelid star or a gelatinous diamond either. Take a wild guess why.

              II. Here you go: http://bit.ly/14kmFaL

              III. Finally! It’s about time you tapped out.

              IV. If it’s not a human being what is it? A duck? Or maybe a pheasant?

              V. Strawman. That’s not what the Bible teaches: Hebrews 10:26-31. See what happens when you don’t know what you’re talking about?

            • ManhattanMC

              I LOL Then why call ‘him’ omnipotent? And if ‘he’ isn’t omnipotent what if you’ve chosen the wrong side in this imaginary cosmic battle and ‘he’ loses? ROTFFLMFAO

              II Spare us the WatchTower links, fool. And WTF? You actually think that something being mentioned in your 5,000 year old book of superstitions proves the existence of your 5,000 year old superstition? LOL

              You still haven’t answered the charge that your WatchTower authorities are tainted by all their false predictions. Their exegesis is no better.

              III Not ‘tapped out’, victorious. You have been soundly thrashed once again. Everyone who reads this board can see it. and still you pretend to be stupid because it’s your last refuge. Enough.

              IV Right, goober. If it’s not a child it must be a crocoduck. There’s simply no other option. Pfffft!
              And aren’t you the clown who is constantly whinging ‘strawman….strawman’?

              V Gee it’s kind of unfortunate that we’re all born as sinners then, no, moron?

              “Romans 3:23
              for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

              If there’s no ‘repentance’ even a mighty warrior for the one true faith (trademark) like you is going burn.

              Tough luck, clown.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. http://bit.ly/16OqPNQ

              I was kinda holding out a sliver of hope that you’d get this but … oh well …

              (Ahem)

              The artifacts I listed cannot exist in reality; they’re meaningless, self-refuting constructs; inane word-play. That this went right over your head is just … never mind …

              II. Strawman. The reality of God’s existence is established by direct and indirect proof: http://bit.ly/1197U6R

              III. You act as if being delusional is a virtue. Get help!

              IV. Then what is it? If human offspring is not human offspring, what is it?

              V. Strawman. Try again.

            • ManhattanMC

              I And he can’t make a stone so heavy he can’t lift it either….so?
              You are a bullshitter.

              II I looked at your link-the usual bullshit-kalaam cosmological argument and argument from incredulity/ignorance/personal anecdote.
              You don’t have any idea how to do this, do you.

              III I’m not the one pretending that hebrew and foreign slaves were treated equally, you lying sack of shit.

              IV What was you last nose bleed? Your grandchildren? What are the 7 out of 10 pregnancies that end in spontaneous abortion/miscarriage without the mother even knowing? If you’ve ever seen the results of first trimester abortions you know that it is not human in any sense.

              V Oh horse shit. Wipe off your chin-that stuff is stinking up the place.
              It’s a verse that directly contradicts your contention. How is that a ‘strawman’, Chatty Cathy?

            • Does god know what it’s like to have lust or the desire to sin?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Which god are you referring to. There are many.

            • The one you worship.

            • Joseph O Polanco
            • You’re running out of links to do your talking for you. Cut and paste where it says in that link that your argument hinges on.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Do your own homework.

            • Make your own arguments.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ad lapidem. You’ve done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the brute facts that support them. Try again.

            • LoL, that’s so pathetic it doesn’t even deserve a response.

            • You really aren’t very good at this, are you. Andy might not even exist, and you would still need to answer his point. His point is independent of his existence. In other words, that slavery is countenanced in the Bible has nothing to do with whether Andy has the moral basis to point that out (he does).

              So deal with it, and stop trying to shift the burden of proof with a red herring.

              You argue terribly.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Not unless Andy is God. Is he?

            • ManhattanMC

              Sorry-you don’t get to shift the goal posts or change the topic.

            • So I need to be god in order to be able to ask you whether human slavery is objectively morally right? How could any society function that way? If you love philosophy you are a lover of wisdom and questioning everything. You still haven’t answered my simple question about slavery.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Correct. Your opinions on morality – and pretty much anything else, really – is no better or no worst than anyone else’s. It’s like arguing which side of the road is the proper side to drive on. In effect, everybody’s right which means everybody’s wrong. THAT’S why the world is in the horrific mess it’s in.

            • That’s the most ignorant thing ever to say. Then no one would be able to ask anyone anything. I suppose that’s the kind of society you want to live in. One for retards. And of course I didn’t forget that you never answered my challenge.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You hubris notwithstanding, it’s the reality of the world we live in. The only arbiter of “good” and “evil”, “right” and “wrong” is might. If China were the world superpower nobody would be openly criticizing their atheistic regime for all their human rights abuses.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Name one human rights abuse that is committed in China but not in the USA.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. If theisitc morality is so below that of atheists why do these perpetrate such abuses in the first place?

            • Andy_Schueler

              So you can´t name a human rights abuse that is committed in China, but not in the USA. I though so.

              “If theisitc morality is so below that of atheists ”

              Try replying to what I say instead of what you think I should say.

            • Is human slavery objectively morally right yes or no? I as a non-Christian want to know from you, who has access to the objective truth.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I’ll make it real simple for you. Kidnapping, murder, cruelty, tyranny, rape, and torture are all objectively morally wrong. Each has always been proscribed in the Bible.

            • But is human slavery objectively morally right yes or no? And what if god commands you to kill like he does in Num 31:2-18? Is it moraly right to kill then?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Are you hard of reading?! Kidnapping, murder, cruelty, tyranny, rape, and torture are all objectively morally wrong. Each has always been proscribed in the Bible.

              II. The execution of cruel, despicable, depraved, sadistic, murderous evildoers is objectively morally good, yes. As is the case, I have no such onus placed on me or any Christian. In fact, God has proscribed us from taking such judicial action against anyone for he has already assigned that task to one extremely well qualified to judge with integrity and honesty.

            • Andy_Schueler

              “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

              Slaughter all little boys but keep the girls as fucktoys for yourself – except for the slutty ones of course.
              And what does Joseph think of that?
              “The execution of cruel, despicable, depraved, sadistic, murderous evildoers is objectively morally good, yes.”

              You can´t make this shit up.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              “Murdering children and raping virgins is objectively wrong, unless it isn´t.” So much for your “objective morality”,

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Argumentum ad lapidem. You’ve done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the brute facts that support them. Try again.

            • 1. Where in the bible does that apply to non-hebrews?

              2. Genocide is execution? Even of children and babies?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Where does it not?

              II. Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t Elizabeth Bathory, Talat Pasha, Margaret Sanger, Josef Mengele, Reinhard Heydrich, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, Kim Il Sung, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Emperor Hirohito, Nero, Caligula, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Leopold II of Belgium, Tomas de Torquemada, Mao Zedong, Ivan the Terrible, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Vlad Dracula once babies too?

            • Andy_Schueler

              “Killing babies is A-OK because Hitler was a baby!”
              Wow.

            • 1. All of Exodus 21. The entire bible in fact.

              2. Non sequitur. Try again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              1. Where does Exodus 21 state that kidnapping, murder, cruelty, tyranny, rape, and torture are not all objectively morally wrong?

              2. Just because it went over your head it doesn’t mean it’s a non sequitur.

              Here’s an idea. How’s about you ask perspicacious questions to draw out the essence of my analogy instead of just throwing your hands up and walking away? Who know, you might actually learn something new :)

            • So according to you, it’s OK to kill babies…..sometimes.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Correct. Your opinions on morality – and pretty much anything else, really – is no better or no worst than anyone else’s.

              This explains a lot. You might want to look up the difference between “argument” and “opinion” and you might want to look up “intersubjective verifiability”.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ignoratio elenchi for what demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable evidence is there proving it’s wrong to rape a little girl to death?

            • Andy_Schueler

              What demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable evidence (hint: three of those words are redundant) is there for your “objective morality”?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              lol, silly. Scientism is inept at making value judgments: http://bit.ly/12MH5YV

            • Andy_Schueler

              Joseph an hour ago: “what demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable evidence is there proving it’s wrong to rape a little girl to death?”

              Joseph now: “lol, silly. Scientism is inept at making value judgments”

              Fucking idiot.

            • ManhattanMC

              BS.
              Most of what’s wrong with this world can be directly attributed to the effects of religion.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Riight, bigot, because Danton, Lenin, Sanger, Than Shwe, Stalin, Mengele, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Ceausescu, Honecker, Castro, Pol Pot, Broz Tito, Milosevic, Bonaparte and Mussolini and all the other irreligious, sadistic, mass-murdering atheists were theists.

            • ManhattanMC

              Holy Koresh you are one dumb summbitch.

              Bonaparte was indeed a theist as was Mussolini.

              Sanger was wrong about euthanasia and right about birth control-mixed bag. And do you even know what her religious persuasion was?

              Mengele was-like most nazis including Hitler-a nominal christer. You can ‘no true scotsman’ him all you like but facts are facts. good old christian anti-semitism is primarily responsible for the holocaust Compare Martin Luther’s 7 point plan for the jews with Hitler’s ‘final solution’. And Hitler called Luther the ‘greatest of germans’. Yours-sorry.

              Communism was a religion. It had an infallible book, confession, a future utopia to be worked toward and inerrant authorities etc etc

              Read here:

              http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article238.html

              Communism is Religion

              Pol Pot was bat shit.
              Danton was anti clerical-not an atheist.

              Everything else including George Bush’s ‘crusades’ in the middle east and every muslim jihad bombing can be laid directly at the feet of religion.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Yup. Their religion was Gnostic Atheism. These brainwashed children with gnostic atheism, teaching them that there was no such thing as God even though they had no evidence to support their positive claim. They also brainwashed children to believe atheists were more rational that theists because the latter suffered from insanity which is why they believed in God in the first place. The combinations of all this dehumanizing brainwashing fueled their psychotic bigotry and hatred for all theists just for being theists.

              Historically, that’s how the indoctrination of the religion of Gnostic Atheism was carried out. As such, Gnostic Atheism is a ferocious enemy of freedom and a threat to all free-thinkers.

            • ManhattanMC

              WTF?
              I show you that most of your claims of atheists killing because they are atheists are bullshit and you come back with
              ‘their religion was gnostic atheism’?
              To whom are you referring, you inarticulate mental midget?
              Not even the communists killed in the name of atheism-ever.

              And ‘atheism’ isn’t a religion. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it is you will never drag atheism down to the level of your religious superstitions adopted without regard to reason or rationality.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              To claim, “I know God doesn’t exist”, without a shred of evidence is rational? Since when?

            • John Grove

              That is not the atheist claim Joe, but rather a strawman. The atheist position is that there is no good evidence for any god or gods. Thus, they can safely be dismissed using the null hypothesis. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. A-theism (without theism).

              Since you are a theist and a JW, the burden of proof is on you. The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. “If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed”

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Argumentum distinctio absque differentia. The totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, most notably, brainwashed children with gnostic atheism, teaching them that there was no such thing as God even though they had no evidence to support their positive claim. They also brainwashed children to believe atheists were more rational that theists because the latter suffered from insanity which is why they believed in God in the first place. The combinations of all this dehumanizing brainwashing fueled their psychotic bigotry and hatred for all theists just for being theists.
              Historically, that’s how the indoctrination of the religion of Gnostic Atheism was carried out. As such, Gnostic Atheism is a ferocious enemy of freedom and a threat to all free-thinkers.

              II. Proof of God’s necessary existence: http://bit.ly/1197U6R

            • John Grove

              I. This has absolutely nothing to do with the question of God’s existence. It is simply a red herring.

              II. All of the cited “proofs” you list have definitive refutations. In fact, Johnny has dealt with the cosmological argument.

              http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/05/23/libertarian-free-will-defeats-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

              The other arguments you listed such as the designer argument is clearly refuted by evolution by natural selection. One of your proofs is simply cited the bible as “proof”. The same book that has the talking snake, a talking mule, angels, devils, exorcisms, resurrections, heaven, hell, miracles, walking on water, virgin birth, turning water into wine, a man living 969 years, rod turning into snakes, a man living in the belly of a whale for three days, demons being transferred to pigs which then drown themselves. Real reliable stuff you got there brother.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. It does, however, refute your claim that “The atheist position is that there is no good evidence for any god or gods.”

              II. Such as? Sorry but I’m gonna need more than just your hand waving.

              III. Argumentum reductio ad absurdum inbred with a veneficium fontem fallacy: http://bit.ly/1axC1NX Try again.

            • John Grove

              I. The existence of morality is not evidence for any god(s). It is and has been explained by natural explanations. Read:

              1.Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality
              2.Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality

              II. I gave you a link to Johnny’s refutation of the Kalam cosmological argument, deal with it.

              III. I realize you are trying ever so hard to smuggle in supernaturalism, but until you have evidence, it is simply a proposition that has nothing going for it. In other words, you are simply wasting our time.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. It does, however, refute your claim that “The atheist position is that there is no good evidence for any god or gods.”

              II. We certainly didn’t “inherit” our **objective** moral sense from the realm of irrational beasts. When a lion savagely kills another it doesn’t think it’s committing murder. When a peregrine falcon or a bald eagle snatches prey away from another it doesn’t feel it’s stealing. When primates violently force themselves onto females and their young they’re not tried and convicted of rape or pedophilia.

              **Objective** morals do not come from science either because science, by it’s very nature, is morally nihilistic. Where, then, do we get our **universal objective morals** from?

            • Andy_Schueler

              It does, however, refute your claim that “The atheist position is that there is no good evidence for any god or gods.”

              [Joseph mode]You are presupposing the existence of god[/Joseph mode]

            • ManhattanMC

              Atheists make no such claim.
              They simply say that no ‘god’ claim has met the burden of proof.
              That is the height of rationality.

              Believing in an invisible sky fairy you’ve never seen because a gaggle of bronze age goat herders said they saw it-not so much.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Sure they do. The totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, for instance, brainwashed children with gnostic atheism, teaching them that there was no such thing as God even though they had no evidence to support their positive claim. They also brainwashed children to believe atheists were more rational that theists because the latter suffered from insanity which is why they believed in God in the first place. The combinations of all this dehumanizing brainwashing fueled their psychotic bigotry and hatred for all theists just for being theists.

              Historically, that’s how the indoctrination of the religion of Gnostic Atheism was carried out. As such, Gnostic Atheism is a ferocious enemy of freedom and a threat to all free-thinkers.

            • ManhattanMC

              A few do-‘hard’ atheists’. Most concur with my statement.

              Don’t look now, fool, but your dogma is showing.

              You are an atheist regarding the tens of thousands of ‘gods’ and ‘goddesses’ invented by humans-we just go one ‘god’ further.

              You are just so incredibly inept and sad.
              The nazis-the most totalitarian of the 2oth century regimes were christers-catholic and lutheran.
              Even Stalin had a cordial relationship with the russian orthodox church until they started harboring dissidents. That’s when he cracked down on them and it wasn’t because of atheism.

              Communism doesn’t require atheism in any of it’s forms-it merely posits that religion would wither away when the needs of the proletariat were met. Mostly indifference-which is what ridiculous claims like yours should be met with. Of course religions thrive on persecution so they have to trump up every slight.

              You simply don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Is this more Watch Tower garbage that you’re reciting verbatim?

              BTW, you dumb shit, I’ve never met a ‘gnostic atheist’.
              Have you?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              No, but atheism certainly does open the door nice and wide for totalitarianism.

            • ManhattanMC

              No it doesn’t, fool.
              In fact, believing the nonsense of religion is what paves the way for believing the lies of dictators. And most theocracies are totalitarian in nature.

            • Andy_Schueler

              No, but atheism certainly does open the door nice and wide for totalitarianism.

              When an Atheist rules over a totalitarian state, it is because he is an Atheist, when a Christian does the same thing, he is “not a true Christian”, got it.
              Well, two people can play that game: Stalin and Mao were assumed to have divine attributes like infallibility, ergo, neither Stalin nor Mao nor any of their followers were “true Atheists” because a “true Atheist” would never declare that (s)he has divine powers or believe that anyone else has.
              Boy, no true scotsmen fallacies sure are fun aren´t they?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Then why did they brainwash their citizenry with Gnostic Atheism?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Why do fundamentalist christians brainwash their children with fundamentalist christianity?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              For the same unfortunate reason Gnostic Atheists do.

            • Andy_Schueler

              And why do you accuse us with that although we don´t engage in “brainwashing” anyone?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I’ve levied no such accusations. But, if the shoe fits …

            • Andy_Schueler

              Then what was the point of your ramblings about children being “brainwashed” into Atheism? If you wanted to say that totalitarian ideologies, from fundamentalist christianity to stalinism, rely on indoctrination – thanks for pointing that out Captain Obvious.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Totalitarianism is by necessity atheistic which is why it has always been atheistic in scope.

              These brainwashed children with gnostic atheism, teaching them that there was no such thing as God even though they had no evidence to support their positive claim. They also brainwashed children to believe atheists were more rational that theists because the latter suffered from insanity which is why they believed in God in the first place. The combinations of all this dehumanizing brainwashing fueled their psychotic bigotry and hatred for all theists just for being theists.

              Historically, that’s how the indoctrination of the religion of Gnostic Atheism was carried out. As such, Gnostic Atheism is a ferocious enemy of freedom and a threat to all free-thinkers.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Argument by assertion + argument by repetition. Try again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum assertio. Prove your accusation.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              That’s hilarious coming from a fobbing, spur-galled pignut like you, lol.

            • ManhattanMC

              Oh please, @$$wipe.

              You’re the king of cuntpasting apologetics. ignorant as a backwoods hick but completely self assured.

              “…while the worst
              Are full of passionate intensity….” Yeats

            • ManhattanMC

              Morality is an evolved human attribute. That your ‘holy’ book accepts slavery and the majority of humans now do not is simply one more proof of that.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Really? In the military you are, for all intents and purposes, an indentured servant. That’s why you can get shot and killed for going AWOL. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              You know that indentured servitude only applied to hebrews while non-hebrews could be held as property for their entire lives and legally beaten to the brink of death. So you are lying.
              A black guy lying to defend a pro-slavery book, you can´t make this shit up.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. This is how This is how the system of indentured servitude was actually administered in ancient Israel: http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

            • ManhattanMC

              Wow!
              Cognitive dissonance much, fool?
              You continue to blow past the fact that foreign salves were not treated like hebrew indentured servants. They were treated far more harshly.

