Like the misguided princess in the story The Frog Prince, The Atheist hopes and wishes that if it kisses Darwin's 'frog' for long enough then their wish ('evidence') will magically appear. Unfortunately for the evolutheist his theory (clue is in the word 'theory') is built on the following two logical fallacies:
1. Wishful thinking
2. Lies
There has never been one kind of creature turned into another kind. Do I need to repeat such an obvious truth?
The Atheist waits and wishes (and perhaps kisses Darwin's book 'Origin Of Species) for evidence of his magical 'transitional' form , the 'frogdog' (a frog turning into a dog) while the rest of the world waits with bated breath. And all we have is silence from the Atheist. If one Atheist could show a frog fossil turning into a dog fossil then they would have a case to argue. Granted it wouldn't be a watertight case because they discount the work of the deceiver, but they would have at least something better than, well, (lets be honest) nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zip.
Remember, there is no true 'Atheist', or true 'Evolutheist' (evolution = theory), they are only those who either deny the Gospel or make up inventions against God and use their faith in Evolietion in order to justify their sin in their own minds.
So where are all the 'frogdogs'? Short answer - They don't exist, except in the mind of the Atheist.
"He who is faithful in a very little [thing] is faithful also in much, and he who is dishonest and unjust in a very little [thing] is dishonest and unjust also in much."
Luke 16:10 (Amplified Bible)
UPDATE
-
"Can't handle reality, eh Keith?
When called out on garbage, you just erase it. Typical 'honest' fundy.
Lying for Jesus, how noble."
All too often the Atheist cries 'foul' when they themselves break the rules and have to answer to their own actions. Calling me a 'liar' for moderating my own blog exactly how I have stated is dishonest of you. And that is the reality. I wanted to give Atheist the benefit of the doubt and not have to moderate comments. We shall see how many more of you wish to call Jesus names and fling insults in place of mature dialogue? Let us hope our friend 'Anonymous' is the exception rather than the rule.
Keith
It is obvious you do not understand evolution. A frog never evolved from a dog or vice versa. Show me a reference that states that.
ReplyDeleteCorey, you are right, a frog never evolved from a dog or vise versa. Thanks for listening.
ReplyDeleteKeith
You, sir, are one of the tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for or even against evolution, who march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.
ReplyDeleteHi Keith.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of evolution is that speciation through natural selection occurs. The theory of evolution is our understanding of the fact.
The fact of gravity is that things with mass bend space-time such that they appear to attract each other. The theory of gravitation is our understanding of the fact.
The fact of quantum mechanics is that matter is made up of things which behave as both waves and particles. The theory of quantum mechanics is our understanding of the fact.
Facts don't change. Theories do change. Insinuating that evolution is "just a theory" betrays your ignorance and dishonesty. God gave you a brain so that you would use it to search for the truth. Ignoring the brain to repeat a single message in the face of everything which contradicts it is blasphemy.
Poe.
ReplyDeleteAmphibian/Canine - poor, poor allusion there, Keithybaby
ReplyDeleteAnon said:
ReplyDelete"Amphibian/Canine - poor, poor allusion there, Keithybaby"
Hi Anonymous. Discounting your rude and childish nickname, I actually agree with you. It is ridiculous to believe that mammals came from amphibians. Yet the Atheist will allude to this belief all the time.
Their entire belief system is 'poor', or more correctly - 'wretched'.
It is good that you are beginning to see that.
Keith
So, one imagines that this blog is meant to gather heat, correct?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, conflating evolutionary theory with atheism is a lie. Where in the Bible does Jesus ask you to be dishonest, Keith?
ReplyDeleteCan't handle reality, eh Keith?
ReplyDeleteWhen called out on garbage, you just erase it. Typical 'honest' fundy.
Lying for Jesus, how noble.
Hey Keith... You are very skewed in your view of the world. Since when is the term anonymous rude or childish? That's a lot like your accusations that anyone who disagrees or doesn't believe your particular dogma is filled with hatred.
