Show Mobile Navigation
 
Crime

Top 10 Serial Killer Quotes

Serial killers have fascinated and disgusted us for generations, their behavior an insane cesspit of deviant acts that we can’t get enough of – whether it be films like Silence of the Lambs or in the news as they dominate the headlines, making us double-check our windows and doors. Here lies a compilation of the most bizarre statements to have passed through the lips of these monstrous beings.

10

Aileen Wuornos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2D3yAby8SY

Quote – “May your wife and children get raped, right in the ass.” (To the jurors who convicted her.)

Aileen Wuornos entered the world on February 29th 1956 only to be forced into the most turbulent childhood, being forced into acts of incest from an early age. Barely leaving infancy she could be found trading sexual favors for cigarettes and when she was 14 faced the horrendous predicament of being pregnant – with the potential fathers being her brother and her grandfather. Shunned by her family she left home to reside in the nearby woods. She later went on to hitchhike across America working as a prostitute. She was sentenced to death after being convicted of killing seven men. She claimed self defense, stating these men had raped her.

9

Albert Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4oKvZ8nJIg

Quote – “I like children they are tasty.”

Born May 19th 1870 Albert fish was a cannibal and child rapist who boasted to have consumed children in every state. He was also known as The Brooklyn Vampire, the Werewolf of Wysteria and the Moon Maniac. His family had an intense history of mental illness and religious mania and Fish was no exception to the family tradition. From an early age, his pastimes included the consumption of urine and feces, frequenting public baths to watch young boys undress, and writing obscene letters to women he found in the classified ads. While in prison he enjoyed forcing needles into his groin and urinary tract. He was sentenced to death for the kidnap and murder of Grace Budd, deeming the electric chair the greatest sexual thrill imaginable. During his execution the electric chair short circuited due the amount of needles in his body.


8

Arthur Shawcross

Shawcrossx

Quote – “She was giving me oral sex, and she got carried away . . . So I choked her.”

Born June 6th 1945 Arthur Shawcross was imprisoned for the manslaughter of two children only to kill eleven more times after his release. Recorded as having an extremely low IQ, somewhere around 86 and 92, he served in the war in Vietnam where he witnessed various atrocities. He was also known as the Genesee Killer where he murdered eleven prostitutes, although the number could be significantly higher. He died at the age of 63 in 2008. There is a youtube clip on Shawcross you can watch here.

7

BTK – Dennis Rader

Quote – “I actually think I may be possessed with demons, I was dropped on my head as a kid.”

Born March 9th 1945 Dennis Lynn Rader killed 10 people is Sedgwick County between 1974 and 1991. The initials BTK became his moniker as he declared in various letters to the local newspapers that they stood for Bind, Torture, Kill. After serving in the Air Force, Rader became a dogcatcher and supervisor for the Compliance Department. He remained at large for so long as his MO differed from victim to victim preventing any links or patterns. He was eventually caught after a familial link was established between semen found at one of the crime scenes and a tissue sample taken from his daughter.

6

Carl Panzram

Quote – “I sat down to think things over a bit. While I was sitting there, a little kid about eleven or twelve years-old came bumming around. He was looking for something. He found it too. I took him out to a gravel pit about one quarter miles away. I left him there, but first committed sodomy on him and then killed him. His brains were coming out of his ears when I left him, and he will never be any deader.”

Born June 28th 1891 Panzram was a convicted serial killer, arsonist, thief, burglar and rapist. Panzram confessed to his best friend and prison guard Henry Lesser to 22 murders and of sodomizing over 1000 young males. Of Prussian heritage, young Panzram was raised on a farm in Minnesota then was incarcerated several times for petty crimes. His killing spree began in 1920 when he started to lure young sailors from bars to rape and shoot them.

5

David Berkowitz

Quote – “The demons wanted my penis.”

Also known as the Son of Sam and the .44 Killer, Berkowitz terrorized New York in the summer of 1976 by shooting 8 people, claiming he was ordered to kill by a demon that possessed his neighbor’s dog. He later went on to claim he only took part in two of the shootings as the others took place at the hands of various members of a Satanic cult he belonged to. However, no other people were convicted of these crimes.


