Movie

This is my first movie, sorry about the poor quality.

Why do people laugh at creationist?

In the days of Moses (if he existed), Jesus and Mohammed, there was so little knowledge about the universe that it was believable that life was made by a personal God who looked over the affairs of men - and that the world was made for men. The tale neccesarily imported the belief that the universe, earth and man was new and which can be found in Genesis.

That was then and this is now. In the time since men first bowed down to illusory and vague deities we have learned much about the universe and life. We have incorporated our methods of discovering the nature of the world around us into science and through science we have found that the universe, our world and life itself is not consistent with the stories of old.

So, why is it that some people do not throw off the shackles of ancient stories in the light of modern science? The answer to this is not simple - but there are some rational explanations, the first and foremost of this is ignorance.

CASE has recently been engaged in battle against a group called operation 513. Their creationist creed stipulates that the earth is only 6,000 years old as presumed from the Bible. Thus, they do not believe there is any truth to the theory of evolution. Operation 513 recently wrote an article from a "scientist" in which they sought to show that the recent Lenski experiment regarding the mutation of E.Coli bacteria was false. The mutation was that the bacteria could digest citrate in an oxic (high oxygen) state. The article written by Operation 513 stated that CASE and Lenski's conclusions regarding mutation were wrong because E.Coli can digest citrate in an anaerobic state (low/no oxygen). This clearly missed the point of the Lenski experiment and the mutation observed in that experiment. So why did they write the article - clearly the writer had not undertaken the basic research into what Lenski had observed, probably not even reading the paper given by Lenski. Nothing less than sheer ignorance.

Science is about research - without political or religious motives. Scientists are not seeking to prove God does not exist, they are just trying to carry out research into the world around them. Yet, sceintists are constantly being derided by theists because their conclusions are that there is no God (or at least the God described in Holy Books). Those criticisms, like the one from Operation 513 are usually based on ignorance. But look at the acerbic tone of the conclusion:-

Are you possibly just clinging to another poor excuse of a support for a dying theory? Have you perhaps overstretched your assumption that the world is all chance and no design? Are you betraying just a little of your unrighteous and unjustified bias that there is no God by forcing science to be your unwilling ally? Are you not merely running from what you know? (That you are responsible to God who made you, the absolute law giver who determines absolute right and wrong).

Don't you a mortal man stand this very moment on a flimsy perch over the fiery judgement for your rebellious unbelief and sins? That said though, aren't you and all atheist offered freely the gift of eternal life and peace with God if you will abandon your sin and trust in Jesus; in His work of atoning death and glorious resurrection?

Well that's all my questions for now, I would love to know your thoughts. Please be honest and consider carefully your response, I would hate to see you make a monkey of yourself.

Im sorry my friend - all that you've done is make yourself look silly. There is no judgement day, no afterlife that we have observed. Although we will all die, I am confident that the presuppositions that you have relied upon to reach the conclusion of an afterlife are a sham, unreal and a lie. Nevertheless, we atheists and scientists everywhere encourage you to step into the enlightenment and throw away your dogmas and ignorance.

Why do people laugh at creationists.

Only creationists don't know why.

Life is complex

In recent weeks I have raised the issue of Cit+ E.Coli in the Lenski experiment that proves positive mutation. In rebuttal to this, theists have made the statement: "That doesn't prove anything, you started off with E.Coli and ended up with E.Coli". This is, of course, a result of the theists lack of biological training. Its the equivalent of saying that a housecat that gives birth to a lynx is not a mutation because they are both cats:-

-->

(Felis Catus) --> (Felis Lynx canadensis)

So, what is the difference between the common house cat Felis Catus and a lynx such as Felis Lynx canadensis? Well, its simply that one organism has genetic code that gives it smaller body mass, decreased aggression, no black tips on the ends of its ears etc. On the other hand, a significant amount of the housecats genome is the same or similar to that of a lynx (including for instance the colourings of its coat as seen above).

So, how do we determine these two species are different? In the past biologists have had to rely on the physical characteristics of the species. Their size, colourings, behaviour etc. But does that work out when we compare individuals within all species? What about man's best friend:-

Above: A St Bernard eyes of some lunch

Both the St Bernard and the Chihuahuas shown above are part of the same species Canis Lupis Familiaris and yet they have significantly different characteristics, or do they? The chemical structure of the St Bernard is the same as that of the Chihuahua, rather, the proportions of those chemical structures vary between the two individuals. They are effectively the same organism, but in the St Bernard certain genes are enhanced (Such as hair, body mass, slobbering etc). This, does however show that mutation alone does not cause significant changes in biology - those changes can also be a result of activity within an existing genome.