ReplyDeleteThanks Doktor B :)
ReplyDelete-nonnie one
There has never been one kind of creature turned into another kind. Do I need to repeat such an obvious truth?
ReplyDeleteYou are right! A "kind" always give birth to another animal of the same kind. So you agree that current theory is correct then. If you were to find a "kind" that can turn into another one, that would instantly disprove the current Theory of Evolution.
If one Atheist could show a frog fossil turning into a dog fossil then they would have a case to argue
Again, if anybody could show a direct transistion between a frog and a dog, that would be prove AGAINST the modern Theory of Evolution. What we find are common ancestors; good point Keith!
So where are all the 'frogdogs'? Short answer - They don't exist, except in the mind of the Atheist.
- Keith writes about frogdogs, so they exist in Keith's mind
- Frogdogs exist in the mind of the Atheists(according to Keith...)
- Keith is an Atheist
QED
So basically you just showed us that you know nothing about evolution, but presented arguments to support it, and that you are an Atheist.
Good job!!
I love that a guy using a Nome de plume thinks that the 'name' anonymous is rude and childish.
ReplyDeleteKind of says all you need to know really.
Dr Benway:
ReplyDelete"Since when is the term anonymous rude or childish?"
I think you'll find the nickname was a play on my name, ie. 'keithybabes'.
You are welcome. Now please, Atheist, at least attempt to be civil? You offer insults in place of 'transitional' species...hmmm.
I must say many of you are simply outing yourselves as intellectually dishonest and incapable of civil debate.
Keith
Aww, you don't love your fellow man, Keithycakes??
ReplyDeleteI'm crushed.
How un-christian.
You offer insults in place of 'transitional' species...hmmm
ReplyDeleteYou stated that what you are looking for as "transitional" species does not exist, i.e., something like a Frogdog; so why should anyone bother?
If you do want to learn about a real species that show an intermediate stage between current seals and their walking ancestors, look at the famous Tiktaalik.
The very important point you are missing though is that the fossil record is not needed to prove the Theory of Evolution to be accurate. It's only a confirmation, and a strong one of course. But the fact remains that if we had never found a single fossil, common descent would still be the best explanation for the diversity and location of species alive today. Do you understand why Keith? or perhaps I should say do you want to learn why that is the case? because obviously you'll disagree...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLast try...
ReplyDeletehttp://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu
Oh no, I made a mistake!! The animal I had in mind when talking about a transition between land mammals and seals were Puijila:
ReplyDeletehttp://nature.ca/puijila/fb_e.cfm
There are so few transitional fossils, how could I confuse two that both come from the Canadian Arctic and show link between land and sea animals, how stupid of me...
Keith, before any of us wastes good effort to show you examples.
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence would you accept for evolution?
Are you, like so many others, completely closed to the idea that no evidence, whatever it is would be acceptable?
Now if you don't want us to play childish games with you, then please don't play childish games with us.
Frogdog is being childish. Nowhere will you find anyone saying such a thing is a serious claim of science.
What evidence, that the Theory actually predicts, would you need?
Why are you equating evolution with atheism when people of all faiths, including many Christians, accept it as a scientific theory?
ReplyDeleteKiss me Kate n' I'll give ya more than the 'Kingdom of Blob'.
ReplyDeleteEvolution has nothing to do with not believing in God... it called Science, Kate.
Keith Tamarind wrote the following: I must say many of you are simply outing yourselves as intellectually dishonest and incapable of civil debate.
ReplyDeleteAnd so far, you haven't responded to a single one of the civil questions posed to you. Instead, you appear to feed off of the flames and conclude "victory!"
Come on, Keith. Show everyone here how mature you are, and how much you value civil and honest debate. Answer the questions you've been asked:
1) What kind of evidence would you accept for the validity of the theory of evolution?
2) Why do you conflate atheism with the theory of evolution, when there are plenty of Christians who also accept the theory?
3) Why is tiktaalik not one of the transitional fossils you claim to be looking for?
Incidentally, when your first post accuses atheists of lying and being dishonest, and then whine that people aren't debating you honestly - you appear dishonest.
