Freaky Frog Reproduction


Here is a selection of freaky frogs with truly unique, unusual and outright bizarre reproductive habits! Browse through the pics and be amazed and delighted (or just grossed out). But do also consider the very important implications of such unique reproductive tactics, at the bottom of this post.

——————–

Darwin’s frog, Rhinoderma darwinii

DarwinFrog

DarwinFrog2

Females lay their eggs on moist soil and when the eggs hatch, the males ‘swallow’ the tadpoles and put them in their specialized vocal sacs. The tadpoles stay there through metamorphosis, about 6 weeks, and then are released in a series of convulsive movements as miniature frogs (Cogger and Zweifel 1998, Gallardo 1999).

Rather ironic name, considering that Darwinism has a hard time explaining how this system could have evolved through random processes.

Cited from
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinodermatidae

———————

Midwife toad, Genus Alytes

MidwifeToad1   MidwifeToad2

The female expels a strand of eggs, which the male fertilizes externally. He then wraps them around his legs to protect them from predators in the water. When they are ready to hatch, the male wades into shallow water, where he allows the tadpoles to leap out of their eggs.

Cited from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwife_toad

——————–

Marsupial frog, Genus Gastrotheca

PygmyMarsupialFrog

Females possess a dorsal brood pouch (on the back). The eggs are fertilized on the female’s lower back, and are inserted in her pouch with the aid of the male’s toes. The eggs remain in contact with the female’s vascular tissue, which provides oxygen for them.

The pic reminds me of the movie Gremlins, where if water is sprayed onto a Gremlin, four more would bulge and pop out of its back.

Cited from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial_frog

——————–

Surinam toad, Pipa pipa

SurinamToad

The female releases 60-100 eggs, which are fertilized by the male and then embedded in the skin of the female’s back by the male’s movements. After implantation the eggs sink into the skin and form pockets over a period of several days, eventually taking on the appearance of an irregular honeycomb. The larvae develop through the tadpole stage inside these pockets, eventually pushing out from the membrane on the mother’s back as fully developed frogs.

Cited from
http://www.honoluluzoo.org/surinam_toad.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surinam_toad

Video of emerging larvae at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCayq56wHSA

——————–

Gastric brooding frog, Rheobatrachus silus

GastricBrooding1

GastricBrooding3

After the eggs are fertilized by the male, the female swallows the eggs. At this time, the frog’s stomach is normal, secreting hydrochloric acid and a powerful enzyme which together would normally break down and digest anything in the stomach.

However, the jelly around the eggs contains a special chemical (prostaglandin E2) which halts production of acid and also appears to prevent the stomach from discharging its contents further down the gut. This chemical also relaxes the stomach wall, enabling it to thin out and expand to an enormous degree. During this time, the mother does not eat at all.

The young are nourished by the extra large yolk of the eggs. They are released from the mother as fully formed miniature frogs. Over a period as long as a week, the mother comes up to the water surface and relaxes her gullet, allowing the baby frog to come out of her mouth. A mother which was disturbed was also been observed ‘vomiting’ out all the young in one go.

By far the strangest reproductive adaptation. I highly suggest vivisting the first cited link for a take on just how impossible it is to evolve a set of physical, chemical and behavioural adaptations as complex as these.

Cited from
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i2/frog.asp
http://faculty.uca.edu/~benw/biol4402/lecture9/sld003.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastric-brooding_Frog

——————–

Having seen these various froggy breeding adaptations, one must ask the following questions of naturalistic evolutionary theory:

1) How did such complex organs, complex behaviour and complex adaptations to the young evolve through a step-by-step process?

Especially since small adaptations towards a fully-functioning biological system (for example, a dorsal pouch with sacs, but no vascular tissue to provide oxygen) that provide no benefit on their own should quickly be lost when the evolver dies, due the useless mutation making it less fit for survival.

Just imagine a Gastric brooding frog that evolved the swallowing eggs behaviour, but not any other pieces of the puzzle. It would die out in one generation as it digests every batch of its eggs! Even if a few survived to escape the mother’s stomach, this would invalidate the rule of ‘more surviving offspring, more copies of that adaptation’.

2) How did such complex organs, complex behaviour and complex adaptations to the young evolve simultaneously through random processes?

If only one or a few of the requirements were evolved first, they would be useless and pointless. For example, the gastric-brooding frog. If any one of the processes among placing the eggs in the mouth, acid-inhibition, larger egg yolk, not swallowing the eggs further into the digestive tract, or regurgitating the baby frogs were not present… Then the entire reproductive strategy would fail totally.

If the chances are so low to even randomly evolve just one of the above traits correctly, then the chances to simultaneously evolve several genetically unrelated traits in the same generation must be mini-miniscule!

3) How and why did such a reproductive package evolve?

Each seems to be an adaptation to the absence of conventional bodies of fresh water where frogs normally lay eggs. If it was in response to rivers drying up, then the frogs would have been unable to reproduce and would all have died out long before their specialized system could evolve.

Whereas if the systems were evolved before the environmental pressure appeared, then why did the frogs even change from the standard spawn-in-water model in the first place? Their heavy investment in specialized reproduction would have put them at a disadvantage to normal frogs. There would have been no driving force, no selection pressure, no reason to evolve.

In conclusion…

There are many amazing living things which boggle evolutionists’ attempts to explain how and why they could have evolved. And it just so happens (or was it intentionally planned?) that several types of frogs have incredible reproductive strategies, each wildly different from the other, yet each accomplishing the purpose of continuing life.

So was it just incredible coincidence that all the right parts came together in the right way, at just the right time and place (ala X-men style instant evolution)? And not just once, but multiple times over the history of life on Earth… As many times, in fact, as there are different life forms.

Or is there perhaps some other explanation, one that works and fits much better than the dogmatically-spouted theory of evolution? Christian counseling degrees are not needed to draw such a conclusion. Just a clear mind.

132 Responses to “Freaky Frog Reproduction”

  1. Peter Mudde Says:

    Actually, in the case of both the Pipa and the Gastrotheca, the intermediate steps are practised by related species still alive.
    In the case of the Rhinoderma and the gastric brooding frog.. obviously the design wasn’t that neat, as the gastric brooding frog has disappeared from the earths surface without much help of humans, and the Rhinoderma is on the brink of disappearing.

  2. Sama Says:

    Wow amazing creatures….. I didn’t know about them before reading your article. My explanation is there must be a creator who has designed and created these amazing organisms. Sure some organisms might change a bit overtime, and the environment an organism is found in influences it.

    However I believe the physiology of organisms are too complex to have happened by chance and natural selection.

  3. xxx Says:

    good but needed more information but its allrite

  4. fred Says:

    ew

  5. sIERRA Says:

    ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

  6. April Ryan Says:

    It’s all pretty amazing, but I’m not really that convinced that it’s proof of creation. Traditional evolution does seem to have some holes in it, but defaulting to “God did it” doesn’t really help find a better explanation than what’s out there. Actually it’s the opposite of an explanation. It’s too bad some of these frogs are endangered (or possibly extinct) or we could take some closer looks at them.

  7. tommy Says:

    you suck assholeee!!! ;]

  8. Simon Thong Says:

    April Ryan, spend time reading Scott’s “Critics of Intelligent Design are a confused bunch”, and you may be less inclined to swallow traditional evolution, which does have holes big enough for mammoths and tyrannosaurs to walk through.

  9. hutchrun Says:

    “Amphibian horror” isn’t a movie genre, but on this evidence perhaps it should be. Harvard biologists have described a bizarre, hairy frog with cat-like extendable claws.

    Trichobatrachus robustus actively breaks its own bones to produce claws that puncture their way out of the frog’s toe pads, probably when it is threatened.

    David Blackburn and colleagues at Harvard University’s Museum of Comparative Zoology, think the gruesome behaviour is a defence mechanism.

    The researchers say there are salamanders that force their ribs through their skin to produce protective barbs on demand, but nothing quite like this mechanism has been seen before.

    The feature is also found in nine of the 11 frogs belonging to the Astylosternus genus, most of which live in Cameroon.