4

Edmund Kemper

Quote – “Even when she was dead, she was still bitching at me. I couldn’t get her to shut up!”

Also known as the Co-Ed Killer, Kemper weighing in at 300 lbs and standing 6 ft 9 inches tall, was a convicted serial killer and necrophiliac. His career in killing started at 15 when he killed his grandparents. He was institutionalized in a psychiatric Hospital where he displayed severe sociopathic tendencies. Upon his release he killed and dismembered six female hitchhikers then his mother and her friend before turning himself in two days later.

3

The Zodiac Killer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR2w5VOVDg

Quote – “If the blue meanies are going to get me they’d better get off their asses and do something.”

The Zodiac Killer operated in California during the late-’60s and ’70s, shooting young couples, the Zodiac Killer became one of the most renowned serial killers of all time due to his taunting, encrypted letters to the press and the fact that he has never been caught. He has been confirmed with seven shootings and five deaths although he boasts 37 killings in his letters. The killer was named the Zodiac by the press as his letters were signed with the hunting symbol of the crosshairs. Numerous attempts by police and amateur investigators have taken place to discover the identity of the killer but the case has remained open since 1969.


2

Ted Bundy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYAxfdj5_hY

Quote – “Sometimes I feel like a vampire.”

Serial killer, rapist, kidnapper and necrophiliac, Theodore Robert Bundy confessed to 30 homicides across seven states during the early-’70s. Due to his handsome looks and charismatic behavior, the clinical psychopath found it easy to lure young women to his car. He often would have a fake plaster cast around his arm and would ask for the assistance of a young girl in helping him carry something to his car. Once there he would trap them inside his VW Beetle which he’s modified by taking out the inside handles rendering the girls’ escape futile. Blondie singer Debbie Harry had a fortunate escape from the killer unlike many of his victims who all resembled his former girlfriend, attractive, petite with mid-length brown hair in a center parting.

1

John Wayne Gacy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsaXVwsC2Bw

Quote – “The only thing they can get me for is running a funeral parlor without a license.”

Executed in 1994, Gacy was convicted of 33 murders and sentenced to death for 12. Gacy lured teenage boys to his home before brutally murdering and raping them. He buried 26 of his victims in the crawl space of his basement, another three he disposed of in a nearby river and the rest were buried in various parts of his property. Also known as the Killer Clown, the name came about because of his charitable fund-raising events where he performed as Pogo the Clown.



  • Missy

    What a charming bunch of people. Am I first?

    • best first comment ever except for bluesman87’s a whiles back

    • Not_So_Anonymous

      Eh. About as charming as most people, actually.

    • ni99a

      Very witty too.

    • Zodiac

      You should’ve seen me during my days..

  • This is going to jump to one of the most popular in no time . Best in months . Disturbing…… but morbid curiosity reigns supreme on LV . 10/10

    • 10/10 as an expression not a ranking.

    • Paradox

      I agree.

  • Arkon

    The clown that gives you nightmare.

  • Not Being Fresh

    Here’s one of my favorite quotes and it comes from Jeffrey Dahmer’s lawyer. “Something went haywire in the boy.” (Haywire?! Talk about an understatement.)

  • Jamie

    Dont really know how about you are supposed to go about ranking the top 10 Quotes. Most of them are sadistic and just disgusting. Thought there might be some deeper quotes which gave you a bit to think about.

    • roboroo

      Nope theyre just sick psychos with nothing special to say.

      • ni99a

        If they are sick, they should be receiving treatment not trial and execution.

        • Jimbo

          You cannot treat these people. Multiple, multiple interviews with people like this will confirm it.

          • ni99a

            Don’t want to heal or cannot heal?

          • Some of them are ill, some of them are just plain evil.

            But which is which is for a doctor to decide, not you.

