| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
12 Mar 2005 07:07:47 PM |
| Object: |
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65
This is the tenth in an occasional series highlighting valid issues
that undermine invariably unsupported claims that there's a god.
Parts 1-5 of this series is at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
56.
Our DNA since Noah
The Genesis flood story makes it clear that Bible writers thought the
flood was global and took place only a few thousand years ago. There
have always been local or small regional floods, many of which leave
traces in the geologic and fossil record. For example, at the
beginning of the Cretaceous period, much of central North America as
far north as Colorado was flooded by what is now called the Gulf of
Mexico, when sea levels rose. One of the evidences of this is 1500
foot-thick beds of limestone in Texas. Traces of a local flood have
been uncovered by archaeologists in the Middle East. There is evidence
of all kinds of flooding in the geologic record, including very
short-lived flash floods, but there's no evidence whatsoever to support
a year-long global flood to be found anywhere on (or under) the Earth.
So there was never a global flood. Such a thing is prohibited by the
laws of physics. But let's pretend, for a few minutes, that such a
flood happened. The Bible makes it clear that it cannot have been
earlier than around 10K years ago since the Bible also makes it clear
that the reason for the flood was human sin. This means the flood
could not possibly have occurred 4.5 billion years ago as some assinine
message posters have brainlessly tried to maintain.
According to Genesis, some god so repented his design flaws in humanity
(or his lack of omnisicence) that he decided to flood the planet to
flush it clean of all humanity - except for Noah and crew. This means
the flood cannot have been before there were humans who had language,
culture, and a certain level of civilization. These things have
happened only in the last 10K years or so. And the Biblical chronology
seems to nail down the time of the flood to somewhere around 4,300
years ago.
There only were eight survivors, four guys and their wives (despite
their being literally the womb of humanity in this story, not one of
the wives is named). Both Noah and his wife were (presumably)
genetically related to three of the others.
Humanity was considered to be on the verge of extinction when our
numbers dropped below 10,000, and perhaps as low as 2,000 people some
70K years ago according to an article on the BBC's website in June
2003. So how could we have recovered from a population of only 8?!
When our numbers plummeted, our genome loaded up on mutations that
would have been eliminated if populations had been higher, according to
another BBC article last January. How could we have survived that
starting form so few individuals?
The problem here for those who think there's a god is that there's too
much genetic variation in modern humans to have originated from only
eight people some 4,300 years ago.
According to an article in December 1993 Scientific American
(http://tinyurl.com/4qx9k), one of our genes (HLA-DRB1) has 59 alleles.
Each of us can have only two alleles of any one gene - one from mom,
one from dad. The most that the ark-o-nauts could have had between
them would be 16 (in practice less than that since some of them were
related, but let's grant the whole 16). 16 from 59 leaves 43.
Somehow, the human race has acquired 43 new alleles of this one gene
alone in only 4,300 years. That's "one good mutation" every 100 years!
And there are many other alleles of many other genes to consider.
No, it never happened. The story is critically flawed. Since it is so
a crucial story to claims for the existence of god and his relationship
with humanity, this means the whole concept of god is also flawed.
57.
One thing the Bible writers never considered was evolution. They
understood everything to have been created recently (geologically
speaking) and in the same form it has today. There was no fossil
record for them. They thought god directly created and maintained the
world. Including birds and their singing. But once again they're
shown to be wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4271511.stm
reveals that birds were not created all pre-programmed to sing for our
pleasure. Birds have to learn the ropes just like human children do.
So how did the Bible writers get their mistaken information? Was it
handed down to them from a god, and they were divinely inspired to pass
on these immortal mistruths to succeeding generations? Or is there
truthfully no god at all, and all the Bible writers were trying to do
is make sense of a vast, impersonal, confusing universe with too little
data to judge competently?
58.
While on the subject of bird brains and creationists in general (did I
phrase that ambiguously?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4286965.stm
reveals that birds develop novel feeding behaviors. No - that doesn't
mean they read a novel while they're enjoying a meal, it means they are
inventive, and it offers somewhat of a means to judge relative
intelligence of birds.
Some of the feeding behaviors are quite interesting - such as vultures
who hang out close to minefields so that they can enjoy a ground meat
meal when some animal wanders cluelessly into the minefield and blows
itself up (rather like when creationists wander mindlessly into the
Theory of Evolution with similar results).
Another observation was the great skua (this is a bird) which joined
seal pups feeding on the milk from their mother for a free meal (rather
like creationists who can't think for themselves but feed off the
websites of other creationists who are equally clueless).
Is this really evidence of some great god's divine scheme? Or is it
evidence that there is no god and organisms are going to evolve and
develop as best they can without benefit of any divine plan?
59.