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13991-horror-frog-breaks-own-bones-to-produce-claws.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

  10. Jwolf Says:

    sick man sick

  11. Voice of Reason Says:

    I like how “proof” and “disproof” for a creationist usually come in the form of “Gee, isn’t this a strange result of evolution,” or “Oh my, what an unlikely set of circumstances, I bet you’re not sure what you believe now.” The fact is, evolution is the only theory that consistently explains similarities and differences between different species of animals. If you take a minute to educate yourself about retrovirus DNA and atavisms. The evolutionary theory already gives us all the explanatory resources to understand why the great apes and humans all share precisely the same patterns of retroviral DNA in the same arbitrary locations, and why chickens have the genetic code to develop teeth. Evolutionary theory existed countless decades before either of these sorts of otherwise-inexplicable traits were ever discovered, and yet the theory did not have to change in the slightest way to accomodate our discoveries.

    If your proofs for the existence of God consist of gastric brooding frogs and bacterial flagellar motors, then fine; in the worst case scenario for an evolutionist, God is responsible for the flagellar motor and for the method of gestation for a few species of frog. There is no room for further causality in the story of the diversity of life forms we already understand. The fact that we cannot immediately perceive the “evolutionary pressure” towards a certain type of development doesn’t mean that we are to give up our quest to understand the world around us. Why don’t you educate yourself and think about it for a second? There was a time when humans didn’t understand the sun and plants, so they attributed these natural phenomena to Gods; similarly, stars and planets were thought of as being mystical, and it took a philosopher rather than a scientist to understand gravity. We could have been satisfied with these explanations, but we realized that our mythology did not explain anything at all. We have found causality for stars and galaxies, plants and animals. We don’t think deities are responsible for these phenomena anymore because we’ve run out of causal room. If gaseous accretion explains star formation, what is left for God to cause? The stars are not somehow “more formed” if we add God to the equation. There is no room for a creative force in so many of our sciences.

    But of course, I am ignoring the anthropocentrists.

    Of course, the universe was made six thousand years ago, already expanding, with light already in transit to the Earth to give us false impressions of the universe outside. Plants, animals, and women were created for the amusement of men, and we’re so damned important even though our planet is so infinitesimally miniscule in comparison to even the most local sectors of the universe. It’s all about humans, isn’t it? Act like you’ve got half a brain for a moment and realize how ridiculous it is that every God ever imagined in human history has resembled human beings. Our “design” isn’t even intelligent. Explain the appendix and explain the innumerable capillaries that lead nowhere. If these aren’t leftovers from our distant ancestors, what are they? Explain the AIDS virus and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Please. If there were such a thing as God, the only way to swallow the version of him that lashed together the universe is to accept that he wants to mislead us into mistaken beliefs about our genealogy and history. You’ll have to accept a rather repulsive picture of God to cash out of the otherwise-reasonable conclusions of evolutionary theories.

    Remember, a real scientist only accepts the state of the world as her “dogma.” She will change her theory if it’s necessary to explain her observations. Only a religious theist will start with the conclusion of “God did it” and scrape for evidence after the fact. If the argument that some types of frogs are unlikely fails, the theist will rush to his claims that the eye is naturally impossible and the like. Defaulting to a God-based explanation does nothing to extend the reach of human knowledge. It’s time to stop believing in fairy tales and educate yourself on what evolutionary theory actually says.

    Would you like to learn more? Please click the following links.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    Plants, animals, and women were created for the amusement of men, and we’re so damned important even though our planet is so infinitesimally miniscule in comparison to even the most local sectors of the universe.

    Remember, a real scientist only accepts the state of the world as her “dogma.” She will change her theory if it’s necessary to explain her observations.

    Perhaps you would be more receptive of Christian theology if you didn’t listen to those sorts who believe that women should not speak in church and must submit to their husbands (but forget the part about husbands loving their wives as themselves)?

  13. godisamyth Says:

    Ooh, I can’t understand this, my brain is too small, so of course it must be evidence of creation.

    why isn’t god shaped like a frog? these guys you describe here are all so mazing, surely god is just like them.

  14. Scott Thong Says:

    You may be right. God can’t be as dumb as a human, if you’re a typical example of one.

  15. pink =] Says:

    wow “THANKS” i never new a frog could be so interresting
    thanks pink =] xx

  16. dr ogden Says:

    that sh*t is gay

  17. another voice of reason Says:

    @voice of reason: don’t bother, when a person falls back on the god of the gaps the more ignorant that person is the bigger their god is able to be.

  18. INTELLEGENT DESIGN=EVOLUTION Says:

    Evolution doesn’t deny the existence of God, it just defines God as the ever expanding variety lifeforms constantly changing and experiencing it’s selves from and through these various forms. Anyone who denies the existence of evolution denies the theory of intelligent design, for evolution is the most intelligent design process of self creation, rewarding the most intelligent designs with survival. The only part of God that I am responsible for, and the only part of God that I must answer to, is the part of God that I am.

  19. INTELLEGENT DESIGN=EVOLUTION Says:

    LETS TRY THAT AGAIN: Evolution doesn’t deny the existence of God, it just defines God as the ever expanding variety of lifeforms constantly changing and experiencing it’s selves from and through these various forms. Anyone who denies the existence of evolution denies the theory of intelligent design, for evolution is the most intelligent design process of self creation, rewarding the most intelligent designs with survival. The only part of God that I am responsible for, and the only part of God that I must answer to, is the part of God that I am.

  20. Scott Thong Says:

    That sounds quite Hindu philosophy to me.

    See? Intelligent Design isn’t exclusively monotheistic.

  21. buba Says:

    The pictures are not gross or strange enough to put in the New York Times

    Sorry.

  22. New York Times Says:

    These pictures are ok, but not good enough to put in the New York Times. And to “Buba” stop saying you are from the New York Times because you are not.

    sorry.

    P.S. The pictures are not gross.

  23. haha Says:

    haha im not buba or the new york times… but the pics are ok…

    not scary

    but cool

  24. The Years Weirdest Aniamls - Dendroboard Says:

    [...] The Years Weirdest Aniamls more weird frogs : Freaky Frog Reproduction BUUUUURRRRNING HOT __________________ looking for new [...]

  25. Dominica Wieloch Says:

    I am impressed by the way you embraced this topic. It is not often I come across a website with hypnotic articles like yours. I will bookmark your feed to stay up to date with your succeeding updates.Just stunning and do uphold up the solid work.

  26. JimmyJohn Says:

    There is a problem with your “Christian clarity of mind”. Sure, evolution is a THEORY. But who are you to say that you understand? NO ONE understands. And to think you have the answer because of the “bible” and “Jesus” and “God” is foolish. No human being on this planet knows if there really is a higher power. No one knows if evolution is real. They are both simply theories. I’m tired of people trying to say they “know”, when they have no proof. At least the theory of evolution is trying to put some sense and science to how things came about, whereas the bible bangers would rather just have “blind faith” because it’s easier. It’s 2010, not 1850. A long time ago people needed answers, so they they wrote stories to explain things they didn’t understand. STORIES.

  27. Simon Thong Says:

    You contradict yourself, JimmyJohn. You say nobody knows but you say you do that all are stories.

    Tell me, what’s the difference between the theory of evolution and evolution science? Just to show in a small way that you know what you are talking about and not just sounding off your “bind faith”?

  28. Simon Thong Says:

    Yes, it’s 2010, not 1850, so let’s hear some reasons from you, not STORIES.

  29. Ron Says:

    The “irriducible complexity” argument was debunked ages ago. Please try to keep up.

    http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

  30. Scott Thong Says:

    At least the theory of evolution is trying to put some sense and science to how things came about, whereas the bible bangers would rather just have “blind faith” because it’s easier. It’s 2010, not 1850. A long time ago people needed answers, so they they wrote stories to explain things they didn’t understand. STORIES. – JimmyJohn

    1) Christian faith is based on reason – expectations of tomorrow based on past evidence. Kind of like trusting your spouse because he/she has never betrayed you before.

