It captured the time of the roaring twenties. This song captures a tone from the film really well. I like things that can do that. Both of those stories capture intimate stories of childhood merging toward adulthood. In a way you could kind of say that The Great Gatsby captures that time for our country. Am I stretching it? May I submit to you that youth and beauty are fleeting things and we should not put our stock in them. That's not the message that normally is crammed down our throats by the media but it's true. I still love the song though. Anyways, Just wanted to draw your attention to this song.
It's one I bought on iTunes - don't you love being able to buy singles? Thanks for stopping by. Labels: Great Music , music , Song Recommendation. At first I did not like it at all. I was pretty disappointed. It was just a bit too flashy and theatrical.
It seemed a bit over the top, Almost cheesy. That's kind of how most of Baz Luhrmann's film seem to me at first though, and then I fall in love with them. It's just so different that it takes a while for you to "get it. The Moulin Rouge! I love the songs in that one. So by the end of the film I liked it. I remember the moment now when it changed for me. When Tom hits Myrtle it snaps into slow motion and you see Nick Carraway retreat on to the balcony in an attempt to get away from it all and the camera zooms out insanely fast onto the whole city and you finally feel like you're there with Nick and you get it and everything makes sense You don't really see much of Gatsby, brilliantly played by Leonardo Dicaprio , until a while after that.
I had a feeling that once Gatsby was on screen I would start to like the film. I was right. You don't see much of Gatsby in the beginning of the story in the novel either, so it was fitting but it seemed to take forever to finally get to met him in the movie. Labels: Movie Recommendation , Movie Review. Well it's my birthday. Did you know Google puts up a custom Birthday graphic on your birthday if you're logged in? Kind of cool. Anyways, I'm 31 today. Depending who I'm hanging out with I'm either really old or still quite young. I don't disagree with the vast majority of your argument, but would just like to point out that up until about two hundred years ago being married to a preteen was the norm, and not just amongst Muslims.
Christians did it too! You can't really allege that Mohammed was a pedophile without insisting that almost everyone else before CE was one too. The "age of consent" in Vatican City is still 12 years old. This, despite the pedophilia scandals. As far as Mohammed goes, well, one of his wives was 9 years old.
If that's not pedophilia, I don't know what is. Of course all something that is created there must be created. Will say it is God's creation? Answer is simple.
You are here confuse between the Creator and the creature you want to measure the attributes of the Creator and the attributes of created beings, and this is a mistake. I hear ya atheist you and I we both believe in the cause and one that there exists no beginning did not need to one Has never been a time The presence of the same You are your selection article and I chose God.
If you want you would like to make fun of those who believed in the existence of not as his first start with yourself because you believe that the article did not first to it. Human, following your logic everything needs a creator meaning the creator would need a creator and so on forever. If I told you that this site is designed by accident what would be your response? If I told you that you woke up in the morning and found breakfast ready by chance what would be your response?
Every sane person knows that everything exists, there must be created from it is that created the universe? Who created for you eyes, ears and stomach, liver, colleges and heart. Are you created yourself? Say the development will tell you why did not evolve if since years since the birth of Christ and even before that there is no doubt that we are proof of that since we have the same body of Christ feet and hands and eyes and ears. See yourself will know you are a big mistake.
I dont have any faith in the same way someone has faith in a god. Religion isn't only becoming less popular, it's becoming less necessary. In places like America and Africa where fear is sewn everywhere one turns, the stampede toward self reliance and confidence and the resultant move toward not having to search for magic men to have faith in is slower - but is growing in speed. The fact that evolution and atheism is becoming more and more popular now days can only mean one thing. So Darwin was right survival of the fittest Aren't we atheists nice? Part of the human population is experiencing a wonderful change they get to use their brain for what it was meant, to think and not believe.
The rest gets to well keep standing in the dark corner and rot away. To the religious guys, if you have questions on evolution, read books on evolution. If these books do not convince you, then may be evolution is not for you and you should stick to your bible or quran or whatever book you deem fit to your medieval way of thinking. Where might we be today if it had not been dismissed whole-sale as an "afront to god"?
However, you are not untouchable. I understand peoples need for faith, kind of like our faith in science , except science has the ammo and religion , spit wads. M y beliefs are always under fire. By every sect. Im an atheist from Ca. You guys are no better than anyone else. Dont use the times we live in as an immunity right. Save us from the torture of having to be "politicly correct", because its hard on an atheist that has a distaste for religion. I know who is my god my god is Allah. Since you have been there, try to remain emphathetic to those who are still there.
Since you acknowledged that you came out of the bondage I have done the same , evidence exists that it can happen, no matter the amount of conditioning even from infancy. The human ideas of beings beyond ourselves that are higher than we are, in comparison to other natural organisms, find its earliest revelation at Game Pass Shelter in South Africa.
Pilgrimages are still made today to the prehistoric site by shamans. Some of the painted layers using blood, seman and red ochre have been dated to 27, years ago. They are the workd of the San "People" who are sometimes known as pygmies or bushment. They are the descendants, according to genetics, of the oldest ancestors of humankind as derived from DNA testing of the y-chromosome.
Theirs is an oral tradition of God, but a connection to the transformation of humans into sacred animals reminds me of ancient Egyptian beliefs. Hang in there and recognize that belivers are required to "defend the faith". It may come across as 'hate' but the spirit behind the action was predetermined in the gospels, the acts of the apostles and other selected texts that were put together under the authority of Emperor Constantine in or around AD.
- 5 Steps to Becoming a Chick Magnet Overnight!.
- One-Hit Willie: A Classic Rock Novel.
- Dan Absalonson | Author of SciFi & Fantasy: January .
- evolution cant be true because i dont like bananas my ponderings on mr darwins flawed theory Manual.