              Reality isn’t so bad-you should visit.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I’ve refuted your claims and proved otherwise: http://bit.ly/1ar8QvO

            • ManhattanMC

              Sorry, Clarabelle-posting a link to BS only proves that you are ready to swallow BS.

              Here’s another choice piece of crap from your JoHo link:

              “When a slave was released, the master was required to be generous toward him.”

              Except that he would have his wife and children taken from him if the wife had been given by the slave master.

              You just aren’t very good at this, son. You should give it up. We don’t really need a cut and paste christer apologist ministry online.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Again, on what objective moral basis do you dare condemn anyone’s moral values? Who made you God?

            • ManhattanMC

              WTF?

              Can you say red herring, you effing liar?

              Morality is an evolved body of societal agreements and they don’t need to be objective-in fact seldom are. Religions-all of them-try to co-opt those agreements and attribute them to their own ‘gods’.

              And this is another one of your ‘magic bullet’ phrases.
              It doesn’t fit here and it’s BS in general.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Let’s put that to the test, shall we?

              If the Neo-Nazis were to attain world domination and exterminated everyone who thought racism was wrong, would that suddenly make racism and bigotry moral?

            • ManhattanMC

              You don’t understand what ‘putting something to the test’ means either-what a surprise.

              Moral to whom, racist @$$wipe?
              You have to ask the right question or you get nothing.

            • John Grove

              Have you ever taken a course on moral philosophy?

              Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust

              http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0754614158/ref=cm_cd_asin_lnk

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Why would I be interested in Moral Relativism? Conceptually, it’s an irrational oxymoron.

              For genuine ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ to exist morality cannot be relative for it places ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ at the mercy of mere caprice. Under such a paradigm nothing is truly ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ making such terms completely otiose; expressing a distinction without a difference.

              Trying to form a prosperous, harmonious society on such a miry foundation is like trying to build a fantastic neoteric megalopolis on quagmire. It’s an exercise in absolute futility.

              This is why we live in a world that’s getting worse, not better …

            • John Grove

              [[For genuine ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ to exist morality cannot be relative]]

              They don’t exist as something independent of the minds that conceptualize them. You seem to think it has some kind of existence by itself. And of course morality is relative, it is nothing more than a suite of behaviors given to us by evolution which facilitate social cohesion among animals.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Let’s put your theory to the test, shall we? If the Neo-Nazis were to attain world domination and exterminated everyone who thought racism was wrong, would that suddenly make racism and bigotry moral?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Let’s put your theory to the test, shall we? If we used a time machine to travel back to OT times, would that suddenly make racism and bigotry moral?

            • John Grove

              Since morality boils down to “don’t harm” and “do help”, than what do you think? Normative Ethics examines an act’s rightness or wrongness in light of such factors as consequence, harm, and consent.

              Kant wrote that the very basis of morality was respect for one’s own autonomy and the autonomy of others – which goes beyond the concept of the Golden Rule or “do unto others.” If you in any way take the power of choice away from someone, you have committed an immoral act. If you impose your will on another person, you have committed an immoral act.

            • John Grove

              [[what objective moral basis do you dare condemn anyone’s moral values?]]

              How would accepting the demands of one God as being absolutely true and correct enable us to get any closer to objectively grounding morality? How would accepting the conclusion of this God be more objectively grounded than accepting the conclusion of a dictator?. Is it only the difference between the thought of a human verses the thought of a supernatural being, what defines something as being objectively grounded?

              The awareness of the difference between right and wrong is innate in human beings, and it can found and even noticed being observed and enforced and upheld in societies where Christianity has never yet penetrated.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Here’s how: http://bit.ly/15mmyNx

              II. It’s a false dilemma. God wills something because He is good: http://bit.ly/15mmyNx

              III. True, all healthy human beings are born with an innate moral sense, a conscience. This is why since time immemorial, even the most primitive cultures, irrespective of their metaphysical beliefs, enforced laws against murder and other acts of evil.

              However, much like our language skills, our conscience needs to be refined, calibrated, made more robust. If not, it becomes stunted, or worst, corrupted such that evil actions are perceived to be good and good ones viewed as evil.

              This is why the eternal well-being and happiness of mankind is inextricably bound to the objective moral values and duties lovingly furnished to us by our Creator. Without them there is nothing to protect our conscience from being misled or perverted.

              Tragically, Atheism corrodes and destroys this protection which naturally explains why the overwhelming majority of serial murderers, rapists, totalitarians and other sadists have been atheists.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Joseph, you know that we know that the OT distinguishes between hebrews and non-hebrews in this matter. So why do you keep lying about it? Do you think you can impress anyone by repeating this lie ad nauseam? Do you really not feel at least a little bad about being that dishonest?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              The distinction is not the one you purport. Hence, it’s a Strawman. Here’s an idea. Why don’t you try actually reading the Bible in full before trying to teach it to me or anyone else for that matter. You’re out of your depth. Waayyyy out.

            • Andy_Schueler

              “The distinction is not the one you purport.”
              It is. And you know it. That´s why you first tried to deny that the Bible allowed slavery at all. Then when you realized that I read the fucking thing – you quickly shifted to lying about the regulations regarding hebrews and pretending they were universal, while the regulations for non-hebrews did not exist. And finally, you tried the good old “it´s wrong now but it was A-OK back then” defense.

              You know that this distinction exists, and you are consciously lying about it. Else you wouldn´t have tried this defense before:
              “Your excoriation for the way of life of these ancients commits the fallacious blunder of Presentism. Had you been living in that era you would have done the same. After all, you only have your herd morality to guide you.”

            • Joseph O Polanco

              http://bit.ly/11o56UW I’ll make it real simple for you. Kidnapping, murder, cruelty, tyranny, rape, and torture are all objectively morally wrong. Each has always been proscribed in the Bible.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Try reading an actual Bible instead of the Pink Princess Bible you seem to have read so far.

            • ManhattanMC

              “Pink Princess Bible”

              Hilarious-is that the JoHo version?

            • Andy_Schueler

              “Pink Princess Bible”

              Hilarious-is that the JoHo version?

              It is an actual Bible for little girls ;-)

            • Honest_John_Law

              “Here’s an idea. Why don’t you try actually reading the Bible in full
              before trying to teach it to me or anyone else for that matter.” – Joseph O Polanco

              Out of curiosity, what do you suppose would happen if Andy read the Bible cover-to-cover? Perhaps his reading the Bible cover-to-cover might further convince him that Christianity is false?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              That’s typically how it works. Why else do you think billions the world over accept the reality of God’s existence?

            • Honest_John_Law

              “That’s typically how it works. Why else do you think billions the world over accept the reality of God’s existence?” – Joseph O Polanco

              Have you considered that many skeptics ARE former Christians who have read the Bible in its entirety and studied its contents and found the “evidence” unconvincing? Many former Christians find the content of the Bible itself to be a reason to step away from the Christian faith.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              In my decades of experience it is the hypocrisy of those professing to be Christians that sours these from denying the reality of God’s existence. It’s unfortunate these fail to grasp the difference between these posers and God’s beneficent teachings:

              “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU; that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. For if YOU love those loving YOU, what reward do YOU have? (Matthew 5:43-46)

              “But now really put them all away from YOU, wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene talk out of YOUR mouth. Do not be lying to one another. Accordingly, [] clothe yourselves with the tender affections of compassion, kindness, lowliness of mind, mildness, and long-suffering. Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Even as Jehovah freely forgave YOU, so do YOU also. But, besides all these things, [clothe yourselves with] love, for it is a perfect bond of union.” – Colossians 3:8,9, 12-14.

            • John Grove

              Quoting the bible to prove the bible, you gotta love it!

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Only if you quoting Dawkins quoting Darwin is also circular.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Only if you quoting Dawkins quoting Darwin is also circular.

              Darwin´s claims are testable – he was right about many things and he was wrong about many things. We don´t try to demonstrate that Evolution is true by quoting On the Origin of Species (the book is actually not even on the list of recommended readings for most college-level courses on evolutionary Biology because it is wrt some aspects completely outdated). When we refer to the claims that Darwin was right about, we point to the evidence for these claims instead of just saying “Darwin said so”.
              So don´t drag us down to your level – you engage in circular reasoning, we don´t.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              http://bit.ly/16OqPNQ

              Wow … just … Wow …

              The Bible was penned by 40 amanuensis over the span of 1,600 years – yes, 1,600 years. As such your kettle logic claims of “circular reasoning” are only valid if you quoting Dawkins quoting Darwin is just as circular.

              Unless, of course, you’re alleging all 40 amanuensis over that span of 1,600 years – yes, one THOUSAND six hundred years – all conspired with one another. Are you?

            • Andy_Schueler

              The Bible was penned by 40 amanuensis

              A number you pulled out of your nether regions.

              Unless, of course, you’re alleging all 40 amanuensis over that span of 1,600 years – yes, one THOUSAND six hundred years – all conspired with one another. Are you?

              Nope, it seems completely obvious that Paul and the anonymous author (or authors) of John had a completely different view of Jesus than the anonymous authors of the three synoptic gospels (who else had sometimes drastically theological views), for example.

              This has nothing to do with why we charge you with circular reasoning however – what is circular is to argue that a biblical claim is true because the Bible says it is true.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. http://bit.ly/11RirnT

              II. Proof?

              III. Strawman: http://bit.ly/14Ckccl

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. Argument by assertion. Try again.
              2. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0061173940
              3. False charge of fallacy. Try again,

            • Joseph O Polanco

              1. Argumentum ad lapidem. Prove your accusation.

              2. Not this nonsense again. Let’s settle this once and for all. Give me your best supposed contradiction and I’ll refute it. If I succeed you agree to study the Bible with me. If not, I’ll renounce theism and become an atheist. Deal?

              3. Argumentum assertio. Prove your accusation.

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. False charge of fallacy. Try again.
              2. Challenge accepted. Explain all contradictions in the geneaologies for Jesus (including why both intersect at David, but Luke´s geneaology is much longer before it reaches David). Explain this contradiction without making stuff up that´s nowhere to be found in the text (like saying that one is matrilineal and one is patrilineal, both texts explicitly say that they are patrilineal).
              3. False charge of fallacy. Try again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Concerning the Lukan and Matthean genealogies, there’s a facile explanation since every single human being has two complementary genealogies. Therefore, the dissemblance in nearly all the names in the Lukan genealogy of Jesus as compared with the Matthean is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke follows the stemma of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ droit juridique to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

              Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew goes away from the approach used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.

              Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, the Lukan genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

              Actually each genealogy (the Matthean table and the Lukan) shows parentage from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19.

              Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13) Both the Matthean and the Lukan genealogies of Jesus digress here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly also by Luke. But the fact should be kept in mind that such dissimilarities in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those extant in the genealogical registers then in use and recognized by the Jews, not adjustments made by Matthew and Luke.

              We may rationally conclude, therefrom, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke concatenate two truths, to wit, (1) that Jesus was veritably the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by transcendent birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male lineage from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal kinship abrogates such slander.

              Remember too, the scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were vitriolic foes of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to expose Jesus to obloquy. Even so, it is compelling that they never impugned these genealogies. If either the Matthean or Lukan genealogies of Jesus had been falsified or erroneous, what an opportunity it would have been for these bitter oppugners to evince it then and there! For until 70 C.E. they evidently had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Andy: Challenge accepted. Explain all contradictions in the geneaologies for Jesus (including why both intersect at David, but Luke´s geneaology is much longer before it reaches David). Explain this contradiction without making stuff up that´s nowhere to be found in the text (like saying that one is matrilineal and one is patrilineal, both texts EXPLICITLY SAY THAT THEY ARE PATRILINEAL).

              Joseph: Concerning the Lukan and Matthean genealogies, there’s a facile explanation since every single human being has two complementary genealogies. Therefore, the dissemblance in nearly all the names in the Lukan genealogy of Jesus as compared with the Matthean is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke follows the stemma of Mary

              Jesus was veritably the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by transcendent birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line

              :-D :-D :-D
              So, you renounce theism, congratulations ;-)

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You said I couldn’t “make stuff up” and I haven’t.

              I’ll expect you promptly tomorrow at 8:00 AM to begin your Bible studies :)

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. You say that Luke´s geneaology is matrilineal, although the text doesn´t say it – which means that you made shit up.
              2. Worse, Luke explicitly says that it´s through Joseph and not through Mary´s:
              “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of JOSEPH [hint: “Joseph” is not a synonym for “Mary”], the son of Heli
              Luke 3:23
              3. I asked you to explain all contradictions in these geneaologies, including why Luke takes MUCH more generations to arrive at David than Matthew does – you didn´t even try to.

              You failed miserably. If you would be an honest man – this is the time to stand by your words and renounce theism.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Are you hard of reading?!?!? I clearly stated that “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

              Learn more here: http://bit.ly/125X9XQ

              Even more fatal to your kettle logic is that “the scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were vitriolic foes of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to expose Jesus to obloquy. Even so, it is compelling that they never impugned these genealogies. If either the Matthean or Lukan genealogies of Jesus had been falsified or erroneous, what an opportunity it would have been for these bitter oppugners to evince it then and there!”

              Are you claiming you comprehend ancient Israelite genealogies better these leaders of ancient Israelite society?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Are you hard of reading?!?!? I clearly stated that “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph

              Are you a moron?
              “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of JOSEPH [hint: “Joseph” is not a synonym for “Mary”], the son of Heli
              Luke 3:23
              The text says Jesus…, the SON OF JOSEPH – and you say the text is “expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph”, you have said many inane things so far but this might take the cake.

              Even more fatal to your kettle logic is that “the scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were vitriolic foes of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to expose Jesus to obloquy. Even so, it is compelling that they never impugned these genealogies.

              Prove that they never did. The early church fathers were well aware of the contradictory geneaologies and desperately try to come up with an explanation because their critics loved pointing out this obvious contradiction.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Enough skulduggery. I’ve clearly addressed all of the issues you raise in my extensive reply. If you’re not going to give it careful consideration, that’s on you, not me.

              II. Simple. Chirst’s oppossers accused him of a lot of things but never, ever did they accuse him of having false genealogies.

              III. Even if your claim is true this is easily explained by the fact that all genealogical records were lost when Rome razed Jerusalem in 70 CE under General Titus. This is the same reason why modern day Jews cannot identify which of the 12 tribes of Israel they actually belong to much less prove they are historical Jews.

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. No, you didn´t address anything. You made shit up. You say Luke´s geneaology is matrilineal although the text says the opposite.
              2. Prove it.
              3. :-D “all genealogical records were lost” – which means that a geneaology for Jesus written after this had to be made up out of thin air, way to undermine your own case Joseph ;-).

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. It’s matrilineal through Heli, Mary’s father and Joseph’s father-in-law.

              II. Read the Bible in full.

              III. Non sequitur. You’re forgetting the extant genealogies preserved in the rest of the Bible. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. Shit you made up.
              2. Argument from silence.
              3. False charge of fallacy. Try again (no wait… don´t try again, go fuck yourself you lying piece of shit).

            • Honest_John_Law

              “In my decades of experience it is the hypocrisy of those professing to
              be Christians that sours these from denying the reality of God’s
              existence.” – Joseph O Polanco

              Joseph, you have prattled away repeatedly to various skeptics on this thread that they SHOULD read the Bible in its entirety. I have news for you. Many sincere Christians have read the Bible in its entirety. One such Christian, Joseph Ratzinger (who formerly served as Benedict XVI), does not consider the Jehovah’s Witnesses (or any Protestant Church for that matter) to be a true church at all. Now, do you suppose that you know more about scripture and Christian theology than he does?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              The issue is not comprehension as much as it is application. For example, the Scriptures are abundantly clear on the issue of murder, yet, the fact that most supposedly “Christian” organizations tolerate and even encourage their broods to murder others in wars is a clear contravention of Chirst’s peaceful teachings.

              This is why Christ taught that the definitive way to recognizing his sedulous followers was to pay attention to what these did more so than what they said: http://bit.ly/14CLCjK

            • Andy_Schueler

              This is why Christ taught that the definitive way to recognizing his sedulous followers was to pay attention to what these did more so than what they said

              In that case you might want to reconsider your behaviour.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              As should you.

            • Honest_John_Law

              “The issue is not comprehension as much as it is application.” – Joseph O Polanco

              How could anyone fully execute a proper application of scripture if one does not interpret it correctly and fully comprehend it?

              Now, kindly answer my question. Do you suppose that you know more about scripture and Christian theology than Joseph Ratzinger does? It is important, because you don’t both interpret all of scripture the same way.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              There’s your error. The Bible, like any authoritative enchiridion, was not designed to be interpreted but to be adhered to.

              For instance, when your car manual tells you the oil in your vehicle’s motor needs to be changed every 5,000 miles, does that mean 12,000, 15,000, 5,000 or 100,000 lightyears?

            • Honest_John_Law

              “There’s your error. The Bible, like any authoritative enchiridion, was not designed to be interpreted but to be adhered to.” Joseph O Polanco

              Joseph, there is ample historical evidence that Early Church Fathers dating back to the 2nd century AD believed that a teaching authority was necessary to ensure correct interpretation of sacred scripture and oral tradition to ensure that the Church did not embrace doctrinal error. The Catholic Church (for example) maintains the position today that a teaching authority is necessary.

              Dude, I suspect your skull is so thick that no battering ram of evidence could penetrate it. I seriously wish Jonathan would erase all your banal posts here and save room on his servers.

              Adieu.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. I doubt Johnnie is as bigoted as you :)

              II. Argumentum ignoratio elenchi for no organization can supplant the authority of the teachings and example of the founder of Christianity, Christ Jesus. Try again. (Catholicism is not Christian, it’s Catholic, get it?)

            • Honest_John_Law

              You appear to be quite ignorant re. the history of the Christian faith.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Prove it.

            • Andy_Schueler

              The Bible, like any authoritative enchiridion, was not designed to be interpreted but to be adhered to.

              So the riders of the apocalypse are actual riders sitting on actual horses? The earth literally has four corners and is thus a flat square? The earth can literally never “be moved”? The earth is literally sitting on pillars? Daniel literally saw a tree that was literally so big that you could see it from every place on earth – meaning that the earth must be flat?

              Unless you are a flat-earther and a geocentrist on top of being a young-earth creationist – you interpret and cherry pick from the Bible all the time, just like all other Christians do.