    2) 1850? And here I thought it was 300 BC.

  31. Another Voice of Reason Says:

    When one uses the term “theory” to describe evolution, they mistakenly believe that it means it has yet to be proven, that we lack the data to back up this theory. This is an incorrect assumption. The theory of evolution is a proven fact, just like the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity. I don’t see any of you claiming that gravity isn’t real, that it is god’s will that hold us to the Earth — though I am sure there are those who believe this.

    I’ve heard so many excuses from theists over the years, they claim there’s holes in the fossil record or that things such as carbon dating are flawed. Let me say this: even if we had never found a single fossil we would have more than enough evidence to prove in evolution. The fossil record was just one of our early discoveries that backed Darwin’s theory. We have seen evolution happening in front of us in the last hundred years, take for instance the Hawaiian Wallaby, originally brought in from Australia and kept in a Zoo. They escaped. They reproduced and reproduced… Just short of one hundred years later they are recognized as a distinct species separate from those that were brought over from Australia. They have developed special enzymes for digesting local plant life that is toxic to their Australian cousins, their size and colour has changed to help them blend in with their surroundings. Most importantly their chromosome structure has changed enough that the two “breeds” of wallaby cannot produce fertile offspring, which is one of the many things that we use to determine what is and what is not part of the same species.

    Another great example is a species of birds on one of the Galapagos Islands (who’s name I cannot recall). They attract their mate with a very distinct call. Some of these birds were imported to a nearby island and after a span of about 50 years they have developed several new traits such as a large beak and a new distinct call. Largely due to this separate mating call the two breeds will not mate if reunited, they are now considered two separate species.

    These are examples of evolution happening in front of us, in a very short time. Minor changes that develop very quickly that allow a species to survive and that can result in an entirely new species, in some cases the old species fails to survive, sometimes both evolutionary paths survive and continue on in their own direction.

    Now lets look at whales. Whales have hip bones, hips are typically only found in species that walk. They are of no use to an aquatic species? Why do they have them? Well, that’s because they’re left over from a time where they walk on land. Some species of whales also have leg bones protruding from their hip (though not visible externally). Once again, you must ask yourself why these are there.

    Another way we can prove evolution is through DNA evidence. I will reiterate the fact that DNA profiling is fairly new in contrast to the fossil record yet we have not had to adapt the theory to coincide with this new found evidence. Though we have found that some species are more or less related than previously thought. We have proven that so many dormant genes exist in our DNA, code that simply needs to be activated and it’s ready to go. This dormant code can be activated by genetic manipulation, and we have done so. Or it can be activated due to the needs of a species to adapt to their new found environments. In the case of the frog needing to develop both the marsupial like sacs and the vascular tissue at the same time is flawed because either one of them could have been dormant in their genetic code for centuries or even thousands of years waiting to be needed again. On top of that, there’s nothing saying that both had to be present for this to be successful, in the early stages the pouches may have just been for storing semen until a more appropriate time came to inseminate the eggs (and there are countless species that do this) or perhaps the vascular tissues had already been present for some time as they served another purpose.

    The concept of evolution is still somewhat young in comparison to theism. Yet as time goes on we find more and more evidence to support it. Yet all we have to support Christianity is a book written 2000 years ago, which is no more proof of god than StarTrek is proof of a universe full of aliens just waiting to meet us. I can only hope that as more and more evidence piles up for evolution and abiogenesis that people will finally be so overwhelmed with evidence that they are forced to abandon their ancient beliefs. There comes a time where we all had to stop believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. How much will it take for people to stop believing in God?

  32. Scott Thong Says:

    I have had a personal experience which, for me, discounts all notion of God not existing – the probability of the events happening to me as they did is too small to be likely.

    On evolution, my current view is that the fossil record is a lousy form of evidence as it is too spotty, and the ‘transitional forms’ can be explained away as wholly separate organisms that just happen to seem to be in-between two other known organisms. (Hey, if we force the wallabies to live in water for a hundred years, will they evolve into seal-like critters?)

    Whereas the probability of the DNA similarities between therapod dinosaurs and modern birds being purely coincidental is, to my mind, much smaller.

    That said, my question stands – how did the above frogs evolve their unique reproductive strategies without becoming extinct in the meantime? Genotypes and phenotypes take generations to show, whereas drought takes one season to kill off the entire population – unless a few individuals just happened to already have the unique traits evolved. And why would they survive before the drought, with their fitness levels lower than ordinary frogs who do not waste resources on then-frivolous adaptations?

    For a ‘proven fact’, there remain many holes. Yet proponents of evolution seem content to leave it at that, rather than try and fill in the gaps.

  33. randolf Says:

    this things is possible even though humans are made by it unique characteristics and enhance mutant changes that simply characterize by its condition and natural being.

  34. Sane Says:

    What is this “series of events” you speak of that’s so impossible so as to prove god? There are billions of people on this earth. Over the last 1000 years, billions and billions of people have been born. It’s really then an enormous chance that any “impossible” event will happen. So that “proof” is just frivolous.

    Rather than pointing holes in evolution as you seem so keen on doing, why don’t you provide some “proof” for a god. Give me some documented proof, with valid sources, with non-fifth-grader reasoning, that makes sense and doesn’t just rely on “it can’t be explained so it must be god” and I’ll convert.

    Finally, your idea that any of the adaptations on their own couldn’t work is just ridiculous; a thicker yolk would lead to healthier offspring, who would produce more and so on, and this trait would be selected for. In a time of hunger, eating eggs would be selected for, and over time the remaining traits would be selected for, with valid and provable reason.

    Read a book. You’ll soon find it’s much easier not to be ignorant and plainly stupid.

  35. Scott Thong Says:

    Yes, perhaps a thicker yolk would lead to healthier offspring… But at what cost? Fewer eggs produced? Lower fitness of the mother? Longer period to produce an egg? There is always a cost involved. That is why we are not super intelligent, flying, colour-changing, 8-armed giants.

    That’s why I pointed out above that these adaptations we see today would have likely been a drawback in non-drought times – ‘normal’ frogs would be reproducing faster and the adults less likely to get eaten compared to the frogs with eggs stuck to them. So these ‘weird’ frogs should never have evolved during normal weather.

    Yet if drought suddenly appeared, then ALL the frogs would have died – they simply cannot evolve such a complex system of rearing offspring in one generation or less!

    It is precisely because of my reading and study that I realize that there are huge holes in current evolutionary theory, holes that are crucial yet proponents don’t seem to be interested in filling.

    Take some etiquette lessons. You’ll find it is actually possible to be not condescending and rude.

  36. Simon Thong Says:

    Read a book. You’ll soon find it’s much easier not to be ignorant and plainly stupid – Sane.

    Sane has read too many books, and of the wrong type, too. Never got out of and down from his self-constructed ivory tower. Belongs to super-breed of highly-evolved myopic self-adulating evolution-worshipping sub-species, Homo Hubris Sapiens.

  37. Zack T Says:

    Sane,

    I’d advise you that you should get to know and understand as much as you can of your opponent’s arguments or points of disagreements before you proceed to refute or counter them.
    Otherwise you’d just be shooting the target without aiming.

    Sane said, “Over the last 1000 years, billions and billions of people have been born. It’s really then an enormous chance that any “impossible” event will happen.”

    Actually, your ‘reasoning’ is more in favor of Scott than yours.
    Within the last thousand years, billions and billions of people have been born and been giving birth… and yet, we never see a human at this part of the world start producing eggs instead of live babies… or someone from this other part that grows their unborn child on their back instead of their stomach… or anyone that even thought of giving birth to a child by regurgitating.. despite the many different environments, weather, circumstances, etc that different people of different parts of the world.

    Same for frogs… for over thousands of years, you’ve yet to see this particular species of frogs change their method of reproduction… nor that other one…
    Maybe they’ll change diet, or some physical traits due to changes in the environment…. but yet, still, reproduction remains the same from one generation to the next. We’ve yet to discover a known species of frogs that changed method of reproduction over time.