That spirit controls their thinking and when challenged, peace and meekness goes out the window. There are many more on this site. The list is fantastic but this one helped me to see the process of how Christianity supplanted other beliefs; swelling from the goal of a reformation of Jewish belief into a global religion. Scientists have plausible explanations for the evolution of most organs. You don't have to put faith in any single one of them to realise that it's more plausible, with the evidence we have, that they evolved over millions of years rather than be spontaneously created by some conscious force that there is no proof, nor indication of actually existing.
This is basically the intellectual process we have to go through in deciding whether evolution is true or not. With all the evidence witnessed from sources like the ones "epicurus" mentioned a few posts above, and more trivial evidence like children being alot like their parents, yet slightly different, points to the feasibility of evolution.
Noone is really asking you to denounce god, only to accept how plausible the theory of evolution is. After all, before the big bang, you can fit God in all you like That Spell is basically the 10 commandments phrased differently, thanks for the tip, didn't know about that one. And yes, the rest is a good summary of plagiarisms inside the bible.
I especially love the multiple personalities of 'Jesus Christ', makes me laugh every time I must say I do enjoy the debate on this page all in fact I went thru most before even viewing the documentary and now that I have completed that task I wish to add a view point of my own, feel free to send hate mail I will read it and reply. I was born under the christen faith, I went to church 3 days a week and even attended a private school that enforced the ideas of faith into every subject. But one day some asked me why do I believe in god, to them I reply that was the way I was raised. It took some time for me to come to grips that my faith was something I was born in but on a personal Lv had no idea why so I went on a bit of a journey.
I traveled to different parts of the world were other were born into a faith and you know what I found. Each major and most minor religions all have a different set of rules and a creation story. Then after a few more years I desired to study religious history researching on the story of the beginnings. And in 17 years I could not find a single story out of I studied that could be back up out side of there holy books each and every one of them need faith We want there to be one so we don't need to explain the world we leave in just follow the rules because we are brain washed into be-leaving that if we cant explain something that god or gods are behind it.
In my research the one of many simulates is god is a tool for understanding But we now leave in an age were we can get the answer we seek , so instead of depending on what we are told its time for all us to find the real answer. I also wish to make another point about the bible, out of all the holy books I have read I have found this book is full of the most lies and plagiarizers I wish to list just 3.
The ten commandment- they are taken outright from Spell of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. What the Book of the Dead phrased "I have not stolen" became "Thou shall not steal," "I have not killed" became "Thou shall not kill," "I have not told lies" became "Thou shall not bear false witness" and so forth. The story of Noah and Noah's Ark is taken directly from tradition. The concept of a Great Flood is ubiquitous throughout the ancient world, with over cited claims in different periods and times.
However, one need look no further for a per-Christian source than the Epic of Gilgamesh,[written in b. This story talks of a Great Flood commanded by God, an Ark with saved animals upon it, and even the release and return of a dove, all held in common with the biblical story, among many other similarities.
Jesus Christ Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected. Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming. He performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected. Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, he was referred to as the "King of Kings," "God's Only Begotten Son," "The Alpha and Omega," and many others, and upon his death, he was resurrected. Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus resurrected, he was also referred to as "The Truth," "The Light," and many others.
Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of. If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. Zhang et al. After generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further.
Brown et al. A PubMed search on "gene duplication" gives more than references. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it.
Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism Adami et al. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations Adami et al. Can you define your meaning of "fitness"? And was genetic code added; or was the existing genetic code turned on or off?
Oops, I'm sorry! I had read it as a claim, yet it was a question. Sorry about the misunderstanding! In modern times antibiotics, drugs that target specific features of bacteria, have become very popular. Bacteria evolve very quickly so it is not surprising that they have evolved resistance to antibiotics. As a general thing this involves changing the features that antibiotics target.
Commonly, but not always, these mutations decrease the fitness of the bacteria, i. This is not always true; some of these mutations do not involve any loss of fitness. What is more, there are often secondary mutations that restore fitness. Bacteria are easy to study. This is an advantage in evolutionary studies because we can see evolution happening in the laboratory. There is a standard experiment in which the experimenter begins with a single bacterium and lets it reproduce in a controlled environment.
Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendants are clones. Since reproduction is not perfect mutations happen. The experimenter can set the environment so that mutations for a particular attribute are selected. The experimenter knows both that the mutation was not present originally and, hence, when it occurred. In the wild it is usually impossible to determine when a mutation occurred.
Usually all we know and often we do not even know that is the current distribution of particular traits. The situation with insects and pesticides is similar to that of bacteria and antibiotics. Pesticides are widely used to kill insects. In turn the insects quickly evolve in ways to become immune to the pesticides. Well, no, they don't actually eat nylon; they eat short molecules nylon oligomers found in the waste waters of plants that produce nylon. They metabolize short nylon oligomers, breaking the nylon linkages with a couple of related enzymes.
Since the bonds involved aren't found in natural products, the enzymes must have arisen since the time nylon was invented around the s. It would appear this happened by new mutations in that time period. These enzymes which break down the nylon oligomers appear to have arisen by frameshift mutation from some other gene which codes for a functionally unrelated enzyme. This adaptation has been experimentally duplicated.
In the experiments, non-nylon-metabolizing strains of Pseudomonas were grown in media with nylon oligomers available as the primary food source. Within a relatively small number of generations, they developed these enzyme activities. This would appear to be an example of documented occurrence of beneficial mutations in the lab.
The sickle cell allele causes the normally round blood cell to have a sickle shape. The effect of this allele depends on whether a person has one or two copies of the allele. It is generally fatal if a person has two copies. If they have one they have sickle shaped blood cells. In general this is an undesirable mutation because the sickle cells are less efficient than normal cells. In areas where malaria is prevalent it turns out to be favorable because people with sickle shaped blood cells are less likely to get malaria from mosquitoes.