            • Honest_John_Law

              Andy, this guy is not worth the effort to attempt to have a rational conversation with (imho).

            • Andy_Schueler

              Yup, you´re right – the only reason why I still reply to him is SIWOTI syndrome ;-)

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Like I keep telling you, context is king.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Makes your interpretations and cherry pickings no less arbirtrary than those of all other denominations.
              If anything, you could get a good impression of what the authors of books contained in the Bible originally intended to say.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              How is it arbitrary when the Bible clearly explains itself? http://bit.ly/1adznd6

            • Andy_Schueler

              Because all Christians that have different theological views than you have say the exact same thing – the Bible obviously supports their views while other Christians are obviously wrong.
              If theology had a method to test which interpretations are true (if there is indeed a “true interpretation”), this wouldn´t be a problem – but such a method does not exist. Which makes your interpretations and cherry pickings just as arbirtrary as those of any other denomination.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Sure it does. Here it is: http://bit.ly/14CLCjK http://bit.ly/1adznd6

            • Andy_Schueler

              Argument by assertion. Try again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Prove it.

            • Andy_Schueler

              You present no actual arguments but rather rely exclusively on mere assertions – Argument by assertion, qed.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum assertio. Prove your accusation.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Prove your accusation.

              OK, here´s the text from your link:

              Well think about it for a minute. If God exists then He must be good for God is a maximally great being and it is better to be the paradigm of good than to conform to it: http://bit.ly/15mmyNx
              This necessarily means that worshiping Him must be everlastingly good for us, not poisonous, corruptive or malignant; it should make us loving, good, joyous, kind, patient, altruistic, loyal, forgiving, peaceful, compassionate, in effect, everything that represents the very best attributes of mankind.

              Instead of being “intolerant and divisive”, true religion is “broadly inclusive.” (Acts 10:34, 35) This means its adherents cannot be divided by race, culture, socio-economic position, education or nationality. Nothing and no one keeps them from displaying ‘love among themselves’ even across continents. (John 13:35; 17:16; Acts 10:34, 35) Rather than killing one another in horrific wars, they are willing to die for one another.—1 John 3:16.

              When among them, the love, solidarity, joy, peace, kindness, goodness and faith you experience should be so deep, so profound and moving it’s palpable. It should feel like you’re in Paradise: http://bit.ly/pwUMD4

              Starting to get the idea? :)

              qed

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Non sequitur. Which, if any, of the premisses presented is false or implausible?

            • Andy_Schueler

              That´s your job. You have to argue for your premises instead of merely asserting them.
              Btw, even if you actually did that – all theists say the exact same thing about their religious views – you don´t even try to demonstrate how yours are right while theirs are wrong.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Are you hard of reading?!?! That’s exactly what I did!

            • ManhattanMC

              More horse shit equivocation and ignorati elenchi.
              Foreign slaves were not indentured servants by any stretch of the imagination and you blithely ignore that point, you dishonest cretin.

              Don’t try again-you will only embarrass yourself again.

            • ManhattanMC

              You presuppose ‘god’.
              Moronic.

            • John Grove
            • Joseph O Polanco

              The author of your link is a royal addlepate. Anyone with a basic understanding of ancient Hebrews knows that al·mah′ can refer to a young virgin as exemplified in Genesis 24:43,16; Exodus 2:8; Psalms 68:25; Proverbs 30:19 and Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8.

              No wonder you’re so confused …

            • John Grove

              The word DOES NOT mean virgin but rather a marriageable young woman.

              http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/alma-virgin.html

              “The word alma clearly does not mean a virgin.” Rabbi Singer

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum distinctio absque differentia for in ancient Israel, a “marriageable young woman was almost always a virgin”. Regardless, the term does not exclude virgins as exemplified at Genesis 24:43,16; Exodus 2:8; Psalms 68:25; Proverbs 30:19 and Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8.

            • John Grove

              Argumentum ad lapidem. You’ve done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the brute facts that support them. Try again.

              [[Regardless, the term does not exclude virgins]]
              The term DOES NOT mean virgin.

              “The word alma clearly does not mean a virgin.” Rabbi Singer
              http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/alma-virgin.html

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman.

            • John Grove

              Joseph,
              I have just demonstrated the word does not mean Virgin, thus the whole biblical prophecy you claim is in error. That was what we were in fact discussing. Thus, you are just evading the consequences rather cowardly.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

              “Almah (עלמה, plural: alamot עלמות) is a Hebrew word meaning a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child, and who *may* be an unmarried virgin **or** a married young woman.”

              Thus an almah can even be a married young woman. Married young women fuck their husbands. And the verse you quoted was exegeted by Rabbi Singer and it didn’t have the contrived conclusion you were hoping for.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Since when does “*may* be an unmarried virgin” unequivocally signify “not a virgin”?

              Give it up bud. As entertaining as it is to watch you chase your tail … lol

            • John Grove

              Proclaiming Danth’s Law isn’t helping you. The word could mean a married young woman, which is what I demonstrated. And this is what Rabbi Singer told you who reads Hebrew. And this is why Jews don’t accept Jesus as the Messiah. Rabbi Singer also refuted the verses you cited which you noticeably said absolutely nothing. So, huff up your chest all you want, it doesn’t help you make your contrived points. The word means “young woman”, nothing more. And the prophecy usually cited has absolutely NOTHING to do with it being a prophecy about the messiah.

            • ManhattanMC

              You don’t understand ancient Hebrew, you fucking fraud-you’re quoting the BS from Watch Tower again.

            • pboyfloyd

              Tell us the truth Joseph, none of this silly stuff matters because it’s all about angels and demons fighting over our souls, right?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Nope. This is what it’s about: http://bit.ly/11EyvgO

        • Joseph O Polanco

          I. My conclusions are based on what the fossil record actually says, not assumptions: http://bit.ly/17PMEwz

          II. It shows that truth is not limited to the sciences. In fact, there are a great many truths that cannot be scientifically validated but are still true nonetheless: http://bit.ly/12MH5YV

          III. While certainly not a scientific treatise, Genesis is scientifically accurate in its descriptions. For instance, it points to the absolute beginning of our universe, a fact clearly established by both the Big Bang and the BVG theorems. It is also correct in speaking of the patrilineality and matrilineality of mankind; a fact only confirmed recently through contemporary genetic studies. Question is, how did Moses know these scientific facts thousands of years before science discovered them?

          BONUS:

          Genesis does ** not ** state that light came before the sun. That’s preposterous.

          • ManhattanMC

            I. Are you aware that the fossil record is only one of the many streams of evidence for evolution and common descent? The genetic record alone would be sufficient.

            II. Bull. It doesn’t matter what people who reject evidence and indulge in complete fantasies believe.

            III. Utter straw grasping nonsense.

            There was no ‘absolute beginning’ for our universe. Big bang models do not posit something from nothing but rather say the universe began as compressed energy plasma.

            BTW, you reveal your n00bitude by calling it a ‘theorem’.

            And you don’t know anything about the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, you pretentious twit.

            “. It is also correct in speaking of the patrilineality and
            matrilineality of mankind; a fact only confirmed recently through
            contemporary genetic studies.”

            Hahahahahahaha-

            if you’re talking about ‘mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam you are incredibly sad. Neither fit the time frame for your ‘holy’ books account of creation.

            And:

            “… 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day….”

            “…God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day….”

            Just exactly how dishonest are you prepared to be in defense of your received opinions, fool?”

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. As far as any supposed genetic evidence that purportedly shows common descent, drawing dogmatic conclusions based on just 0.0025% of all available genetic evidence is a grossly fallacious Dicto Simpliciter. It’s poor reasoning like this which led sooooo many scientists in the past to arrogantly proclaim canards as truth.

              Think Alchemy, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, Spontaneous Generation, Lamarckism, Emication, the existence of the planet Vulcan, Lysenkoism, Gradualism, Trepanation, Miasma theory of disease, Telegony, the expanding earth, the existence of Phlogiston, martian canals, Luminiferous Aether, the Steady State Theory, Cold Fusion, Hollow Earth Theory and Phrenology.

              Just another case of the blind leading the blind …

              II. Argumentum ad lapidem. You’ve done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the brute facts that support them. Try again.

              III. The universe had no absolute beginning but it began, lol. Too funny!!

              IV. Wow …. just … Wow …

              Ok, pay attention. “Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ʼohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·ʼohr′, which refers to a luminary or source of light. (Ge 1:14) So, on the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer. Now, on the fourth “day,” things evidently changed.” http://bit.ly/15ikX8K

            • Andy_Schueler

              The same copy-pasted lies you spam all over the place. At least try to be original, asshole.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Amazing! You’re like one of those “idiot savants,” except without the “savant” part.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Argumentum ad lapidem. You’ve done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the brute facts that support them. Try again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              When you stick your fingers in your ears to avoid hearing the truth, do they touch each-other?

            • Andy_Schueler

              If you care about truth, why do you lie so much?

            • ManhattanMC

              What happened to not engaging in ad hominems, fool?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              When in Rome …

            • ManhattanMC

              …throw your principles under the bus?
              But you don’t really have any, do you.

            • ManhattanMC

              I. So wrong you’re not even wrong. Google ERVs, fool.

              The amount of genetic material sampled is immaterial-why on earth would you assume otherwise? Sorry-it is not reductionism to posit common descent because of Exogenous RetroViruses, ity’s simply recognizing reality. What a concept, eh?

              LOL
              Yup, goober, modern science is exactly like all the pseudo science you just listed and thus we should reject it when it conflicts with our 5,000 year old superstitions. Listen to yourself, fool.

              II. That which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

              III. Energy plasma isn’t

              nothing’. No amount of pretense will make it so.

              IV. Argumentum ad lapidem.
              No response other than dumb struck incredulity on mitochondrial Eve? Thought so. You are a fool.

              Hahahaha-
              yes diffused light…..from…..?

              Idiotic rationalization, fool. You should be embarrassed to have posted it. But you don’t embarrass easily, do you. You must be a masochist to come to these forums to get your a$$ handed to you again and again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              The amount of genetic material sampled is immaterial-why on earth would you assume otherwise?

              He tried this objection before over at DC – I told him that this objection is just as idiotic as a hypothetical scenario where we have 1250 representative eyewitness accounts for the Battle of Stalingrad that mutually support each other and are backed up by truckloads of other kinds of evidence, and someone dismisses that with “yeah, those 1250 accounts represent only 0.0025% of the people that fought in this battle, this means nothing”.
              Hilariously, he argued that the existence of a historical Jesus is far better supported than common descent is in the same comment.
              You just can´t make this shit up.

            • ManhattanMC

              LOL
              And if you could make it up critics would savage you for creating a caricature.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. (facepalm) Ever hear of Aptosis? http://evolutiondismantled.com/ervs

              II. Which is why I reject Atheism. No one has ever proved their belief in the nonexistence of God.

              III. Strawman.

              IV. The universe had no absolute beginning but it began, lol. Too funny!!

              V. From a sun that was created prior to his creative acts on Earth. Genesis 1:1, 2 relates to a time before the six creative “days”. When these “days” commenced, the sun, moon, and stars were already in existence, their creation being referred to at Genesis 1:1. http://bit.ly/15ikX8K See what happens when you don’t read? lol

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. (facepalm) Ever hear of Aptosis? http://evolutiondismantled.com

              Dude, this objection:
              “Because ERVs have function, it is implausible that they are the product of retroviruses. And there is more evidence to back up this idea. Apoptosis is a process of the body that kills infected cells – ERV-infected cells included. If ERVs really were introduced by retroviruses, we should expect apoptosis to have ridden them long ago. The fact that we have so many ERVs indicates that they could not possibly have come about as a result of retroviruses – apoptosis should have ridden most, if not all, of the cells.”
              => is completely idiotic on every level. ERVs frequently enter a dormant cycle in which the immune system cannot detect them because there are no virus particles anywhere, the ERVs only inserted their genes into a host cell. And when they leave this dormant cycle and the infected cell starts producing virus particles, the immune system still leaves the infected cell alone because it can´t distinguish it from a non-infected one, if it could, AIDS would be a non-issue – the immune system can only target the virus particle once they leave the infected cell. And while in the dormant cycle, the ERV genes can be mutated in such a way that they can never enter the active cycle again (although they are sometimes still able to excise and reinsert themselves into the genome, carrying neighboring genetic material with them), if this happens in the germline, the ERV genes will be transmitted to the next generation. And this demonstrably happens, we even do it on purpose sometimes with laboratory mice and other model organisms.
              Your genome is full of retroviral remains, deal with it.

              II. Which is why I reject Atheism. No one has ever proved their belief in the nonexistence of God.

              So your claim is that we actually do believe in a God, which happens to be YOUR God, but lie about it?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Which also explains why very similar ERVs exist in unrelated animals: http://evolutiondismantled.com/ervs

              II. Nope. My claim is that your belief in the nonexistence of God is bereft of evidence. Therefore, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Hitchens.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. Which also explains why very similar ERVs exist in unrelated animals:http://evolutiondismantled.com

              There are no unrelated animals.

              II. Nope. My claim is that your belief in the nonexistence of God is bereft of evidence. Therefore, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Hitchens.

              Depends on what Gods you are talking about. Your YEC concept of the Christian God has been conclusively refuted.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. When you have a minute read “The discovery of endogenous retroviruses,” Robin A Weiss, Retrovirology, 2006; 3: 67. Published online 2006 October 3. doi: 10.1186/1742-4690-3-67.

              II. Strawman.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. When you have a minute read “The discovery of endogenous retroviruses,” Robin A Weiss, Retrovirology, 2006; 3: 67. Published online 2006 October 3. doi: 10.1186/1742-4690-3-67.

              Doesn´t support your idiotic misconceptions or your crappy links in any way, shape or form.

              II. Strawman

              No

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Argumentum ad lapidem. You’ve done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the brute facts that support them. Try again.

              II. Yup. Pure Strawman.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Argumentum ad lapidem. You’ve done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the brute facts that support them. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Btw, that you have the audacity to cuntpaste this shit on a regular basis:
              ” Argumentum ad lapidem. You’ve done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the brute facts that support them. Try again.”
              is very telling. Especially since you consistently ignore arguments against your mere assertions and refuse to support your own assertions (particularly the ad nauseam repeated and spectacularly moronic “this presupposes gradualism and common descent”) in any way, shape or form.
              If your intention was to show off how much of a dick you are and cast a bad light on Jehovah´s witnesses, you´ve succeeded.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              In what specific units are Gradualism measured in and Common Descent quantified? 

              What’s that, there are no such unit measurements?

              THAT’S why its all presupposition. It’s apophenia inbred with confirmation bias. Deal with it.

            • Andy_Schueler

              In what specific units are Gradualism measured in and Common Descent quantified?

              What’s that, there are no such unit measurements?

              THAT’S why its all presupposition. It’s apophenia inbred with confirmation bias. Deal with it.

              :-D
              Let me try that stunt:
              “In what specific units is Jesus quantified? What´s that, there are no such unit measurements? Well then it´s obvious that there never was a historical Jesus, you are just presupposing the existence of a historical Jesus. It´s apophenia inbred with confirmation bias. Deal with it.”

              How can you write this shit without taking a shower afterwards?
              But in case you are actually that dumb and genuinely believe that this comment of yours made any sense – a scientific theory is descriptive, there are no units for General relativity, there are no units for quantum mechanics, there are no units for atomic theory – all those, like every scientific theory, are descriptive models, what these models describe can be, and often is, quantitative data but the models itself are not quantitative data.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. False analogy. The historicity of Jesus – or that of any historical figure for that matter – is based on historical evidence, not on unit measurements. Very weak sauce bud.

              II. A distinction without a difference but, ok, I’ll play along. In what unit measurement is the quantitative data described by the models of Gradualism and Common Descent computed? Better?

            • Andy_Schueler

              The historicity of Jesus – or that of any historical figure for that matter – is based on historical evidence, not on unit measurements.

              [Joseph mode]You have zero evidence for a historical Jesus, you are just presupposing that a historical Jesus exists.[/Joseph mode]

              II. A distinction without a difference but, ok, I’ll play along. In what unit measurement is the quantitative data described by the models of Gradualism and Common Descent computed? Better?

              “Gradualism” – no idea, since you never bothered to define what the fuck you mean by that despite being asked a gazillion times, I assume you mean uniformitarianism.
              Common descent – has been exhaustively explained to you.
              Btw, read this:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Wow! I didn’t really think you’d fall for that one: http://bit.ly/118YDjO

              II. You don’t know what Gradualism is?!?!?! Seriously??!!?!? Time for you to call Cap’n Crunch, Count Chocula, Lucky the Lucky Charms Leprechaun or whoever the heck it was that gave you your “degree” and demand your money back. You were robbed, lol :)

              Gradualism: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Phyletic_gradualism

              http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gradualism

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletic_gradualism

            • How long ago do you think Adam & Eve lived?

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. Wow! I didn’t really think you’d fall for that one: http://bit.ly/118YDjO

              Your link leads nowhere.

              II. You don’t know what Gradualism is?!?!?! Seriously??!!?!? Time for you to call Cap’n Crunch, Count Chocula, Lucky the Lucky Charms Leprechaun or whoever the heck it was that gave you your “degree” and demand your money back. You were robbed, lol :)

              I told you at least a dozen time that this term is ambigious and asked you to clarify. It´s called phyletic gradualism because “gradualism” is also used to refer to uniformitarianism. So I have to ask you a dozen times until you finally clarify and then you act like a complete dick? Fuck you, asshole.

              Btw, phyletic gradualism is testable and has been tested, and punctuated equilibrium does not contradict phyletic gradualism (hint: it is actually a form of phyletic gradualism). Fucking imbecile.

            • ManhattanMC

              I Again-every single claim in your silly article has been debunked.

              II using the word ‘gradualism’ is meaningless unless you specify what kind of gradualism you mean-as has been explained to you several times now. How is that community college divinity degree working out for you BTW, fool?

            • Aren’t people of strong religious faith those who are the most guilty of “apophenia inbred with confirmation bias”? Seek and ye shall find.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Fanatics and zealots come in all colors and flavors. After all, was it the religious who were responsible for frauds such as The Piltdown Man, The Tasaday Tribe or Lamarckian Inheritence?