          • Tamz

            While these individuals certainly cannot be rehabilitated or ever trusted to be released into society ever again, I believe we would be served much better to have them permanently institutionalized and studied. Perhaps then in the future when science has progressed further there might possibly be a way to more precisely detect the signs of individuals with these sicknesses of the mind and possibly cure them before they ever reach the point of harming anyone. Justifiably those who have suffered because of these people wish to see them executed, but one can only learn so much from the dead.

        • Carrie

          I’m sure the families of their many victims agree that the monsters who slaughtered their loved ones deserve hospital care and eventual release instead of lethal injections. Serial killers have no empathy for other people and no amount of “treatment” can create that. Execute them, and do the serial rapists and child molesters while you’re at it.

          • Jamie

            Really we should be blaming the Parents and Society for letting them get that way in the first place. Governments not putting money in the right places and wasting money on overpriced defence budgets for example.

            In many of these cases they come from terrible backgrounds. Good job to the Social Services Parents failed raising of their children for destroying not only the Murderer/Rapists life but that of the family and victims that they abuse and kill.

          • I agree with that. A lot of people are just beyond help and they should be put down before they kill anymore loved ones.

        • You want these people living in your neighborhood? You really think that after these monsters say and do what they do that they can be rehabilitated to be like you and me in normal society? Keep dreaming.

  • Chicanochars

    God I hate clowns now I can’t sleep!!

    • ni99a

      Think about it. Why do you hate clowns?

      The reason people hate clown these days is to look cool and matured.

      Hating clown seems rebellious because the nature of clowns are to be loved and to bring joy. People hate clowns just so that they can show off to everyone that they are not into mainstream things such as loving clowns.

      Another reason is because hating the same thing with your peers so that you can be accepted by your social peers.

      The only valid reason for hating clowns is if you are traumatized by them when you were small. For example:

      a) Your parents hired someone to act as a clown and hide in the closet to frighten you on your birthday.

      b) You were raped by a man or woman wearing a clown suit.

      Thank you for reading and congratulations on wasting your time by reading my bullsh1t.

      • Nik

        i was bored of this site ages ago, I only come for your comments. Keep up the good work ;0)

        • ParusMajor

          I don’t hate clowns, I’m sort of indifferent to them. They’re not funny (because all of their gags are so tired and old, like the car thing or whatever), but they’re not scary either (and yes, I have seen “IT” with Pennywise, etc.) I did like this 1928 film, though, although it’s not about clowns, really. It’s about the beginning of The Joker: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019130/

      • 11bull911

        The reason everyone hates clowns is easy; the movie “IT” and Killer Clowns from Outer Space.

      • Metalhead420

        Clowns are very scary.

  • Will Trame

    What a bunch of depraved animals. Definitely a disturbing list to say the least. The blue meanies? Does that imply that the Zodiac killer liked the Beatles? Also, I was already aware that Deborah Harry was nearly a victim of Ted Bundy’s. Read it both in Mojo and a book detailing the strangest rock and roll stories.

    • Arsnl

      Yeah but snopes said it’s most likely a false story.
      http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/debharry.asp

      • Will Trame

        Thanks for the tip. I checked that site. Definitely food for thought.

    • ni99a

      Any chances your dead relatives were killed by serial murderers? Share with us.

      • Will Trame

        Still singing that same old tired tune? Time to move on; you’re beginning to sound like a stuck record. Prattle on….hell, maybe someday you’ll actually make a profound statement of philosophical import. But at this point I seriously f*cking doubt it.

        • ni99a

          I will only stop when you apologize the fact that, the world does not revolve around you.

          Have a nice day :)

    • simon

      Debbie Harry being a near victim of Ted Bundy is a lie. An urban ledgend. Being the prolofic killer he was, Bundy’s life was disected and analyzed in detail after his arrest. The incident Blondie’s forewoman describes could never have taken place.

      • Will Trame

        Please read my reply to Sardondi below about urban legends. There is an intriguing one about the Ohio Players (see said comment).