(or #9 revisited)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/02/21/spark.shark/index.html
reveals that "An Australian company has developed technology that
intends to protect divers and surfers from being attacked by sharks
while they are in the water...The Shark Shield takes advantage of this
[shark feeding behavior] by emitting a much stronger pulse of
electricity. The battery-operated device is switched on when the diver
or surfer enters the water and the electrical current is generated
continuously. The current causes intense discomfort to the shark and,
as a result, they leave the area."
But according to the Bible, we are supposed to have dominion over the
animals. The word is used twice in Genesis 1. It literally means to
tread-down or subjugate. If that was true, why is it that 6,000 years
later (according to Bible chronology), we're still trying to find a way
to prevent sharks having dominon over us?
Clearly the Bible writers were making up this story of a god. Clearly
there is no god.
60.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4285235.stm
Three weeks or so ago, "Doctors...operated successfully to remove a
second head from a 10-month-old baby.
Manar Maged was originally one of conjoined identical twins, but her
sister failed to develop in the womb. "
What was god thinking when he permitted this to happen? Why is his
"design" so flawed and why weren't the anti-abortion dipshits all over
it? Surely such a surgery was against god's will?
Or is it just that there is no god, no divine plan, no perfect
creation, just mistakes of nature and Bible writers too clueless and
inexperienced to grasp that they were out of their depth when they
invented this puny, amateur, childish god?
61,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3955719.stm
Did some god really design cells so poorly that they can so readily run
amok with cancer?
Or is it more likely that there is no god and these cells are just
doing the best they can with what undirected nature has given them?
It gets worse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4257783.stm
reveals that scientists (not religion or prayer) have discovered that
the HIV virus (suitably modified) could be used to fight cancer! Does
this mean that the fundies who have been insisting for years that HIV
is a punishment for homosexuality are going to jump ship now and say
this proves their god's wisdom - that he sent us HIV to fight the
cancer his poor cell design caused?
How can there be a god that can create such poorly equipped followers?
62a.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4314859.stm
It turns out that "Massaging small babies with sunflower seed oil is a
cheap and easy way to protect them against infections".
Why is it that we even need to protect innocent newborns against
infection?
Is it because of original sin, or is it nothing more than the simple
fact that bacteria and viruses created, according to theists, by a
benevolent god, are the biggest killers on the planet?
In the western world, we don't have to worry so much about infection,
because science (not prayer or religion) is so good at preserving life
that sunflower seed oil can't contribute a whole heck of a lot. In
fact, science has become so good at this that fundamentalists are
forced to focus on another aspect of science - our ability to carry out
abortions without risking the life of the mother.
These mindless dipshits fuss over the abortion rate in the western
world. Yet not one of them pays any attention to the appalling death
rate in the so-called Third World.
Why is this?
Is it because *those* babies are a bit browner than western babies and
"therefore" harder to see? Or is it that these hypocrites don't want
attention focused on the *fact* that not only is there not a shred of
condemnation in the Bible for abortion, but that this god of theirs
murders children (actual living, breathing children, who are
independent of their mothers as opposed to indiscriminate masses of
cells in a womb) in the Third World at rates far higher than abortion
clinics terminate pregnancies?
Yes, in the Third World, mortality rates are far higher, despite prayer
and religion being common.
Why is this?
Does god hate those people?
Or is there no god and your mortality rate (just like the religion you
likely adopt) is nothing more than an accident of geography?
62b.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4318131.stm
reveals that measles **DEATHS** have fallen by almost 40% over the last
five years. Deaths. From measles, a disease that we pretty much
ignore in the west these days because we're so good at fighting it.
But even in 2003, there was a death-a-minute from measles.
Why don't the right to lifers get up in arms about this?
Because they're hypocrites. These deaths occur in nations where the
babies are brown and why would right-to-lifers care about those when
they can show a picture of an aborted white fetus and make news?
According to the article, "It costs less than $1 to immunise a child
with the measles vaccine."
Prayer won't prevent or cure measles. Religion won't do it. A vaccine
will.
Why doesn't a god do something about this? If this god so loved the
world that he gave his only begotten son, why is he letting so many
other sons and daughters die?
Or is there no god at all, just an impotent myth that keeps frightened
children (most of whom are adults) feeling safe in their beds at night?
63.
Here's something you can get your teeth into:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4279005.stm
It discusses teeth and evolution and how we have too many of the former
to fit into our jaw becuase of the latter.
Does this show some sort of intelligent design, or does it show
evolution proceeding in fits and starts of opportunism without any plan
or divine guidance?
Once again the theists are trying to force us to accept their invented
god no matter how stupid this god is.
64.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4329629.stm
reveals that "Whale, dolphin and porpoise strandings have doubled in
the UK over the last 10 years".
According to the IDiots, this has to be yet one more example of
intellgent design! What else could it be? Surely no god would ever
have designed oceanic mammals so poorly that they would commit suicide.
What kind of moral example is that to set?