            • Andy_Schueler

              After all, was it the religious who were responsible for frauds such as The Piltdown Man…

              Possible, since we still don´t know who was responsible for this fraud and since most of the likely suspects, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Arthur Keith, Martin A. C. Hinton, Horace de Vere Cole and Arthur Conan Doyle were indeed religious.
              Fun fact: despite creationist fucktards spreading the lie that scientists made this up as evidence for evolution:
              From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find [Miller, Gerrit S. (November 24, 1915), “The Jaw of the Piltdown Man”,Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 65 (12): 1] and
              In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.

              …The Tasaday Tribe…

              No idea if those scientists were religious or not.

              …or Lamarckian Inheritence

              Yes, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was indeed a lifelong devout Christian and no, Lamarcks idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics was not a fraud (hint: “fraud” involves deliberate misrepresentation of the truth), also Lamarck´s idea is actually not completely wrong.

            • ManhattanMC

              I And yet you asked for such unit measurements for Christopher Columbus and Yuri Gagarin, you demented pea brain.

              II Responderunt interrogavit

              Please pay attention or this is no fun.

            • ManhattanMC

              The only historical evidence for your ‘jesus’ is in the synoptic gospels and three of those were copied from the fourth with absurd embellishments. Thin gruel, fool.

            • ManhattanMC

              “How can you write this shit without taking a shower afterwards?”

              Hahahahaha-just spewed my tea on my keyboard.

            • ManhattanMC

              “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Hitchens.

              There goes all of christianity.

            • ManhattanMC

              I. Hahahahahaha-

              Riiiight. And how would a retrovirus survive if it was susceptible to ‘aptosis’? You and the author of the article you linked to don’t have slightest clue. Had I written such a clueless piece of quote mining hackery I would have chosen to remain anonymous too.

              And it’s not ‘aptosis’, you friggin’ moron, it’s ‘apoptosis’.
              You embarrass yourself every time you post.

              II. Atheism is only the lack of belief in ‘god’ or ‘gods’. It is not a positive claim. And until evidence for the existence of any ‘god’ or ‘gods’ is presented the question belongs on the trivia shelf.

              III. Now we must add ‘strawman’ to the list of terms you use but don’t understand at all.

              IV. What part of ‘not beginning from nothing’ do you need explained in small words, moron?

              V. hahahahahahah-

              Hilarity piled on hilarity.
              So there was light from stars that weren’t created on the 4th day?

              And, uhm…..why do both of these ‘creations’ detail the same events, moron? See what happens when you are willing to swallow any bilge that might be offered to protect the received opinions to which you formed an emotional attachment?

              You are one of the most dishonest people with whom I’ve ever conversed.

              http://img.wonkette.com/wp-con

              http://img.wonkette.com/wp-con

              http://img.wonkette.com/wp-con

              http://img.wonkette.com/wp-con

            • MMC
              Thanks – you are doing a grand job at pwning this evolution-illiterate perpetrator of Danth’s Law.

            • ManhattanMC

              Thanks, Jonathan. Love your site.

            • What evidence do you have that every verse in the bible is true?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              It’s divine provenance for God does not lie.

            • The Muslim can say the same exact thing with a different “holy” book. So your “evidence” is a bit circular.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Sure they can claim but they can’t prove it. I can: http://bit.ly/14Ckccl

            • If that link contains your proof that the bible is correct I feel sorry for you. I’ve had muslims use the same kind of circular reasoning and scriptural-based “evidence’. It’s not compatible with science, history, archaeology and even logic.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ad lapidem. You’ve done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the brute facts that support them. Try again.

            • You’ve done nothing to support the bible as being factual except that you accept it as faith that it is. All those links presuppose the bible is historically accurate when investigation shows it is not compatible with archaeology.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What investigations would you be referring to?

            • Finkelstein and Silberman’s archaeological investigation documented in their book The Bible Unearthed has not been so kind to the biblical narrative.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              And all archaeological scholars unanimously assent to their findings … oh … wait … http://bit.ly/192WmfR

            • Andy_Schueler

              scholars unanimously assent

              There are professional historians that deny that the holocaust ever happened, there are professional Biologists that deny that common descent is true (fun fact: proportionally much fewer than historians that deny the holocaust) and there are professional physicists that believe in geocentrism and / or a flat earth.
              There are crackpots in every discipline. If you appeal to scholarly authority – you lose, because you side with the crackpots in dozens of fields of inquiry, we don´t.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Not a strawman since you consistently do appeal to the alleged authority of either crackpot scholars or random anonymous nobodies.

            • Who are these scholars? Are they all/mostly evengelicals? There are plenty of scholars and archaeologists who aren’t skeptics who have uncovered evidence against the biblical narrative. The Jewish authorities/scholars have the most motivation to find evidence that supports the bible, but they didn’t. I’d hardly call them skeptics.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              So let me get this straight. You expect atheist scholars to investigate the Bible’s claims of divine provenance and, upon discovering evidence of this, to remain atheist? lol

            • Bee

              Do you expect biblical literalist to be honest about the bible’s claim of divine provenance?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I don’t quite follow. Please rephrase your question.

            • Just remind me, your theory which explains ALL of genetics, biodiversity, fossils, bio-geographical distribution, heredity, endogenous retroviruses, etc etc is testable and reliable and falsifiable in what way?

              Just remind me how robust it is, again?

              Does your theory, and correct me if I’m wrong, rely predominantly on ‘because it said so in the bible?’

              Only hundreds and thousands of scientists have worked on these theories and have put them to use in virology, immunology etc and your theory has been put to use how? Are all of these scientists bonkers? Have they been wasting their time?

              Because your appear to have about the worst epistemological basis for the most ad hoc theory known to man.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. I don’t deny that plant and animal kinds possess the capacity for extraordinary variety. All I’m saying is that to go from that to presupposing Gradualism and Common Descent is specious. Especially since the fossil record refutes Gradualism – “”Gradualism”, when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.” – Dr. Andy Schueler, Molecular Evolutionary Biologist. – and very clear boundaries between all animals and all plant kinds can be clearly observed in that only animals and plants of the same kind can cross-fertilize or be cross-fertilized.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Andy: “Gradualism”, when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.”

              Joseph aka lying piece of shit: I. Hurrah!! Finally!! “”gradualism” [] is indeed false.” Music to my ears!!! So I was right all along. Gradualism IS a presupposition having no basis in reality.

              pre·sup·pose
              1 : to suppose beforehand
              2 : to require as an antecedent in logic or fact

              You´re welcome. Asshole. And now you understand that these models are not “presupposed” THEY ARE TESTED AND REFINED BASED ON THE DATA YOU FUCKING IMBECILE. “Gradualism”, when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.” The rate of evolutionary change is not constant, and if this were a “presupposition”, Gould and Eldredge couldn´t just come along and change it, they came up with a different model based on the data that was available, and they also predicted that phyletic gradualism can be an accurate model for some lineages – but it should be the exception and not the norm.

              Same for common descent, it´s not “presupposed”, IT`S TESTED AGAINST THE DATA YOU MORON.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              And, no, these scientists are lunatics. It’s just that their commitment to philosophical materialism is so deranged they’ll conjure up myths and proclaim them as truth.

              As Lewontin puts it, many scientists are ready to accept skeptical scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” As he candidly admits, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” If that’s not noetical bigotry, what is?

            • Bee

              Lewontin is an evolutionary biologist, you moron. He does not agree with you in any way.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Because of his obdurate vow to philosophical Materialism despite its patent shortcomings: http://bit.ly/12MH5YV

              “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” – Soren Kierkegaard

              “The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.”
              ― Aleister Crowley,

            • Bee

              Errr that doesn’t change the fact that Lewontin, who you quote trying to support antievolutionism, is an evolutionary biologist who fully support common descent.

              Fool.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. Try again, noob.

            • Bee

              You try coming up with something out of your own brain instead of quoting random people who you think support your case. And answer andy’s five question.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Like any of you would believe anything I have to say.

              II. I don’t respond well to hectoring. Dignity, kindness and respect, on the other hand, do wonders for me.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. Like any of you would believe anything I have to say

              We might have if you would have had any evidence for your claims and wouldn´t have been such a repulsive and notorious liar.

              II. I don’t respond well to hectoring. Dignity, kindness and respect, on the other hand, do wonders for me.

              Try honesty, works wonders for most people.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You’re just hysterical ’cause you supported my asseveration that Gradualism was a presupposition with no basis in reality.

              “”Gradualism” when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.” – Dr. Andy Schueler, Molecular Evolutionary Biologist.

            • Bee

              You just keep posting the same bollocks as if you are right. You are just employing selective reading. And you expect to be treated kindly. Andy has asked you those question since the very beginning, and you have always refused to answer them. Don’t play the “you won’t treat me nicely so I’m not going to answer the relevant questions” card.

            • Bee

              Oh, and there are plenty of scientists who are religious (thus obviously not philosophical materialists) who fully support evolution. It is not a commitment to materialism, it is a commitment to scientific evidence.

            • Andy_Schueler

              And, no, these scientists are lunatics. It’s just that their commitment to philosophical materialism…

              So only geologists who are Atheists happen to say that the mosaic flood never happened? Only geologists and physicists who are Atheists happen to say that the earth is over four billion years old? Only Biologists who are Atheists happen to say that all organisms are related by common ancestry?
              Nope, actually, >99.9% of all scientists from these disciplines affirm these things, including Christians, Hindus, Deists, Muslims, Agnostics, Buddhists, Atheists etc.pp. – a significantly larger fraction than that of historians that affirm that the holocaust indeed did happen.

              You are full of shit again, what a surprise.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Correction. No Christian denies the Noachian Flood or accepts the theory of Common Descent because Christ based his teachings on the Bible which, naturally, includes Genesis.

              Unless, of course, in your worldview Atheists are also Christians.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Correction. No Christian denies the Noachian Flood or accepts the theory of Common Descent because Christ based his teachings on the Bible which, naturally, includes Genesis.

              Wow. No true scotsmen on steroids. So “Christian” means whatever you want it to mean and what you want it to mean is based on convenience – if you want to say that Atheists are the minority in most countries, you count everyone who is nominally Christian – even if they don´t actually believe in god and / or are not science denialists like you.
              But when you want to downplay that >99.9% of christian scientists do support real Geology, Biology and Physics instead of your fairy tales – you claim that those are not “true Christians”.

              Fucking hypocrite.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Not unless Atheists are also Christians and you don’t mind your boss paying you with Supernotes or Monopoly money instead of genuine legal tender.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Got it, Christians are virtually non-existent outside the USA.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Matthew 7:13,14.

            • Andy_Schueler

              So you retract everything you said about Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway etc.pp. since we´ve just established that these countries are populated by an overwhelming majority of Atheists?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Which quote are you referring to?

            • Andy_Schueler

              I asked you why the countries that are characterized by the lowest amounts of social ills and the highest amounts of happiness and optimism are simultaneously the countries where the densities of Atheists and Agnostics is the highest and pointed to Norway, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden etc.pp. – your reply was “the majority of these countries’ citizenry do not embrace atheism” (repeatedly). Since we´ve just established that these countries are overwhelmingly Atheist, you are either being a hypocrite or you retract that.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You’re misapprehending my statement because you’re conflating atheists with the irreligious. The only country where the majority of its ciizens are confessed atheists is China, and barely at that – http://wapo.st/1bMhrad. Many in the countries you list hold spiritual beliefs even though they’re not religious. Follow?

            • Andy_Schueler

              YECs are virtually non-existent in Europe – which makes every european country overwhelmingly Atheist according to your new definition:
              “Correction. No Christian denies the Noachian Flood or accepts the theory of Common Descent because Christ based his teachings on the Bible which, naturally, includes Genesis.”

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Hindus, Deists, Muslims, Agnostics, Buddhists and all other non-Christian religions are Atheists?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Newsflash: Buddhists and Hindus are virtually non-existent in Europe.
              The largest religious groups here are Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans – and those Christians usually don´t even know that there are actually still people who are stupid enough to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis – which makes them Atheists by your definition, which makes all european countries overwhelmingly Atheist.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              No. It makes them adherents to Catholicism, Lutheranism and Anglicanism, not Christians or Atheists.

            • Bee

              Atheism, irreligion, basically they are all about rejection of christianity. So…

            • Joseph O Polanco

              So what?

            • Bee

              Well, according to the definition of “irreligion” it logically includes atheist and agnostics.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              But does it exclude those with spiritual beliefs?

            • Bee

              13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

              Yeah, this definitely proves that all christians are creationists…

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. Try again.

            • Bee

              Strawman what? We are discussing your inane antievolutionism, and your assertion that every christian on earth rejects evolution and accepts the global flood. Spouting bible verses does not help you in any way.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Look at the context. I did not quote Matthew 7:13,14 to state anything pertaining to evolution or the Noachian Flood. Try again.

            • Bee

              Then explicitely tell me what you are trying to say, no quotes from the bible or from whoever comes into your mind.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Simply that those who sedulously adhere to Christ’s expressed teachings, and can thus justly be called “Christians”, number in the comparatively few as Christ himself predicted.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Yeah yeah, you are a “troo christian™” and everyone else goes to hell – we hear the same shit from Catholic fundies and fundagelicals all the time.

            • Joseph O Polanco
            • Andy_Schueler

              Yeah, Catholic fundies and fundagelicals say the same shit about you and about each other – it´s kind of cute from an outside perspective.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Now what are you talking about?

            • Andy_Schueler

              “Simply that those who sedulously adhere to Christ’s expressed teachings, and can thus justly be called “Christians”, number in the comparatively few as Christ himself predicted.”
              => you are not as original as you think you are, we hear this shit all the time from different fundies that they the exact same thing about people like you.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              How does any of that change the veridicality of Christ’s prediction?

            • Andy_Schueler

              What Jesus allegedly predicted was certainly not that his followers will splinter into thousands of groups, many of which considering themselves to be the only “true followers of Christ” while everyone else goes to hell.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Actually he predicted precisely that. See Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43. (See also: http://bit.ly/11G7vLb – Subheading “Last Days Associated With the Apostasy”)

            • Andy_Schueler

              No, he didn´t and the verses you refer to imply that in no way, shape or form.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What was he teaching then?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Allegedly that some will follow him and others will follow the devil.
              Not that his followers will splinter into thousands of different groups of which a significant subset claims that they are the only “true followers of Christ” while everyone else goes to hell. And it´s understandable that he wouldn´t teach that because splintering into thousands of groups is either the result of a shitty leader or a non-existent leader – take your pick.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Why then include the detail of the weeds? Why didn’t the “sower of the fine seed” allow his servants to uproot the weeds?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Unless this implies anything about his followers splintering into thousands of different groups of which a significant subset claims that they are the only “true followers of Christ” while everyone else goes to hell – this is a red herring.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Why then include the detail of the weeds? Why didn’t the “sower of the fine seed” allow his servants to uproot the weeds?

            • Andy_Schueler

              So red herring it is.

            • Bee

              “No Christian denies the Noachian Flood or accepts the theory of Common Descent because Christ based his teachings on the Bible which, naturally, includes Genesis.”

              Seriously? NO Christian denies the global flood, or accept evolution?!

              Get a reality check, dude.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Not unless you think Atheists are Christians. Do you?

            • Bee

              Of course not. But there are countless christians who accept evolution, both scientists and laymen. But I guess you wouldn’t consider them “true” christians.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Not unless Atheists are also Christians and you don’t care if your boss decides to pay your salary with Supernotes or Monopoly money.

            • Bee

              You don’t make any sense. Fact is, there are countless christians who accept evolution. Explicitely so. And many are also scientists. Come to terms with reality.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What part of my rejoinder did you fail to comprehend. I’m more than happy to clarify :)

            • Bee

              Let keep us strictly to the main argument, ok? Are you saying that every christian on earth rejects evolution, yes or no? Are you saying that every person who accept evolution must be an atheist, yes or no?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Yes.

              II. No.

            • Bee

              Well there are outspoken christians explicitely acceptin evolution. Deal with it. The fact that you do not consider them “true” christians doesn’t matter to them. Some christians just choose to look at the facts without sticking to YEC.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              That’s a non sequitur. Christians adhere to, not abrogate, Christ’s teachings. Christ taught Creation by God. Therefore, all Christians believe in Creation by God, not the theory of Macroevolution.

            • Bee

              That is your conception of christianity

            • Joseph O Polanco

              More like the very definition of Christianity unless, of course, you also believe Atheists are Christians.

            • Bee

              More like there are christians like you with a biblica literalist approach, and christians who do not have such an approach, but still believe in the divinity of Jesus. You say they are wrong, they say you are wrong. The fact you don’t consider them true christians doesn’t bother them at all, since they think the same thing about you.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You still don’t get it. Their actions and teachings OPPOSE Christ’s explicit teachings and actions. If these are Christians then so are Atheists.

            • Bee

              No, you still don’t get it. Every christian sect think they are “true christianity”, and that every other sect opposes the true teachings of christianity. What you say about them doesn’t matter because they say the same things about you. Not that the thing actually concerns me anyway. There are more than 30.000 christian denominations in this world, each claiming to be true christianity. That is plain reality.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              And you can’t evaluate those claims against evidence to see who’s telling the truth and who isn’t? Does this also mean you can’t tell the difference between Monopoly money and genuine legal tender? Better hope your boss doesn’t find out, lol :)

            • Joseph O Polanco

              More to the point, what about all those who preach Theistic Evolution. Are they voicing support for Evolution?

            • Bee

              Theistic evolution is essentially God-guided evolution, God plays a role but evolution happened, so yes.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Andy, do you agree?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Depends on what exactly is meant by “theistic evolution”. If you mean what most Catholics mean by it, then absolutely yes.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What do most Catholics mean by “theistic evolution”?

            • Andy_Schueler

              God fine-tuned some shit, jumpstarted the Big Bang and let stellar and biological evolution go it´s way.

            • Andy_Schueler

              YEC inanities are virtually unknown outside the USA. Congratulations, you´ve just proven that Christians are a tiny minority in almost all first world countries.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              My point precisely! Matthew 7:13,14

            • Andy_Schueler

              So you were just lying when you were talking about Atheists not being the majority in practically every single european country? Got it. Finally you at least admit that you were lying.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              False charge of fallacy. Try again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Quote me stating what you affirm and I’ll happily retract my charge. Can you?

            • Andy_Schueler
            • Bee

              So all these people and organizations are deluded lunatics? Included the religious ones?

              http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Voices_3e.pdf

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Strawman. Try again.

            • Bee

              Strawman WHAT?!