  38. Sane Says:

    Clearly we don’t lay eggs, and our eggs could not survive a minute outside the womb outside a lab. Thus adaptations this far would plainly be ridiculous. Rather than telling me to think about my argument, perhaps you should think about yours.

    Scott, I still don’t see any proof for god. Just because you believe in a and I believe in b, and you disprove b, doesn’t prove a. Give me one piece of evidence with valid proof. I don’t have a problem with having faith, in fact I do believe in a god. But I’m also not blatantly ignorant of scientifically proven facts. Facts that the entire world, minus a few people who can’t stop believing in fairytales, believe.

    Prove god. Don’t use the fallacy that since I can’t disprove it, it must be true. Give me proof. Don’t avoid the question and talk more about adaptations which don’t make sense. Clearly these are strange adaptations, but we have only been observing them for a short time on the scale of the universe; in 100 years, it is possible that these will be endangered or extinct, simply because their method of reproduction is not effective. We can’t predict the future. What we can do is extrapolate from valid sources theories, which we then prove. Evolution is a proven theory. Get out from under your rock. And don’t tell me to mind my etiquette.

    Prove god. Don’t beg the question. Don’t avoid it. You can’t.

  39. Sane Says:

    “You may be right. God can’t be as dumb as a human, if you’re a typical example of one.” -Scott

    Seriously man, way to contradict yourself. Etiquette my ass.

  40. Scott Thong Says:

    Clearly we don’t lay eggs, and our eggs could not survive a minute outside the womb outside a lab. Thus adaptations this far would plainly be ridiculous. Rather than telling me to think about my argument, perhaps you should think about yours.

    I think you miss the point. Zack is mockingly asking why after billions of years and individuals, humans have not produced any viable mutant strains that are oviparous. Look up the term if you need to – it’s much more exact than Zack’s description (which I’m sure everyone else did not envision as raw unprotected ova being jettisonned out of the reproductive tract, but hey, who am I to second guess your interpretation).

    Prove god. Don’t beg the question. Don’t avoid it. You can’t.

    You first, my post has three open questions that are awaiting a properly composed answer. To paraphrase a certain someone, Rather than pointing holes in religion as you seem so keen on doing, why don’t you provide some “proof” for evolution by marginal increments and pure random natural selection.

    Even if I suddenly turned hardcore atheist, that wouldn’t explain how the above froggie adaptations were evolved step by step without being lost due to lower fitness during ordinary climate.

    So you are the one avoiding the question here, no?

    Seriously man, way to contradict yourself.

    I think the term you’re looking for is ‘hypocrisy’, not ‘self-contradiction’. Contradicting myself is if I said that evolution frogs lay eggs and then said frogs don’t lay eggs.

    But I digress…

    It’s quid pro quo, Sane, quid pro quo.

    If a commentor comes here and opens a serious discussion, I revert with serious responses. Whereas if a commentor is more interested in drive-by insults or trolling, I respond with snark and sarcasm.

    So if a commentor wants a classy response, then start with a classy comment. In fact, I’ve been generous – I haven’t responded to you with nearly the same level of condescension and impoliteness as you have shown… You Equus africanus asinus/gluteus maximus.

  41. Sane Says:

    Firstly, stop twisting my words like a five year old. Secondly, everyone here who’s not a creationist has given you line upon line of proof, and you’ve given none. Zero. Kaput. Nothing. I see exactly 0 lines of proof on your end. Stop dodging it. I understand this is hard for you, because you can’t answer seriously because there’s no proof so you have to subsist on ignoring the question until I tire out and give up on your close-minded excuse for arguments.

    Give me one line of proof. One. For every commenter on this post who’s tried and tried again to prove to you, with source upon source and line upon line of hard evidence backed up by scientific study. A single line of proof. That’s all I’m asking. Then I’ll answer your three questions or whatever. It’s not a matter of order. Don’t be argumentative for the sake of getting your way. I’m trying hard to see your way, but there is no proof. None. One line. That’s all.

  42. Simon Thong Says:

    Evolution is a proven theory – Sane.

    That’s the kind of superficial statement that has been thrashed at different stages of this debate at other parts of this blog. Evolution has NOT been proved, but some people can’t see that.

    No one could prove God to you. By definition and logic, proving that God exists is impossible. To ask for “just one line of proof” is the demand of a closed minded, philosophically naive person.

  43. Sane Says:

    If you can’t give me any proof then you can’t say god exists and is a creator. Checkmate. Though I must give you props for being the first creationist I’ve ever encountered who finally gave up. Good day sir.

  44. Sane Says:

    Also, on an ending note to show you just how wrong you are:


    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
    [lol even ur people don't agree with you]
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

  45. Zack T Says:

    Sane said, “Clearly we don’t lay eggs, and our eggs could not survive a minute outside the womb outside a lab. Thus adaptations this far would plainly be ridiculous. Rather than telling me to think about my argument, perhaps you should think about yours.”

    Zack T Says:
    February 21, 11 at 3:36 pm

    Sane,

    I’d advise you that you should get to know and understand as much as you can of your opponent’s arguments or points of disagreements before you proceed to refute or counter them.
    Otherwise you’d just be shooting the target without aiming.

    Hmm.. actually, I didn’t ask you to think about your arguments. I was advising you to get to know your opponent’s arguments better… which again, you didn’t do and ended up shooting into empty space or your own strawmen.

    So…. epic fail.

    There are mammals that lay eggs, ya know? The platypus? The echidna?
    Ever seen any variant species of platypus that gives birth instead? How about echidna?
    Why doesn’t a beaver lay eggs like the platypus? Or the sea otter?
    Why not porcupine? Why not humans? Since it’s proven and clear fact that there are mammals that lay eggs.

    Sane said, “I’m trying hard to see your way, but there is no proof. None. One line. That’s all.”

    Allow me to give you a bit of education. Just bare with me for a moment, Sane.

    We as Christians, believe God is spirit. Spirit is, by our biblical understanding, something that is itself not physical and not reliant of the physical, but can easily effect the physical realm; like angels – spiritual beings but can eat, kill, touch, appear, etc.

    God, being a spiritual being, is on a different and also higher level of existence and cannot be physically proven, but can be inferred or comprehended in some ways…
    Much like the science of hyper-dimensions (more than 3 dimensions). none of us can see or even imagine what it’ll be like in a world of more than 3 dimensions (without deep, intense mathematical training); neither is there any physical proof of such.
    Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist nor it is rejected based on that sole reason.

    Plus, another thing about God, besides being of a higher level of existence, is that He is beyond the realm of the created but is of the realm of the eternal and outside the realm of the created
    To completely prove God in this created physical realm with physical evidences that is part of creation is to disprove God as the Creator, for that would make Him of the created.

    It’s like computers trying to prove the existence of man using only their computer/programming language or within the realm of the digital world.
    Computers will never be able to prove to one another the existence of men within the limited dimensions of their digital world.
    _

    Another thing about your demand for physical proof of the spiritual… how about I demand you to prove to me that you have a mind?
    Yeah, you can show me your brain.. you can show me some monitor that detects some chemical activities in your brain… but that doesn’t prove you have a mind.
    Prove to me ‘love’ exist in this world. Show me undeniable physical proof that the idea of ‘love’ exists.

  46. Sane Says:

    lol i really don’t care about your arguments. i win. game over. bye bye.

  47. Scott Thong Says:

    Sane’s tactic here is like if I were to enter an exam hall, read the first question “1. Describe Thomas Sowell’s contributions to the study of economics”, and write in the answer field “First you tell me why economics is a science not an art, then I’ll tell you what Thomas Sowell did. PS. Dear teech, it’s not a matter or order. I am not being argumentative here, you are.”

    But since Sane has unilaterally declared victory and assumed my surrender, I guess there’s not much point in continuing.

    Next troll please!

  48. Scott Thong Says:

    Zack, you know anyone who can conclusively prove that God doesn’t exist? That fellow… HE IS A GOD.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/atheists-are-god/

  49. Zack T Says:

    But since Sane has unilaterally declared victory and assumed my surrender, I guess there’s not much point in continuing.