This is an example where a mutation decreases the normal efficiency of the body its fitness in one sense but none-the-less provides a relative advantage. Lactose intolerance in adult mammals has a clear evolutionary explanation; the onset of lactose intolerance makes it easy to wean the young. Human beings, however, have taken up the habit of eating milk products. This is not universal; it is something that originated in cultures that kept cattle and goats. In these cultures lactose tolerance had a strong selective value. In the modern world there is a strong correlation between lactose tolerance and having ancestors who lived in cultures that exploited milk as a food.
It should be understood that it was a matter of chance that the lactose tolerance mutation appeared in a group where it was advantageous. It might have been established first by genetic drift within a group which then discovered that they could use milk. Atherosclerosis is principally a disease of the modern age, one produced by modern diets and modern life-styles.
There is a community in Italy near Milan whose residents don't get atherosclerosis because of a fortunate mutation in one of their forebearers. This mutation is particularly interesting because the person who had the original mutation has been identified. Note that this is a mutation that is favorable in modern times because a people live longer and b people have diets and life-styles that are not like those of our ancestors. In prehistoric times this would not have been a favorable mutation.
Even today we cannot be certain that this mutation is reproductively favorable, i. It is clear, however, that the mutation is personally advantageous to the individuals having it. HIV infects a number of cell types including T-lymphocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells and neurons. The HIV virus has to attach to molecules that are expressed on the surface of the T-cells.
Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cells. The frequency of the mutant allele is quite high in some populations that have never been exposed to AIDS so it seems likely that there was prior selection for this allele. If you are truly interested in finding the answer to such questions then I suggest you go to your local university and ask an evolutionary biologist.
I am not an expert in that field. I know that this documentary is false, how do I know? If you want to know about fossils, the devil put them there. Darwin is a demon in human form, and science is the work of the devil. If you don't beleive this you are going to hell beleive me, i know, i have experienced the majesty of God, all you unbeleivers need to go to church, god will touch your lives and you will see The finches all had the same genetic code, it was just rearranged in the different finches.
This is what produced the different adaptations. How does the genetic code work? Can genetic code magically appear in the DNA over millions of years, is it added too? Just to clarify a mutation is a loss of information antibiotic resistant bacteria for example? Or for the adaptations to occur does it have to have the code already present, with certain traits turned on, and certain traits turned off?
Developmental research in found that bone morphogenetic protein 4 BMP4 , and its differential expression during development, resulted in variation of beak size and shape among finches. BMP4 acts in the developing embryo to lay down skeletal features, including the beak. The same group showed that the different beak shapes of Darwin's finches develop are also influenced by slightly different timing and spatial expression of a gene called calmodulin CaM.
Calmodulin acts in a similar way to BMP4, affecting some of the features of beak growth. The authors suggest that changes in the temporal and spatial expression of these two factors are possible developmental controls of beak morphology. Because there was different finches with different adaptions for different islands in the same region.
I know this is going to sound stupid, i am prepared to be ridiculed. But i had a simple idea, being simple minded. Why do we assume the finches adapted to their surroundings? Is it possible, that they were already equipped with these tools beak for instance , and therefore used the tools they already had? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? This verse clearly does not mention the conditions of the big bang.
This states that the heavens and the earth were two separate entities and they were split apart. The Earth is actually a part of the universe, not separate from it. Secondly, Qur'an states that the sun rotates around the centre of the galaxy with the following verse.
This verse clearly states that the sun and the moon rotate around the Earth, as was commonly believed at the time which agreed with the Aristotelian model of a geocentric universe. Why would God refer to the sun rotating around the centre of the galaxy in a verse about night and day? If that was the case, the verse would not make much sense. The following verse is supposed proof that the Qur'an states that the universe is expanding which has only been discovered in the past one hundred years-.
However, nowhere in this verse does it say that the Universe is expanding, only that it is very big! And verily We created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six Days, and naught of weariness touched Us. Qur'an It is a known fact that Muhammad had contact with Jews and Christians, and much of the Qur'an is modeled after the Bible. While the Qur'an does not have the bible's claim that "on the seventh day God rested" Genesis it still proclaims the earth to be created in six days.
Muslims who seek to cast the Qur'an as being compatible with modern science, point out that the Qur'an also says that a day for Allah and the angels is similar to 50, years Qur'an In citing this verse, Muslims try to say the Earth was completed in , 6 x 50, years. While it is a nice try, the reality is this still does not agree with modern science, which states that it took several billion years for the Earth to reach this stage.
Billions of years passed before there were trees, or forests, or animals. Furthermore, such claims open the Qur'an to more criticism. The verse that allegedly says a day equals 50, years Qur'an states:. Possibly it is saying that the angels can travel in a day, the amount of space it would take others 50, years to cover. My goal is not to offer alternative interpretations to this myth. However, I dispute the claim that the this verse is saying a day equals 50, years because such a thing contradicts other parts of the Qur'an! Furthermore, to claim that it took Allah , years to create the Earth is to insult the God of Islam, as when he creates, he says "Be!
If this is so Complete religious ranting, you give no proof, just repetitious verbage that we all heard before. Boring, boring, boring!! Then will they not believe? I'd just love to watch christians, muslims, jews and any other religion fight about who has the correct one figured out. From behind bullet-proof glass, that is. I think we may have already reached the latter stage.
The former is not likely because we have to show we have faith in God even though we don't see Him, otherwise it wouldn't be called faith. There is NO scientific evidence for God and nothing will change that, no matter how much you quote those sophisms, speculations and misdrawn conclusions. Some of the comments on these documentaries make me sad The Bible had its place in that journey, but you don't use a road map printed in to get around a modern road system today. Doesn't mean you cant use a 's map to get around, just means that so much more has been added to the landscape, that the old map has become obsolete.
Its admirable that you has so much love for that old map, but don't waste our time giving us directions to places that have long since succumbed to urban sprawl, we haven't got the time or the luxury to be lost again Cheers. It could be said that atheism is an attempt of modern man to cast all that troublesome morality aside, by rationalising that there is no God you can worship yourself.