              Jonathan asked “Only hundreds and thousands of scientists have worked on these theories (evolution) and have put them to use in virology, immunology etc and your theory has been put to use how? Are all of these scientists bonkers? Have they been wasting their time?”

              You said “And, no, these scientists are lunatics. It’s just that their commitment to philosophical materialism is so deranged they’ll conjure up myths and proclaim them as truth (evolution)”

              I gave you a link with prominent scientific and RELIGIOUS organisations supporting evolution. So, independently from what you think my strawman was, I ask again.

              Do you think that all these people and organisations are liars and lunatics, included the religious ones?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Apologies. That should have read “And, no, these scientists are not lunatics.” Sorry for the confusion.

            • Bee

              Good. But that does not change the fact that evolution is not a myth.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I know all those you listed sincerely believe they’re speaking truth when they preach evolution. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that macroevolution has no basis in reality.

            • Bee

              Your comment doesn’t change the fact that, in fact, it has.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Has Macroevolution ever been directly observed?

            • Bee

              No, just like no one living today has ever seen Julius Caesar. But we have the after effects, and the after effect are massively supported. I

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What indirect evidence, then, supports Macroevolution?

            • Bee

              Open whatever evolutionary biology textbook you find in a library, or get a pop level evolution book.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What I consistently find is that it’s based on supposed fossil evidence but my own research has proven otherwise: http://bit.ly/11dBWIb

            • Andy_Schueler

              but my own research

              :-D :-D :-D

            • Bee

              Which basically means he has looked at Yahya’s book and decided he was right, I guess.

            • Bee
            • Bee

              Either you agree with this statement, or you are wrong and completely out of touch with reality. Choose.

              http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Where are all the fossils of the “dead ends”, the “failures”?

            • Bee

              Don’t ask the same question twice, we get it anyway.

            • Andy_Schueler

              No human has ever travelled to the sun in order to directly observe whether hydrogen is really fused to helium in the sun. It´s still a scientific fact that this happens. Just like macroevolution.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What indirect evidence, then, supports Macroevolution?

            • Andy_Schueler
            • Joseph O Polanco

              Question: Is the transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals based on complete fossils or fragments?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Both. See:
              Kemp, T. S. (2005). The Origin & Evolution of Mammals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
              Palmer, D., ed. (1999). The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals. London: Marshall Editions.
              Alternatively, visit a museum.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Do these also contain a list of all the fossilized remains of failed/incomplete transitional forms between synapsid reptiles and mammals?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Wtf is a “failed/incomplete transitional form” supposed to be?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              All of the fossils listed describe animals with fully formed, complete features. These were the “successes.” Where are all the remains of the “failures?”

            • Andy_Schueler

              Died in the earliest stages of embryonic development.
              Boy you really are gettting desperate.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              All of them?!?!? How do you know?

            • Andy_Schueler

              This is an individual that lacks one “fully formed, complete feature”: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Anencephaly_front.jpg – developmental disorders like this are extremely rare and if they occur, they tend to be embryonically lethal, the individual is stillborn or dies right after birth. .

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Then how exactly is the fossil record inconsistent with Saltation?

            • Bee

              Where do you get this question from?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Deductive reasoning. Ever try it? :)

            • Andy_Schueler

              We don´t observe saltations now (except for a few debated examples, mostly in plants) and we don´t need to postulate any to explain the fossil record because we see gradual transitions (hint: “gradual” in this sentence has nothing to do with rate of evolutionary change, which is variable, but rather with the degree of similarity between ancestral and derived species, which is demonstrably gradual).

            • Joseph O Polanco

              How is it “demonstrably gradual” when there are no fossils of the in-between failures, dead-ends from one kind to the next? What the fossil records shows us is complete, fully formed, fully functional features. If what you speculate is true then, if nothing else, it’s front-loaded evolution.

            • Andy_Schueler

              How is it “demonstrably gradual” when there are no fossils of the in-between failures, dead-ends from one kind to the next?

              Has already been answered. You also presuppose a teleological view of evolution that has nothing to do with reality.

              What the fossil records shows us is complete, fully formed, fully functional features.

              Which is the only thing it could show because only “complete, fully formed” animals are able to survive. Your point?

              If what you speculate is true then, if nothing else, it’s front-loaded evolution.

              Non sequitur. Try again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Negatory. It is a logical conclusion based on a fossil record that shows complete, fully formed kinds and no failures, dead-ends.

              II. Curious. What, in your mind, would prevent a lizard with a nub for a second finger from surviving? For that matter, why do all fully limbed lizards have five fingers instead of four or three?

              III. Apologies. I meant to say goal-oriented evolution.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. Negatory. It is a logical conclusion based on a fossil
              record that shows complete, fully formed kinds and no failures, dead-ends.

              You didn´t conclude, you asked a question. And your question has been answered.

              II. Curious. What, in your mind, would prevent a lizard with a nub for a second finger from surviving?

              Nothing, and these kinds of fossils do exist – due to predation, for big animals even with visible bitemarks, this has nothing to do with not being “fully formed creatures”. That such things are caused by developmental disorders is a very remote possibility – fossilization is an extremely rare event and developmental disorders that are a) severe enough to leave detectable traces in your fossilized remains and b) still mild enough to allow survival is another extremely rare event (I actually have a hard time imagining how this could happen at all in the wild (modern medicine would of course allow that)). Combine two extremely rare events and you get an even more rare event.

              For that matter, why do all fully limbed lizards have five fingers instead of four or three?

              That cannot be answered in a comment. Refer to:
              http://www.amazon.com/Developmental-Biology-Scott-F-Gilbert/dp/1605351733/
              http://www.amazon.com/Forms-Becoming-Evolutionary-Biology-Development/dp/0691135681/
              http://www.amazon.com/Developmental-Plasticity-Evolution-Mary-West-Eberhard/dp/0195122356
              Also, red herring.

              III. Apologies. I meant to say goal-oriented evolution.

              Same thing and still a non sequitur.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. I’ll be more specific. It was a question based on a logical conclusion.

              II. Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. My question pertains to the purported results of natural selection as one body plan supposedly slowly transforms into a completely different one. Where are all the fossilized remains of the failures, the dead-ends?

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. I´ll be less specific. That has been answered.
              2. False charge of fallacy. Question has been answered.

            • I said nothing of the sort. I merely said that the archaeologists digging in the desert were sponsored in large part by the state of Israel who would want the bible’s stories to be confirmed perhaps more than anyone else as it would give further justification to the Jews that the land of Israel was given to them by god. But their investigations have not been kind to the Old Testament so we now know many of the OT stories were entirely myth. Something you have to deal with in reality, not me.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              These found archaeological evidence that contradicts the biblical historical record?

            • Fuck yeah they did.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Such as?

            • No archaeological evidence for Adam and Eve (atheists already knew that), a massive Jewish enslavement in Egypt, a mass exodus from Egypt, the wandering in Sinai for 40 years, a military conquest of Canaan and more. None of this is backed up by archaeological evidence and what evidence they did find often contradicted the biblical narrative.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ex silentio. Fischer’s “Historians’ Fallacies” categorically asserts, “Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms–it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object is established not by nonexistent evidence but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist.”

            • Argument ad nauseum. Without any positive evidence backing up the biblical narrative, skeptics are perfectly reasonable disbelieving its bullshit. Second the evidence that they did find contradicts the biblical narrative.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Such as?

            • The conquest of Canaan. Turns out the evidence supports that the Jews were Canaanites who settled into the mountains and then resettled Canaan slowly over many centuries.

              Why don’t you read their book or watch their documentary if you have more questions and then try to make an argument using positive evidence against it.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t440bxhn1qA&feature=player_embedded&list=PL10A5186C427158B3#at=83

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Your evidence is a dead link? lol C’mon now. You have to do better than that! lol

            • Learn how to click. It works fine.

              Maybe you have software installed on your computer that prevents you from using websites that contain facts.

              BAM! LOL.

            • ManhattanMC

              Why would anyone assume the fanatical christer archeologists would agree that they’ve wasted their lives, fool?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              For the same reason no atheist archaeologist would remain atheist after objectively analyzing all the evidence for the Bible’s historicity and authenticity.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Dude, the transition to biblical minimalism in Archaeology happened despite the Archaeologists interested in research that has connections to the OT tend to be Christians.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Watiaminute. So if atheists endorsed the Bible as the Word of God you’d believe them instead? lol.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Look up what “biblical minimalism” means you moron, it has nothing to do with the Bible being “the word of god”.

            • ManhattanMC

              Sorry-tu quoque ain’t gonna cut it-not in this instance.
              Christer archeologists are motivated by trying to prove their religion is true. Real archeologists-not so much.

              And do you know of even a single archeologist who was a non-believer who became a christer because of a genuine archeological find?
              I don’t.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ex silentio. Try again.

            • John Grove

              Argumentum by retardo

            • ManhattanMC

              Wrong.
              You keep using that term-you do not know what it means. Google it.

              There is scant evidence for the bible’s historicity-but the existence of Kansas doesn’t have any bearing on the existence of the Wizard of Oz in any case. Fiction writing often incorporates real people, events and locations.

              And ‘authenticity’ isn’t the word you’re looking for either, fool.

              None of the writings collected and codified by Eusebius and Constantine had known chains of custody or known authorship and none to have been written by eye witnessses. The names of the synoptic ‘gospels’ weren’t even attached until more than a hundred years after the names they supposedly describe.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. The divine provenance of the Bible is a matter of fact: http://bit.ly/14Ckccl http://bit.ly/192WmfR

            • Andy_Schueler

              It´s a fact because random internet fucktard sez so? Nice try.

            • ManhattanMC

              Hahahahaha-

              Chatty Cathy response #4. I win!

              You don’t even know what argumentum elenchi means, @$$wipe.

              BTW-your link doesn’t work but it doesn’t matter. There is no proof of ‘divine provenance’ in your fraudulent book-none.
              2 semi-hits out of 231 ‘prophecies’, remember?

              Let’s test this (LOL),
              where in any of the synoptic gospels does any writer claim to be an eye witness to the life and miraculous events of your ‘jesus’?

              I eagerly await your response. (rests elbows on desk-chin on hands and blinks).

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I refute your your source’s claims and you still stand behind it? Nooooooo, you’re not a fanatic, lol.

            • ManhattanMC

              One claim, fool, not ‘claims’ plural. And you had to indulge in the ‘fallacy of composition’-ignoring the ‘dragons’ and the waves to even score a ‘semi-hit’. Pathetic.
              You have refuted nothing because you can’t.
              What part of 2 out 231 do I need to explain to you, you wild eyed reality denier?

              To refute your ‘divine provenance’ confirmed by fulfilled prophecies claim I only have to give you one failed prophecy from your ‘holy’ book. I gave you more than 200 and still you babble.

              Your pretzel logic in explaining why there was light before the sun, moon and stars were created was extremely amusing BTW.
              Worthy of fanatics like a Ron Wyatt or a Ken Ham and just as hilarious.

              The Bhagavad Gita and the Mahabharate contain many more successful prophecies than your book of bronze age myths, having anticipated much of modern physics and cosmology.

              “A fanatic is a man who consciously over compensates a secret doubt.” Aldous Huxley

              IOW-you. Either you’re being paid to repeatedly make a fool of yourself or you are bug eating, bat shit monkey fuck crazy.

              Now for the last time-

              are you being paid by the JoHos to post these links to nonsense Watch Tower blatherings and your deliberate lies?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. You still don’t get it, do you? I can continue going through that list of remaining 200 and refute every single one of them just as I did with those first two. In effect, your faith in that author’s exegeses is unjustified.

              II. Hey, I can explain it but I can’t understand it for you. Genesis 1:1 says what it says.

              III. Such as? Time to put up or …

            • Andy_Schueler

              I can continue going through that list of remaining 200 and refute every single one of them

              No, you cannot. Because theology has no method to decide which of competing interpretations is the correct one or even if there is a correct interpretation at all. This is why Christianity splinters into more and more different denominations over time – there is no way to decide who is right so you just start your own cult if you can´t convince your brothers and sisters.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Come now, don’t be so jejune: http://bit.ly/14CLCjK

            • Andy_Schueler

              Argument by assertion. Try again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ad lapidem. Prove your accusation.

            • Andy_Schueler

              False charge of fallacy. Try again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum assertio. Prove your original accusation.

            • ManhattanMC

              I. Hahahahaha-you didn’t start with numbers 1 and 2. You cherry picked two you thought you could refute. And failed. Edom is modern day Jordan and it is occupied. Total fail. I gave you Babylon-but guess what……
              Steve Wells doesn’t have to be infallible-he’s just a human. Your ‘god’ however, does. Like I said-all I need is one failed prophecy and the ‘divine origin’ of your ‘holy’ book goes out the window.
              And you didn’t refute anything, fool, except for half of the Babylon claim. Still no hissing dragons and no waves covering it.

              Oooooops!

              You talk big but I don’t think you can come up with even a single additional error on the Part of Wells.
              Even if you did you have still been proven a liar when you claim your wholly babble is infallible and thus ‘divine’

              Tough luck, son.

              II. Yup, goober, and the two version contradict each other, contradict established science and your efforts to reconcile them by inventing a new universe are bullshit. End of argument-you lose.

              III. I’m not going to explain them to you, fool. I recommend you read them for yourself-gain a little perspective.

              Now-the only question I’m going to discuss with you from here on out is whether you are being paid by the JoHos or not.
              Nothing else you may have to say interests me because you are a publicly proven liar and a demonstrable moron.

              I hope you will invite all your JoHo friends here to observe your great ‘victories’ for jeebus. LOL

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Prove Edom is modern day Jordan.

              II. Established science? You mean like how Gradualism was established science? “”Gradualism” when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.” – Andy Schueler

              Thanks Andy for showing us how, yet again, science can be extremely deceptive.

              III. Nor would I expect you to. After all you can’t explain what you don’t understand.

            • ManhattanMC

              I You are an idiot.
              II No, @$$wipe-like light having to come from a source-in THIS universe.
              III Dodge and weave, suckah-you can’t redeem yourself-you’ve blown it.
              Broaden your horizons, fool, so you don’t come off like a fanatical, bigoted hick.

              Now-

              are you being paid by the JoHos to post this crap and li9e your butt off or no?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Sorry noob, that’s not what the Bible says at Jeremiah 51:37:

              New International Version (©2011)
              Babylon will be a heap of ruins, a haunt of jackals, an object of horror and scorn, a place where no one lives.

              New Living Translation (©2007)
              and Babylon will become a heap of ruins, haunted by jackals. She will be an object of horror and contempt, a place where no one lives.

              English Standard Version (©2001)
              and Babylon shall become a heap of ruins, the haunt of jackals, a horror and a hissing, without inhabitant.

              New American Standard Bible (©1995)
              “Babylon will become a heap of ruins, a haunt of jackals, An object of horror and hissing, without inhabitants.

              Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
              Babylon will become a heap of rubble, a jackals’ den, a desolation and an object of scorn, without inhabitant.

              International Standard Version (©2012)
              Babylon will become a heap of ruins, a refuge for jackals, a desolate place and an object of scorn.

              NET Bible (©2006)
              Babylon will become a heap of ruins. Jackals will make their home there. It will become an object of horror and of hissing scorn, a place where no one lives.

              GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
              Babylon will become piles of rubble. It will become a dwelling place for jackals, something horrible, and an object of contempt, where no one lives.

              King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
              And Babylon shall become a heap, a dwelling place for jackals, an astonishment, and a hissing, without an inhabitant.

              American Standard Version
              And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling-place for jackals, an astonishment, and a hissing, without inhabitant.

              Darby Bible Translation
              And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling-place of jackals, an astonishment, and a hissing, without inhabitant.

              English Revised Version
              And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling place for jackals, an astonishment, and an hissing, without inhabitant.

              World English Bible
              Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling place for jackals, an astonishment, and a hissing, without inhabitant.

              New World Translation
              And Babylon must become piles of stones, the lair of jackals, an object of astonishment and something to whistle at, without an inhabitant.

            • ManhattanMC

              Nice cherry picking, @$$wipe,

              {“Jeremiah 51:37
              21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
              37 And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling place for dragons, an astonishment and a hissing, without an inhabitant.”}

              I know you’re desperate to save face but as I said, I’m only interested in one question now-

              are the JoHos paying you to post links to WatchTower nonsense and your constant stream of lies?

              I’m going to troll some JoHo sites and tell everyone to come and see your ‘victories’. LOL

              I’ll bet it will de-convert a crap load of people.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You’re the one who’s cherry picking. No serious Biblical intellectual relies on superannuated editions of the KJV. It’s long list of translation errors is due, in part, to the crude work of Erasmus’ Textus Receptus which contemporary editions attempt to correct.

              Also, didn’t you know? “Petty insults are the last refuge of a feeble mind too terrified to face truth.”

              Rage quit much? lol

            • ManhattanMC

              Bull shit.

              It took me less than 10 seconds of google searching to find translations that still refer to ‘dragons’-unlike your new-agey white wash the embarrassing details of the bible translations.

              And WTF good is a ‘holy’ book when translators can’t agree on such a small detail, fool?

              Hahahahaha-

              ‘Rage’? Seriously?
              I haven’t had this much fun in months. making you look like a fool again and again is cathartic in the extreme.
              I reserve the right to call a liar a liar and a moron a moron. You are both.

              Now-

              what of all the failed predictions of your paymasters at WatchTower?

              “Man cannot by airplane or rockets or other means get above the air envelope which is about our earthly globe….” (The Truth Shall Make You Free, page 285, 1943 edition.)

              The resurrection would occur in 1878. (Thy Kingdom Come, page 234). (13) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old would return in 1925. (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, page 89.)

              And this one is the height of hilarity:

              Since Christ failed to show up for any of the Watchtower dates, Jehovah’s Witnesses altered their teaching to make his coming conveniently “invisible”. Christ returned in 1874. (The Finished Mystery, page 395).

              Your ‘authorities’ have been refuted in spades-and still you link to their nonsense repeatedly.

              Why-unless they’re signing your paychecks?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. You mean like how Andy didn’t know what I meant by “Gradualism” despite the context I was employing it in? I guess that means scientists are useless, right?