Clearly there is some divine porpoise being revealed here. Did I say
porpoise? Sorry, purpose! Or maybe it *is* porpoise! Maybe Christ,
2,000-some years late, is finally arriving for his second coming. As a
dolphin.
65.
And while we're on the topic of marine mammals, what about those
whales? Why would a god design air-breathing organisms and then
condemn them to the sea? What could be more cruel than that? If
you're going to design a whale and confine it to the ocean, make it
breath like a fish, for goodness sake.
Either that or there is no god and nothing but undirected evolution
"designed" the whale et al.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
17 Mar 2005 05:50:48 PM |
|
|
I've long maintained that Duck ***** is nothing but an empty trash can,
and here he is, proving it.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
18 Mar 2005 06:10:38 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 15 Mar 2005 15:53:35 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
No, *yhou* have no argument - that's why you **RUN AWAY FROM EVERY
SINGLE THREAD IN WHICH I'VE EVER CHALLENGED YOU**.
I busted you on the first 8
duke
I hope Budikka commercially bankrupts you Earl... you're already morally
bankrupt, you really are pathetic ...
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
15 Mar 2005 10:27:21 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 14 Mar 2005 16:21:06 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Weak, bud, really weak response.
This from the lying, hypocritical, coward who has not only failed to
respond, but has in fact **RUN AWAY FROM EVERY SINGLE THREAD IN WHICH
I'VE CHALLENGED HIM**. No surprises there. Duck ***** will out.
Bud, you have no argument. I busted you on the first 8, and then laughed
at you after that.
Puke, you have not been right about anything.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
16 Mar 2005 05:35:05 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:27:21 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On 14 Mar 2005 16:21:06 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Weak, bud, really weak response.
This from the lying, hypocritical, coward who has not only failed to
respond, but has in fact **RUN AWAY FROM EVERY SINGLE THREAD IN WHICH
I'VE CHALLENGED HIM**. No surprises there. Duck ***** will out.
Bud, you have no argument. I busted you on the first 8, and then laughed
at you after that.
Puke, you have not been right about anything.
Destroyed her silly words she stole and couldn't support.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin Rosie" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
16 Mar 2005 11:22:54 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:de6g31114orhh9bbvhtq2s7qgffptovk13@4ax.com...
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
========================
Why haven't you received this "gift?"
--
CR.....
"Where two or three are gathered together in MY name, I am in their midst:"
[Matt 18:20] No Watchtower Society needed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<~~<{@
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
16 Mar 2005 07:56:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:22:54 -0600, "Cracklin' Rosie" <koi@fish.net> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:de6g31114orhh9bbvhtq2s7qgffptovk13@4ax.com...
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
========================
Why haven't you received this "gift?"
I have.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
16 Mar 2005 04:28:01 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
Destroyed her silly words she stole and couldn't support.
Duke, that is a direct libel. It is untrue and you have zero evidence
to even pretend it's true. Now I am asking you one last time,
politely, to think carefully about your behavior. Please retract your
lie. Post an apology for it in each of the news groups in which you
have told it and undertake to never repeat it. If you do not do this,
I will have no choice but to instruct my lawyer to send a formal
request to your Newcastle Avenue address. If you fail to comply with
that, I will not take you to court, where you will lose. Either way,
you will have to apologize.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
14 Mar 2005 05:25:04 AM |
|
|
You have a thing for impotent men... or you are projrcting again?
Budikka666 wrote:
Jabriol is one of the few "men" who loves to advertise his impotence.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
14 Mar 2005 06:15:40 PM |
|
|
I started to reply, but when I removed everything that had zero
content, there was nothing left to respond to. That's Jabberasshole
for you.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reel McKoi" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - to Budikka |
14 Mar 2005 06:31:15 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1110845740.307430.326630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I started to reply, but when I removed everything that had zero
content, there was nothing left to respond to. That's Jabberasshole
for you.
Budikka
============================
Budikka, this is Carol from ARJ-W and rec.ponds. Jabriol is trying to kill
rec.ponds now in his struggle to silence me. Please don't cross post to
rec.ponds. He's already flooding us with endless reams of the most
nonsensical posts you can imagine. I suppose he feels it's his Christian
duty to harass and annoy this NG into oblivion in his quest for
censorship,... and to squelch my right, as an American, to freedom of
speech. Thanks! :-)
--
McKoi.... the frugal ponder...
"To persevere in one's duty and
be silent, is the best answer to calumny."
~~~ }<((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((o>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 65 |
14 Mar 2005 06:05:16 AM |
|
|
In article <1110799504.259480.193990@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Jabriol@excite.com wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Jabriol is one of the few "men" who loves to advertise his impotence.
Budikka
What you do on your worldline is your own business. I can't think of
any better way to start a war than for someone to figure out how to
make a time machine. Go for it.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Kali was child's play compared to Lady Chatterly - but I'm confident
you'll prevail in the end! Just don't give up!" -- Roofshadow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