    • Not sure if your serious about not knowing what ‘blue meanies’ referred to or not…but just in case you are actually serious he was talking about cops. You know…blue uniforms…

  • I thought Panzram’s famous quote to the hangman on the gallows was going to be here, viz “Hurry it up, you Hoosier bastard! I could kill ten men while you’re fooling around”. Maybe on the list of famous last words?

    • E. Nigma

      I read that quote on Cracked not long ago ;)

    • Raven

      I prefer the one James French said prior to being executed in the electric chair. “How’s this for a headline tomorrow? French Fries!”

      • Yep, if you can’t lead a good life, at least go out with a good quip!

  • Chris

    in these cases I wish they would use cruel and unusual punishment

    • ni99a

      Why? The sin has already been done. Does cruel and unusual punishment brings benefit to anyone?

      The better solution would be to give them rehabilitation.

      Take for example entry number 10. The reason for her current behaviour is the treatment she got during her childhood which isn’t really her fault.

      What could have been done is to give counseling and therapy to her. When she gets out she will be a functional part of society again. Hell, she could even work as child’s rights activist and help children that are in the same condition as her.

      Killing or harsh punishment benefits no one. Not the criminal. Not the society.

      Harsh punishment is just gonna make the criminal more hardcore when he is released to the streets.

      • Will Trame

        Actually, you finally made a few good points….there must be some serious glaciers in hell right about now. Rehabilitation has always been a very sticky thorn…it does not always work. A number of the animals listed above deserved the ultimate punishment.

        • ni99a

          Lifetime therapy and counseling until the criminal is considered repentant is definetly better than life imprisonment or execution.

          • Jono

            Even when you’re not acting like an insufferable child your points are still poor and based on non-logic. I hope one day you get the chemical punch-in-the-mind the world so desperately needs you to receive.

      • ww

        After reading your comments, I don’t know if you’re trolling or just an idiot. If you had bothered to read the whole thing, you’d have seen that many if them had been let out of prison. They had their chance, now they should fry. Because I’m sure you’re going to ask: yes, it’ll make things right and yes, it’ll make people feel better.

        • ni99a

          Because of your last statement, I will kill off the cat that has been creeping into my for these last few days.

          I placed a sign on the window saying: “No cats allowed”. Yet that cat still creep in my house to steal my food.

          Next time that cat comes in, I won’t let it go. I will fry the cat alive because it will make things right and it will make me feel better.

          See how stupid you sound now?

          • Boone

            cats can’t read. That’s not even close to the same thing or an intelligent argument.

          • Amber

            See how stupid YOU sound now?

          • ww

            Thank you for proving my point; that you’re either an idiot, or you’re trolling. Execution is for major crimes done by people who don’t have a proper reason (such as self defense being a proper reason for killing people). It is not for minor infractions of the law.

      • megamel99

        I partly agree with you about rehabilitating these people. However, they still need to be punished for their crimes. Committing murder should be punished by spending the rest of their lives in prison, or in some cases, the death penalty.

    • simon

      But then again, you are as depraved as they are. One who woreships lust and has turned from
      God.

  • Dogmatix

    The disturbing lists are always the most interesting

    • Why_bro?

      It’s funny how when this site comes out with lists on plants, mountains or nature, no one’s interested but when there is one list about serial killers or murders or deaths everyone loves it and the popularity increases like hell.
      Maybe it’s not just these guys in the list that are sick, it’s in everyone, we just create a façade that fools us.

  • why publicise the words of these scum.

    they want to be remembered

    better

    Their names should be erased from our collective memory

    and we forget they ever were

    • Jamie

      Agree, along with the words of the qur’an and the bible.

      • ni99a

        Win.

      • ww

        The bible and the qur’an have messages of peace and happieness. Without them, it’ll make it kind of hard to learn about God. You’re a disgusting person, not because you’re an atheist, but because you think that no one should worship God.

    • Intentional erasure is very rarely a wise course of action.

      How many atrocities have been preceded by mass book burnings?

      In what way will forgetting the words in religious texts combat bigotry, selfishness, greed or corruption?

      Better that we remember these words so that we can all know just how far we can fall.

