Be Afraid

[stonehart]

Here is some of the logic..........



Thats the logic ?, really ?, fossils show signs of violence and disease, and thats not good thus........

Lots more of this nonsense here
The Earth Is 6000 Years Old

If you find your local brick wall isnt hard enough to hurt.

And while the Santa pic is hilarious, it illustrates how the meme propagates, convince a young child while its still impressionable of a thing, even an impossible thing and it sticks for many.

Nice post Mike.

I can not even begin to explain how retarded that sort of Creationist thinking is (if you can call it thinking at all).

For you really just have to stand in awe at the ability to shut out all the evidence (and there are mountains of it) for planetary and biological evolution, so they can simply hold onto myths that have more holes in them than your average plot for a Hollywood movie.

Never ever underestimate the propensity for human stupidity in large groups.

 

[mike]

Dinosaurs and People:
We've already seen that, based on God creating both land animals and Adam on day six, that the Bible is saying that dinosaurs and people must have lived together.
Based on the Bible, is it possible that people and dinosaurs lived together?
Wouldn't the dinosaurs just eat all the people?

The Bible tells us what animals, including dinosaurs, ate. During day six of creation God said: "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food; and it was so." - Genesis 1:29-30 NASB)
God created Adam and Eve, and all the animals as vegetarians! All of the animals, including dinosaurs, eat plants.

But, what about those BIG, sharp teeth? Take T-Rex for example, certainly he was a meat eater.
Big, sharp teeth do not mean an animal is a meat eater. Bears have teeth that are big and sharp, similar to a lion's. Yet many bears are mostly vegetation. Chinese Pandas have very sharp teeth. They need those sharp teeth because bamboo, their only food, is very hard to chew. There are numerous examples of animals that only eat plants, and that have very sharp teeth. An animal with big, sharp teeth just means that it is an animal with big, sharp teeth--nothing more.

So, Adam and Eve did not have to worry about being eaten by dinosaurs.

By the way, it not until Genesis 9:3, just after Noah's flood and about 1500 years after Adam and Eve were created, that God gives the animals to man as food. From that point on people started eating meat.

Dinosaurs and People

Natural History Museum scientists, working as part of the Gibraltar Caves Project, excavated and studied remains of shell fish and other marine animals such as dolphins from two caves in Gibraltar where Neanderthals once lived.
They discovered that Neanderthals were more sophisticated than their traditional caveman image would suggest. Like modern humans, they foraged in coastal habitats to find sea foods such as shellfish and vulnerable seals.

The caves contain rich evidence of Neanderthal occupation covering more than 50,000 years, including hearths (area where a fireplace once existed), flint and stone tools, and butchered land mammals such as ibex, red deer, wild boar and bear.

The sites reveal that Neanderthals didn’t always cook bones for their meat, which they often ate raw, but rather to make it easier to extract the marrow from them. They also cooked plants and nuts.
'They didn’t just eat big game,' adds Stringer. 'Their diet included rabbit and baked tortoise.'

Neanderthal diet like early modern human's | Natural History Museum

The only way to reconcile this is to discard the second set of data, or try and incorporate it with a scenario where noah took neanderthal onto the ark, or god created neanderthal after the flood.

The obvious answer is the bible makes a lousy source for facts

 

[Muadib]

In light of the recent discussion, I'd like to point out something and hope for some feedback. While we may see religious folks as misled and uninformed, and wonder how anyone could stay that way, there is a contingent ( mostly skeptics ) who think that those who believe UFOs ( alien craft ) are real are no different from the religious folks. For example our resident skeptic Lance has colorfully referred to us ( or possibly me ) as a "Zealot", the origin of which dates back to Jewish rebels in ancient Rome. In other words he and others like him are putting me and the religious folks in the same camp ( so to speak ).

Without defending my position at this point, my perspective from the middle of this odd situation is that I see three sets of widely separated worldviews, each of which considers itself perfectly normal and in tune with the way things are. Or to put it another way, if getting a skeptic to believe UFOs ( alien craft ) are real would be like getting you or I to turn religious, then the gulf between non-religious Skeptics and non-religious UFO believers is as wide as the gulf between non-religious UFO believers and religious folks.

When contemplated as above, it becomes apparent that the rifts between these groups are all much larger than we might have first suspected. So my questions are. How do we reconcile this situation? Is it even possible? I've recently commented in another thread that a certain self proclaimed skeptic was coming across to me the same way as the religious people do, yet they simply couldn't see it. Logically this situation involves such radically different worldviews that one ( or all of them ) must be deluded. So how do we tell which one isn't and how do we support that position?