ReplyDeleteYou reap what you sow.
Come on out, Keithybabe...where are you honey??
ReplyDeleteWhat's with the silence all of a sudden?
Don't you love us anymore?
Turn off anonymous posting, that should reduce some of the trolls.
ReplyDeleteAww, come on BT, your giving him a clue.
ReplyDeleteIf Keith is interested in an honest discussion then I am interested in an honest discussion.
ReplyDeleteIf all Keith is interested in is lying about Evolution, Science etc, then by all means troll away.
But I want to see Keith make that decision first. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, for now.
I hope he *is* interested in mature discussion. The logo at the top of his blog makes me suspect otherwise, but hey, I'm willing to be charitable.
ReplyDeleteAnswer the three serious questions we've asked, and then we'll answer 3 serious questions you ask us. That's fair, isn't it?
Remember: the answers must be serious too. No doubt we're going to disagree on the details, but at least try to answer them to the best of your ability.
Hey Keith, I see you've created a blog and I hope you will respond to those that rebut your claims.
ReplyDeleteThere are believers in God that accept scientific theories such as Evolution and the Big Bang. I as a Deist do, they have proven themselves worthy of belief and I'm sure the sciences will prevail in answering many questions Man has had and unknowingly answered (from the beginnings of written language) expressing them as the 'Word of God', of the Prophets, High Priests or Shaman... there are many, and you have chosen only one, the Hebrew Bible (not one of the oldest mind you) to respond from... remember it wasn't until the 16th century that it was disproved that the sun revolved around the earth according to your Scriptures.
Good luck.
PREACH it BROTHER Keith. This Atheist drivel is just more PROOF (note: THEY don't have any) that you are speaking GOD'S OWN TRUTH!!!!
ReplyDeleteIn His grip,
Vagon
* crickets.... evolvin'....
ReplyDeleteThe silence is deafening...
ReplyDeleteHeeeellllooooooo....????
ReplyDeleteCan Keith come out to play, Missus Tamarind?
"Keith has gone to New Zealand to pass out some free books by a Mr... Ray Darwin, I believe."
ReplyDeleteLadies and gentlemen, it would appear Keith is not prepared to answer questions or substantiate anything he says. One wonders what Jesus, son of the deity who gave Keith a brain and the conscience to recognize when he's being truthful or not, would say about behavior like this...
ReplyDeleteThe Chimp with a Question mark above his head in Keith's banner I guess says it all.
ReplyDeleteWWCD?
Welcome to the internet Keith. Don't worry, we're not all like these people posting.
ReplyDeleteSome of us are worse.
I resemble that remark.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations Keith-o; you make Ray Comfort look like an intellectual giant.
ReplyDeleteBut can he out-tailor Ray's fringed leather jackets?
ReplyDeleteHis jacket gets customized with wrap-around sleeves to match the fringe.
ReplyDeleteWhateverman wrote the following: "One wonders what Jesus, son of the deity who gave Keith a brain and the conscience to recognize when he's being truthful or not, would say about behavior like this..."
ReplyDeleteKeith responded to me with this: Well, seeing as you deny God or that Jesus is the son of God then it is makes no sense for you to 'wonder' on such things.
First and foremost, Keith, I'm not an atheist. You can not possibly know whether I deny the divinity of Jesus, or the existence of God.
Second, despite you claiming that *I* was being dishonest, my comment about what Jesus would think of your behavior was rhetorical; everyone here knew what I meant, and I'm pretty sure you did as well. Intentionally misrepresenting the comment to avoid addressing it really *is* dishonest.
Finally, what *I* think about the existence of Jesus is immaterial. YOU are the one who believes in him, and according to your worldview, being dishonest puts you at risk of eternal hellfire. You certainly don't have to admit dishonesty to me; what's important is whether you admit it to yourself. Seeing that you've refused to address the question, and that you appear unwilling to search your own behavior for hints of the very thing you claim to want to avoid (ie. sin), I can only conclude the following:
1) you don't care about what I think, but decided that you had been dishonest and spent some time praying for forgiveness. You will continue to post as if nothing happened, but you will be more cautious in the future.
2) you've refused to even consider what I wrote, which is the definition of hubris. This added to the uninvestigated possibility you ACTUALLY ARE being dishonest, places your mortal soul at risk. If you believe what you claim to believe, you should at least be worried about this.
3) You don't actually believe what you claim to, and you're not worried about sin. This web site is simply a venue for you to criticize the people who annoy you (presumably atheists). Your suggestions that atheists should get right with God are hollow, as you have no intention of doing this yourself.
---
If you're not interested in being a productive evangelist, ignore everything I've written and continue to behave the same way as you've behaved so far.
Your actions are not consistent with the Gospel.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"clue is in the word 'theory'"
ReplyDeleteDo you not understand what "theory" means in it's scientific context Keith?
"1. Wishful thinking 2. Lies"
Neither are logical fallacies.
"never been one kind of creature turned into another"
A play in words? No, one creature does not turn into another (although caterpillar to butterfly comes close) nothing in the theory even hints it, no more than your dad turned into you.
"kisses Darwin's book"
You do realize that 150 years have passed since that book, that science has moved on a great deal since that time. The (re)discovery or genetics for a start. Building a great deal upon Darwin's work (allele frequencies, genetic drift...) and a number of corrections made. Darwin got some things wrong, the theory's not his alone, not for some time. It seems it is the anti-evolutionist that can't get past Darwin.
"magical 'transitional' form , the 'frogdog'"
Are you so misguided to think that is at all a part of the ToE? If so how can you have any hope of arguing against something you clearly do not understand at all?!
Your frogdog is a rehash of Comfort's crocoduck and he was rightly laughed at for it. It's like the 'transitional' between you and your distant cousin!
A taste of the science:
Transitions 'between' a frog and dog you say?
Well that would be the common ancestor of amphibians and mammals.
Let's see here. Transitions from amphibians to early reptiles, also known as amniotes (That is: organisms that bear the traits of one and the beginnings of the other, replete with extra evidence such as age and location etc.):
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis :
Tseajaia
Synapsids ("mammal-like reptiles") to mammals:
Protoclepsydrops
Archaeothyris
Dimetrodon
None of these of course (the REAL theory of evolution would be false if it were as you depict it) are ONE organism transforming from one 'kind' to another, but evidence of, through generations, gradual change (evolution) leading to radically different body types etc. At no pint does an organism even give birth to a member of a different species. But if one looks from afar (generations) the descendants ARE of a different species to the great...great grandparents. This is known as speciation (directly observed in both the lab and 'wild')
"could show a frog fossil turning into a dog fossil then they would have a case to argue"
Not to mention a successful falsification of the ToE, which at this point says that such a thing does not happen.
"there is no true 'Atheist', or true 'Evolutheist' (evolution = theory)"
Preaching only weakens your case Keith.
Of course there are true atheists; there ARE people who don't have a belief in any gods, THEY are truly atheists.
No there is no true Evolutheist, you just made that word up.
NO; Evolution is not a theory, it is a collection of well documented and established facts, most known for centuries. The "THEORY of evolution" is a theory, an explanation of those facts. Evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things, do try not to confuse/conflate them.
IS Gravity "just" a theory? No of course not, Gravity is a fact which is explained (although this IS a theory in crisis) by the theory of gravity.
Germ theory is a theory, germs are a fact.
Atomic theory is a theory, atoms are a fact...
Get the distinction?
No? try this:
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
"So where are all the 'frogdogs'? Short answer - They don't exist, except in the mind of the Atheist."
No, THEY only exist in the Straw Man (now that IS a logical fallacy) fantasy version of the anti-evolutionist. Only THEY come up with such ridiculous caricatures.
Bottom line; if you want to argue against the ToE (that's fine) to have any credence whatsoever you HAVE to learn what it REALLY is.
Know your enemy Keith.