      The better we understand these people, the better we can prepare for them.

      • Jamie

        And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, Religion passed out of all knowledge

        • Wat?

          I am the last person to say that religion is a good thing to have around….

          And please do not take this as being hostile….

          But that response was….unconvincing

          • Jamie

            I dont take these comments section very seriously, and the lord of the rings i just kind of wanted to fit in somewhere so i tried edging the conversation towards it.

            But ill give you a slightly more detailed answer just because you seem to enjoy reading and debating.

            Intentional erasure is very rarely a wise course of action.
            Could not agree more. Except mosquitos, hate them.
            How many atrocities have been preceded by mass book burnings?
            Could not name one off the top of my head, don’t fancy looking into it either.
            In what way will forgetting the words in religious texts combat bigotry, selfishness, greed or corruption?
            Well eradication of books could help with getting past bigotry and the huge clash of cultures we have going on.
            Rid ourselves of Christianity and you could probably solve world hunger with the amount of money they have profited from it.
            Better that we remember these words so that we can all know just how far we can fall.
            Pretty sure there is enough history in this world to show the depths in which humanity can stoop to, could pick out one of the thousands of lists on here to find that information. Doesn’t exactly require the words quoted in this list.

          • @Jamie

            Christ-on-a-bike, you’re not a nutjob!

            And in response:

            I of course, do not know exactly how many mass book burnings there have been in the past, but I have never heard of any being associated with anything but badness.

            You’d eradicate mosquitos? I think they are trying that in California arn’t they? Myself, it would have to be slugs and snails, I’d quite happily cause a minor ecological catastrophe to rid this universe of them.

            I agree that if we could click our fingers and disappear religion, or at least religious corruption, from the world that it would be an improvement. But the idea that this is possible by any other means than a long, drawn-out process of education and enlightenment is unbelievable to me – literally forgetting or destroying religious texts certainly isn’t the answer. Take away the book and you leave the desire behind, what needs to be eradicated is the NEED for religion.

            No, we probably don’t require these exact quotes to be remembered, but if we are going to start selectively deleting unpleasant memories, where do we stop? Who gets put in charge? Can we discard this idea or should we keep it? A very dangerous game.

            And to sign off, as you admit not taking these comment boards too seriously (probably a sensible course of action), I freely admit to taking them far too seriously.

    • dsafaf

      I do get the fact that it seems we “publicize” the worse people out there, but the thing is we can’t lie. They fascinate us. 20 serial killers per year out of billions of other people on this world. It is just something that is fairly uncommon. yet common come to think of it. Even just 2 serial killers to me seems far enough.

  • Ms Medieval

    What a bunch of twisted individuals…… great list.

  • Jakeryder

    “I am down on whores and I shant quit ripping them till I do get buckled”

  • Nick

    Lol. Ted Bundy was a very active Republican. If his crimes took place in the present-day it would have been revealed that he was very active in the Tea Party.

    • Youre sick to even make that connection. Not funny.

      • Nick

        The truth is a sick, sick thing, buddy.

  • zvbxrpl

    Shawcross’s experience in Viet Nam was likely exagerrated: he lied ’bout everything. It’s possible he witnessed no “atrocities” and just used that story to justify his crimes.

  • In your description of Bundy you forgot to mention he was a paedophile too.

  • oouchan

    Creepy things creepy people say…very disturbing. Carl Panzram’s quote was the worst. What a disgusting waste of flesh.

    Upsetting list, but interesting.

  • Xyroze

    The part about Albert Fish shorting out the electric chair due to his genital needles isn’t true, but he did help the executioner position the electrodes on himself.

  • Necro

    What no Manson? “I killed everyone from day one…”

    • simon

      Manson never did kill anyone himself

  • Bee

    Totally chilling how composed, intelligent and normal Ted Bundy seemed. Incomprehensible.

  • inconspicuousdetective

    interesting list.

    on a sorta unrelated note, the list author’s name is astrid, is that a coincidence? or was it a dark brotherhood reference?

