Somebody actually posted this.

     If you were on the beach and saw a trail of footprints behind you, would you say that Jesus carried you all that way, that you walked all that way yourself, or that the footprints were set by random people that have no connection to you?
     Any reasonable person would say that they just walked across the beach. That is how fossils work, an unbroken line of footprints showing the process of evolution to anyone willing to see.

     Now, one thing that fossils most decidedly do not do is create an unbroken line. A better analogy might be trying to construct the trail of a herd of animals that travelled over largely stony ground, but in which there was enough exposed mud for the occassional partial footprint, and trying to make identifications.
     It is quite clear that there are people who believe in evolution that do so uncritically. This is where we get such "potential falsifiers" as the "precambrian rabbit." People know that a scientific theory is supposed to be falsifiable. But when someone who believes in evolution uncritically tries to come up with one, he can only come up with something he thinks can't happen. After all, he think that falsity of evolution cannot happen. But it generally results in a "falsifier" that people will agree can't happen even if evolution is false. If you come up with dogs giving birth to cats as a "potential falsifier," your belief is uncritical.

Here is something interesting.

     Many people (myself included) would have expected that Einstein would have been awarded the Nobel Prize for his revolutionary theory of relativity. (He did win the prize, but not for relativity.) This link has something interesting to say about it. "After years of sifting through letters and diaries of the Scandinavian archives, science historian Robert Marc Friedman says it was an intentional snub fueled by the biases of the day—a prejudice against pacifists, Jews, and, most of all, theoretical physics."
     Now, there are many people, when arguing for evolution that trot out the conversation-stopper "Well, then, disprove evolution any you can win a Nobel Prize!" Even assuming that large-scale evolution is false (possible) and that it can somehow be demonstrated to be so (rather unlikely) today's prejudices would likely preclude any recognition. Indeed, I would expect that anybody who proposed an experiment in an effort to show large-scale evolution to be false would be met with "zero funding."
     Now, none of this is to suggest that creationists make good arguments. If any have, I have not seen it. No, my point is that I see a lot of closed minds and dishonest tactics on all sides of just about any issue.

Have you ever noticed...?

     A lot of people say that the US was founded as a "christian nation" (leaving the Treaty of Tripoli aside, for the moment.) Yet, when certain unpleasant actions committed in the name of christianity are pointed out (e.g. the Inquisition) these same people will say that those who committed the actions "were not real christians." Well, it doesn't work. Slavery and wife-beating were endorsed by this country for many decades from its foundation. How could this nation possibly have been a christian nation if no one was "a real christian"?

Why are thinkers so rare?

     I'm not talking about people of any particular intellectual caliber, here. I'm talking about people who actually bother to think. Anybody can do it. By analogy, fuzzy vision does not mean that one cannot open one's eyes; it only limits the perception. But it seems that most people just let some "leader" do their thinking for them. Then, with the strength of numbers, they declare that they have "demontrated" that dissenting positions are ridiculous. Obviously, religions do this. That's to be expected. It is the nature of religion. But this behaviour extends much farther than that.

Has a supporter of evolution decreed that it is false?

Pvblivs,

I forgot this bit:

(In what follows, "it" refers to "universal common descent")

"Lateral tranfers of information (which occur in bacteria) are consistent with it."

Nope, Lateral gene transfer is NOT consistent with it.

[Name withheld]


     Well, Wikipedia has an article on lateral gene transfer. Lateral gene transfers are a known reality. This poster says they are inconsistent with universal common descent. Logically, that would mean that universal common descent is false.
     In all likelihood, he probably meant to claim that lateral gene transfer among macroscopic life forms is inconsistent with universal common descent. Of course, that's not true either. That is just taking something we believe not to occur and declaring it a "potential falsifier" for that which is intrinsicly untestable.

Why do so many christians claim that outsiders believe in their god but are "suppressing the truth"?

     It's not as though anyone has ever presented any evidence of the christian god. To me, it looks like a snow job. It is most likely that there is no being corresponding to the christian god. Next is the possibility that there is such a being, but that he is a fraud. It is incredibly unlikely that the character described is as described as such a being (who supposedly desires that we know him) could easily make himself known.

Ah, It looks like Ray has recruited some people to pose as "atheists."

     Naturally, Ray from "Atheist Central" wishes to create an illusion that non-christians are childish people who would rather taunt and insult rather than argue points. Enter Fullcircle. He claims to be an atheist. But he criticizes anyone who exhibits rational thought. He only has praise for those who throw playground taunts at Ray and his followers. This is exactly the portrayal that Ray wishes to make. There is no question in my mind. This is an imposter.
     Here are some recent examples of this characters style of argument: "You bleating ignoramus! By the way it's 'grammar', Puffy, not 'grammer'. Got that?" "Loafie--Do you actually think anything you might say'd be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain?" "Tuber Q Losis, is there no end to your sycophancy? If I were Ray, I'd find your obsequiousness galling." (granted, he had to look up a few words, there) "Lisa darling, you tender soul, I'm sure we'll all take your sweet words under advisement...NOT."
     Look all you want. He does not say anything that even pretends to be a rational, coherent argument. It's all name-calling and insults. It might be understandable if, say, the quotes I gave were lapses of frustration. They aren't. They are his standard fare. He is actively trying to discredit all dissent to christianity by portraying his act as representative of said dissent. He also criticizes any who uses a rational argument against christianity. This is not an atheist. This is someone trying to create a false image of atheists.
     Now, I realize that, since I don't rule out the possibility of some god existing, I am not an atheist either. One might wonder why the charade upsets me. It upsets me because it feeds Ray's con. Ray doesn't distinguish between atheists and anyone else who disagrees with his sales pitch. This character doesn't either.