The only problem is those moments of doubt, when you are on your own, or you remember death. That's why the modern age has so many toys to distract us, we can't be left for a minute with our own thoughts, because we will wonder at the pointlessness of our lives The big bang is right in the text of Genesis, a formless void, called a blackhole, out of which stars are believed to come.
Doesn't a haploid DNA look like a "rib". Now if you read international journals of physiology, you come up with a subject of the "primary respiratory mechanism", another separtate rhythem underlying heart rate and respiratory rate. The so called "breath of life" that God breathed into Adam. The bible is the story of the Hebrew and Christian people. It does have to be read carefully, and you will see that I have read the text fairly about these aspects. Science changes, like Evolutionists, not all agree, not all believe what Darwin believed.
What scientific basis has creationism, well, read what I just wrote, there is a lack of understanding of what's in the bible. Those who are dinosaurs, trapped in their mind set and belief structures and those who are mammals just emerging still young in their theories, but willing to adapt, willing to venture out into uncharted territory sometimes to go extinct, it doesn't take a genius to figure out how this story ends its sort of happened before ;. I think if I was walking with Darwin and we came across a working wristwatch he'd probably say something like, "Hey someone dropped their watch!
Christianity is the belief that a cosic Jewish zombie, who was his own father, can make you live forever if you eat his flesh and tell him telepathically that you accept him as your master, so he can then remove an evil force from your soul that is present there because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from the magical tree. The bible should not be understood literaly,looking at creation story in Genesis one can be able to understand its evolution presented in a clothed manner. Besides bibilical theory is one among many. On the 7th day God "rested" how could he rest yet he never ever got tired,apart from creating Man the rest of the beings all he ever said was "let there be".
The question is 'what does REST imply'? The answers to understanding the bible or any other holybook lies in YOU. If the universe is expanding,where does it expand to? Whats their in the space that allows it to expand? On the other hand when we deal with evolution,do species evolve as individual or as a whole? For example Man character is shaped by his thought system wheather he is aware or not,so when does he form the thought parten?
If two newborn babies grow up in exactly the same environment will they form the same character? Is there a chance that there is life before birth and after death? I'd really welcome your opinions in regards to this dilemma Thankyou. This is a lot simple than everyone makes it out to be. Based on fact, there is more and more evidence as well as supporting scientific facts to continue to support the theory of evolution opposed to the less hard evidence to back the theory of creation.
I don't know of anything remotely solid from the creationists theory to make me even start taking it seriously. God created the Earth in 7 days: "well who the hell was there to record this at the time and then pass it on in a book". God created Adam and Eve : "Once again who the hell was there to record their activities to later say what Adam thought and did that would bring him to commit Sin. And I'm really sick of reading big words coming from small minds. Great you can write and sound good, but the level of ignorance is unbelievable. Throwing around scientific terms and theories, having "battles of the mind".
Instead maybe you could learn a thing or two by accepting the facts and constantly learning even if its something that you don't necessarily agree with. Until then, I simply don't have the nerve. I took time to explain my arguments to you, now you should have the decency to do the same.
Why is the sky blue are we there yet are we there yet! You are melting my email notifications you derr twatt. Very interesting, like yavanna said, how about putting it in your own words, instead of cut and paste. You where postillating that which are cognizant to our physical senses.
Basically you where going analog instead of digital. You where talking about energy and matter, there is energy in everything, even in so called empty space. To fully understand anything about existence and where everything originates from you have to understand Quantum. So If you tell us your viewpoint about the Quantum theory and how it relates to creationism, I will tell you mine.
I do not use cut and paste, why don't you try it? If God created everything then I guess his existence must be outside of what we call the known universe. Evolutionists have to explain the same universe, but in terms of natural causes, but you have the problems of the 1st and 2nd law of Thermodynamics to take into consideration. As far as 'human forms' like Dryopithecus, Australopithicus and Homo, this opens up an interesting can of worms. Let see first what some evolutionary thinkers had to say about 'sub human' forms:. Do They? Evolutionists make up pretty stories to try and make their theories sound plausible.
This section was removed from later editions after Darwin was criticized by his fellow evolutionists for obvious reasons:. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
Such stories were also contrived by Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley to promote their views in favor of white supremacy, in support of human racism and in justification of their chauvinistic sexism. In The Descent of Man, 2nd ed. Burt Co. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.
Henry Fairfield Osborn was a disciple of Thomas Huxley. He would continue to strongly promote the evolutionary theories and the racism of his mentor. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo sapiens.
There are many other such stories which are promulgated by modern evolutionists. The Geological Time Column or Time Scale is contrived by rearranging the layers found around the world and assembling a mythological column. Yet, 80 to 85 percent of those sedimentary layers do not have even three of the layers shown in the typical school textbook diagram of the Column. Evolutionists sometimes have a problem swallowing their own stories at times about this myth. There is simply no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from.
Story-telling can reach its zenith in double-talk. Here is an example from Dr. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales. Mab show where in the bible it mentions dinosaurs or answer one question asked or acknowledge one answer given. We have species of Dryopithecus, Australopithicus and Homo, just to name three, that show a clear, gradual development to homo sapiens sapiens. If you chose to ignore these fossils: your loss.
But just because you have the urge to be specially created by some god doesn't invalidate evidence. Many times people who do not believe in God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. It's a conservation of energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved.
Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same. Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science.
It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, even though science has proven that impossible. Option B: Everything in the universe has ALWAYS existed for all of eternity, which, by the way is also shown later in this CD to be scientifically impossible due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to violate them.
Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics. I'll pass this along for you. However, based on your chatter, I'm wondering if your teachers used the same belittling language to make you accept your view points? The scientific evidence for Creation vs. Evolution can show anyone interested in Christian apologetics that you really can believe in a Biblical Creation, a worldwide flood and the evidence against Evolution according to logic, science and intellectual reasoning.