              II. Silly me. I didn’t know space travel was possible in 1943.

              III. Your accusations are hilarious. You really have no clue what προφητεύω encompasses, do you, lol.

              IV. http://on.fb.me/186csnR

            • ManhattanMC

              I. That ‘gradualism’ means several different things in scientific contexts has been explained to you repeatedly. Your obtuseness is-I hope-a pretense. Otherwise you are so stupid you should be in assisted living.

              And if you don’t understand that no paleontologists-not even Darwin-think or thought that evolution was a continuous unbroken and uniform march it’s only because you have been reading creobot sites where they make a big deal of that particular strawman.

              II. A prediction is a prediction,@$$wipe. Watch Tower has a long string of failed and obviously incorrect predictions. Far more failed predictions in fact than Steve Wells has errors in his take down of biblical failed prophecies-and still you link to them like they are ‘god’s own truth’. Hilarious.

              III. προφητεύω

              1) to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations, to predict
              1a) to prophesy
              1b) with the idea of foretelling future events pertaining especially to the kingdom of God
              1c) to utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known by divine revelation
              1d) to break forth under sudden impulse in lofty discourse or praise of the divine counsels
              1d1) under like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others
              1e) to act as a prophet, discharge the prophetic office

              Do you actually think it sounds more profound in Greek, fool?

              IV. Hahahahaha-

              “No Claim of Inspiration”

              What else can they say after such a string of failures?

              The real question is-why do you give them any credence after so many failures? Even if they are just trying to interpret

              “…the inspired Holy Scriptures, which contain revelations of God’s
              thinking and will. As an organization and individually, they must accept
              the Bible as divine truth, study it carefully, and let it work in them….”

              Why would anyone not ignore them after their blatant failures?

              Unless, of course, they are the source of someone’s employment.
              Confirm or deny or be damned, liar.

              Are you getting paid by the JoHos?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Looks like somebody forgot to tell AronRa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC (1:05 – 1:27)

              II. Thanks for proving my point, to wit, “foretelling, is not the basic thought conveyed by the root verbs in the original languages (Heb., na·vaʼ′; Gr., pro·phe·teu′o); yet it forms an outstanding feature of Bible prophecy.

              Illustrating the sense of the original words are these examples: When Ezekiel in a vision was told to “prophesy to the wind,” he simply expressed God’s command to the wind. (Eze 37:9, 10) When individuals at Jesus’ trial covered him, slapped him, and then said, “Prophesy to us, you Christ. Who is it that struck you?” they were not calling for prediction but for Jesus to identify the slappers by divine revelation. (Mt 26:67, 68; Lu 22:63, 64) The Samaritan woman at the well recognized Jesus as “a prophet” because he revealed things about her past that he could not have known except by divine power. (Joh 4:17-19; compare Lu 7:39.) So, too, such Scriptural portions as Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and his denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23:1-36) may properly be defined as prophecy, for these were an inspired ‘telling forth’ of God’s mind on matters, even as were the pronouncements by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other earlier prophets.—Compare Isa 65:13-16 and Lu 6:20-25.” http://bit.ly/16ZtPDQ

              III. Argumentum “vocatis ollam ollæ nigra” which is comically ironic given the Sciences’ long history of foibles. Remember, Alchemy, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, Spontaneous Generation, Lamarckism, Emication, the supposed existence of the planet Vulcan, Lysenkoism, Gradualism, Trepanation, Miasma theory of disease, Telegony, the expanding earth, the existence of Phlogiston, martian canals, Luminiferous Aether, the Steady State Theory, Cold Fusion, Hollow Earth Theory, Gradualism and Phrenology?

              IV. Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that God’s sedulous followers would be bestowed with infallibility?

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. Looks like somebody forgot to tell AronRa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… (1:05 – 1:27)

              Looks like Joseph Oscar Polanco is being a lying piece of shit again.

            • ManhattanMC

              I Aron Ra doesn’t mention ‘gradualism’ of any type in that video, shit tongue. Talk about ‘ignoratio elenchi’, you dumb fuck. Is it that someone told you the video had some relationship to gradualism or did you think I wouldn’t be familiar with it or did you think i wouldn’t fact check you?

              It’s quite certain you haven’t watched it yourself.

              Either way you just proved yourself a scumbag once again.

              II Horse shit. So many words to say exactly….nothing. That shit might work on the rubes but it’s not going to fly here. ‘Nuance, and ‘deepities’, about bullshit are still bullshit.

              III Blow me.
              Science makes accurate predictions all the time, shit tongue. It has it’s failures but therein lies the difference between science and religion. Science is self correcting and has no attachment to wrong answers and abandons them. Religion will try to stretch the data to fit its received opinions-like you do constantly and comically-and never admit error.
              And we’ve all seen your tiresome list of scams, anti-science and pseudo-science, (many of which were religiously formulated or formulated by religious quacks) which you like to pretend represent science but do not. It’s hilarious that most of them are centuries old as well.
              So-kettle = you and science is destroying your religion one claim at a time. it has been doing so for a very long time and will continue to do so. enjoy your ‘god’ of the gaps.

              tough luck, son.

              IV I don’t give a shit what your wholly babble says about prophecy and neither should you. You should care that the Watch Tower fanatics have been wrong again and again.

              But I waste my breath since you are incapable of course correction.

              Now-
              Tell me how much the Watch Tower thugs are paying you to post this BS.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Please rephrase. I can’t make heads or tails of what you’re trying to say with every other word you write being an obscenity. My system obscures such intelligible speech.

            • ManhattanMC

              Stuff it. My meaning is crystal clear.

              Where ever you post I’m going to pop up and demonstrate that you are a shit tongued liar.

              You will not dictate language usage to me.
              I reserve the right to respond to obscene lies with obscenities-how else can obscenity be described?

              I’d love to be a fly on the wall while you try to explain to your Watch Tower paymasters that you’re getting trolled and people offended by a few off color words aren’t reading your nonsense.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              The issue is effective communication. Speaking like a catachrestic troglodyte only makes you look like a catachrestic trodlodyte. Just sayin’.

            • Bee

              It is better to speak as a troglodyte than to employ selective reading

            • ManhattanMC

              Can you make a single post without lying your ass off?

              The only issue is your ‘delicate sensibilities’ and I don’t care about them.

              Lying like an inerudite bohunk only makes you look like a lying inerudite bohumk-even when you use a thesaurus. Just sayin’.

              So-

              did you get your paycheck from Watch Tower this week?

            • ManhattanMC

              “Silly me. I didn’t know space travel was possible in 1943.”

              It’s not that you didn’t know, @$$wipe, it’s that were certain it wasn’t.

              Why do I have to explain things to you as if your were 5 years old?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You haven’t explained anything, noob. The publication you quoted is from 1943. Was space travel possible then, noob? lol

            • You are embarrassing yourself.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Nope. I’m embarrassing Schueler and his sock puppet, ManhattanMC, lol :D :D :D

            • Andy_Schueler

              You are disgusting. I really feel sorry for your little boy,

            • Bee

              Poor, pitiful, shameless, ridiculous, deluded fool.

              “Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.” — Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

            • Bee

              He is not his sock puppet. Prove your accusations. Otherwise, shut up.

            • ManhattanMC

              WTF?

              “what part of the word ‘prediction’ do you need explained in your 3rd grade vocabulary?

              How stoopid are you, n00bie?

              So-

              defend the Watch Tower thugs at any price, eh?
              No matter how ridiculous you look doing it.
              Such a warrior, shit tongue.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Non sequitur. The statement made in that 1943 publication was not a prediction but a statement of fact. Space travel was not possible in 1943.

            • ManhattanMC

              Sorry, n00bie n00b.
              A prediction is a prediction is a prediction.
              Own it-your authorities are bullshitters.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum contextomy. Try again.

            • Bee

              You are wrong, period. Get over it.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum assertio. Try again.

            • Bee

              You have been wrong about pretty much everything in this thread. You are wrong about evolution, you are wrong about biblical scholarship. You are up against the scholarly consensus in both areas. Every informed person can see that.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You forgot to add “in my egotistical opinion”, lol :D

            • Bee

              And you forgot that you are the one who goes facefirst against the consensus in both those disciplines, so “in your egotistical opinion” my ass.

              Poor thing.

            • ManhattanMC

              Argument by avoiding the issue. Try again.

              And while you’re at it-address the failed predictions of the return of the ‘invisible’ jeebus. LOL

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Argumentum assertio. Your quote makes no claim about the future. It’s based on the current events of the year it was written in.

              II. Stawman. We have no beliefs concerning this jeebus you speak of.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Joseph Oscar Polanco aka lying piece of shit can´t stop vomiting his lies on this thread.
              “Andy didn’t know what I meant by “Gradualism” despite the context I was employing it in? I guess that means scientists are useless, right?”
              Gradualism has multiple meanings IN THIS CONTEXT as I told you at least a dozen times you lying fuckfaced scumbag asshole. .

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Nonsense. That’s like trying to claim “slavery” has different meanings.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Look up the word “ambiguous” you FUCKING IDIOT.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Just spending FIVE SECONDS on google would have led you to the wikipedia entry:

              In the natural sciences, gradualism is a theory which holds that profound change is the cumulative product of slow but continuous processes, often contrasted with catastrophism. The theory was proposed in 1795 by James Hutton, a Scottish physician and gentleman farmer, and was later incorporated into Charles Lyell’s theory of uniformitarianism. Tenets from both theories were applied to biology and formed the basis of early evolutionary theory.

              Charles Darwin was influenced by Lyell’s Principles of Geology, which explained both uniformitarian methodology and theory. Using uniformitarianism, which states that one cannot make an appeal to any force or phenomenon which cannot presently be observed (see catastrophism), Darwin theorized that the evolutionary process must occur gradually, not in saltations, since saltations are not presently observed, and extreme deviations from the usual phenotypic variation would be more likely to be selected against.

              Gradualism is often confused with the concept of phyletic gradualism. It is a term coined by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge to contrast with their model of punctuated equilibrium, which is gradualist itself, but argues that most evolution is marked by long periods of evolutionary stability (called stasis), which is punctuated by rare instances of branching evolution.[1]

              It´s the first fucking hit. Not to mention that I EXPLAINED THIS SHIT TO YOU AND ASKED YOU AT LEAST A DOZEN TIMES TO CLARIFY WHAT THE FUCK YOU EVEN MEAN BY “PRESUPPOSING GRADUALISM” AND WHO THE FUCK ALLEGEDLY DOES THAT AND WHAT THE FUCK THIS HAS TO DO WITH ANYTHING.

              But no, being a complete moron is not enough for you, you also have to show off how much of a dick you are.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Argumentum distinctio absque differentia. “Phyletic gradualism is a model of evolution which theorizes that most speciation is slow, uniform and gradual.” http://bit.ly/12VsU8f

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. WHO “presupposes” a constant rate of evolutionary change?
              2. WHY do you refuse to answer question one although I asked you over a dozen times?
              3. WHY did you steadfastly refuse to clarify which form of gradualism you mean until I clarified it for you, although I asked you dozens of times to define what you mean?
              4. WHY did you immediatly start masturbating and claiming victory when I informed you that one form of gradualism is indeed false – although I never claimed that this form of gradualism is true and could not even know that this is what you are talking about since you steadfastly refused to define what you mean by “gradualism” and refused to show that any scientist indeed “presupposes” that, despite me asking you for this information at least a dozen times.
              5. WHY do you believe that ANYONE “presupposes” a constant rate of evolutionary change although you have zero evidence that any scientist does in fact do so?

              If you cannot answer these questions, you will again confirm my charge that Joseph Oscar Polanco is a lying piece of shit. Are you a lying piece of shit, Joseph Oscar Polanco?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Are you hard of reading?!?!

              “Both phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are speciation theory and are valid models for understanding macroevolution.”

              “For Gradualism, changes in species is slow and gradual, occurring in small periodic changes in the gene pool.” – “Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Phyletic Gradualism” – International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology – Vol. 3, No. 4, December, 2011

              “Phyletic gradualism is a model of evolution which theorizes that most speciation is slow, uniform and gradual.” http://bit.ly/12VsU8f

              AronRa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC (1:05 – 1:27)

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. WHO “presupposes” a constant rate of evolutionary change?
              2. WHY do you refuse to answer question one although I asked you over a dozen times?
              3. WHY did you steadfastly refuse to clarify which form of gradualism you mean until I clarified it for you, although I asked you dozens of times to define what you mean?
              4. WHY did you immediatly start masturbating and claiming victory when I informed you that one form of gradualism is indeed false – although I never claimed that this form of gradualism is true and could not even know that this is what you are talking about since you steadfastly refused to define what you mean by “gradualism” and refused to show that any scientist indeed “presupposes” that, despite me asking you for this information at least a dozen times.
              5. WHY do you believe that ANYONE “presupposes” a constant rate of evolutionary change although you have zero evidence that any scientist does in fact do so?

              If you cannot answer these questions, you will again confirm my charge that Joseph Oscar Polanco is a lying piece of shit. Are you a lying piece of shit, Joseph Oscar Polanco?

              “Phyletic gradualism is a model of evolution which theorizes that most speciation is slow, uniform and gradual.”

              I JUST SAID THAT and already explained it at least a dozen times to you YOU FUCKING IMBECILE.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Are you hard of reading?!?!?!?

              “Both phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are speciation theory and are valid models for understanding macroevolution.”

              “For Gradualism, changes in species is slow and gradual, occurring in small periodic changes in the gene pool.” – “Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Phyletic Gradualism” – International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology – Vol. 3, No. 4, December, 2011

              AronRa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC (1:05 – 1:27)

            • Bee

              Saying the same things time and time again doesn’t make you right. It only makes you apper stupid. Answer andy’s question. Or do we have to assume you are not capable of doing anything except quoting people who you THINK support your thesis?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Looks like somebody forgot to tell poor ol’ Schueler.

            • Bee

              Looks like someone forgot to actually read and understand what andy has written, and repeated. until you actually addres that, you are hopelessly in the wrong, also because what you keep posting does not support you nor contradict what andy says.

            • Bee

              And answer andy’s five questions, damn it! What are you, a robot only capable of quoting people you THINK support you?

            • Bee

              Are YOU hard on reading? The article posted before explains it all. And these quotes do not support you in any way.

              Poor ignorant fool.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              “Both phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are speciation theory and are valid models for understanding macroevolution.”

              “For Gradualism, changes in species is slow and gradual, occurring in small periodic changes in the gene pool.” – “Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Phyletic Gradualism” – International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology – Vol. 3, No. 4, December, 2011

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. WHO “presupposes” a constant rate of evolutionary change?
              2. WHY do you refuse to answer question one although I asked you over a dozen times?
              3. WHY did you steadfastly refuse to clarify which form of gradualism you mean until I clarified it for you, although I asked you dozens of times to define what you mean?
              4. WHY did you immediatly start masturbating and claiming victory when I informed you that one form of gradualism is indeed false – although I never claimed that this form of gradualism is true and could not even know that this is what you are talking about since you steadfastly refused to define what you mean by “gradualism” and refused to show that any scientist indeed “presupposes” that, despite me asking you for this information at least a dozen times.
              5. WHY do you believe that ANYONE “presupposes” a constant rate of evolutionary change although you have zero evidence that any scientist does in fact do so?

              If you cannot answer these questions, you will again confirm my charge that Joseph Oscar Polanco is a lying piece of shit. Are you a lying piece of shit, Joseph Oscar Polanco?

              “”For Gradualism, changes in species is slow and gradual, occurring in small periodic changes in the gene pool.”

              I JUST SAID THAT and already explained it at least a dozen times to you YOU FUCKING IMBECILE.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Are you hard of reading?!?!?!?

              “Both phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are speciation theory and are valid models for understanding macroevolution.”

              “For Gradualism, changes in species is slow and gradual, occurring in small periodic changes in the gene pool.” – “Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Phyletic Gradualism” – International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology – Vol. 3, No. 4, December, 2011

              “Phyletic gradualism is a model of evolution which theorizes that most speciation is slow, uniform and gradual.” http://bit.ly/12VsU8f

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC (1:05 – 1:27)

            • Andy_Schueler

              Apparently you don´t know what the word “presuppose” means, look it up, fucktard.

              “”For Gradualism, changes in species is slow and gradual, occurring in small periodic changes in the gene pool.”

              I JUST SAID THAT and already explained it at least a dozen times to you YOU FUCKING IMBECILE.

            • ManhattanMC

              And who was talking about Jeremiah, you moron?

              Isaiah 13:22

              “And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their
              pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not
              be prolonged.”

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Same problem noob:

              New International Version (©2011)
              Hyenas will inhabit her strongholds, jackals her luxurious palaces. Her time is at hand, and her days will not be prolonged.

              New Living Translation (©2007)
              Hyenas will howl in its fortresses, and jackals will make dens in its luxurious palaces. Babylon’s days are numbered; its time of destruction will soon arrive.

              English Standard Version (©2001)
              Hyenas will cry in its towers, and jackals in the pleasant palaces; its time is close at hand and its days will not be prolonged.

              New American Standard Bible (©1995)
              Hyenas will howl in their fortified towers And jackals in their luxurious palaces. Her fateful time also will soon come And her days will not be prolonged.

              Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
              Hyenas will howl in the fortresses, and jackals, in the luxurious palaces. Babylon’s time is almost up; her days are almost over.

              International Standard Version (©2012)
              Hyenas will howl in its strongholds, and jackals will make their dens in its citadels. Its time is close at hand, and its days will not be extended any further.

              NET Bible (©2006)
              Wild dogs will yip in her ruined fortresses, jackals will yelp in the once-splendid palaces. Her time is almost up, her days will not be prolonged.

              GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
              Hyenas will howl in Babylon’s strongholds, and jackals will howl in its luxurious palaces. Its time has almost come. Its days will not be extended.

              King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
              The hyenas shall cry in its towers, and jackals in their pleasant palaces: her time is near, and her days shall not be prolonged.

              American Standard Version
              And wolves shall cry in their castles, and jackals in the pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

              Douay-Rheims Bible
              And owls shall answer one another there, in the houses thereof, and sirens in the temples of pleasure.

              Darby Bible Translation
              And jackals shall cry to one another in their palaces, and wild dogs in the pleasant castles. And her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

              English Revised Version
              And wolves shall cry in their castles, and jackals in the pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

              World English Bible
              Wolves will cry in their castles, and jackals in the pleasant palaces. Her time is near to come, and her days will not be prolonged.