  • Queen Weiner

    I remember reading a quote about Gacy that said;
    “.. they found a two foot long dildo with up to 18 inches of it covered in human excrement.” It was something along those lines.

  • Jamie

    @pitt0

    Well I actually didn’t ask you to tell me about any mass book burning, just said I didn’t know of any off the top of my head. But if you think about it…there could have been hundreds of thousands of these events but we’d never know because they are all gone.

    Mosquitos man, so annoying. Went on holiday and they did my head in kept biting me (imustbetasty) and made me really itchy. Don’t mind slugs or snails, don’t really bug me, easy to avoid.

    Well the long drawn out process begun a while back and it seems to be going well. More and more people are educated and coming to terms that there is no after life and we are, just like every other thing on this planet just a organism. Nothing more and nothing less. In 100 years times our bodys and bones will be no different from the squirrel we ran over 2 weeks ago.

    Don’t remember saying that we should delete unpleasant memories, at all.

    • ww

      Obviously, you’re a very confused person. The bible has proven to be historically and scientifically accurate.
      The biblical kings have all been proven to exist.
      Jericho has been found, the walls fell outward, not inward. And archeologists agree that it was destroyed by reverberations.
      Proof of the exodus has been found.
      Proof of the flood.
      Now for science:
      The bible stated that the earth is suspended on nothing.
      It stated that all stars are different (the all look the same to the naked eye)
      It stated that blood its important for life. (That was before 1400 bc)
      The chemical nature of flesh.
      The shape of the earth.
      With as accurate as it’s been proven to be, stating things before scientists did ( way before them), I’d say it’s a pretty good bet that it’s right about God (especially considering the fact that the bible lists times when He spoke to people).
      Now then: proof for the bible. It’s impossible for you to defend atheism with facts, no, you have to attack christianity and hope that no one knows their facts.

      • Blue

        Ok you need a reality check regarding your religious nonsense, just because there are no facts in your post.

        You are making specious arguments based on your lack of knowledge of the bible and how it developed over time, how it was translated and added to over time and how you wish to retcon your views in to the structure you think it contains.

        The Greeks, Pheonecians, Egyptians, Romans and various other historic races left plenty of evidence of past medical understanding, past historical catastrophes such as Santorini (the probable cause of the plagues story of the bible), Earthquakes (the walls of Jericho story), past astronomical understanding and all of these historic references have been retconned in to various parts of the bible.

        Do not make the mistake of thinking that historic races were less intelligent that we are currently, many had intrinsic understandings of their environment and science. These have laid the foundations for later study and religious nutjobs have had to try and work around these issues within the texts of the bible.

        Perhaps the worst aspect of this is the “lord of the gaps” arguments which tries to exploit current lack of knowledge in the hope that this puts some sort of creator in to play.

        Any gaps in knowledge are studied and reduced with further development and there are so few now that we have the most idiotic nutters like ID and creationist nutters failing to understand that the fossil record is not about finding “missing links” purely because there is no such thing and the likelihood of fossilization is extremely small in the first place. This is why all evolutionary arguments from religious nutjobs fail so spectacularly as there are no missing links as all species are transitionary life forms.

        When you try and act superior it would be best if you understood how the bible was developed – now we come on to he part of how the bible itself has been added to over time and by whom and for what purposes.

        So with that in mind, please try and answer the following questions for me so that I can adequately answer your lack of knowledge:

        The Old Testament is the first section of the two-part Christian Biblical canon and is based on the Hebrew Bible but can include several Deuterocanonical books or Anagignoskomena depending on the particular Christian denomination. Tell me which religious fallacy you belong and believe in first so that I can adequately respond to you.

        The development of the New Testament canon like that of the Old Testament above was a very gradual process.Irenaeus quotes and cites 21 books that would end up as part of the New Testament, the excluded ones being Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude. By the early AD 200’s, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, you should also look up Antilegomena. Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christian authorities by the middle of the second century.

        However, official finalisations of the canon were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

        Please let me know which of these books you are referring too before I take apart your responses and show you how idiotic your world view is.