One of the dirty little secrets most people don't know is that there are, in fact, 2 types of Evolution — Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution happens all the time and is perfectly Biblical. Macro-evolution is what Darwin claimed, and it never happens. Here comes the deception part. Evolutionists fill our textbooks, news reports and peer review publications with legitimate examples of observed Micro-evolution and no examples of observed Darwinian So allow me to prove what I just said is true by explaining in simple terms the difference between Micro and Macro evolution.
Micro-evolution is a common occurrence and we see it all the time in living organisms. It is nothing more than a shuffling of current genetic information to adapt to changing environmental conditions. For example, a study of Cane toads in Australia revealed that over a span of 70 years, the toads with longer legs tended to survive because they could run and leap farther and faster, thereby avoiding becoming some animal's lunch.
Consequently, the shorter legged toads died out. This is the same thing that was observed in the Galapagos Islands with regards to Darwin's finches. Certain finches developed different shaped beaks over time that helped them adapt to the types of food available. In all of these cases with the finches, the toads, the dogs etc. That is critical to remember. Remember that, you'll see why soon. It has always been seen as an example of God's brilliance in creating all life forms with more genetic information than they use at any given time.
Percyvelle Pennington the Third – Audio Books, Best Sellers, Author Bio | ynykyvykeb.tk
You simply ignore that radiometric dating is deemed accurate enough because different isotopes that have different half-lives independently of each other yield compatible results. Instead you base your disbelief upon completely untestable claims written down by men who knew even less about reality than you do. Recollecting which books on evolution you read last, you criticize that a claim that evolution does not make is not addressed. Why Ray, why does the Bible not tell us why Moses always wore pink clothes? Until any apologist or theologian explains that to me, I have no reason to trust Christianity.
Apparently you deliberately choose to inform yourself about science by reading open-heartedly speculative fiction, partially outdated and comparatively incomplete material, and when you do find plausibility, you shrug it off by demanding explanations for nonsense you made up yourself. You do not approach science in good faith. Regarding your account of the victim toll of Communism, you have not accounted for the technology gap between the ss and the time of, for example, the 17th century when the Thirty Years War raged in Europe, killing between a third and two-thirds of the population.
Just something that needs to be pointed out occasionally, not disputing your absolute numbers. Ray, I think you could do a great good if you challenged the Westboro people directly. They claim to know the Bible in all intricacies better than anyone else, and they have made more than a few theologians and apologists who took them on look pretty bad. He could be working through you. He is a prime example of why teaching children about evolution correctly is important. Hitler was a creationist, which he stated explicitly in Mein Kampf , even reasoning about how life reproduces within kinds.
Survival of the fittest is simply a description of what happens in unguided natural competition, not a prescription for intelligent planning. It does not mean breeding of the strongest. It does not mean killing off your own species for the short-term benefit of a deluded elite. The methods of selective breeding and culling have been known for millenia before Hitler. Claiming that Hitler used evolutionary principles is just a way of poisoning the well, of mixing multiple fallacies to slander an entire scientific discipline. A cute picture, Ray. I appreciate this interview because it reminds me of what I was taught as a child studying Christianity.
I appreciate the commenters because I have very little knowledge of evolution and could barely hold my own with a determined Christian such as Mr Comfort. He said that evolution and natural selection is supposed to work by living things evolving through something Darwin called natural selection.
Thank you for proving that you can repeat words like a parrot without understanding them. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Especially at non-evolution stuff. Comfort has made me aware of a fact I never before realized: there are people in this world who want answers handed to them, whole and polished.
These people regard the work of inquiry and investigation as unnecessary and demeaning, and will do anything to defend their right to avoid it. And they vote. There are plenty of other reasons, but those clinch it for me. I also tried to stay away from questions Creationists typically get and focused on ones which only Ray could answer. The Theory of Evolution God is like a puffy summer cloud.
So much Everything is based on faith in dating methods and unscientific beliefs of men who have an erroneous presupposition and an affinity for preposterous fairy tails. Which confirms my second point, that he is willfully dishonest. I guess you take what you can get though eh?? For the fundamentalist, the fact that science is a dynamic body of knowledge is considered a weakness, not a strength.
For Ray, the fact that science is self-correcting, and that in science you must be willing to discard a faulty or simply less good explanation if another comes around that better explains existing data, this core of scientific thought, this is bad! This attacks the core of scientific thinking, the central pillar that has given us every modern convenience and medical advancement we see today.
To him, truths must be Eternal and immune to new contradicting data. He his not just ignorant, he is dishonest. The arguments he gives have not only been refuted to him many times, he says things that I have personally seen him be corrected on. Simply put, it is no longer even slightly possible to think that he believes the things he is saying, or that he says them out of mere ignorance. He is a liar and a snake, and if he feels no shame in lying to people in pursuit of his fundamentalist goals, he has no conscious.
Check it out:. By the way, I think Ray Comfort uses the word species wrong. However what he is saying is true. Animals reproduce after their own KIND! I think even you believe that evolution has limits, right? Is there a limit to the diversity of the animals that can evolve from say a bull and a cow?
Or are the possibilities limitless eg can a bull and a cow evolve into a parakeet? No, right? There are limits. This is what the Bible says and Christians believe. That adaptation has limits. The limit is a the kind level. Is it distinct from species or is the same exact concept? Roughly speaking I believe that kind is more analogous to the family biological classification, but not exactly.
I refer to the link I posted above for detail information. Hey I have a question for you, do you believe that adaptation to an environment can result in limitless diversity? As I asked in my first post, if we were to leave a bull and a cow on an earthlike planet for 4 billion years. Do you think that the descendants of those cows can be as diverse as the life on earth is eg mosquitoes, parakeets, orangutans, octopus, apple trees, and scientists? Or are there limits to what can result from the adaptation of cattles to their environment?