              New World Translation
              And jackals must howl in her dwelling towers, and the big snake will be in the palaces of exquisite delight. And the season for her is near to come, and her days themselves will not be postponed.”

              Like I said, no serious Biblical intellectual relies on superannuated editions of the KJV. It’s long list of translation errors is due, in part, to the crude work of Erasmus’ Textus Receptus which contemporary editions attempt to correct.

            • ManhattanMC

              Same answer N00bie-

              you have carefully-one must assume-avoided translations that cite ‘satyrs’ (don’t you just love it?) and flying serpents.

              And it’s not difficult to find translations that mention the dragons either.

              And you know it.

              “And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces; and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.” 21st Century King James Version

              Young’s Literal Translation (that one’s gotta sting ya, no, ass clown?)
              “And Aiim have responded in his forsaken habitations, And dragons in palaces of delight, And near to come [is] her time, And her days are not drawn out!”

              1599 Geneva Bible
              “And Iim shall cry in their palaces, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and the time thereof is ready to come, and the days thereof shall not be prolonged.”

              Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
              “And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses,
              and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come,
              and her days shall not be prolonged.”

              ……..and you have no fucking idea what a ‘serious’ biblical intellectual’ might be, ass clown.

              So-

              Do you make more than minimum wage to post lies and links to lies online for the JoHos?
              Inquiring minds want to know.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Responderunt interrogavit. Next!

            • ManhattanMC

              You responded-but like all your responses it was cunt-pasting bullshit.

              But, you gotta earn your money, eh, shit tongue?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Like I keep telling you noob, context is king:

              ““Look! A people is coming in from the north; and a great nation and grand kings themselves will be roused up from the remotest parts of the earth. Bow and javelin they handle. They are cruel and will show no mercy. The sound of them is ** like the sea that is boisterous, ** and upon horses they will ride; set in array as one man for war against you, O daughter of Babylon.” – Jeremiah 50:41,42 (Emphasis mine.)

              Next!

            • ManhattanMC

              Hahahahahahaha-

              So the ‘waves’ are a metaphor. Gotcha!
              How much of the other stuff in your ‘holy’ book is metaphor?
              Something to think about, no?

              So-

              Are you paid as a full time clergyman to post lies and links to lies online?
              You don’t seem to have any other job or pass time.

            • ManhattanMC

              “I can continue going through that list of remaining 200 and refute every single one of them just as I did with those first two.”

              Bullshit-put up or shut up.

            • i’m sorry, but I must call you out on this repeated mantra. You must do the work yourself as you are presenting in the affirmative. YOU have to show, without lazily presenting links (which are shit anyway) how your ASSERTIONS are valid. It is not up to us to dispel them, it is up to you to establish them beyond mere assertion. Do some work.

            • ManhattanMC

              Oooga boooga-vampire be gone!!!!!

              Oh, that useful ‘magic bullet’ phrase.

              Pathetic.

            • Bee

              False.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum assertio. Try again.

            • Definition of irony:

              “I don’t make accusations. I make statements of fact :)””Argumentum assertio. Try again.”

              Or hypocrisy.

            • Bee

              Nope, still false.

          • Andy_Schueler

            I. My conclusions are based on what the fossil record actually says

            Oh really?

            the fossil record, which is supposed to show a series of infinitesimally gradual changes from one being to another over the course of millions of years, shows the complete opposite but it is hoped that the “missing” fossils of these intermediate species will one day be found.

            You know that this is a lie, you have already acknowledged that this is a lie, but you will repeat this lie over and over and over again in different threads and continue to spam your JW links all over the place.

            Your dishonesty is absolutely revolting.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Well I could agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong. I’ve made no such acknowledgment bigot.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Oh you certainly did. When you were presented with an illustration of the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals, which is supported by fossils corresponding to all key transitions, you tried to shift the goalposts with:
              “Since when do a handful of species constitute a a series of infinitesimally gradual changes from one being to another over the course of millions of years?”
              => thus acknowledging that these transitions are indeed supported by the fossil record, but not matching your standard of “infinitesimally gradual change”. A standard that is completely idiotic and which would prove that you and your parents cannot possibly be related to each other.

              Your dishonesty is absolutely revolting.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Then why isn’t this also evolution, bigot?

              http://bit.ly/18b2Jxe
              http://bit.ly/12K0jnvco

            • Andy_Schueler

              Then why isn’t this also evolution, bigot?
              http://bit.ly/18b2Jxe
              http://bit.ly/12K0jnvco

              1. Your second link goes nowhere.
              2. Your first links asks for fossils linking extant snakes to extant frogs:
              “No transitional form exists showing that reptiles evolved from amphibians.”
              => which is the same idiotic misconception about Evolution that we see every time from Creationists – those species shared a common ancestor, what the fossil record has to show is a chain of transitions linking this ancestor to the extant amphibian and reptilian forms. And it does:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Fish_to_tetrapods (scroll down to “The Labyrinthodontia → Lissamphibia Evolutionary Series”)
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Amphibians_to_amniotes_.28early_reptiles.29
              That you fall for this idiocy means that you literally don´t know the first thing about evolution. Dunning-Kruger on steroids.
              3. This is nothing but a red herring to distract from your transparent and ad nauseam repeated lies:
              http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/06/07/guest-post-the-thinkers-evolutionary-argument-against-god-eaag/#comment-935010048

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. http://bit.ly/12K0jnv

              II. But reptiles still evolved from amphibians who evolved from fish, right? http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/tp/Vertebrate-Animal-Evolution.htm

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. http://bit.ly/12K0jnv

              Completely random link that has nothing to do with the argument so far.

              II. But reptiles still evolved from amphibians who evolved from fish, right? http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/

              That indeed is correct, as the fossil record amply demonstrates.

              And when will you retract your lies?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. So man did not evolve from great apes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

              II. So if reptiles evolved from amphibians why is this not evolution? http://bit.ly/18b2Jxe

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. Your second link asks for fossils linking extant snakes to extant frogs and claims:
              “No transitional form exists showing that reptiles evolved from amphibians.”

              => which is a lie. Also the figure at this link is based on a completely idiotic misconception about Evolution that we see every time from Creationists – they assume that one extant species evolved from another extant species. They didn´t – those species are cousins – they shared a common ancestor. What the fossil record has to show if common descent is true, is a chain of transitions linking this ancestor to the extant amphibian and reptilian forms. And it does:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Fish_to_tetrapods (scroll down to “The Labyrinthodontia → Lissamphibia Evolutionary Series”)
              and:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Amphibians_to_amniotes_.28early_reptiles.29
              That you fall for this idiocy means that you literally don´t know the first thing about evolution. Dunning-Kruger on steroids.

              2. Your reply is nothing but a red herring to distract from your transparent and ad nauseam repeated lies:
              http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/06/07/guest-post-the-thinkers-evolutionary-argument-against-god-eaag/#comment-935010048

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. The image shows an amphibian evolving into a reptile, which, if you’ll recall, you confirmed is exactly what evolution purports. I don’t understand why you’re backpedaling now.

              II. If man did evolve from great apes, which is what the image shows, how is that a red herring? Methinks you don’t know what a red herring actually is …

            • Andy_Schueler

              The image shows an amphibian evolving into a reptile

              No, it shows an picture of an extant frog being morphed into an extant snake. Which is completely idiotic as I already explained to you two times now.

              which, if you’ll recall, you confirmed is exactly what evolution purports.

              No, evolution does not entail that you were born from your great-great-great-…..-great cousin and it also does not entail that there ever were chimeras where one half of the body was like a modern snake and the other half like a modern frog – just like there never was a dog whose body was one half chihuahua and one half german shepherd.
              Similarly, if you cross a Tiger and a Lion, you don´t get an animal where one half of the body looks like a Tiger and the other half like a lion, it looks like this.
              Those are two misconceptions that should be embarrassing for a sixteen year old who didn´t sleep through all of his biology classes, and YOU think you can refute almost 200 years of research related to Evolution although you don´t understand Biology on even the most rudimentary level?
              Reptiles and amphibia had indeed a common ancestor, and the fossil record demonstrates that and shows key transitions, no matter how often you lie about it:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Amphibians_to_amniotes_.28early_reptiles.29

              II. If man did evolve from great apes, which is what the image shows, how is that a red herring? Methinks you don’t know what a red herring actually is …

              You were demonstrably lying, and you are too dishonest to admit that you were lying and too dishonest to retract your nonsense, instead you spam different BS links and hope that your original lie will be forgotten. That is a red herring.

              Cue Joseph spamming new BS links while pretending that his old ones have not been refuted and his lies have not exposed in 5,4,3….

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. 1. is a frog?!?!? What species of frog is it?

              II. The information in your Wikipedia link presupposes Gradualism and Common Descent. It’s apophenia inbred with confirmation bias especially given the existence of species like the platypus, the pronghorn, the hoatzin, the spiny anteater and the red panda. The inexistence, then, of a finely gradated spectrum of fossil links from one kind to another becomes that much more superincumbent.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I. 1. is a frog?!?!? What species of frog is it?

              Nope. Salamander. I had a different image in mind.
              Doesn´t affect my comment regarding your ridiculous misconceptions one bit. And that you don´t acknowledge that your point is indeed based on two misconceptions that have literally nothing to do with biological reality is another example for your revolting dishonesty.
              So I´ll repeat:
              “No, evolution does not entail that you were born from your great-great-great-…..-great cousin and it also does not entail that there ever were chimeras where one half of the body was like a modern snake and the other half like a modern frog [or Salamander] – just like there never was a dog whose body was one half chihuahua and one half german shepherd.
              Similarly, if you cross a Tiger and a Lion, you don´t get an animal where one half of the body looks like a Tiger and the other half like a lion, it looks like this.
              Those are two misconceptions that should be embarrassing for a sixteen year old who didn´t sleep through all of his biology classes, and YOU think you can refute almost 200 years of research related to Evolution although you don´t understand Biology on even the most rudimentary level? ”

              II. The information in your Wikipedia link presupposes Gradualism and Common Descent.

              No, gradualism and common descent are not presupposed. If common descent is indeed true, there are observations that fall into these categories:
              a) Necessary observations if common descent is true.
              b) Not expected observations, but consistent with common descent.
              c) Not expected observations and hard to explain given common descent without auxiliary assumptions.
              d) Observations that are strictly inconsistent with common descent (which would logically rule common descent out).
              After over 150 years of extensive research by generations of scientists, there never has been a single observation that falls into category d), but tens of thousands of observations that fall into category a). And the handful of observations that fall into category c) can be explained without resorting to ad hoc assumptions (which would be unscientific) but rather based on explanations that are itself well supported by empirical evidence (e.g. lateral gene transfer).
              These mountains (literally) of evidence mean that common descent is true with a probability bordering on certainty, based on perfectly valid deductive reasoning.

              It’s apophenia inbred with confirmation bias especially given the existence of species like the platypus, the pronghorn, the hoatzin, the spiny anteater and the red panda

              Then enumerate the list of homoplasies that have to be proposed to explain the existence of any of these species given common descent, or, if you can´t do that, explain wtf this has to do with anything.

              The inexistence, then, of a finely gradated spectrum of fossil links from one kind to another becomes that much more superincumbent.

              1. We can demonstrate plenty of key transitions, sometimes with a very good resolution (e.g. evolution of horses and whales).
              2. We found thousands of fossils that support common descent and not a single one that is inconsistent with common descent (although, conceptually, the number of observations wrt the fossil record that would refute common descent VASTLY outnumber the observations that support it or are consistent with it).
              3. The resolution of the fossil record is what one would expect given the mechanisms that lead to fossilization.

              Your hands are empty – you have no arguments, you have no data to base your arguments on, all you have is lies and misconceptions.

            • John Grove

              Joseph,
              Andy is a scientist and you are a child. All you are doing is making yourself look terribly unscientific and illiterate.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              And scientists are infallible … oh … wait …

            • Andy_Schueler

              You might want to look up “false dichotomy”.

            • John Grove

              Of course not, but he is an expert in a field in which you have no credibility whatsoever. And listening to your ravings thus far show me the only thing you have ever considered is watchtower propaganda.

      • What you are unaware of is that the argument above works irrespective if you deny evolution altogether. So even being a creationist doesn’t get you out of the conclusions this argument produces, evolution just makes it a lot worse.

        • Joseph O Polanco

          What argument are you referring to?

          • I’m talking about the post, if you were referring to something else then my mistake.

    • John Grove

      Attention:

      Do not fed the troll Joseph O Polanco. All he is doing is spouting off pseudoprofundity and apparently he seems rather pleased with himself for doing that.

      • Honest_John_Law

        I had a quick glance at his Facebook page. It does appear he is a Jehovah’s Witness. I haven’t sifted through this entire thread, so maybe someone else noticed that.

    • Joseph O Polanco

      All kidding aside, how many millions of years would it take guppies or Italian wall lizards to become something that’s not a guppy or an Italian wall lizard?

      • John Grove

        You’re not going to get much more attention here. You have been weighed in the balances and found wanting. All you have done for the last few days is:

        1. Spout off pseudoprodunity
        2. Deny science
        3. Point us to JW crackpot propaganda which employs no logic at all.

        In fact every article you pointed us to demonstrates that what you clearly deny, you don’t even understand what it is you are denying. Whether it be the fallacious cosmological argument, morality, evolution, your so-called “proof” for god, which are not “proof’s at all but appeals to ignorance and god of the gap.

        I mostly like your deepities from #1. Read Stephen Laws book on Believing Bullshit.

        • Joseph O Polanco

          Are you hard of reading?!?!?!?

          “Both phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are speciation theory and are valid models for understanding macroevolution.”

          “For Gradualism, changes in species is slow and gradual, occurring in small periodic changes in the gene pool.” – “Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Phyletic Gradualism” – International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology – Vol. 3, No. 4, December, 2011

          “Phyletic gradualism is a model of evolution which theorizes that most speciation is slow, uniform and gradual.” http://bit.ly/12VsU8f

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC (1:05 – 1:27)

          “”Gradualism”, when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.” – Dr. Andy Schueler, Molecular Evolutionary Biologist.

          • Andy_Schueler

            Andy: “Gradualism”, when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.”

            Joseph aka lying piece of shit: I. Hurrah!! Finally!! “”gradualism” [] is indeed false.” Music to my ears!!! So I was right all along. Gradualism IS a presupposition having no basis in reality.

            pre·sup·pose
            1 : to suppose beforehand
            2 : to require as an antecedent in logic or fact

            You´re welcome. Asshole. And now you understand that these models are not “presupposed” THEY ARE TESTED AND REFINED BASED ON THE DATA YOU FUCKING IMBECILE. “Gradualism”, when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.” The rate of evolutionary change is not constant, and if this were a “presupposition”, Gould and Eldredge couldn´t just come along and change it, they came up with a different model based on the data that was available, and they also predicted that phyletic gradualism can be an accurate model for some lineages – but it should be the exception and not the norm.

            Fucking idiot.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Debating you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, defecates on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Seriously? You can´t even just cuntpaste that phrase without replacing “craps” by “defecates”?
              You are by far the most pretentious douchebag I´ve ever seen.
              Not to mention that you are a notorious liar, and of course you will keep on repeating your lies about “presupposing gradualism”, because you are a lying piece of shit.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Were you aware of Johnnie’s “strict” policy of inviting “people here of all different worldviews to discuss things *** with humility and with composure and without unnecessary rudeness***”? (Emphasis mine.) http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/04/03/idist-commenter-bets-my-co-writer-10000-and-loses-what-to-do/

              I’d hate to see you get booted off for your rudeness, lack of humility and composure. Get it together man! :)

            • Andy_Schueler

              You not only disregard the rules of rational discourse, you vomit on them. You are a shameless liar and an insufferable pretentious douche. Rudeness is not “unnecessary” with you because you clearly understand no other language.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              To the contrary. I don’t respond well to hectoring. Dignity, kindness and respect, on the other hand, do wonders for me. Why don’t you give it a try?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Why don´t you give it a try? Also, try honesty for once, works wonders for most people.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              When have I not treated you with dignity, kindness and respect?

            • Andy_Schueler

              All the time.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Really? I’m so very sorry. That certainly has not been my intent. I’ll do my utmost to be more sensitive in the future. Do you accept my apology?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Joseph in this part of the thread: Really? I’m so very sorry. That certainly has not been my intent. I’ll do my utmost to be more sensitive in the future. Do you accept my apology?

              Joseph right before that in a different part of the thread: You’re just hysterical ’cause you supported my asseveration that Gradualism was a presupposition with no basis in reality.

              :-D :-D
              Take your notpology and go fuck yourself with it.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What? What did I do now?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Maliciously lying, what you do all the time.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What did I lie about?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Pretty much everything – just look for the comments where I called you a liar.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What did I just supposedly lie about?

            • Andy_Schueler

              “Presuppsing gradualism” – what you already lied about roughly fifty times in this thread.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Didn’t you say that Gradualism is false? If it’s false, doesn’t that mean it has no basis in reality? If it has no basis in reality doesn’t that mean it’s just been a presupposition all along?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Wow, you really just start with your lies all over again and pretend that the rest of the comment thread doesn´t exist. Amazing.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              What am I lying about?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Andy: “Gradualism”, when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.”

              Joseph aka lying piece of shit: I. Hurrah!! Finally!! “”gradualism” [] is indeed false.” Music to my ears!!! So I was right all along. Gradualism IS a presupposition having no basis in reality.

              pre·sup·pose
              1 : to suppose beforehand
              2 : to require as an antecedent in logic or fact

              You´re welcome. Asshole. And now you understand that these models are not “presupposed” THEY ARE TESTED AND REFINED BASED ON THE DATA YOU FUCKING IMBECILE. “Gradualism”, when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.” The rate of evolutionary change is not constant, and if this were a “presupposition”, Gould and Eldredge couldn´t just come along and change it, they came up with a different model based on the data that was available, and they also predicted that phyletic gradualism can be an accurate model for some lineages – but it should be the exception and not the norm.

              Same for common descent, it´s not “presupposed”, IT`S TESTED AGAINST THE DATA YOU MORON.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Hang on, wasn’t Darwin the first to come up with the theory of Gradualism?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Ah, so now we move from “you are presupposing gradualism” to “wasn´t Darwin the first to come up with the theory of Gradualism?” – as soon as you retract your lies about “presupposing gradualism”, we can talk about that.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You haven’t proven I’ve lied. Until then I stand by my asseveration.