This is totally different to the Cit+ E.Coli which mutated in the Lenski experiment. Those E.Coli have a different chemical structure which allows them to digest Citrate. Thus, should Cit+ E.Coli be called E.Coli at all? Well, there is no problem with labelling them as E.Coli as that definition covers a variety of different microbes with different characteristics:-

A strain of E. coli is a sub-group within the species that has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other E. coli strains. These differences are often detectable only on the molecular level; however, they may result in changes to the physiology or lifecycle of the bacterium. For example, a strain may gain pathogenic capacity, the ability to use a unique carbon source, the ability to inhabit a particular ecological niche or the ability to resist antimicrobial agents. Different strains of E. coli are often host-specific, making it possible to determine the source of fecal contamination in environmental samples.

This is just a result of taxonomy, being the study of classifying living things. It is an interesting question, if the Lenski experiment is the first time we have observed a mutation from one species into a new species under controlled conditions - how will taxonomy react? Surely the old rules (which require species to be differentiated) will not apply when a new species comes from an existing one. Nevertheless, this is only a distraction from the main point.

Some theists argue that this is not evidence for evolution because the microbe did not evolve into a dog (or some other complex animal). I would respond by asking what the difference is between the microbe and a dog. Both have genetic codes which determine their chemical constructions - its just the construction that is different. E.Coli are asexual, bacteria (as opposed to eukaryotic), directly take food in through their cell walls, anaerobic replicators. Dogs are sexual, eukaryotic, with developed food processing tracts, aerobic replicators.

If we now know that mutations can result in additional characteristics then how many mutations would be required for a bacteria to become a dog. There could be thousands of mutations occuring at distant intervals of time - nonetheless, we are not dealing with a 20 year time period. In fact, fossils indicate that the first "big mutation" that would be necessary, being the transition from single cell (bacteria) to multi-cell (eukaryotic) organisms happened about 2.1 billion years ago. Over that time frame, the incredulity of theists does seem a little petty.

But, lets do the maths, the Lenski experiment showed a mutation happen in 25,000 generations - on average, E.Coli reproduce every 233 minutes. There have been about 1077300000000000 minutes since Bacteria first became Eukaryotic. Thus we could expect about 4623605150214 generations in that time, which, with a uniform mutation rate would be around 184944206 mutations. Do you think that 184944206 additions to the genes of a microbe could result in a dog? (Of course, this maths is flawed because the reproduction rate between microbes is shorter than later mutations, such as dogs - nonetheless, we should expect a significantly large number of mutations, or additions to genetic code, to be available to bring the genetic code from 500,000 base pairs in bacteria to 300,000,000 base pairs in humans).

But, perhaps the biggest problem for theists is not mutation and change in characteristics between bacteria and dogs. Their incredulity comes from the fact that they cannot accept this line of mutations and changes:-

--> --> -->
Apes --> Australopithecus --> Homo Antecessor --> Homo Sapien

But if you want some real evidence that life can take strange twists and turns, take a look at these squid (try to count the legs):-

Poll confirms Christians not persecuted enough

A recent CASE poll on the persecution of Christians in modern Australia reveals that over 70% of the population consider that Christians should be persecuted more. These results are stunning in light of the fact that at least 40% of the Australian population classify themselves as Christians. CASE can only conclude that either:-

1. Some christians are actually atheists on the inside
2. Even christians think christians should be persecuted more

CASE is responding to the public demand for christian persecution and has promised that members of the CASE covert and overt warfare department will commence church bombings and public crucifictions of church leaders by the end of the month.

For our next poll, CASE is concerned about the level of education regarding the theory of evolution and is testing your knowledge about the theory of evolution and natural selection. This is in response to various theist demagogues that believe that evolution states a species will mutate into a whole new species in a single generation.

This, and other observations like the following from Fundies say the darndest things, are just examples of how difficult some people find the theory of evolution to understand:-

How can anyone beleive we evolved from monkeys heres a few questions for people who beleive that

1.If we did evolve from monkeys then how come babies arent born monkeys

2.Even Darwin said his theories were wrong before he died so why do you still believe them

3.do you really not believe the bible it says we were created in seven days not millions of years

4.how come we cant speak monkey

Just for a fact ape like creatures are monkeys Just in case certain people get on this thread

coolstylinstud, Christian Forums

Creationists pwned by Prof Richard Lenski

As many of you would be aware, CASE has been following the story of Richard Lenski of Michigan State University and his ground breaking discovery of Citrate consuming mutant E.coli bacteria. CASE has also presented these finding to several creationist who (without any technical qualification in biology or science generally) have dismissed the results.

The Lenski experiment shows mutation in a laboratory. This is important because scientists have not previously seen such mutation under controlled conditions, although, we can see evidence of mutation between existing animals and fossilised remains. Of course, this isn't sufficient for creationists who make up fanciful stories about things like dinosaurs:-

Above: Jesus was a DinoRider

Richard Lenski has been dealing with his own set of kooks from Conservapedia. Conservapedia is essentially a right wing publication that seeks to replace wikipedia with what they consider to be the "correct information". CASE electronic warfare division is currently obtaining passwords as an editor of Conservapedia (BTW, We succeeded with CreationWiki and will be posting funny things soon) in order to set the record straight on issues such as the conservative christian view of facism.

Back to the topic, Conservapedia was indignant at the apparent (or imminent) defeat of creationism by evolutionary biologists. Accordingly, they wrote a letter which had very little to do with science and in which the chief kook of Conservapedia admitted that he had not read Prof Lenski's report or had any knowledge about genetics. Lenski's first response was civil. However, when badgered further Lenski loses it - with what is an excellent example of pwning theistic ignorance. If Conservapedia take down the response in shame, it has been saved here for posterity.

Lenski's experiment is confused by many creationists with the idea of saltation. Saltation is the concept that a species remains the same until it mutates into the next species. Not even Darwin considered such infrequent and drastic mutation is possible. The theory of natural selection states that within a given genome, certain genes will become more popular because the carriers of those genes are more successful. For instance, Homo Heidelbergensis mutates 800,000 years ago with a brain volume of 600 cubic centimeters ('cc'). Over time, individuals with bigger brains are more likely to succeed - accordingly, brain volume expands until 250,000 years ago when it reaches 1100 cc. Then a freak mutation occurs which allows for greater brain growth but the brain size of the first homo sapiens is also around 1100 cc. The reason for this is that the first homo sapien inherits almost all the same genes as the previous generation of Homo Heidelbergensis. From there the homo sapiens (with lighter skulls and more room for brain developments) continue to increase in brain size over many generations until it reaches the 1400 cc that we are at today.

Thus mutation (macroevolution for the creationists) is only a single part of the genetic puzzle of evolution. While many creationists accept the concept of natural selection (microevolution) they are incredulous to the concept of massive change - then again, so are biologists, its just that the theory of evolution doesnt say that massive change will happen either.

Giant, prehistoric lies

CASE has recently become aware of the website CreationWiki. At first CreationWiki appears to be a well-presented, well-researched wiki into the origins of, among other things, life on this planet. In order to test the veracity of CreationWiki, CASE decided to compare its contents with Wikipedia entries regarding dinosaur.

Wikipedia states, in its introduction to the topic of dinosaurs that:-

Dinosaurs were the dominant vertebrate animals of terrestrial ecosystems for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago) to the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago), when most of them became extinct in the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event.

Creationpedia on the other hand, gives this account:-

[M]ost creationists believe that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind on Earth and lived recently. Biblical support for this perspectives is drawn from the Genesis 1 where it states that all animals were created on the sixth day of creation along with humans.

Although this is the position of theists, CASE did note the following would have been obviously rejected by even a student of significantly low intellect:-

It is furthermore presumed they were still alive at the time of the global flood and taken on board Noah's ark. Evidence to support this perspective includes:

• The Bible specifically states that a breeding pair of every kind of animal came to the ark.
• The fossil record is filled with the corpses of dinosaurs that were buried during the deluge.
• The abundant physical evidence of recent existence of dinosaurs.

CASE felt this was somewhat misleading and could fool a child into believing the wrong thing. Accordingly, CASE sought to make the following change:-

It is furthermore presumed they were still alive at the time of the global flood and taken on board Noah's ark. Evidence to support this perspective includes:

• Because God says so

However, it appears that CreationWiki can only be amended by authorised CreationWiki writers, which is fair enough in a robust democracy where your views are correct. So, under completely false pretenses CASE electronic warfare division applied to be an author of CreationWiki. We shall keep you informed.

CASE's help cannot come fast enough, after all, CreationWiki will be in real trouble if quotes like this are not deleted:-

Tony asks him how Adam and Eve could have lived in the Garden of Eden with a carnivorous tyrannosaurus, and instead of explaining that tyrannosaurs would have been vegetarians back then, instead gives him a book and leaves.

What big teeth you have Mr Tyrannosaur?

All the better to eat grass with.

Is that Theory or Law of Evolution?

As many of you are aware, a major difficulty for evolutionists has been proving positive mutations of genetic code. Until this there has been no actual observations of a species undergoing a change to their DNA which resulted in positive results.

The criticism of creationists that there were no observed events of positive mutation or "macro evolution" posed a big problem for evolutionist because it is a necesary step in the "theory of evolution". Effectively, the macro evolution involves the genetic code having new information added. Creationists have for a long time argued that new information cannot be added to the genetic code. Now we know better.

It appears the reason for not having observed positive genetic mutations in the past is due to their infrequent occurence. In the Linsk experiment, the mutation was observed forty (40) times. But we have to put that in the context that there were 40 trillion bacteria born. Accordingly, the prospects of genetic mutation between generations is a very infrequent event.

Nonetheless, we would expect that such mutations would not occur very often. A species success is more dependent on retaining the genetic traits that have made it successful for the current environment than in developing random new traits. Accordingly, multi chain prolymerase reactions which are used in DNA reproduction are far more effective at reproducing the same genetic structure than having "add-ons" or mutations randomly every generation.

There have already been calls for this work to be recognised with a Nobel Prize. I wouldnt go that far at this stage. I would however postulate that with the theists last argument against evolution annihilated by the evidence, we can start the push to change "The Theory of Evolution by natural selection" to "The Law of Evolution by natural selection"