    Next troll please! ~Scott Thong

    Agreed.

  50. Zack T Says:

    I read a bit of your link, Sane… just a little bit, admittedly… (the one talking about the 5 major misconceptions about evolution)

    But the very first point got to me immediately.

    “Evolution has never been observed.”

    Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don’t appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

    Insects developed resistance to pesticides… and yet, remain insects with six legs, segmented bodies, two eyes that consist of thousands of retina, a pair of wings, and still breathing with their abdomen.

    Same for humans… just within the past thousand years, we humans have been exposed to the common cold. Everyone gets the common cold at least once a year, and every where part of the world….
    Yet, generation after generation, we fail to somehow overcome the common cold… or fail to become some new ‘common-cold-immuned’ species of humans.

    Neither have humans become a fire-resistant race, despite thousands of years of people getting burned, whether due to natural environmental circumstances (i.e. bush-fire, burning building, lava exposure) or artifical circumstances (i.e. burned on the stake, fire bursts/explosions, boiling water spill, touching hot kettle, etc).

    Just as Sane said, “It’s really then an enormous chance that any “impossible” event will happen.” You’d think at least one family would be somewhat fire-resistant and is successfully transferring that physical trait to their subsequent generations (not through physical training, but through natural birth).

  51. Scott Thong Says:

    Zack, on resistance to poisons, check out bacteria ‘develop’ resistance:

    http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/evolution-untold-story/

    No new genetic information is ever ‘randomly created’. Everything that is needed is already coded in there (including in the ‘junk’ DNA). This fits my Sin Theory of Evolution well – all evolution is merely tampering with God’s original, perfect designs.

    Lots more at the blog!

  52. Simon Thong Says:

    Sane Says:
    February 22, 11 at 1:44 pm

    If you can’t give me any proof then you can’t say god exists and is a creator. Checkmate. Though I must give you props for being the first creationist I’ve ever encountered who finally gave up.

    You have a little boy’s mind, so you can’t understand the difference between proof for the supernatural (an existence OUTSIDE this world of nature) and proof for scientific theory (regarding natural phenomena). Any demand for proof of the former from the latter, accompanied by self-acclamation (“Checkmate” or “I win”), reveals too much of too little: too much hubris and too little knowledge. Failed first year Logic.

  53. Zack T Says:

    And honestly… even if you prove evolution is true, it doesn’t disprove God. It doesn’t and wouldn’t.
    Regardless whether evolution is true or false, God is neither proven nor unproven by it… but however, the probability of evolution (transition from a non-life into life) and the super rare chance of the ‘perfect environment’ for that ‘first life’ is so minutely probable that it just HAD to be the work of an unseen force ; aka God.

    The theory of evolution actually is more evidence for the existence of God than not, contrary to popular beliefs.

  54. Zack T Says:

    Zack T Says:
    February 22, 11 at 10:52 pm

    And honestly… even if you prove evolution is true, it doesn’t disprove God. It doesn’t and wouldn’t.

    Oh.. forgot to add…

    It doesn’t and wouldn’t, because God could just have easily used evolution to create everything in this world. I wouldn’t agree with that, but it’s possible He did; not impossible.

  55. JoeBlow Says:

    “Insects developed resistance to pesticides” you’ve given an example of evolution right there :P

    “Failed first year Logic.” lol coming from a creationist, that’s pretty ballsy to say.

    lol if u don’t read any of the links up there then you can’t really refute them…so much for “first year logic”.

    also there’s not enough fire for people to adapt to fire, and there’s a thing called calluses you know…lol and ofc how can someone who’s burned at the stake as you dumbass christians so like to do reproduce? doy. and lol explain the entire galapagos islands :P

  56. Zack T Says:

    JoeBlow,

    I’m not too sure… but I think you might have been confusing some of what two different people said as one same person.

    “also there’s not enough fire for people to adapt to fire, and there’s a thing called calluses you know…”

    So, there’s not enough fire to adapt to… and then immediately you said we do have something that is somewhat fire-resistant… Make up your mind.

    “ofc how can someone who’s burned at the stake as you dumbass christians so like to do reproduce? doy. and lol explain the entire galapagos islands”

    That’s interesting. That would make a better argument AGAINST evolution, actually. Let me just change a few words…

    “ofc how can a lizard who tries to fly and falls down a cliff as you dumbass evolutionists so like to claim reproduce?”

    “ofc how can a cow who tries to swim and grow a blowhole as you dumbass evolutionists so like to claim reproduce?”

    “ofc how can a fish who tries to walk on land and grow flappy fins into stubby legs as you dumbass evolutionists so like to claim reproduce?”

    All these examples are claims by evolutionists, and yet people like JoeBlow never realized to think about the logic of it.

  57. Zack T Says:

    “Insects developed resistance to pesticides” you’ve given an example of evolution right there ~JoeBlow

    No, that was given by the link that Sane linked. Please read what people say before you reply.

    Insects developed resistance to pesticides… and yet, remain insects with six legs, segmented bodies, two eyes that consist of thousands of retina, a pair of wings, and still breathing with their abdomen. ~Zack

    And yet, despite all the ‘evolution’, we still get insects… six legs, segmented body, two eyes with thousands of smaller retinas, two transparent wings, lay eggs, breathing through abdomen…

    Let’s use this logic on humans awhile…

    We’ve had lots of people surviving AIDS or cancer… and yet, generation after generation (including the survivors’ following generations), we’re no better at being resistant or immune to AIDS or cancer…

  58. JoeBlow Says:

    how can you believe in a god who allows suffering like aids and cancer to persist? sure, blame it on the devil or whatever, but if god is so omnipotent, he could destroy all evil, and make everyone happy. and yes, there was happiness before there was suffering, so don’t use the whole “without death there is no life” thing. i’m just saying your image of god can’t be too nice and perfect after all…

    The funniest thing here is that between sane and I, you’ve been wasting your time on two trolling 9-year-old pals :D.
    man the internet is stupid

  59. Simon Thong Says:

    JoeBlow Says:
    February 23, 11 at 5:58 am
    “Failed first year Logic.” lol coming from a creationist, that’s pretty ballsy to say.

    Don’t assume and don’t be presumptuous. I did not say I’m a creationist. Nor am I an evolutionist. I reject the philosophy of evolutionism but embrace the science of evolution. Is all this too difficult for you to grasp, JoeBlow?

    JoeBlow Says:
    February 23, 11 at 7:09 am
    The funniest thing here is that between sane and I, you’ve been wasting your time on two trolling 9-year-old pals :D .
    man the internet is stupid.

    So, you’re in with sane, are you? That’s insane. Blow it, Joe, no wonder you also failed. Trying to mix it with a 99-year-old? Kids. Stick to pulling off the wings of a dragon fly and see if they’ll grow back. But don’t be stupid and cut off your big toe to see if it’ll grow back. Kids!

    The internet is not stupid. You are, to think so.

  60. Zack T Says:

    “how can you believe in a god who allows suffering like aids and cancer to persist? sure, blame it on the devil or whatever, but if god is so omnipotent, he could destroy all evil, and make everyone happy.”

    So, you rather not have free will and be ‘robots’ for life?

    Here’s a thought, JoeBlow. If you don’t believe in a god, then what defines as evil/bad and what defines as good?
    Majority opinion? Minority opinion? everyone’s own opinion? History?
    If there is no god, then there would not be any good nor any evil in this world. Just things that happen.
    So, if you can tell what’s obviously evil… or what’s obviously good… then you must conclude there is a moral standard that is higher than us humans… Thus God is shown to must exist, to have given us that moral standard.

    God can destroy all evil.. He can do it right now, if you really like… but you’re a sinner and not a perfect human (never done ANY wrong… not even a small one)… thus, you’re evil in the sight of a perfect and just God. That means you’ll be destroyed, along with the rest of us (me, Scott, Simon included).
    But isn’t it wonderful that He hasn’t done that?