            • Andy_Schueler

              You like to rape baby piglets. Prove that I am lying right now.

            • Bee

              Oh for… Listen, to put it as simple as possible. Andy said that gradualism has multiple meanings in natural science. What Andy said is not verified is the strict forn of phyletic gradualism, in other words “constant rate/speed of evolutionary change”. This is not a problem for evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is a gradualistic model which maintains that most evolutionary change happen in relatively short time frames (which means tens to hundreds of thousand of years) and this is what Gould and Eldredge talked about.

              Phyletic gradualism is gradualism. PE is also a form of gradualism. Gradualism does not imply constant ratrs/speed of change at all. It has been made clear since the very beginning.

              “In the natural sciences, gradualism is a theory which holds that profound change is the cumulative product of slow but continuous processes, often contrasted with catastrophism. The theory was proposed in 1795 by James Hutton, a Scottish physician and gentleman farmer, and was later incorporated into Charles Lyell’s theory of uniformitarianism. Tenets from both theories were applied to biology and formed the basis of early evolutionary theory.

              Gradualism is often confused with the concept of phyletic gradualism. It is a term coined by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge to contrast with their model of punctuated equilibrium, which is gradualist itself, but argues that most evolution is marked by long periods of evolutionary stability (called stasis), which is punctuated by rare instances of branching evolution”

              It is that simple.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Based on what evidence did Hutton form his theory?

            • Andy_Schueler

              We talk about this as soon as you retract your lies Joseph, stop switching topics.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              As soon as you clearly and succinctly demonstrate that I’ve lied.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I´ll do that right after you prove that I lied when I claimed that you like to rape baby piglets.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              It’s physically impossible for me to do such so, there you go!

              Now prove that I’ve lied about anything I’ve said here or anywhere else.

            • Andy_Schueler

              You repeated the lie “you presuppose gradualism” ad nauseam, despite being corrected about this over a dozen times – which makes you a notorious liar.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              No one has yet corrected me for no one has explicated what physical evidence Hutton’s opinion is derived from.

            • Andy_Schueler

              You haven´t given me any evidence that you don´t in fact like to rape baby piglets.

              No one has yet corrected me for no one has explicated what physical evidence Hutton’s opinion is derived from.

              Check his works:
              1785. Abstract of a dissertation read in the Royal Society of Edinburgh, upon the seventh of March, and fourth of April, MDCCLXXXV, Concerning the System of the Earth, Its Duration, and Stability. Edinburgh. 30pp.
              1788. The theory of rain. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. 1, Part 2, pp. 41–86.
              1788. Theory of the Earth; or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution, and restoration of land upon the Globe. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. 1, Part 2, pp. 209–304.
              1792. Dissertations on different subjects in natural philosophy. Edinburgh & London: Strahan & Cadell.
              1794. Observations on granite. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. 3, pp. 77–81.
              1794. A dissertation upon the philosophy of light, heat, and fire. Edinburgh: Cadell, Junior, Davies.
              1794. An investigation of the principles of knowledge and of the progress of reason, from sense to science and philosophy. Edinburgh: Strahan & Cadell.
              1795. Theory of the Earth; with proofs and illustrations. Edinburgh: Creech. 2 vols.

              But, more importantly, what the fuck does this have to do with anything?.
              Do yourself a favor and look up the differences between “hypothesis”, “theory (scientific)” and “presupposition” – then apologize for your lies.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. Try again.

              II. If Hutton made his opinion bereft of evidence, how exactly is it a hypothesis or scientific theory and not a presupposition? If he didn’t, what was that evidence?

            • Andy_Schueler

              1. False charge of fallacy. Try again.
              2. Lies. Try again.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Argumentum assertio. Try again.

              II. Argumentum ad lapidem. Try again.

            • Bee

              Lies. Try again.

            • Bee

              That is why I told you you were changing the subject, we were talking about the meaning of gradualism in evolutionary biology, not the origin of the concept itself, which was first introduced before the birth of evolutionary biology.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              We’ve moved on. Please try and keep up.

            • Bee

              You have still not apologized for getting gradualism wrong, as I proved. Until you acknowledge that I’m unwilling to move on. Admit you were wrong and that now you are talking about something else. I repeat, you were talking about the meaning of gradualism in evolutionary biology. Mentioning Hutton you have moved to the very origin of the concept. Admit it or I’ll have to conclude you are dishonest.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              “For Gradualism, changes in species is slow and gradual, occurring in small periodic changes in the gene pool.” – “Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Phyletic Gradualism” – International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology – Vol. 3, No. 4, December, 2011

              AronRa’s simulation of Gradualism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… (1:05 – 1:27)

              How exactly was I wrong about Gradualism again?

            • Bee

              See above. You were wrong. Again, repeating the same stuff without actually understanding what you are told doesn’t make you right,

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Look up what “periodic” means in the dictionary.

            • Bee

              I’m seriously getting annoyed by your ignorance and arrogance.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Same here. The ignorance and arrogance I could deal with – but combine that with his dishonesty and pretentiousness and you get an insufferable troll.

            • Bee

              Say what you want, andy, but I find him way more annoying than johnM.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Yeah, JohnM had moments where he was almost tolerable – but at his worst, JohnM can outperform this asshole ;-).

            • Bee

              Don’t change the subject. Admit you were wrong about gradualism in evolution. Then get a history of science book.

              Just out of curiosity, how old do you think the earth is? Just to understand if you are a full-fledged creationist.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. Try again.

              II. Current estimates are at 4.54 billion years. I have no reason to dispute this scientific opinion.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Current estimates are at 4.54 billion years. I have no reason to dispute this scientific opinion.

              Which makes you “not a true Christian”.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Really? Tell me, where does Christ unequivocally state the age of the Earth?

            • Andy_Schueler

              I don´t give a fuck – duke it out with other fundies.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Nor are you qualified to make such a distinction. Thus, your opinion on the matter is feckless and unimportant.

            • Bee

              Nor are you a professional biologist or paleontologist. Thus, your opinion on the matter is feckless and unimportant.

            • Bee

              Of evolution, I mean.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              How does that change the fact that the fossil record is obviously bereft of in-between failures, dead-ends from one kind to the next? How does that change the fact that the fossil record only contains kinds with fully formed body plans with complete, fully functional features?

            • Bee

              How does that change the fact that your objections are meaningless and ridiculous for every professional scientist who actually knows his stuff?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              And the reason you don’t know it as well isssss???

            • Bee

              I don’t know what?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Nor are you qualified to make such a distinction. Thus, your opinion on the matter is feckless and unimportant.

              I am indeed not qualified in this matter – and I have no opinions about what Jesus allegedly did or did not say, and I honestly don´t give a fuck.
              While we are talking about qualifications – you have none in Biology or any scientific subject.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ignorantio elenchi. You evaluate someone’s argument based on the body of facts and information presented, not who they are personally. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Spectacular hypocrisy. Try again.

            • Bee

              False claim of fallacy, admit you were wrong about what you thought about what gradualism means in biology.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              “For Gradualism, changes in species is slow and gradual, occurring in small periodic changes in the gene pool.” – “Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Phyletic Gradualism” – International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology – Vol. 3, No. 4, December, 2011

              AronRa illustrating Gradualism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… (1:05 – 1:27)

              How exactly was I wrong about Gradualism again?

            • Bee

              Not this crap again. One more time.

              Gradualism means that change from a human point of view is slow and gradual. That is correct. But that does not mean that the rate/speed of evolutionary change must be constant, in other words happen always at the same speed. Which you clearly implied when you claimed victory when andy correctly pointed out that constant speed of change is not verified, but instead said speed is variable. Variable speed of evolutionary change is not in contrast with gradualism.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              According to Andy it is: “”Gradualism” when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.” – Dr. Andy Schueler, Molecular Evolutionary Biologist.

              This type of “constant rate of evolutionary change” is what’s described here as contrasted with PE: “For Gradualism, changes in species **is slow and gradual, occurring in small periodic **(not variable speed)** changes in the gene pool.” – “Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Phyletic Gradualism” – International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology – Vol. 3, No. 4, December, 2011 (Emphasis mine)

              Periodic: “recurring at ** equal ** intervals of time.” (Emphasis mine.)

              So, again, I put to you, how have I lied about Gradualism?

            • Andy_Schueler

              I addressed this more than a dozen times and I´m so sick and tired of copy-pasting the same stuff that you will ignore anyway.

            • Bee

              Gradualism as defined in that paper is specifically phyletic gradualism, which is indeed constant speed of evolutionary change, in contrast with punctuated equilibrium, which is still gradualistic, but with variable speed of evolutionary change. Strict phyletic gradualism is false, gradualism at variable speed is what actually happens. You were wrong when you claimed that gradualism was falsified when you incorrectly took andy’s comment for an admission that evolution can’t be gradual.

              It is not that hard to understand.

            • Andy_Schueler

              And that´s why I call you a lying piece of shit – because you simply pretend that the rest of the comment thread doesn´t exist and try to drown it with your lies.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Look up what “periodic” means in the dictionary.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Look up what “lying piece of shit” means in the urban dictionary.

            • Bee

              Look what dishonest means in the dictionary.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Joseph in this part of the thread: Really? I’m so very sorry. That certainly has not been my intent. I’ll do my utmost to be more sensitive in the future. Do you accept my apology?

              Joseph right before that in a different part of the thread: You’re just hysterical ’cause you supported my asseveration that Gradualism was a presupposition with no basis in reality.

              Take your notpology and go fuck yourself with it.

            • Debating you is like dealing with a masochist who is always down for another ass-whipping.

            • Bee

              That is called projection.

              Joseph, you are wrong. period. Get over it.

            • Someone has previously accused you of this (on this thread?) – at least be original.

            • Bee

              Yup, that was me. But I have to say I’m not original myself.

              See here.

              http://pigeonchess.com/playing-with-pigeons/

            • Don’t get me wrong, I hear that one a lot. It’s just funny that it was used on him and then he forgot and used it back. It loses all rhetorical punch.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I don’t make accusations. I make statements of fact :)

      • Andy_Schueler

        All kidding aside, how many millions of years would it take guppies or Italian wall lizards to become something that’s not a guppy or an Italian wall lizard?

        Rates of speciation depend on many factors – environmental factors, generation time, mutation rates etc.pp. As a rule of thumb: from a few years to a few thousand years for animals (roughly ten million times slower than rates of speciation would have to be in your flood “model”)

        • Joseph O Polanco

          What evidence are these extraordinarily outlandish figures based on?

          • Andy_Schueler

            What evidence are these extraordinarily outlandish figures based on?

            Many million fossils found all over the world and many thousand scientific publications based on this: http://paleodb.org/

            The “ten million times slower than speciation rates would have to be in your flood “model”” statement is simple math. You believe in an age of the earth that is off by seven orders of magnitude – that means that all natural processes would have to be seven orders of magnitude faster back in the past for your “model” to work out, including speciation rates – hundreds of new species popping up on a daily basis.

            • Joseph O Polanco
            • Andy_Schueler
            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum ad lapidem. You’ve done nothing to dispel the arguments presented nor the brute facts that support them. Try again.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Mined quotes are not arguments and you have presented no facts whatsoever. Try again. You can for example start by refuting the evidence presented in this video:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

              Once you are done with that, you only have a few million facts to refute until we can start taking your inane views seriously.

            • Joseph O Polanco
            • Andy_Schueler

              Lying about the fossil record doesn´t change the fossil record. No matter how often you lie about it.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Argumentum assertio. Prove Raup, Eldredge, Eisley, Wells, Gee, Jones and all the other scientists’ observations of the fossil record are false.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I agree with all of those scientists (except for Wells who is a notorious liar and has no professional qualification on this subject).
              Note however that every single quote is out of context (and all are covered in the Talk Origins quote mine archive with the original quote in context), that most quotes were accurate when they were uttered but are completely outdated, and that “gradualism” when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.
              Stephen Jay Gould, who developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium together with Eldredge, and who is the favorite target for out-of-context quotes by creationists had this to say about it:

              Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common — and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species – found as of 1981 (not as outdated as most of your quotes, but many thousand new fossil collections have been added to our record since then) – that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features (now, more than three decades later, we have many more such sequences).]

              Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am — for I have become a major target of these practices.

              I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record — geologically “sudden” origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) — reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

              Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

              – Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. “Evolution as Fact and Theory” in Hens Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Hurrah!! Finally!! “”gradualism” [] is indeed false.” Music to my ears!!! So I was right all along. Gradualism IS a presupposition having no basis in reality.

              II. And, as I’ve already explicated, “instead of accepting what this [fossil] evidence is shouting and renouncing their patently fallacious line of reasoning, these same scientists – with their prior commitment to philosophical materialism hanging over them like a sword of Damocles – instead double down and conjure up the notion of punctuated equilibrium. Evolution that starts, stops for eons then starts up again. Is it any wonder why so many view it as just a bad euphemism for divine creation?”

            • Andy_Schueler

              You are a despicable lying scumbag. I´ve explained to you more than a dozen times that gradualism has multiple meanings, but you INSIST on never defining what exactly you mean by it. NONE of the concepts that are implied by gradualism are “presupposed” anywhere and you don´t even try to show that they are “presupposed” anywhere.
              Go die in a fire you lying sack of shit.

              punctuated equilibrium

              1. Is a form of phyletic gradualism.
              2. Doesn´t mean what you think it means.
              3. Was explained in the quote by the guy that came up with this concept in the comment you replied to – which you obviously ignored completely, because you are a lying piece of shit.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              I. Did you forget? You just said the “constant rate of evolutionary change”, i.e. Gradualism, was false.

              Face it noob, you got pwned. Deal with it.

              Mission Accomplished!

              Peace out!

            • Are you fricking SERIOUS? You have been so totally owned on this thread that it is embarrassing. Totally embarrassing for you. You are WAY out of your league.

              Oh, and posting REALLY SHIT links after REALLY SHIT links does not constitute arguing. Lazy, lazy.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              You forgot to add “in my humble opinion.” lol

            • Bee

              Every reasonable person can read this thread and see who is right between you and andy. You are not a reasonable person.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Andy did put up a valiant fight, but, in the end, he only confirmed my asseveration, to wit, that Gradualism is a presupposition that has no basis in reality.

              “”Gradualism” when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.” – Dr. Andy Schueler, Molecular Evolutionary Biologist.

            • Andy_Schueler

              but, in the end, he only confirmed my asseveration, to wit, that Gradualism is a presupposition that has no basis in reality.

              “”Gradualism” when implied to mean a constant rate of evolutionary change, is indeed false.” – Dr. Andy Schueler, Molecular Evolutionary Biologist.

              WHO “presupposes” a constant rate of evolutionary change? WHY should ANYONE “presuppose” it?
              If you cannot answer these questions, you will again confirm my charge that Joseph Oscar Polanco is a lying piece of shit. Are you a lying piece of shit, Joseph Oscar Polanco?

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Temper, temper, bud. That’s not healthy at all. Are you trying to die of a heart attack?

            • ManhattanMC

              Ad hominem-smoke screen-dissembling-bullshit.

              Pwned = Polanco and his cunt-pasting apologectics ‘ministry’.

              I’m trolling some jehovah’s Witness sites and trying to get people to come here to see what a fool you’ve made of yourself, Joe.
              I think you’re going to lose your job. Or maybe not-given how bad the Watch Tower apologists are.

            • Bee

              The guy seems to think that laughing at andy’s justified rage about his ignorance is a valid answer. Kinda pathetic.

            • ManhattanMC

              Polanco is a sad case.

              I suspect he’s the vanguard ot the JoHo’s program to spread their memes on the intertubes. I think he’s actually getting paid to be this stupid.

              I don’t see any ‘rage’ in Andy’s posts. He’s been remarkably patient with a dishonest troll.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I don’t see any ‘rage’ in Andy’s posts. He’s been remarkably patient with a dishonest troll.

              Polanco has exhausted my patience, I´d say:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88Z7YOh_us ;-)

            • ManhattanMC

              Hahahahaha-

              My version of the ‘nuclear option’ is to turn every post into an inquiry on how much he’s getting paid to lie.

            • Andy_Schueler

              So Joseph Oscar Polanco proves again that he´s a lying piece of shit. What a surprise.

            • Bee

              Andy, you should always keep in mind that “debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”

              Joseph is a clear example of this behaviour.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Absolutely… And as sad as it is – this asshole is still not nearly as bad as some other YECs are (e.g. “JohnM” who hopefully left this blog for good to troll somewhere else).

            • ManhattanMC

              Yup, goober, reality is just ‘an opinion’.

              GTFO

            • Bee

              Jonathan, if you ask me, in case he keeps doing this, you should just ban him. Hardcore antievolutionists and biblical literalist should have no place at the table of intellectual discourse anymore after being exposed to the relevant evidence and still not bothering to understand the arguments (see discussion on gradualism above).
              If a discussion can’t be reasonable or productive in any way, it is better to get rid of it.

            • You make good points. I will consider it. I have been ultra busy so have been unable to participate in this one!

            • Andy_Schueler

              Two people can play that game.

              Joseph: I [] was false. [] you [] pwned

              Yes, I indeed did. Good that you acknowledge that.

            • Joseph O Polanco

              Rage quit much? lol :)

            • Andy_Schueler

              You seem to be proud of being a lying asshole – that´s what Jesus would have done amirite?!

    • Pingback: Guest Post by Neil Webber – The Causality Paradox | A Tippling Philosopher()

    • Joseph O Polanco

      I’m curious. According to you scholars, who eventually resolved Haldane’s Dilemma?

      • Andy_Schueler

        William Feller, P.A.P. Moran, and Joe Felsenstein. Motoo Kimura had some objections to their solution which were eventually addressed by Warren Ewens.

    • Joseph O Polanco

      How is the fossil record inconsistent with Creation?

      • Andy_Schueler

        Depends on what you mean by “creation”. Creation as in Genesis, understood literally, cannot be reconciled with the fossil record because it demonstrates that there is nothing that could correspond to biblical “kinds”, because there are smooth transitions between all life – no subset of taxa could be objectively demarcated from the rest if all extinct species, that existed according to the fossil record, were still alive. It also demonstrates that humans never co-existed with the overwhelming majority (>>99%) of all species and it also demonstrates that the earth is ancient and that humans are a very recent innovation.

    • This thread will now be closed temporarily to stop the insanely bad arguing of Joseph taking place.