I see what you're saying but, I would say that the gulf between a skeptic like Lance and someone like you is nowhere near as wide as the gap between a creationist and someone who can see creationism for exactly what it is. After all we can't really separate this as religious vs non religious because there are religious people who think creationism is incorrect and do not believe in it. The Catholic church, for example, has adopted the principles of evolution and natural selection into its teaching and there are legions of what might be called moderate Christians who don't interpret the bible as literal truth. So even among believers, young earth creationists are seen as the fringe of the fringe.

Let's examine the gap between someone like you or I and someone who believes that the bible is literal truth and creationism is real. You'll find this little piece of ridiculous logic on many a creationist website:
"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." --Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith

So, in essence, what they're saying here is that nothing that contradicts their worldview can be true. I think you'll find that statement perfectly illustrates the gap between the creationist and, for lack of a better word, evolutionist. Creationists are not willing to give equal consideration to evidence that contradicts their world view as they are to evidence that supports it. On top of that, creationists have to deny the validity of all new knowledge, and present the science of the 1800's as the science of today, in order to hold on to their world view.

Now contrast that with say, someone like you and someone like Lance. Both of you are willing to not only consider new evidence, but you're willing to assimilate it into your overall worldview if that evidence holds up to scrutiny. Where you two get hung up is in your interpretation of said evidence, but neither of you need to deny that new evidence exists, neither of you are so strictly dogmatic that you would deny the very foundations of logic just to hold onto your current perspective. If a UFO touched down in front of Lance's house, I firmly believe that Lance would change his opinion, he wouldn't deny the thing right in front of his very eyes in order to hold onto UFO skepticism. The reverse is true about you as well, if someone was able to prove to you that all UFO's were something other than alien craft, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you would change your opinion. You might not be happy about it, but in the end logic and reason would prevail and you would have to admit that you were wrong. The very opposite is true of someone who claims that science and evidence are his reasons for believing in creationism, even after being shown that the science and evidence point in the completely opposite direction and have for well over 100 years.

So what I'm saying boils down to this, your worldview and Lance's worldview are not as far apart as you might think. In fact, they're pretty damn close up to a point. You both think that in order to be 100% sure that UFO's are 100%, without a doubt, alien (as in space alien) craft, we must have more evidence. The difference is you're willing to go one step further and say "on the basis of the evidence and my interpretation of the evidence, a case could be made that UFO's may very well be the vehicles of extraterrestrials, I think it's very likely, but I don't know for sure and I'm willing to entertain other explanations." Lance would disagree and say that there isn't enough evidence to support that conclusion, but neither of you have to deny evidence and logic to reach that position. Neither of you have to pretend that there is no new knowledge and neither of you would ever say "nothing that proves me wrong can be right"

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Now it would appear that teaching algebra is part of the "liberal agenda." I swear, I can't make this up:

Fox News host Eric Bolling on Wednesday accused some schools of “pushing the liberal agenda” for teaching an algebra lesson about the distributive property.

During a segment about “indoctrination in schools,” Bolling reminded viewers of a 2009 video of children chanting, “Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Barack Hussein Obama,” which outraged conservatives at the time.

“But even worse is the way some textbooks are pushing the liberal agenda,” the Fox News host explained, pointing to an algebra worksheet that Scholastic says gives students “insight into the distributive property as it applies to multiplication.”

“Distribute the wealth!” Bolling exclaimed, reading the worksheet. “Distribute the wealth with the lovely rich girl with a big ole bag of money, handing some money out.”

Co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle explained that the algebra worksheet had put her on “high alert” for the liberal agenda in her 6-year-old son’s curriculum.

“Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm,” Guilfoyle added to mock the so-called indoctrination video.

Co-host Dana Perino also expressed concern over an effort to stop children from role playing “cowboys and Indians” at Thanksgiving because experts say that “the historic enemy of Indians was not cowboys, but the U.S. government.”

“So it starts in third grade and guess what happens?” Bolling remarked. “Through their whole educational experience, they continually get indoctrinated, even through college.”

“Everybody has anecdotal evidence of this,” co-host Greg Gutfeld agreed. “I think the only way leftism can survive is through indoctrination because its number one adversary is reality. So you got to get them young and it’s perfect for kids. Paul Krugman’s logic is child’s play: Share your stuff… A lot of this comes from the teachers. They get their news from The Huffington Post and their antiperspirant from a health food store. This is the way they live.”