    But there is a time limit. God has warned us that there will be a time that He WILL destroy all that is evil. Until then, He wants everyone to be saved through Him and be with Him in heaven.
    You may be a 9-year-old now.. but when you stand before the throne, you’ll be judge the same as everyone else.. either adults or children. And you WILL be deemed a sinner if you stand on your own foundation before the Judge, and thus not be allowed into heaven.

    But there is a way for you to be accepted to heaven, despite your sins. You need God to forgive you your sins and through what Jesus Christ has done, the debt of your sins can be fully paid for and your ‘death sentence’ be lifted of you.
    You need only call upon Jesus Christ and believe in what He has done for you when He came down to earth, and died on the cross for your sins and mine; and then allow Him to take over your life; all of it.
    You accept Jesus Christ right now and follow Him for sure, and you’ll be eternally saved from evil and hell.
    Yeah, everyone will be happy.

  61. JoeBlow Says:

    or we could just rot in the ground, that works too.

  62. Scott Thong Says:

    The funniest thing here is that between sane and I, you’ve been wasting your time on two trolling 9-year-old pals – JoeBlow

    Thanks for clarifying that you are probably sharing the same PC. I thought you were one and the same. After all, Sane had declared victory and said his/her/its goodbyes. So in order to continue with a debate he/she/it had declared no interest in without losing face, the easiest method would be to sock-puppet under another identity, complete with slightly different style and a conspicuous declaration of being ‘pals’ with Sane.

  63. Zack T Says:

    # JoeBlow Says:
    February 23, 11 at 7:55 am

    or we could just rot in the ground, that works too.

    Excellent example of what evolution teaches children. Nothing but random chemicals that made up a valueless living being for no purpose whatsoever. So sad.

  64. Joe the Plumber Says:

    “Nothing but random chemicals that made up a valueless living being for no purpose whatsoever. So sad.”

    Reality bites!! 8)

  65. Zack T Says:

    That’s your reality, Joe… not mine. May God bless you. 8)

  66. JoeBlow Says:

    Ah cmon guys let’s keep this interesting i’m bored and yes sane&i are the same person i can admit that i don’t care but really make some more arguments or something this is just getting sad & boring

  67. JoeBlow Says:

    if this is any spark: zack guess what you’re a sack of chemicals. your blood is composed of cells which are composed of proteins which are composed of amino acids which are composed of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and several other chemical elements. same for most of the rest of your body, perhaps minus hair and nails. so yes, your “consciousness” is a chemical response to things like dopamine. and pain you feel because your nerve endings fill with sodium. You’re a sack of chemicals, which somehow simulate thought processes. but i’m okay with that. i’m okay with the fact that the purpose of life is to procreate (also 42). i just don’t think we have to focus on it in its entirety. we can spend some of that time trying to find out how it all works, rather than having blind faith in something to sate ourselves needlessly. that’s why i believe in science, and everything that comes with it, fortunate or not, disappointing or not.

  68. Zack T Says:

    Haha… Blind faith…

    You have blind faith in what some other scientists said… You have blind faith in what other people said about science…
    Have you seen your own brain? How do you know you even have one? (not as an insult)
    How do you know that the sun is the center of the universe… Have you seen it before? Because many people said so? Isn’t that blind faith too then?
    Have you seen Albert Einstein before? If not, then why do you believe he even ever existed?
    Have you ever even seen the ‘chemicals’ that make up your body? Yet you speak like as if they’re the truth, when you’ve never seen or even examined them for yourself..
    Talk about blind faith.

    At least, I admit my beliefs are based on faith (faith with evidence)…

  69. JoeBlow Says:

    i’ve seen pics of einstein. the sun isn’t the center of the universe. how could i write or coordinate motion without a brain, and i’ve seen cat scans. it would be a little difficult to explain the entirety of science people have discovered; i do believe if this was all an elaborate farse someone would’ve figured it out by now :P just curious what do you consider evidence for christianity? i’m assuming you mean the bible, and if so how do you know some guy didn’t just write a fiction novel, thinking “man, this story is great, people are gonna love it!”?

  70. Simon Thong Says:

    Perhaps the two-headed self-proclaimed 9 yr old is a pair of Siamese twins. He, at least, has one redeeming factor, a teeny weeny bit of honesty. Miniscule. Found out, admitted it. But won’t admit his blind faith in what SOME scientists say.

  71. Scott Thong Says:

    On evidence for Christianity, I’ve been thinking to write a proper blog post on ‘Reasonable Proof’. It’s basically like what I said, each person has their own level of evidence they require to convince them of a fact.

    Take Obama’s citizenship as example. You have some who accept his word that he’s a natural born American, others who accept the word of those who claim to have seen his birth certificate, still others who doubt it unless they can actually see the actual birth certificate, and I’m sure there’s a fringe of people who – even after seeing it and holding it in their own two hands – will dismiss it as a forgery.

    Or the OJ trial… Plenty of folk think he knows perfectly well where ‘the real killer’ is, but the judge presiding the case obviously didn’t.

    So too it is with my own beliefs. For me, fossils which kinda show similar-looking creatures isn’t very worthwhile evidence of macro-evolution. But DNA links between therapod dinosaurs and birds, now THAT is convincing to me. CO2 levels seeming to correspond to temperature may seem to be a cause and effect to some, but it’s insufficiently proven speculation to me. (I could go DEEP into that topic!)

    Anyway, so to me the Bible has various things going for its claim to be God’s word – the dovetailing of its contents despite multitude of authors, historical corroboration lending credence to its claims on unproveable spiritual matters, chain of inheritance stretching back to the claimed date of writing together with no-nonsense seriousness of its keepers, sensible rebuttals of popular ‘some dude forged it’ theories like Higher Criticism or the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis – but at the same time that is probably not hard enough evidence for you.

    I never did complete what I wanted to say about the Christian notion of faith. It’s not ‘blind faith’ like popularly accused. Rather, it is the “confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). It is the presentation of proof for part of the claim, with the challenge to us to accept the remainder of the claim before actually seeing further proof.

    I liken it to knowing one’s own mother. What evidence does one have that Mom will not poison the pot roast when she invites you home for dinner tomorrow? None… Except the testimony of having known her for decades where she never once wished harm on you.

    So yes, there are some things I personally have a different opinion on some matters where I subsume my opinion to God’s stated way. And there are unfilled holes and unanswered questions here and there – I append are two links to mine below.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/intriguing-questions-about-the-bible/
    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/is-such-a-person-saved/

    I am, after all, a logically thinking human being with a naturally skeptical personality and a formal training in science (despite what impression you may have gotten of me as a fanatically religious rumour follower). To me, testing and questioning my beliefs is a mark of faithfulness, not heresy. (“Test all things” 1 Thessalonians. 5:21)

    But personally, the YES outweighs the NO. Included in the YES is a particular life experience which I cannot dismiss as pure random chance.

  72. Zack T Says:

    Those pictures of ‘Einstein’ could be of some olden day actor, palaying scientist.. have YOU ever met Albert Einstein personally? What makes you accept that Einstein really does look like those pictures you saw? Or even did what people say he did?

    And how do you know the sun isn’t the center of the universe? Have you seen the whole universe? Wow… either you’re God… or you have a lot of faith in what others have claimed.

    You’ve seen cat scans of your brain? How do you know cat scan is able to scan the insides of your head? It could just be randomly generating a picture with an outline that looks like your head, added with some weird patterns inside that shape of your head.
    Even so, how do you know that is your brain? Could actually be your intestines since you never opened yourself up and actually make sure that that is indeed your brain.
    How do you know you even need a brain to coordinate yourself? You’ve ever investigated/experimented the functions of a brain? Even if you’ve done it on some other brain.. how do you know your brain functions the same way? Evolution? Descendant from one same ancestor? How do you know those weren’t just made up in the imaginations of a philosopher?

    It may be possible (albeit beyond what scientists/historians would deem probable) that someone wrote the bible as a fictional novel… but what you learn in school could very well be fictional as well. You never investigated all of what is claimed in the textbooks or taught by your teachers.. Like history.
    You weren’t there when George Washington wrote the Constitution.. you weren’t there when Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity.. you weren’t there when Graham Bell invented the phone… You weren’t there when Isaac Newton saw the falling apple.
    How do you know these were all true and not made up?