Bible believing Christians believe that there are limits to what can adapt from cattle. One of the biggest things creationists miss is the concept of TIME. Why would you think that would be sufficient? In saying this you are assuming that the Bible is not the Word of God.
On what do you base this assumption? By the way, I do still refer the reader to check out this link which gives further detail as to what we have discovered about the classification of the biblical kinds:. What does that even mean! You creationists us such sloppy logic! He gave a very vague description of evolution, but skipped Part 2: describing natural selection. All I was saying is that even if we have not found the EXACT equivalent to the modern biological classifcation which we believe is roughly around the family class, though not exactly does not render the Scripture meaningless as you suggest, as though we have no idea whatsoever what it is saying.
You mentioned that you assume that the Bible is not the word of God because of the vile examples of morals. What is the standard that you are using to judge the morals of the Bible? By the scientific definition only individuals within the same species can reproduce producing fertile offspring. If your definition held true, humans would be able to reproduce with orangutans.
In fact, the very acknowledgment that there are hierarchical levels of relatedness between individuals is telling. Family is a scientific term, a taxonomic term that lacks ANY objective meaning in the absence of evolutionary theory. To briefly answer your question; given an infinite amount of time there is no set limit to the amount of diversity that can originate from a given common ancestor beyond that of the environment of the individuals.
Of course, the smaller the amount of time, the less possibility there is for divergence as evolution occurs largely in small steps. The argument of creationists boils down to you can walk from one side of the street to the other, but there is no way to walk from one end of the city to the other.
One last thing about scientific debates. In order to have a scientific debate you must possess scientific knowledge. That includes being able, when asked, to define the concepts you are arguing for or against. It also includes, when objecting to an established scientific fact, showing exactly what evidence is in error and HOW it is in error, always basing your arguments in scientifically demonstrated concepts.
Also, when offering an alternate hypothesis, it is not enough to break down a previous theory if you are able , you must be able to show scientific evidence in favor of your claim. Unfortunately you appear to be deeply ignorant of the basic concepts of evolutionary biology as well as the nature of scientific inquiry. But I will include in this post some closing thoughts….
For example, even though secular modern biologists who presuppose naturalism as their starting point, classify humans as apes under the same family, the Bible distinctly reveals that humans are of a different kind than animal kingdom. Thanks for the clarification. However, I seriously cannot help but chuckle that you believe such a foolish thing. That is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that there are limits! Let those who are thankful thank the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, the giver of every good gift!
Every good gift you have came from His hand: your life, your family, your friends, everything! And the greatest gift of all? Praise the Lord! See why we want things defined, re: kind? So, about your question. Before we start, we should make sure we are on the same page, yes? Are we talking about the animal itself, excluding all the different kinds of bacteria that usually inhabit the body of a bovine? In your question, how many bovine animals are we talking about here?
The stated two, or more? What will the animals eat? In your four billion year timeline, are we excluding ELEs? Adiel: In saying this you are assuming that the Bible is not the Word of God. Slightly more detailed: Assuming an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being wrote that book, there would not be so many contradictions and outright errors in it. There would not be any. It is true that the definition of credible is relatively plastic. That would include every single one working at the top universities in the world and every single member of the National Academy of Sciences and equivalent elite institutions throughout the world.
You find it impossible to believe that diversity, given enough time and proper circumstances, is not limited. Part of this probably stems from the fact that you do not understand the mechanisms of evolution in the slightest. However part of it could also be that it is quite understandable that such a thing strains credulity for a regular person. But your objection is not any of that. LMAO This is your slam dunk?
- Quinns Undying Rose (Scanguards Vampires Book 6).
- Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Reasoned Cases for Christ!
- Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Grownups - RationalWiki!
- Stephen Hawking: God Could not Create the Universe Because There Was No Time for Him to Do So.
- The Turning of Tables!
The Bible. So what happens when I tell you that the Bible has the same scientific credibility as Harry Potter? Your reasoning only works, by definition, with people who already think the way you do! Adiel, Human are apes, and were classified as such by a biblical creationist before Darwin was even born. The same way he puts out press releases saying no one will debate him, while ignoring the dozen people lined up wanting to debate him.
I work in publishing and nobody, fucking no publisher would ever remove chapters to adjust the page count. There are countless alternatives, the least of which is reducing text size. But even I know those answers were horseshit. This cycle also closely follows the El Nino- La Nina weather cycles and again, at the end they are still finches. Unfortunately, the same mechanism that causes the small changes you mention, continue to operate and accumulate many small changes, until the result is no longer clearly within the old species definition.
It looks like the early stages of a speciation event.
Listen to my Short Story "The Forest Trail"
Also, have a look at the Apple Maggot. The two groups no rarely interbreed and are beginning to diverge, again, it appears to be speciation in action- this time a little further along. Ray and a great many like him are such experts at rationalization and self-delusion that they can motivate themselves with such obvious bullshit while convincing themselves they are fighting for a noble cause. On the part of professional creationists like Mr.
Comfort, this is deliberate. Quite the reverse. They know an accurate understanding of geological time shows Genesis is just another myth. In order to defend their lies, they must misunderstood geological time. Adiel — if we were to leave the bovine family for 4 billion odd years they would indeed evolve into different beings — but only if there was also other life around to make the world habitable and allow them to eat flora for example.
Darwin on Evolution
But here you show your lack of understanding of evolution. As life evolves it becomes more complex. The first life on the planet was extremely simple, nowhere near as complex as a cow! Before I go any further, I am not a biologist, I freely admit — luckily the general theory of evolution is remarkably simple. However, the whole point of natural selection is that life evolves in one direction — to become more suited to their environment. In order for a complex organism like a cow to become a plant, it would have to devolve rather than evolve or rather, devolve and then evolve in a different direction.
