see http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
Showing posts with label Evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evidence. Show all posts
Darwin's God: Locusts Incredibly Change from Passive and Peacefu...
Darwin's God: Locusts Incredibly Change from Passive and Peacefu...: Locusts are the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of the insect world. They are picky eaters and lead a solitary lifestyle until overcrowding occurs a...
Darwin's God: A Flower Adapted to Losing its Pollinator Almost I...
Darwin's God: A Flower Adapted to Losing its Pollinator Almost I...: What happens when a plant loses its pollinator? Plants are known to make the transition and in a controlled experiment using the monkey plan...
Darwin's God: An Evolutionist Just Gave Up On a Fundamental Just...
Darwin's God: An Evolutionist Just Gave Up On a Fundamental Just...: Which came first the chicken or the egg? In evolution’s case, the question is between DNA or proteins. The DNA stores the data to make the p...
Darwin's God: Don’t Miss Venus and Jupiter Tonight
Darwin's God: Don’t Miss Venus and Jupiter Tonight: Tonight and tomorrow night Venus and Jupiter come within three degrees of each other from our perspective here on Earth. Look to the west an...
Darwin's God: Evolutionists Are Making This New Bad Argument For...
Darwin's God: Evolutionists Are Making This New Bad Argument For...: The fact that evolution is unlikely doesn’t bother evolutionists. One way they justify this is with the fallacious argument that tossing a c...
Darwin's God: Top Microbiologist: Darwin was a priest
Darwin's God: Top Microbiologist: Darwin was a priest: Didier Raoult, whom even the evolutionists admit is “the most productive and influential microbiologist in France,” explains that Charles Da...
Darwin's God: Evolution Breakthrough: Enzymes Evolved “Very Earl...
Darwin's God: Evolution Breakthrough: Enzymes Evolved “Very Earl...:
After a massive study of the evolution of enzymes —which as usual was really nothing more than a comparison of enzymes, with precisely zero ...
Darwin's God: Evolution’s Brute Spontaneity
Darwin's God: Evolution’s Brute Spontaneity: As Michael Ruse and others have pointed out the language evolutionists use can be telling, but what is not discussed is that the language ev...
Darwin's God: Neil deGrasse Tyson: No engineer would design that...
Darwin's God: Neil deGrasse Tyson: No engineer would design that...: Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out that notions of creationism and intelligent design ignore a fundamental and important pr...
Darwin's God: Mouse-to-Elephant: Evolution in Action
Darwin's God: Mouse-to-Elephant: Evolution in Action: An international team of evolutionists reported this week that mice evolved into 33,000 pound elephants in 24 million generations. They a...
Kent Hovind vs Shermer Evolution Debate
The typical evidence for evolution is given in this video and properly shut down. This guy claims to be a sceptic but his evidence is so weak
Michael Shermer vs Jonathan Wells Evolution/Intelligent Design debate
Short debate between Shermer and Wells on Evolution and intelligent design.
Evolution-Creation scientific debate not happening
Talks more about how the natural course of science is blocked by fundamentalist Darwinists. Especially interesting the talk about how angry people get when evolution is questioned
Atheists smarter than Theists?
I'm only posting this because I keep getting the whole "scientists are usually atheists" and "Atheists are generally smarter" comment. It's not true and funnily enough I saw mention of a lot of atheist scientists claiming to be "spiritual"
I mean that quite literally, not that this is any news to those who have read TIA and understand the two churches of atheism or have been forced to slog through the reasoning exhibited by some of the atheists commenting on this blog. The Inductivist points us to empirical evidence that proves 56.8% of all atheists have IQs below 100.
Should you wish to verify this information for yourself, go to the GSS 1972-2008 database, type "god" in the column field and "IQ" in the row field, then hit the "Run the Table" button. Be sure to select the unweighted numbers if you want to see the raw results.
So, while it is true that a slightly higher percentage of atheists have IQs in the highest range, 8.8 percent compared to 8.0 percent of those who believe God exists, because there are so many more theists than atheists, there are 9 highly intelligent theists who are sure that God exists, (and 13 who believe in God's existence), for every highly intelligent atheist who believes God does not exist. And on a personal note, visiting atheists who believe that they are more intelligent than theists by sheer virtue of their non-belief and/or commitment to Science Reason would do well to keep in mind that less than nine percent of all atheists reach the level that is from twelve to six points lower than the very minimum you know my IQ could be.
It should come as no surprise that the highest percentage of highly intelligent individuals are agnostic since it is the only position fully supported by all the material evidence. Nor should it be a surprise that atheists so often attempt to claim agnostics as atheists, as there are nearly three times more highly intelligent agnostics as there are atheists. The GSS data is more evidence for the idea that atheism is little more than a less intelligent form of socially maladjusted agnosticism.At least we can drop the intelligence argument.
Cue attacks on the scientific validity of the General Social Survey or an abandonment of the appeal to intelligence argument in 3... 2... 1....
UPDATE: Contrary to their self-advertising, atheists are actually more over-represented at the low end of the intelligence spectrum than they are on the high end. 8.4 percent of atheists have IQs below 63 (nearly as many as have high IQs) whereas only 1.9 percent of believing theists do.
source: voxday blog
Article assessing an historians study of Jesus
The following quote is an exert from the article underlined and linked below. It deals with Gerd Ludermann's work on the historicity of Jesus. Gerd is an atheist New Testament historian. I have not read all of it but skipped through.
Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann’s Hallucination Hypothesis
The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Paul and Luke (I Cor. 15.5; Lk. 24.34), the appearance to the Twelve by Paul, Luke, and John (I Cor. 15.5; Lk. 24:36–43; Jn. 20.19–20), the appearance to the women disciples by Matthew and John (Mt. 28.9–10; Jn. 20.11–17), and appearances to the disciples in Galilee by Mark, Matthew, and John (Mk. 16.7; Mt. 28. 16–17; Jn. 21). Taken sequentially, the appearances follow the pattern of Jerusalem–Galilee–Jerusalem, matching the festival pilgrimages of the disciples as they returned to Galilee following the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread and traveled again to Jerusalem two months later for Pentecost.
Lüdemann himself concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”39 Thus, we are in basic agreement that following Jesus’s crucifixion various individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Christ alive from the dead. The real bone of contention will be how these experiences are best to be explained.
It deals a lot with evidence from the bible. Please remember that the bible is a historical book as well as a book of religious guidelines. Ludermann studies it in his field along with others. I consider it to not exactly be Gods literal word but his revelation to us. Our way of being familiar with him through reading about what has happened, what will happen and how to live right.
Richard Dawkins stumped by creationist's question
These guys really have no argument. He was asked a question and was speechless then when he answers, the answer is completely off the mark.