    Accept it or continue to deny it… what you know now is most likely mostly based on blind faith in what others have seen/done/discovered but you have not personally seen, touched, discovered, etc.

    My evidences for Christianity are not limited to the bible itself, which by itself is incredible.
    And even if there are some unanswered questions or oddities, the proven evidences outweigh the ones that are unclear or not understood or seem to be wrong… and I choose to put my faith in God and the unseen/unknown, based on what I’ve already know/understand to be true.

    If you want to prove my faith in Christianity to be unfounded, You just need to prove one thing in the bible to be not true/false; the life of Jesus Christ.
    May the Lord have mercy in your journey of truth, if you choose to embark it, JoeBlow (and Sane, as well).

  73. JoeBlow/Sane Says:

    “Included in the YES is a particular life experience which I cannot dismiss as pure random chance.” seriously i’m curious what is it? you’ve mentioned it like 3 times and i want to know what it is.

    and all this talk of dismissing all of science as lies by you or forgeries only further shows that all that you believe in (which has much less substantiated evidence) could be fake as well.

    on a side note i like that arguing with me takes up half this page

  74. Joe the Plumber Says:

    “And how do you know the sun isn’t the center of the universe?”

    Because it’s not even the center of the galaxy.

    http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/milkyway.html

  75. Simon Thong Says:

    Zack T said
    Accept it or continue to deny it… what you know now is most likely mostly based on blind faith in what others have seen/done/discovered but you have not personally seen, touched, discovered, etc.

    Zack wasn’t “dismissing all of science as lies……or forgeries only”. He was trying to help you see that NOT everything that is claimed to be science is science, and that you might not want to believe everything that is supposedly science or dismiss everything that is related to Jesus Christ and the Bible.

  76. JB/Sane Says:

    Damnit man if you’re not going to talk about your mystical series of events which prove god then stop mentioning them.

  77. Zack T Says:

    I know it’s not the center of the universe (and readily apologize for my previous error when I was speed-typing; when I should’ve meant solar system instead of universe), and I’m not dismissing what others have claimed about science of the universe..

    What I’m trying to point out was how do you (JoeBlow, who accused me of having blind faith) know that the sun isn’t in the center of the universe? Joeblow seem SO sure it isn’t. What is his belief based on? Being able to see the whole universe and know that the sun isn’t at the center? Or just on what other people has said, claimed, wrote, etc?

    If you can accept what other people (whom you’ve never met before) have claimed, why do you dismiss me for believing what has been faithfully transferred down for milleniums? You have more basis to believe the preservation of the bible than the sincerity/genuineness of modern scientists.

    -

    Simon,

    Exactly!

  78. Zack T Says:

    JB/Sane,

    Damnit man if you’re not going to talk about how you know your brain exists, then stop talking as if you’re using one.

  79. JB/Sane Says:

    Dude “what has been faithfully transferred down for milleniums [sic]?” have you ever played telephone? tends not to end up the same at the other end…imagine a game of telephone lasting millennia…stuff would get pretty scrambled, what with scribes with messy handwriting making other scribes see words differently, along with the many many translations from hebrew to latin to english etc…it’s just not a reliable primary source.

  80. JB/Sane Says:

    Zack don’t be stupid. Clearly everyone has a brain. I’m not arguing blind faith on that particular thread. I’m just saying that if he’s going to keep mentioning this magical series of events I want to know what they are. It’s like me saying “I saw a unicorn” and then when people asked me what it looked like I said “I saw a unicorn” and then when people asked me where I saw it I said “I saw a unicorn”. I just want it to be substantiated before I can argue with it.

  81. Zack T Says:

    JB/Sane,

    Go do your study of the history of the biblical manuscripts; i.e. Dead Sea Scrolls, NT manuscripts, and even non-Christian manuscripts that attest to early Christianity and life of Jesus Christ.

    Stop talking like as if you have done the research, when obviously you’ve done none whatsoever.

  82. Zack T Says:

    “Clearly everyone has a brain. I’m not arguing blind faith on that particular thread.”

    Actually… the word ‘clearly’ proves my case that you are holding on to a blind faith. =)

  83. JB/Sane Says:

    It’s like me saying “I saw Jesus Christ do a miracle” and then people ask me where and I say “I saw Jesus Christ do a miracle” and then people write it down because I said it so it has to be reliable right? I agree with you that Jesus Christ existed and was a magician; there is record of his life. I just do not see any substantiated evidence of him being a prophet and such.

  84. Zack T Says:

    Then “clearly”, you have not done enough researching. I don’t know the names and organizations to recommend you…
    but I think these articles may help you understand why we, bible-believing Christians, continue to have faith in the bible, and also the life of Jesus Christ as told in the New Testament.

    How do we know the Bible is true?
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html

    Does the New Testament provide a reliable history of Christ’s life?
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t007.html

    -

    And to be on topic… just dropping something for you to chew on, if you’re willing to objectively examine the arguments of creationists.

    Evidence for Special Creation From Scientific Evidence
    http://vintage.aomin.org/specialcreation.html

  85. Simon Thong Says:

    It’s not like you saying ‘I saw Jesus Christ”, not at all. We DON’T believe you. Simply because we already know that you are not beyond lying and deceiving to make your point. Your words are suspect, without credibility. Don’t compare yourself with the disciples of Jesus Christ whose words have been tested through almost two millennia, and tested most vigorously by believers themselves, and have been found credible. Deny all this and it will merely confirm how little you know.

    These same disciples said that Jesus was a prophet, the Son of God, died for us and rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God. Yet, in your ignorance, you say that he was a magician. A laughing stock you are.

  86. JB/Sane Says:

    I can walk on water if you give me wide enough shoes. Also, seriously tell us the magical series of events already.

  87. Zack T Says:

    I can walk on water if you give me wide enough shoes. ~JB/Sane

    I’d love to see you try… though I wonder why must someone else be the one to give you the shoes?

  88. JB/Sane Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA criss angel is apparently jesus’s second coming.

    tell me the events stop stalling so curious

  89. Zack T Says:

    Yeah… he might be… if he did it during a storm and in the middle of a large lake.

    And the ‘events’ that you are demanding to be told is said by Scott Thong… not Simon Thong. Please be aware of who you’re talking/discussing with.
    And I will leave SCOTT Thong to share his own testimonies or others that he knows of.

  90. JB/Sane Says:

    Interesting assumption that I didn’t know who I was talking about. Except I did. The “stalling” I was referring to was the silence on his part. But that’s OK, as in the words of Scott himself, “It’s quid pro quo, quid pro quo.”

  91. Zack T Says:

    And interesting assumption that Scott is “stalling” by remaining silent… when it is highly possible that he is just not online to respond to you at this time.
    I guess you’re right… It is quid pro quo… You started the assumption and thus was given another.

  92. JB/Sane Says:

    Perhaps a further interesting assumption that he hasn’t just begun to ignore this post by this time.

  93. Zack T Says:

    And a further assumption that you know his blogging habits… wow.. you must be an avid reader of Scott Thong’s blog all this while… or you are just filled with assumptions and ignorance, and also blind faith. ^_^

  94. JB/Sane Says:

    And a further assumption that I was asserting rather than suggesting an outcome.

  95. Zack T Says:

    And I shall leave it to the readers to decide for themselves whether you were indeed asserting or merely suggesting an outcome.

    May the Lord have mercy on you and you limited (and yet-to-be-proven-to-exist) mind.

  96. JB/Sane Says:

    Says the creationist.

  97. Zack T Says:

    Says the one who accused others of blind faith. =)

  98. JB/Sane Says:

    sez u

  99. Zack T Says:

    *LOL*

  100. JB/Sane Says:

    i wonder how many of these comments are going to be moderated later

  101. Scott Thong Says:

    Dude “what has been faithfully transferred down for milleniums [sic]?” have you ever played telephone? tends not to end up the same at the other end…imagine a game of telephone lasting millennia…stuff would get pretty scrambled, what with scribes with messy handwriting making other scribes see words differently, along with the many many translations from hebrew to latin to english etc…it’s just not a reliable primary source. – JB / Sane

    Lee Strobel covered this in one of his ‘The Case For’ books. Yes, it’s like a game of telephone… With the caveat that every second person in the chain goes and checks back with the people a few links back for whether he repeated the phrase accurately.