        • ww

          I try to avoid attacking people verbally, even when I fail, I don’t do it like that. I feel that you’ve given me plenty of reason to openly call you a moron. Yes, the bible was created over a period of time; the first books by Moses and other books by other people. Apart from Genesis and, obviously, revelations, it was written by people who were there when it happened. It’s unfortunate that you seem to think that we christians are putting science into the bible. While people at the time were not idiots, they could not know many of the things mentioned. As for Jericho and earthquakes; the archeologists would have known if the walls fell because of an earthquake.

          I noticed something about evolution in there; it seems you, like many other atheists, have risen it to the status as a proven fact. Let me teach you a bit. Evolution has only been observed in small bits. Yes, animals change, no, they did not change as much as you seem to think they did. In so much time, in so many generations, bacterium have produced more bacterium, birds have produced more birds, and fish have produced more fish. They change to fit their environment (usually), but no amount of change can turn a fish into a cat.

          Notice this: while I was perfectly justified in insulting you, I only did so once, very unlike your string of insults with very few (supposed) facts.

          • Blue

            You have not answered any of the specific questions raised, because you cant, i understand this for what it is, a lack of knowledge on the basic subjects and no i didnt insult you I insulted your belief systems, that is a totally different argument.

            Do not presume to teach a working scientist in the geophysics field about evolution as you will fail on all levels. Evolution is a fact and is observed daily and your ludicrous response regarding turning a fish in to a cat fails completely in understanding how evolution works even at a most basic level.

            You are talking about minor steps taken over perhaps thousands of generations, which completely fails to understand that there have been millions of years of genetic change and adaptation, all evolution takes place this way due to competition, climate changes, fighting of diseases and viruses, and many other factors that contribute to minor changes over time. All you need to understand is that every form of life on the planet can be traced back to one ancestor 3.8b years ago via DNA. All DNA on our planet is connected.

            So to give your analogy some credence, of course a fish cannot turn in to a cat as its mother and father would be fish, as the cat cannot turn in to a human as its parents are still cats. However, over time and with adaptation all life forms change, sometimes very slowly, sometimes quite quickly in response to various competing factors.

            You are falling in to the nonsense trap of missing links and other ludicrous arguments that actually bear no relation to actual evolutionary science and study, just on a fossilization scale (one of my fields of study) perhaps less than 0.001% of all living phylums have actually been fossilized due to the actual set of circumstances that allow fossilization. Evolutionary science is not a study that relies upon one set of circumstances such as fossilization, it is impacted and understood on many different scientific levels.

            You do realise that this field covers huge amounts of other scientific realms such as botany, biology, chemistry, physics, environmental studies, geology, morphology, bacteriology, genetics, and the list goes on and on, each area adds to the evolutionary science field and the supporting “facts and studies behind the theory.

            Organisms do not spend most of their time adapting and evolving, they have far more pressing concerns such as finding food and breeding; however they are perpetually challenged by, and adapting to, a rapidly changing suite of viruses, parasites, predators and prey, climate and geological morphology and many other competing factors which drives their evolution over time and it is this basic premise that you are completely failing to understand.

            Just to reiterate for you evolution is not about winning the race and never has been, there are no prizes and no winners at all, that is why survival of the fittest and Darwinism has been superseded as our knowledge increases so that we understand that life and evolution are impacted by and by turn impact upon the world and it is these subtle changes over time that drive evolution and will continue to drive it as long as the world can support life. Even then at our worlds end evolution may find a way for life to continue if the changes are subtle enough that adaptation can take place.

            let me guess God did it right?

            As a basic understanding no study of evolution is looking for missing links, there may be some areas of study that are looking directly at specific transitional groups such as “Tiktaalik” which fills a gap in the fossil record, but what you and all other people who do not understand or worse, wish to discredit evolution, fail to take in to account is that all life forms are transitional groups. When you understand this basic premise of evolutionary theory then please feel free to come back and discuss it with me.