Bolling advised parents to read their children’s history books because his son’s textbook addressed the Iraq war “and they were very, very liberally biased, saying George Bush went in there because he heard there were weapons of mass destruction and they were never found. It was a very liberal bias to the history books.”

“There are science teachers that if they hear that if a student is questioning, like, any kind of climate change thing, they just, like, think you’re an idiot,” Gutfeld observed.

“You guys just gave two examples of things that are right,” left-leaning co-host Bob Beckel quipped.

For the full story, please see: Raw Story ( Eric Bolling: Schools ‘pushing the liberal agenda’ by teaching algebra | The Raw Story)

I swear, I never thought I'd see the day where basic math expressions would become politicized by the morons (excuse me) radical right. I think it's safe to assume certain FOX "news" hosts flunked math and that they believe (probably correctly) that their audience did the same.

The score thus far: Solid science is made up of "lies straight from the pit of hell" and math is part of that gosh darn "liberal agenda." So, what does that leave us? I'm thinking a bunch of intellectual slaves who are functionally illiterate, unable to form logical thoughts and completely reliant upon their corporate and religious overlords.

 

[Randall]

I see what you're saying but, I would say that the gulf between a skeptic like Lance and someone like you is nowhere near as wide as the gap between a creationist and someone who can see creationism for exactly what it is ... Neither of you have to pretend that there is no new knowledge and neither of you would ever say "nothing that proves me wrong can be right"

Once upon a time I used to think much the same way. I assumed that because I'm quite logical and make use of healthy skepticism that I should be able to relate to skeptics on their level. I couldn't have been more wrong. After over 2500 posts on the JREF alone, I can assure you that what I'm saying applies more often than you might think. When shown information that is contrary to their view, instead of accepting it as you suggest they should, they often simply dismiss it, or disengage in a manner that suggests it's beneath them to continue, or start in with the character attacks. And when it comes to character attacks, comments like "UFO people are relatively harmless" or referring to ufologists as "UFO Zealots" are just the tip of the iceberg. Ufology has been likened to religion more than once and I've been repeatedly subjected to the same kind of mockery ( and worse ) that Starise has been subjected to here.

So make no mistake; the bottom line is that for many skeptics, ufology rates as equal or worse on the woo scale than religion. In order to understand that mentality I've tried to put myself in their frame of mind, but my brain simply rejects it. I actually feel dizzy if I try to imagine it too clearly. Yet both sides in this issue feel they are the normal ones and it is the other one that is deluded. I've even been guilty of the same behavior, characterizing skeptics who engage in such tactics as "rabid", and I've felt perfectly justified in doing so. This is the reality of just how far apart some of us are. We want to believe we're all more or less the same, but the more I study it, the more it seems to me that although we may be similar in many ways ( like the stars in the sky are similar ), our worldviews are also as far apart as the distances between those stars.

 

[stonehart]

Now it would appear that teaching algebra is part of the "liberal agenda." I swear, I can't make this up:





For the full story, please see: Raw Story ( Eric Bolling: Schools ‘pushing the liberal agenda’ by teaching algebra | The Raw Story)

I swear, I never thought I'd see the day where basic math expressions would become politicized by the morons (excuse me) radical right. I think it's safe to assume certain FOX "news" hosts flunked math and that they believe (probably correctly) that their audience did the same.

The score thus far: Solid science is made up of "lies straight from the pit of hell" and math is part of that gosh darn "liberal agenda." So, what does that leave us? I'm thinking a bunch of intellectual slaves who are functionally illiterate, unable to form logical thoughts and completely reliant upon their corporate and religious overlords.

Words really fail me... come on America you are better than this... just what have you become?

 

[Muadib]

Only a Republican retard would assign political ideology to a mathematical theory. Yet, it's the "liberals" who supposedly live in fantasy land? Give me a break.

 

[starise]

Ufology I answered your post but I must have created a conversation on it . I'm still not sure how some of this forum software works. If I back track and re read all of this and try to quote and post on it when I come back my response is gone. Probably because I'm using an old copy of explorer on this computer.

I don't care if there are 10 of you guys on here touting the so called "proof" of evolution. There is no real proof on the matter. The inference that I am somehow indoctrinated is pure bull pucky. I am on the other side of the issue that's all.

Back in the 1800's Congress agreed that a black man wasn't a man. What government/education condones isn't necessarily a truth. There is an agenda underway in the world to bring about a new world order. The theory of evolution fits in well with the coming great deception that we are being visited by space aliens. This is the only reason the theory is the accepted norm.

Ufos are a large part of the ruse IMO. In fact as much opposition as I am facing here I am fairly certain there are at least a few of you here who know about it and are in on it.

Muadib you are so far up on your high horse here that I'm afraid you are really going to get hurt when you fall off. The only thing I am sorry about here is that I truly don't have the time to address all of you individually in detail. I think this is part of the method here. Overload me with so much info there is no way anyone human with a full time job can research and reply to it all.

My lack of time to address it all will be seen as a weakness from some of your perspectives. I encourage you to look a little deeper here and you will see that what I'm saying is in fact true.

I have done studies on the flood and read both sides of it. I would love to comment further when I can.

There are a lot of attacks here that are far from any thing factual. Just more straw man arguments. 50% of this country is republican. You show true ignorance in your statements Muadib.You have just slammed 50% of our population.

 

[dyingsun]

Dear starise,

I don't care if there are 10 of you guys on here touting the so called "proof" of evolution. There is no real proof on the matter.

is all I have to to say. Hope your horse is amazing.​

 

[exo_doc]

See guys.
This is why I don't argue pro-con religious matters.
People have thier minds made up....to hell with the facts.

In ALL the massive amounts of stuff written on here.....had anyones mind been changed???
See how useless this is?

 

[RenaissanceLady]

See guys.
This is why I don't argue pro-con religious matters.
People have thier minds made up....to hell with the facts.

In ALL the massive amounts of stuff written on here.....had anyones mind been changed???
See how useless this is?

Except... In my own lifetime, I've seen our attitudes become decidedly more liberal regarding inter-racial relationships and the value of desegregation - and I was born and raised in Texas. I've even seen otherwise conservative adults admit that there is something positive about multiculturalism. Within the last 20 years, I've seen people who were horrified at the idea of "Don't ask, don't tell" decide they actually supported ending DADT and allowing gays to openly serve in the military. Just since Obama's 2008 election, I've seen both he and the majority of the U.S. population support gay marriage. I've seen an increasing number of religious organizations allow for gay marriage in their institutions, including, fairly recently, conservative synagogues. There's even a movement among Orthodox (yes, Orthodox) Jews in Israel to allow for the secular marriage of gays and lesbians. There's a movement among Muslims to reclaim the word "jihad" from their radicals. In the last month, I've seen a NRA member rip apart his NRA card and a majority of Americans say they want some form of sensible gun control. We've also seen Glenn Beck lose his FOX program, Rush Limbaugh lose countless sponsors, Karl Rove become a persona non grata on FOX, Keith Olbermann lose his "darling of the left" status and Al Gore sell his network to Al Jazeera English.

How many of these things would have seemed impossible weeks, months, years or decades ago?

While there are some people who will never let reality get in the way of their beliefs and are completely incapable of holding rational thoughts, there are also new people being born every day and new generations coming of age. There's also a steady number of people who one day will wake up and smell the coffee, mostly because they were never completely isolated from the world around them. Sometimes, logic can permeate a closed mind. Extreme events can certainly cause an extreme change - much as how Sandy Hook changed our dialog about gun control and scientific discoveries changed our religious culture. At some point, we did figure out that the world was round and this became the excepted notion. Many scientific principles we take for granted would have once seen us executed for accepting it. Now, those who don't accept scientific principles are the ones falling behind. We either evolve or deteriorate. We see this occurring right now.

 

[Muadib]

There are a lot of attacks here that are far from any thing factual. Just more straw man arguments. 50% of this country is republican. You show true ignorance in your statements Muadib.You have just slammed 50% of our population.

First of all, if 50% of our population believes that mathematical principles have an opinion when it comes to politics, then they deserve to be slammed, and hard.

Second, let's take a look back at some of the flawless logic you've used to support your arguments on this matter thus far and we can start with this very post:

I don't care if there are 10 of you guys on here touting the so called "proof" of evolution. There is no real proof on the matter. The inference that I am somehow indoctrinated is pure bull pucky. I am on the other side of the issue that's all.

Which translates to: Nothing that proves me wrong can possibly be right, screw all of the evidence, I'm still right.

I couldn't have proven that you're indoctrinated any better myself starise, thank you.

Should I go on ? Do you want me to expose all of them? I could overload the servers here.

Which translates to: I can disprove the last 100 years of science, only suddenly I don't have the time. ROFL.

They (evolutionists) see it as a cardinal sin not to offer an explanation for EVERYTHING. Even the things they can't explain...so they veer from true science in this regard as well.

Which translates to: I see everything backwards. Science says it doesn't know how life started on this planet but I think they try to explain everything even when they don't know what they're talking about and that's completely unlike creationists who say that God created the world. That, my friends, is true science! Even though science doesn't allow for supernatural explanations but we'll just conveniently gloss over that fact...

So here is my challenge to you. I am willing to confront ANYTHING you throw my way.

Which translates to: I'll confront anything! Until I'm clearly losing the debate and then I'll simply state that I don't have enough time and I'm right anyway! Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah!

In the case of radio carbon dating, most texts books bring forward only the most favorable results and exclude the less than flattering details about it. I personally read through examples at least three itinerations of radio carbon dating that lead to the present one and each one was proven to be inaccurate .

Which translates to: Three examples of bad radio carbon dating = every other method is flawed. Pay no attention to the fact that science recognizes the limitations of this particular dating method and let's just extrapolate that 3 bad radio carbon dates somehow invalidates over 100,000 positive examples of different radiometric dating techniques.

Show me in a labratory an example of a bacteria becoming anything but a bacteria,no matter how many itinerations it goes through.

Which translates to: I don't understand evolution, at all. Even though the definition of evolution says nothing about organisms becoming other organisms, I'm just going to stick with my personal definition because it suits my argument and then I'm going to say over and over again that I do understand evolution and I've studied it.

If you threw me off a cliff I would be dead long before I could pass wing traits on to my offspring.

Which translates to: I REALLY don't understand evolution.

Yet we are told that DNA assembled itself in a pool of muck billions of years ago

Which translates to: Somebody told me this once and I didn't bother to see what actual science has to say on the matter, but I'll just go with it because it supports my argument that DNA couldn't have assembled itself from muck, even though nobody believes that it did besides myself.

Why would a fish want to come on the land?

Which translates to: The desires of fish somehow invalidates evolutionary theory. I really believe that this kind of logic is not only valid but also scientific.

I have done studies on the flood and read both sides of it. I would love to comment further when I can.

Which translates to: If my understanding of flood geology is anything like my understanding of evolutionary theory, you're all in for a real treat! Alas I have no time, I talk real big but when it comes time to put up or shut up, I can't be bothered. Because I'm so busy! So busy!

Ufos are a large part of the ruse IMO. In fact as much opposition as I am facing here I am fairly certain there are at least a few of you here who know about it and are in on it.

Which translates to: Because you guys don't buy into my garbage theories on evolution and god creating the earth, you're in on the UFO conspiracy! I know it! You're in league with Satan and I'm not batshit crazy. Really, I'm not, I swear. Tinfoil hat, anyone?

I could go on and on but really, that's enough for now. In conclusion your arguments are amateur and your level of understanding is sorely lacking, which I've demonstrated through the use of your own words in this very post. True to form, once things get a little hot you're suddenly too busy to debate these matters, just like myself and a few others predicted you would be. You're see through, starise, completely opaque and it doesn't take a genius to see that you don't understand what you're debating here. You imply that I'm going to suffer some kind of fall but I wouldn't worry about me, worry about yourself and the abysmal reasoning and critical thinking skills you've demonstrated above. One day, you may be forced to leave the land of pretend and when you do, it will be a shocker. I hope you're prepared.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

I don't care if there are 10 of you guys on here touting the so called "proof" of evolution. There is no real proof on the matter. The inference that I am somehow indoctrinated is pure bull pucky. I am on the other side of the issue that's all.

Starise, please bear with me a moment while I make a point about this year's flu epidemic and how it relates to evolution. (Everyone else, this is a good lesson about influenza, types of influenza, how/why these viruses are named, potentials for pandemics, this year's flu vaccine and much more.)

There are three categories of viruses:

1. Influenza A - this tends to be the most severe category of influenza and is the most likely to cause a pandemic. This is mostly because it evolves and mutates the fastest, allowing it to cross into different species.
2. Influenza B - this is mostly limited to humans and rarely crosses species, in part because it mutates and evolves much more slowly. For this reason, when there are outbreaks of Influenza B, it tends to be limited to specific areas and the illness itself is less severe.
3. Influenza C - This only affects humans, dogs and pigs. When it does affect humans, it is almost exclusively limited to children and the outbreaks are less severe.

Right now, if you live in the U.S. and choose to get a flu vaccination, you're actually getting a vaccination for three different viruses: A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and a B virus. According to the CDC, 98% of current viruses (in the U.S.) are A/H3N2. For reasons I'll explain shortly, this indicates we will have a severe flu season - which is certainly happening. It also needs to be understood that different strains of these viruses are constantly occurring, all because of evolution. This is why, if you were vaccinated for H1N1 and/or H3N2 last year, you will still need to get a new vaccination this year. Each year's vaccination is for a specific mutation of H1N1, H1N2, H3N2 and Category B viruses. When we hear that a certain year's vaccination wasn't the "right one" for that year's flu season, it's not because they mistook the category or sub-type of influenza and doesn't mean an entirely unprecedented virus suddenly emerged. Rather, it's because a specific strain of that sub-type became unexpectedly prevalent. For me to better explain this, I should first delve into how viruses are named:

Viruses are given specific names (such as A/H1N1 and A/H3N2) because these dictate the categories, types and sub-types of these viruses. First, we have a letter that gives the category of virus, such as A, B and C. This is why H1N1 and H3N2 are technically listed as A/H1N1 and A/H3N2. (Admittedly, as category "A" viruses are the most common, that letter is often assumed to be an "A" and left off of the name in casual reports.) This first letter also gives us an idea regarding how violent or widespread the virus will be, again with category "A" viruses having the most potential to cause a pandemic.

From this, viruses are then named by indicating the types of protein on their surface. The "H", such as in H1N1 and H3N2 stands for hemagglutinin, which is a substance that causes red blood cells to agglutinate (stick together like glue). The "N" stands for neuraminidase, which is a type of enzyme that is most notable for occurring within viruses. Specifically, it is a viral neuraminidase that is found on the surface of viruses. It is the most common type of neuraminidase.

Then we get into the specific sub-types, which are the numbers in the virus' name. There are 16 different hemagglutinin sub-types and 9 different neuraminidase sub-types, any combination of which can occur though not necessarily affect humans. At this time, only H1, H2, H3, H5, H7 and H9 as well as N1, N2 and N7 can affect humans. Even then, only H1, H2, H3, N1 and N2 affect humans to any extent - though it should be noted that H5 is entering the scene and has the potential to become a serious pandemic. A study of H5N1 is a study on how easily an extremely fatal pandemic could occur under the right circumstances, as well as a lesson in the dynamics of evolution.

(There are also names for different lab-grown "isolates" [lab-grown virus strains] and genotypes which are added to the names of "new" viruses - such as H5N1. As I'm not writing a dissertation, I'm not going to dwell on these. For all intents and purposes, the viruses which are affecting us right now do not fall into these categories.)

This is where strains (evolution of different influenza viruses) come into the dialog: If you remember a few years back, A/H1N1 was referred to as "swine flu" and has also occasionally been named "avian flu." Certain strains of this virus are endemic in pigs and birds, hence the name. Aquatic birds are especially susceptible to getting category A viruses, as is domestic poultry. During the 2009 pandemic, the H1N1 virus in the U.S. was actually made up of four different flu viruses - North American swine flu, North American avian flu, human influenza and swine influenza - the latter being mostly found in Asia and parts of Europe. All four of these different viruses were still strains of H1N1. In early 2009, an outbreak of this "new" H1N1 virus occurred in the American Southwest and parts of Mexico. By June, the WHO labeled it a pandemic and by October it was called a "national emergency" by president Obama. The reason this spread so quickly was that we hadn't yet developed an immunity to this "new" strain of the H1N1 virus. Again, this is evolution in action. Specifically, this was a "reassortment" of human influenza and swine flu viruses, in all four different strains of H1N1. Over 18,000 people worldwide died from this pandemic. It was a different strain of H1N1 that caused the "Spanish" flu pandemic of 1918-1919, killing between 50 million and 100 million people worldwide, still being among the deadliest natural disasters in human history.

These different strains we keep seeing are evolution in action and we simply cannot discuss influenza without discussing the evolution of influenza, especially as it relates to the evolutionary history of different species (phylogeny). While these aforementioned accounts may all technically be of the A/H1N1 virus, they have mutated and evolved enough to keep sickening and killing people each time these go around the block, so to speak. This is also why, every time we see an outbreak of H1N1 or H3N2, we are still encouraged to get a new vaccination, even if we just had a vaccination the previous year. A study of H3N2 is a study of how a certain sub-type of a Category A virus can evolve and mutate to affect different species, especially birds, pigs and humans.