    And yes, there are many scribes and copies and languages. But that just makes it more accurate, since there are so many copies (24,000 New Testament documents) to compare our version against. And they’re in the original languages as well as translations, so there’ even more cross-checking there.

  102. Scott Thong Says:

    seriously i’m curious what is it? you’ve mentioned it like 3 times and i want to know what it is.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/atheists-can-you-discount-every-single-testimony-of-miracles-and-answered-prayers/

    and all this talk of dismissing all of science as lies by you or forgeries only further shows that all that you believe in (which has much less substantiated evidence) could be fake as well.

    Eh, was that me?

  103. JB/Sane Says:

    there you are! what is this series of events!? quite curious!

  104. JB/Sane Says:

    oh nvm

  105. JB/Sane Says:

    Once again as I’ve mentioned earlier over 2000 years it is quite likely that these “miracles” might happen once. In my eyes, they are pure coincidence.

    He threw a coin for 9 hours. It finally landed 10 heads in a row. Pretty sure that’s not divine intervention, even though it’s a 1/1024 chance.

    People win the lottery all the time. Rich people. That’s not divine intervention.

  106. Zack T Says:

    That’s good, JB/Sane. I think this can be beneficial and good for you, since now we have a measure of sorts of what’s convincing for you.

    How about you calculate the chances of Jesus fulfilling the many prophecies in the bible? Assuming the bible has recorded the events faithfully and truthfully (which I referenced a few links earlier that talk about how the bible has done so, http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/22/freaky-frog-reproduction/#comment-48289).
    Not only what is within His humanly control (i.e. healing people, speaking in parables, riding a donkey to Jerusalem, etc), but also what is beyond His immediate humanly control (i.e. being born of Bethlehem, born of a virgin, sentenced to death by crucifixion, etc).
    Just eight prophecies is good enough for your calculation and consideration; let alone the many more other prophecies throughout the bible.

    What are the odds?
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/jesus-odds.html
    http://www.raptureready.com/featured/funk/statistics-probability.html

  107. Scott Thong Says:

    He threw a coin for 9 hours. It finally landed 10 heads in a row. Pretty sure that’s not divine intervention, even though it’s a 1/1024 chance.

    People win the lottery all the time. Rich people. That’s not divine intervention. – JB / Sane

    Agreed. There are plenty of ‘chance happenings’ going on each day.

    So what makes an event considered a ‘miracle’ instead of merely a ‘coincidence’?

    Well, most important would be what the event achieves in terms of glorifying God and fulfilling His plans. It’s one thing to flip a coin and eventually get a string of heads – statistically that is inevitable given enough repetitions. It’s another to be inspired by God to publicly proclaim that you will flip heads fifty times blindfolded for His glory, then proceed to do just that.

    (And it’s another thing to proclaim the above, then fail miserably… It’s happened often enough in other scenarios.)

    And of course, going into full-blown, Class 1 supernatural miracles like multiplying food or raising the dead… Sure there is a minute probability that molecules in the air and liquid could randomly bump into one another just so that water becomes grape juice. But that level of chance is so tiny, that quite frankly that it ever happened is a miracle in itself (God does play dice, and they are loaded).

    Side note: Marvel Comics’ Scarlet Witch for a time had her ‘hex power’ explained as manipulating probability so that nigh impossible odds (like implanted killswitches disappearing from inside the X-Men’s heads and reappearing in her hand by pure random chance) became likely. It’s a similar concept – possible but so improbable that it might as well be magic.

    Let’s just boil it down to the basic facts: If I tell my personal experience to someone, they are more likely to go “That’s amazing!” than “Yawn, ordinary chance. Happens every day.” To me, the the timing and matching factors of so many different, totally independent aspects without any manipulation by an outside force is so improbable as to be ridiculous to even consider. As I said, to me that is a clear experiential evidence of God. And also as I said, the agnostic or atheist is likely to find that insufficient evidence.

  108. JB/Sane Says:

    the chances are high. i’m tired and done with this debate. have a good life. for real this time. you win.

  109. Scott Thong Says:

    Well, not to chase you off or anything, nor to goad you into staying against your will. Feel free to pop by anytime you have the mood.

  110. estetik Says:

    lol i really don’t care about your arguments. i win. game over. bye bye.
    32

  111. Scott Thong Says:

    Is that you Barack?

  112. Ron Says:

    The premise of this thread can best be summed up as an argument from ignorance:

    “I don’t understand how nature works; ergo a god must have done it.”

  113. Simon Thong Says:

    Can’t read ? Can’t understand? The premise of this thread is that God created; however, the ignorant say otherwise.

  114. Ron Says:

    “The premise of this thread is that God created” –Simon

    Isn’t that what I wrote? A god of the gaps argument is an argument from ignorance.

  115. Simon Thong Says:

    That’s how you interpret it. You’re entitled to your ignorance.

  116. Sane Says:

    so uh hey guys back and bored. uh. you’re stupid. evolution is real. yes.

  117. Zack T Says:

    [SIGN]
    Do not feed the animal-turned-human-turned-troll.
    [/SIGN]

  118. simonthongwh Says:

    Do not give pearls to bored trolls.

  119. Sane Says:

    but trolling is so funnnnnnnnnnnnnnn….also uh evolution is proven and uh you’re still stupid. uh. trololololololololoooooooooooooooll. trooooll. in other news evolution is real hurr durr explain the appendix derp herp derp trollllllllllllllllllllllllllll.

    But seriously keep responding. This is entertaining. Evolution is real.
    And if you don’t respond everyone should take this as proof that you agree that evolution is real. So there.

  120. Zack T Says:

    *Reads sign*

  121. Ron Says:

    Here’s another one to add to your collection.

  122. Sane Says:

    keep responding or i reveal that you are a leading authority on the realness of evolution. keep on respondin

  123. SIMON THONG is blogging as simonthong | simonthongwh Says:

    [...] Elizabeth Wong Nude Pic Gambar … The Macedonian Phalanx Left 4 Dead Comics Collection (118+ … Freaky Frog Reproduction [...]

  124. D20 Says:

    Crack Babies. How the f*ck do you explain crack babies.

  125. Sane Says:

    Pretty nice new blog. It’s a shame you’re still a f*cking idiot.

  126. Scott Thong Says:

    Sane, good to see you! Hope you’re back more regularly from now on.

  127. sane Says:

    D20′s right, how _do_ you explain crack babies?

  128. Jillian Says:

    Oh that’s disgusting! I hate slimy wet things. Gag me!

  129. alvin Says:

    i love frogs but some weird frogs freak me out

  130. Scott Thong, Leading Malaysian Neocon | weehingthong Says:

    [...] Freaky Frog Reproduction [...]

  131. Sami Says:

    Here is the absolute truth. Your thoughts are there to fulfil a survival need and hence can explain nothing. why? because there is nothing. We impress each other with acrobatic thoughts to increase the chance of getting laid and reproducing without even realizing it. So while some truth appears truer then other it’s because it’s more liked by the brain cells just like food is. while science can create inventions these are only realized by a brain hungry for entertainment for no apparent reason at all except that it happened to be a preferred quality by the other sex. If you realize that the brain is no more important an organ than any other organ then you will have realized the truth. It’s all an illusion. So should you think yourself smart remember that all your intelligence is so messed up that it fails to explain existence fully and is so self focused that it explains everything to reveal nothing…

  132. Scott Thong Says:

    So this means that your own revelation above is similarly a spasmodic fart by a hungry brain perpetuating the illusion of awareness about truth? If so, why should we trust your admittedly delusional conclusion?

    Or do you mean only people OTHER THAN YOURSELF are like that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 114 other followers

%d bloggers like this: