I’m not sure I’m going to make this into a regular feature, but this week my comments box has been positively overflowing with contributions from creationists, atheist-bashers, and sundry others. They at least give us some idea of what we’re up against, and it ain’t pretty.
Here are three comments that didn’t get approved (original text is unaltered):
From reader “Joe,” commenting on “Good news: belief in God and the supernatural appears to wane“:
It is not surprising since there has been an all out moral degradation and convincing of our youth of how meaningless and unspecial they really are. Kudos on all the conjecture and pictures that are drawn in our science books to explain how we came from rocks. I hear a lot if evolutionist talk but I hear no substntial evidence the same thing that us criticized from creationist. Everyone just excepts it as fact on faith alone. No proof just time and chance. Thus is what I am told by real evolutionist! Given enough time anything can change into anything. this constant dumbing down of our world has made it very easy to convince everyone they came from rocks. Where us the proof people???! Where is it? Honestly this is getting old. There were millions of years of transitions? Where the hell are they? Cambrian explosion ? How in the hell goes that fit with evolution? how has evolution made science better? honestly when intslkbto [sic; probably "I talk to"] an evolutionist I feel like my IQ is dropping.
The proof is, of course, in my book, and in many other books and on many websites. For someone in this day and age to argue that there are no transitional forms bespeaks deep and willful ignorance, for the fossil record is brimming with them. When somebody says that, you are justified in ignoring everything else they say about evolution, for such a claim shows a complete lack of familiarity with the evidence.
Quote: “Small steps can be made very quickly indeed – as with virus evolution today.”
Virus evolution? What does that mean? Does it mean some pre-viral thing evolved into a virus over the course of millions of years into current form of virus of today?
Or does it mean the current virus form has evolved into some form of living organism with a head,a trunk and arms and legs or probably with wings too?
By means of small steps that can be made very quickly do you mean it can get every anatomical parts in perfect symmetry and in their proper alignment, position and place, like the head in the proper caudal position and both legs extending towards the inferior position in relation to the trunk at the center and with both arms hanging at each side of the shoulder joint?
If evolution occurred very quickly in a hurry wouldn’t logic dictates that in a random process there is no telling where the arms and legs might form and where the head might pop up?
Wouldn’t it be possible that the head might end up growing out of the anus and the genital extends from the neck skywards with one arm sprout out the side of the neck and the other arm merging with two legs growing inside the body?
Where are all the fossil evidence for these evolutionary failures? Is there even one available?
I thought the virus we have today is still the same basic form of virus we had at the beginning of evolution time before the actual living thins began to exist. If so, the virus must be the exception that somehow defy the Darwinian Law of Evolution.
This isn’t even wrong, for the person hasn’t evinced even the slightest knowledge of natural selection. And of course we have no evidence of fossil “viruses” before life began, but it is highly contested whether viruses are a form of “life” that existed before true cells, or are in fact derived from them. But that doesn’t matter, for the failures of this comment are so pervasive—including the false notion that evolution is a “random process” and the equally misguided idea that the “Darwinian Law of Evolution” means that ancestral morphologies cannot persist along with more recently evolved morphologies—that it serves only to demonstrate that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
And finally, from reader Stan, who added his website Atheism Analyzed, bearing the motto “A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy.” I’m not sure whether that means he’s a former atheist or was formerly 40 years old. At any rate, here’s Stan’s comment on my post “Krauss on atheism in Hollywood“:
That’s totally absurd, and is a view into the persecution complex which atheists nurture. Who was the last atheist hanged? Who is suing whom in the USA, trying to establish their own religious viewpoint at the expense of the Other? It is the atheist and only the atheist.
Atheism has been at the root of the most horrendous evil ever during the 20th century genocides and mass killings of other atheists by the USSR and China and Cambodia and Cuba, etc. NOT Christianity.
The hatred oozing from atheists makes them unpalatable and incapable of generating trust. Further their lack of any fixed moral principles makes them suspect at best.
And finally, their Scientism makes it obvious that they do not understand actual science and its lack of ability to generated objective knowledge of the darks: dark mass, dark energy, string theory, abiogenesis, origin of the phenotypes in the Cambrian, actual causality in climate theory, actual observation of subatomic particles in high energy physics, etc. Inferential and Bayesian theories are not facts, but you’d never guess that by listening to atheists.
If he’s neither deist, theist, or atheist, what is this person? Again, we all know how to deal with such a person, but I’m fascinated that Stan think that atheist-scientists such as myself, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Weinberg, ad infinitum, do not “understand the actual science.” That last paragraph is complete gibberish.