Through reassortment (the mixing of genetic material of a species into new combinations, giving a new version taken from different viruses), H3N2 is able to constantly evolve into new strains of which we may not have a decent immunity. For these reasons, viral reassortment is another study of evolution in action. We cannot study (and cannot Google) "viral reassortment" without reading that it "allows new viruses to evolve under both natural conditions and in artificial cultures." Most H3N2 virus isolates are triple reassortments, containing genes from birds, pigs and humans. As I mentioned earlier, years that have H3N2 as the predominant kind of influenza are years that have a severe influenza season. The virus' ability to mutate and spread between animals is among the reasons why. Avian influenza virus H3N2 has become endemic in pigs in China. As pigs can also carry human influenza viruses, this means that a reassortment of genes could cause a new mutation of this virus. H3N2 is actually a virus that evolved from H2N2.

Simply stated: To study viruses is to study evolution. There's no way around that fact.

Now, you've said, "I don't care if there are 10 of you guys on here touting the so called "proof" of evolution. There is no real proof on the matter."

So the challenge is up to you. By all means, take the time to explain viruses, viral strains and viral vaccinations by using whatever reason you can muster that has nothing to do with evolution. I've thrown down a mountain of evidence showing evolution in action. If this isn't proof, then it's up to you to explain what proof there is. The burden is entirely on you. Also, spare me the "I'm too busy" speech. I've had nonstop assignments where I've had to research and write 20-30+ articles a week. I worked most of Christmas Eve, much of Christmas day, all of New Year's Eve, most of New Year's Day and EVERY SINGLE DAY in between. If I can take the time to write what I just wrote on this thread - and keep writing and responding to you - you can "prove" to us that there are other explanations besides evolution to explain viruses, vaccines, drug-resistant bacteria and viruses, the fossil record, ambulatory fish and so forth. Believe me, I don't consider it fun to take a break from writing researched articles by writing yet another researched article, especially for someone who has no desire to learn the foundations of science. Therefore, if you're going to insist the rest of us are completely wrong, it's up to you to prove how you're right.

 

[Muadib]

Another excellent post by RenaissanceLady exposing more nonsense from Starise. He's so much busier than the rest of us that he just can't be bothered to prove that he's right, instead he'll just keep stating it over and over again and expect us to all fall in line. He's so busy he can't be bothered to devote less than an hour total in a week, which is exactly how long it took me to read and respond to his latest posts in this thread. What a bunch of crap. I have to agree, at least in part, with Exo, it's readily apparent just how pointless this whole debate is. Despite the mountains of evidence that myself and others have put into this thread, he continues to falsely assert that there is no evidence. Then he says something like this and proves exactly how delusional he is:

Ufos are a large part of the ruse IMO. In fact as much opposition as I am facing here I am fairly certain there are at least a few of you here who know about it and are in on it.

So there you have it, if you don't agree with Starise, you're part of the UFO conspiracy. That's right, you're in league with the devil, because, remember, he thinks aliens are demons, and the only reason you oppose his awesome logic is because you're possessed. Nobody but the minions of Satan himself could possibly think that evolution is real and creationism is a bunch of crap. He's fairly certain that anyone who opposes him is in on the UFO conspiracy. I'm fairly certain he's out of his tiny little mind. How do you have an intelligent debate with someone who thinks like this? I submit that it's impossible. I just hope he can one day get the psychiatric help he so desperately needs.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Another excellent post by RenaissanceLady exposing more nonsense from Starise. He's so much busier than the rest of us that he just can't be bothered to prove that he's right, instead he'll just keep stating it over and over again and expect us to all fall in line. He's so busy he can't be bothered to devote less than an hour total in a week, which is exactly how long it took me to read and respond to his latest posts in this thread. What a bunch of crap. I have to agree, at least in part, with Exo, it's readily apparent just how pointless this whole debate is. Despite the mountains of evidence that myself and others have put into this thread, he continues to falsely assert that there is no evidence. Then he says something like this and proves exactly how delusional he is:

Ufos are a large part of the ruse IMO. In fact as much opposition as I am facing here I am fairly certain there are at least a few of you here who know about it and are in on it.

So there you have it, if you don't agree with Starise, you're part of the UFO conspiracy. That's right, you're in league with the devil, because, remember, he thinks aliens are demons, and the only reason you oppose his awesome logic is because you're possessed. Nobody but the minions of Satan himself could possibly think that evolution is real and creationism is a bunch of crap. He's fairly certain that anyone who opposes him is in on the UFO conspiracy. I'm fairly certain he's out of his tiny little mind. How do you have an intelligent debate with someone who thinks like this? I submit that it's impossible. I just hope he can one day get the psychiatric help he so desperately needs.

As I'm new to much of the whole business of aliens and UFOlogy, I'm going to need a bit of clarification: Specifically, what is the "UFO conspiracy" and how does this relate to evolution?

What am I missing, here?

As he insists evolution is a lie, I'm thinking he should explain viruses, viral strains, viral reassortment and vaccinations without these being evidence of evolution. So, how does this all relate to the "UFO conspiracy" and demons? What exactly am I "in on"?

 

[Randall]

... Despite the mountains of evidence that myself and others have put into this thread, he continues to falsely assert that there is no evidence ...

Actually I think what Starise said is that there's no "proof". Evidence and proof aren't really the same thing. Proof is more like "conclusive evidence of the truth of a given proposition", and when it comes to proof for the reality of anything other than theorems, we cannot provide "conclusive proof". We're forced into making assumptions based on the competing evidence. In this situation it's not uncommon for a weaker position to make the claim that because neither position is provable, both are based on faith and consequently equally valid. Unfortunately for the weaker position, that isn't valid logic. Logically neither side should invest in a belief until there is enough evidence to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt.

In the meantime the stronger case is remains the most reasonable case on which to base our decisions. For example we cannot prove that every time someone jumps off a highrise onto the pavement below they'll die, but the best evidence strongly suggests that it's not wise to make a faith based bet that it won't happen. When we apply this logic to the issues here and compare the case made by science to the case made by religion, we invariably find that the religious position requires far more faith, and therefore is most likely the poorest candidate for the truth. In fact the scientific case is so good that in certain examples it qualifies as being beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Randall]

... Ufos are a large part of the ruse IMO. In fact as much opposition as I am facing here I am fairly certain there are at least a few of you here who know about it and are in on it ...

Here's one of those examples I was mentioning in an earlier post about how far apart the worldviews of the skeptics, ufologists ( like myself ) and religious people are, only this time we're seeing it coming from the religious side instead of the skeptic's side. It's just as difficult for me to place myself in the mindset of someone who thinks I'm actually part of a plot by demonic forces as it is to place myself in the mindset of someone who believes all UFO witnesses and researchers are mistaken, fabricating or delusional.

We also believe we're all right based on our own version of the truth, and although my version makes sense to me, I've yet to meet either a skeptic or a religious person who either agrees with it, or can explain logically why they don't. It's all really quite a curiosity. I know they ( people with a similar view of what truth is ) must be out there somewhere because I've seen articles that are very similar, so where are they? After over 4000 posts between various forums and threads, you'd think maybe I'd have run across at least one or two ... but nope ... Most curious indeed.

 

[Muadib]

As I'm new to much of the whole business of aliens and UFOlogy, I'm going to need a bit of clarification: Specifically, what is the "UFO conspiracy" and how does this relate to evolution?

What am I missing, here?

As he insists evolution is a lie, I'm thinking he should explain viruses, viral strains, viral reassortment and vaccinations without these being evidence of evolution. So, how does this all relate to the "UFO conspiracy" and demons? What exactly am I "in on"?

That's a great question and I wish I could answer it for you, but I'm not insane and therefore don't imagine that anyone who disagrees with me is part of some large scale conspiracy to hide the truth about.... something. What he means by the "UFO conspiracy" is anyone's guess but given his belief, that he's expressed in other threads, that all aliens are demonic in nature it's implied that we're all in league with Satan because we harbor opinions that are opposed to his own. I don't know how it connects to evolution but I imagine, at least in his mind, it somehow does. Who knows if we'll get an explanation, and even if he does somehow explain it, it's still probably the single most batshit crazy thing I've ever heard on the internet, and that's saying a lot.

 

[stonehart]

This series of videos may help the evolutionary challenged among us.

The foundational falsehoods of creationism

This is a long video series and I have only posted the first 4 parts, so watch the lot as it is well worth the time.

 

[stonehart]

More and part five is possibly the most important one in regards to the debate.

and if you do not watch any of the others watch this one.... that means you Starise

Part six I see as required viewing as well.

Look watch it all..