Abe said:
ReplyDelete"Of course there are true atheists; there ARE people who don't have a belief in any gods, THEY are truly atheists."
There are only those who deny and hide from God, even if they feel Him in their hearts.
People call themself 'Atheist' so they can follow others in their sins.
Not only this but in order to claim to be an Atheist you claim to know that God doesn't exist. Because you haven't traveled the length and breadth of Creation then you can't possibly know that God doesn't exist. So sorry, this makes you an agnostic.
Even if you could travel all over space, Atheist would most likely deny that God exists simply because they can't see him with their eyes, just like a fish can't see the ocean.
Abe said:
ReplyDelete"Bottom line; if you want to argue against the ToE (that's fine) to have any credence whatsoever you HAVE to learn what it REALLY is.
Know your enemy Keith."
Abe, we KNOW the enemy. The father of lies is having fun with 'evolution' and secularism in general. It truly is a shame you fell for it. Please wake up before it is too late.
In His Love,
Keith.
It looks like you're talking to yourself, Keith.
ReplyDeleteTake your med and go back to bed.
Keith wrote: Not only this but in order to claim to be an Atheist you claim to know that God doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteI did not see anyone here trying to actively deny the existence of any gods. You're the one who started a blog linking evolution to atheism and now try to picture both as evil, at the same time...
The people who commented here, on the other hand, wrote comments to defend the ToE, not their own religion (or lack of...).
There are both Christians and Atheists that accept the 'Theory of Evolution' to be true.
ReplyDeleteYou are, I presume an Evangelical Christian that believes the Bible literally that man was created by your God in his own image out of clay and woman from a rib.
There are countless gods and creation myths, how can you be so arrogant to think that the ToE was written purposely to solely destroy the word of YOUR God?
Arrogance and pride and hubris is ok if it involves your understanding of God. Everywhere else, it damns you to eternal torture.
ReplyDeleteKeith is a walking, talking example of the relativity of Christian morality.
From Keith Tamarind's comment
ReplyDelete"Abe said:"
Good start Keith. Actually I said that.
"There are only those who deny and hide from God, even if they feel Him in their hearts."
Sorry Keith I don't hide from Odin, Zeus, Shiva or any of them. Unfortunately they are really good at hiding from me.
"People call themself 'Atheist' so they can follow others in their sins."
Only the imbeciles.
I call myself an atheist because I am not a theist. I have no beliefs in any gods.
"Not only this but in order to claim to be an Atheist you claim to know that God doesn't exist."
Incorrect.
Atheism = Without(A) a belief (ism) in gods (theos: Greek for "gods")
"Because you haven't traveled the length and breadth of Creation then you can't possibly know that God doesn't exist."
Correct. Nor Zeus, Odin, the FSM, fairies, unicorns...
"So sorry, this makes you an agnostic."
The two terms are NOT mutually exclusive.
It is (a)gnosticism which is about knowledge, not (a)theism.
Without (A) knowledge (gnosis: Greek for knowledge.)
I am as a matter of fact an Agnostic-Atheist.
"Even if you could travel all over space, Atheist would most likely deny that God exists simply because they can't see him with their eyes, just like a fish can't see the ocean."
Well you are correct if you mean "can't see" as in not be presented with compelling evidence and/or reasoning. I have yet to see such evidence, so for me to believe in such things would be irrational.
From the nest comment by Keith Tamarind"
ReplyDelete"Abe said:"
Sorry Keith, me again.
"Abe, we KNOW the enemy. The father of lies is having fun with 'evolution' and secularism in general."
AH, don;t understand what secularism is either I see.
"It truly is a shame you fell for it. Please wake up before it is too late."
Yup, I freely admit it. I fell for Reasonism over doctrine big time. I very much doubt I could ever go back now.
Intereting Keith; two reply comments, yet NEITHER addressed the issues raised on you critiques of the theory of evolution AT ALL.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I dont speak for everyone here, I'm reiterating three of the main questions people have asked. I suspect you're not interested in answering them, so here they are again to prevent 'em from getting lost amidst all the comments:
ReplyDelete1) What kind of evidence would you accept for the validity of the theory of evolution?
2) Why do you conflate atheism with the theory of evolution, when there are plenty of Christians who also accept the theory?
3) Why is tiktaalik not one of the transitional fossils you claim to be looking for?
EDIT: reposted for grammar, spelling
Hey Mr. Tamarind Man,
ReplyDeleteCheck out the new exhibit at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum,
'Hall of Human Origin'... give Mom n' the kids a break from home schoolin' n' ' bring 'em along.
Dangnabbit Blobby - You just gave me one heck of an earworm...
ReplyDeleteA worm sounds good 'bout now... with a Mezcal chaser.
ReplyDeleteCheers, my non-God fearin' friends.
Like the misguided princess in the story The Frog Prince, The Fundamentalist hopes and wishes that if it kisses Creationism's 'frog' for long enough then their wish ('evidence') will magically appear. Unfortunately for the fundamentalist his theory (clue is in the word 'theory') is built on the following two logical fallacies:
ReplyDelete1. Wishful thinking
2. Lies
There has never been a talking snake. Do I need to repeat such an obvious truth?
The Creationist waits and wishes (and perhaps kisses his Bible) for evidence of his magical beliefs, the second coming of Jesus while the rest of the world waits with bated breath.
---
I think you get the picture. Wishful thinking and lies aren't logical fallacies, the theory of evolution doesn't predict frogdogs, and Keith Tamarind (his self-righteous claim otherwise not withstanding) is not interested in mature discussion.
It's clear to anyone with a 6th grade education that this website is a lie.
Bookmark deleted. You suck at evangelism, Keith.
ReplyDeleteOh,darn.
ReplyDeleteLooks like widdle Keefy doesn't wanna play no mo'.
Kieth,
ReplyDeleteThere is quite a lot of facts that point to evolution.
Evolution explains a wide range of data that is otherwise very puzzling about life. For example, living species (and extinct ones) fall onto a consistent tree of life, with groups (defined by sharing a large number of detailed similarities unique to that group) nested inside larger groups (defined by a somewhat smaller number of detailed similarities unique to that larger group), nested in still larger groups, etc.
Why is this odd? If you try to explain the similarities and differences among living things by invoking, say, "common design for common function" (or just "nature somehow produces life forms with the adaptions they need"), it doesn't explain why ostriches (which don't fly) have the same basic wing design as swallows or toucans, but brown bats and fruit bats have a different wing design, and extinct pterosaurs yet a third. It doesn't explain why all and only animals that have one bone in the lower jaw and three in the inner ear also have mammary glands and a left but not a right aortic arch (surely there are some birds that might benefit from mammary glands, or bats that might be helped by feathers?).
This pattern, as well as oddities of biogeography (e.g. why are the species of the Galapagos, while unique, more like the species of the South American mainland than like the species of the more distant but ecologically more similar Cape Verdes Islands?), is accounted for by common descent with modification: each of these nested groups comprises the descendants of a common ancestor, and retains its traits, as modified by mutation and natural selection and drift.
The mechanisms of common descent with modification (these mechanisms are the actual subject of the theory -- explanation -- of evolution) all demonstrably exist: reproduction, inheritance, mutation, natural selection (differential survival of variant offspring), genetic drift, etc. Such causes have been observed in the field and lab to produce speciation (a population giving rise to two populations that no longer interbreed when given the chance), as well as to striking new adaptions and changes in species. There seems no barrier to populations changing indefinitely from their ancestors, given time and selective pressures: one species gives rise to many different species, which give rise to still further species, with some species going extinct, until the entire "tree of life" pattern is filled out.
With that evidence alone, I think that scientists should continue their study and I hope you are not suggesting that scientists abandon their studies n evolution, where the evidence is leading, and that humans should cast aside evidence for a very old earth.
Next, I have a list and pictures of about 14 human-looking fossil skulls, would you try to identify which are humn and which are ape?
It's not particularly surprising that Keith refuses to answer.
ReplyDelete