Remember we are cousins of some form or another to every other living species currently on the planet, not parent or child. That is not actually inherently true. The processes which led to the current diversity of life included an increase in complexity, but it is not necessary that that be the case. If the bovines were, instead, present in a system which left many niches open including those currently occupied by plants , it is possible for bovines to fill them given enough time and selective pressure.
No, not good enough. I want a detailed and specific definition that is widely accepted among creationists. Anything less is utterly worthless. You mean already filled with diverse life like a modern earth? Or are you referring to a planet which is earthlike in temperature and composition but somehow devoid of life? Ray Comfort is mean-spirited. Have you read through what is posted here?
You are no different in your approach. So glad you just moved from question to question and let him stand on his own. Or, rather, fall on his own. Apparently he thinks to love someone is to give them free stuff. I sent in a convincing entry, but never even heard back from you. I must admit I have begun to question your sincerity in the matter. This sounds like it was based off of my question, and I got the expected response from it. Ray : I know that many atheists will disagree with me when I say that I love atheists.
Christophe Thill was commenting above on how Comfort et al keeps our that is, us that adhere to science vocabulary and our ideas sharp. I do believe there is some truth to this; it has been noted that creationism has only helped in regard to the theory, if not in practice than in education. However, I do not think we should water down the language. For this we can thank evolution, but to capitalize on creating meaning, purpose and peace is an existential endeavor, not a scientific one. In short we must not capitulate to one of the mainstay arguments of creationism which is the fallacy of appeal to consequence.
Evolution, nature herself, is violent to life, and life being nature, violent unto itself. And yet our other instincts of nurture and care prevail to now — were we can, via science, intelligence, and expression, extend this to beyond our immediate kin, to beyond our neighborhood block, for the first time in 3 billion years. We non-believers and scientists and artists now must take of the torch. And we too have failed read: atomic bomb. Red in tooth and nail, indeed. But as Comfort is a living example, we can deny nature — we just need to do it in a way that does not subvert the truth and benefits the planet.
Make no mistake, Ray has said quite matter of factly that nothing could convince him that Evolution is real. This is despite the fact that he has said that a species equals kind b speciation is real c there are millions of transitional fossils. That is debatable. One of the defining features of E. This particular strain evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, so if you go by this definition then they are no longer E. As long as it is presented without a known meaning, it has the same value in discussion as a word that really has no meaning.
Knowing what one is trying to express is of informational value. Curiously, until this Origin handout trick I had also never really come across Ray Comfort. If we really have a doubt about a particular measurement technique, we can go and do an experiment or make more observations, to confirm the technique is valid. Then we can publish our findings. This is what science is about. The Earth is 4. Faith not required. That book looks at the question of evolution from the viewpoint of the genes.
A rather good read; I recommend it. He descibes evolution as a process that can only go uphill. This is why I love science — regardless of the level of scientific literacy it is always possible to learn something interesting. As opposed to boring rote learning Thanks for the correction! But it does have a meaning. In what I still find to be one of the funniest lines written in these comments we have an idea of what creationists think we want when we ask for word definitions. That seriously cracks me up every time I read it! Its an understandable and common misconception. A good example are parasitic bacteria.
Ancestral bacteria were all free living. Those populations that adapted to life has a parasite show a decrease in the number of genes and the size of their genomes. Why would an omnipotent creator create an inefficient method of reproduction? Not very clever, eh?
OH man… Quite interesting comments here. Things like:. Or do you not want to put that in print? This is bizzare. This makes classification of species trickier and more based on molecular analysis of DNA makeup. This would make speciation rather different for bacteria than for animals. Either way, both have been observed, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to spend an afternoon with a fruit fly specialist. Ray, I speak for many Christians who love you and appreciate the stand you take for The Truth. Wow, this time they buzzed and flapped for two days straight.
They do swarm to you. They know that you do have the Truth. May God continue to bless you. Catholics are not Christians and do not share the same views or beliefs as Christians! They are mostly pagan. Bowing before statues and dressing up in some crazy out fit and think they are holy. Well Duh!! It is still a bird!!! I have a dog same breed one is shorter than the other. Woop de Doo! All I want to say is way to go Ray Comfort good job as always. Ray Comfort gets the ideas of science all wrong as he always does.
Science is not based at all on belief but in challenging beliefs to see what withstands the scrutiny. Anything out of the bible simply does not withstand even the least scrutiny; this is by no means a new development. As people test ideas, many ideas must necessarily be refined. Even the abstract and highly successful field of mathematics does not contain any magically perfect ideas; if anything Godel had demonstrated that no mathematical system can be complete — there will always be a mathematical question which can be asked which cannot be resolved by any specific mathematical system.
What complete and utter nonsense. He participated in an interview, and we are now responding to his answers. Leave it to the deluded to simplify any challenges to their faith. One thing I found interesting is that Ray read Origin of Species and found it boring.
I have no doubt Ray read it as an exercise so he could justify putting an introduction into a book only if he had read it first. I attempted to read the Bible along for a similar strategy, and found it boring no doubt for similar reasons. LMAO, very nice. He came into our community and let fly a pile of BS and we are busily cleaning it up. Every comment is just a repetition of the same thing — no evidence, no facts — just evolution is nonsense and atheists are demons. You can see in his words just how trapped he is. Darwin was one of the great innovators of the scientific method itself.
It must be very, very difficult to be frantically patching a sinking ship with a million holes and new leaks springing every second. Comfort made it very clear to me that there is an ulterior motive in such actions. Comfort is a con man. A criminal. He is scum. I have a question. Comfort has gotten the Theory of Evolution entirely wrong. Comfort mention about evolution, and its by-products, results, etc.
The textbook is pretty recent, as well published somewhere in the s. Now remember Ray has been corrected on this dozens and dozens of times, including quite publically on blogs like Pharyngula which he acknowledged! Before repeating it again and again like on that club clip. His intro has pages and pages of flat out lies about evolution and related fields. So Ida, Lucy, Java Man etc, all fake. Can you give evidence that there was not one journal fooled by the Archaeoraptor hoax or is just another one of your opinions?
Are you absolutely certain that every journal identified it as a hoax from the very beginning, that no journal reported it as a legitimate find? Please cite your sources. So Ray gives this example of the scientific method working as an example of his attempts to disparage science. Ray says Heidelberg Man is a Jawbone.
A Jawbone! This kind of ignores that from one pit excavation researchers have discovered the remains of approximately 28 individuals. Danny: In its most simplified from, change in allele frequency between generations of the same population, fueled by random mutation and directed by non-random selection. Various factors like niche-filling and isolation split populations and permit groups to develop differently. Not in dramatic, abrupt flashes, as Ray often seems to say. I would also like to add that taxology is a human invention.
It is the actual differences between the animals we care about. Case closed. He has faith but not a wise mind. On another topic. Deranged or Greedy or misled people killed people. Communism has never been truly implemented. Democracy is not implemented in present times. The closest we have is a quasi-democratically elected Oligarchy. If he can find a group of people that killed, discriminated, persecuted and otherwise made life a living hell for other people that was not only explicitly atheist, but committed their atrocities explicitly in the name of atheism, he might have a point.
His usual fallback on Mao and Stalin are completely irrelevant because they did what they did in the name of political idealism and in the pursuit of power, not to spread atheism or quash theism. On the other hand, one can name several historical and modern atrocities that WERE committed in the name of one God or another. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.
I also want to comment on the banana issue. But evolution has never purported that change occurs rapidly and suddenly as is clearly what he believes a la crocoduck , or even occurs constantly overtime. Archaeological evidence suggests that initial wild banana domestication and cultivation occurred in Southeast Asia tens of thousands of years ago, and was later more widely introduced to other regions through the advent of Islam. His career is frequently punctuated by faulty logic and wild, baseless assumptions, and he has made his lack of understanding of the theory of evolution grossly apparent many times.
For me at least, the only question is whether he is willfully ignorant or not. Qingwei I would contend that Hitler should be abandoned by both Christians and atheists as an example of anything. His personal religious beliefs were vague, at best. The Inquisition and the Crusades however, as well as modern Islamic terrorism, have clear religious links. Absolute indoctrination, faith over rational thinking, an intolerance for dissent, deification of a human or worship of a deity , can allow for the justification of any number of atrocities.
The experiment, as I read it in the wikipedia article, resulted in specialized e.
Interview with Ray Comfort
And even after that, the most notable adaptations were the ability to get energy from a new source and a rounder shape. How does this give credence to the bigger picture of evolution? Not misleading, you are simply asserting something that no one was expecting. No one, least of all Lenski thought if he grew enough e. Lenski put the e. So you have multiple mutations over time adding up to a new feature that helped the e. The basic issue is that creationists are unwilling or unable to accept that the mechanism that allows E. The only barriers are selective pressures.
Speciation has been observed and even provoked in Drosophila, as I recall. However just so I can smile a bit, any creationist willing to tell me when E. First, please read this short little piece , I think I did a fairly good job laying out the difference between hypothesis, theory and law.
Both terms are equally valid but have different meanings. Laws are based on observation. Theory is based on hypotheses that have been proven and refined by experimental evidence. If I were king of the world for one minute, I would spend that time educating people on the difference between hypothesis, law and theory. Can anyone justify why the scientific method which has been used for at least 1, years is totally ignored by evolutionists?
Very early on in the evolutionary process, somewhere right down near the base of the evolutionary tree, gender evolved. And it worked so well for breeding that everything above that point on the tree i. The same reason that the eye only had to have evolved once. For all the bragging of reason and intelligence on here I see alot of people very confused even after Ray clearly explains it was meant as a joke but because he didnt have an audience for the laughs people took it seriously. I actually appreciated the way this interview was done.
I respect Hemant for engaging in this type of dialogue. It allows people to truly hear both sides and make their own judgments. Folks, you can bash Ray all you want. You can do that and no really authentic Christian is going to try to twist your arm to make you believe. But God does love you — each and everyone of you posting here.
Your anger comes from not wanting to be wrong in something you so strongly believe in. You want your freedom to do as you wish without having to answer to anyone. And so you shall have it, in the here and now. All you have to do is ask — if you can get past your pride. A quick look over at Amazon shows that there is a while chapter in the book on Evolution and Sex. Chapter Ray Excuse 2. Oh Actually it was a comedy routine all along. I just neglected to mention this fact the last 2 times I made an excuse for the routine.
This just shows he is beyond all hope. I know some YEC at work, and none of them are confused by this. Ray Comfort is actually dumb. What he lacks in knowledge, he matches with an inability to reason. How embarrassing. I love how everyone is just slamming him. Obviously this is fight that no one will ever win. This guy is an obvious con artist. He is eloquent and tactical enough to know that he is just fooling a bunch of buffoons in to buying his books or attending his appearances.
But with mere hours of study on the topic, you will run circles around Comfort. Well, Felix, I think it means the same thing as Webster does — capable of being verified, although he and I spell it a little differently from the way you do. People like Ray are one of the reasons I finally had to let go of the remnants of my faith and accept atheism. I finally realized that for me to be honest, I had to put my own beliefs under the same rigorous examination that I had creationism. So thanks, Ray, Lee, Ken, etc. The fact that you maintained your intentional and dishonest ignorance against all standards and levels of evidence led me away from superstition and into the light of reason.
Oh, and the net deaths vs saved lives, even if you do dishonestly count communism against atheists, the count is still a couple billion lives saved due to atheist science from Borlaug or Salk. The Friendly Athiest simply asked him questions-good to see actual dialogue. A couple of points in no particular order: I personally feel that science is, like many things we humans do, simply, and only, a way of thinking.