            Anything that can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof – that is the scientific method in a nutshell. That is also why anyone with an ounce of common sense can take apart religious dogma and nonsense posts like you put here. You have not answered any specific questions posed and you are not providing any evidencial support systems for your beliefs. Going to your own comment you havent even provided proof of your beliefs that any of the “stories” in the bible match up, i can do this as, in some cases, I have actually been involved in several studies which religions have tried to claim as being part of the bible, including recently working on several Missoula Flood studies.

            Religious groups have cited these as evidence of a great flood, even though there was no Christianity at the time 10,000 years ago, or even better no Christians around in the US to view them when they cycle ended. However there is growing evidence (note that word there evidence) that ice dams breaking and receding glaciers caused flooding over large areas of the northern hemisphere in pre-history giving rise to flood myths among many indigenous peoples and groups, not just Christianity. This has been handed down by word of mouth and has slowly “evolved” into various creation myths.

            So again make some relevant points and back it up with actual facts, just because you believe does not make it true, the “truth” can only be backed up by facts and study, this is the point you fail to realise, and is another reason why we can dismiss all religion on a philosophical level as well as a scientific level.

            I also dont think you understand how a theory is developed and how it is supported by the facts. You are trying to say that scientists “believe” their theories, that is not how a theory works and to be accepted as a theory you follow this basic process:

            1. Conjecture (that is questioning the accepted understanding), 2. develop a base hypothesis (this is to explain your conjecture), 3. Study the hypothesis and define any “truths” within the study, 4. publish results and allow others to test your study results, 5. if the ideas stand up to providing testable evidence then this becomes theory at which point the study continues to uncover more “truths”. I dont think you understand this very basic premise. A theory is not a belief system it is backed up by testable scientific facts otherwise, if the results cannot be replicated, then it can be dismissed as it cannot support its hypothesis.

            As an example; Garstang and Kenyon found ample evidence supporting an earthquake for the Walls of Jericho parable. And the area is prone to earthquakes as can be evidenced by the city being destroyed yet again in 659CE and partially destroyed again in 747CE. The supporting evidence is also very well understood as there are sulfur deposits and various other geological evidence detailing a turbulent history of earthquakes, the reason primarily being that the city is built on the Jordanian Rift Valley, again something that is very well understood by someone like me who is a geophysicist.

            Further Jericho has been inhabited for at least 11,000 years practically to the beginning of the Holocene epoch of human history – how does that fit in with your world view and beliefs as if you truly believe then the earth is only 6,000 years old? I wont go in to how ridiculous that is but still please feel free to explain this and if you like please explain our 4,54 billion year old little rock.

            I will be happy to point out any discrepancies like I just have and also real studies in to biblical parables. But first please answer which bible you believe in and then please tell me which God(s) you believe in.

            I believe we are both atheists, I just happen to believe in one less God than you do.

          • ww

            To blue:

            You are making it increasingly obvious that understand neither science nor people.

            Let me start with this: your claim to be a working geophysicist (spelling?) does not make you more credible for anyone reading your comment. In fact, that claim, along with you’re extreme errors in the most basic forms of grammar actually make you far less so. I could quite easily tell you that I’m a doctor in biology and have personally studied many of these things. Whether or not I am does not change the fact that no one will believe it. I feel the need to help you a bit, as any good person would do with a dimwit. I is capitalized, it’s spelled can’t not cant, and didn’t has an ‘ in it. I don’t expect you to have perfect grammar, I just expect you to notmake those mistakes.

            When one make a comment as long as yours, it’s hard to answer every specific question.
            No christianity was not around that long, but abrahamic religions have.
            Instead of claiming that I believe in something, I would suggest making sure that I do. Any one who looks at the bible and looks into the original hebrew will see that it leaves plenty of room for the earth to have been around much longer than 6,000 years.
            If you were to look into Jericho, you’ll find that there are people who believe it was destroyed by an earthquake. That is, of course, not proven. Those who do believe that it was an earthquake also noted that it would not have been a normal one. They noted the way that it selectively took down parts of the city and wall, but not other parts, such as Rahab’s home.

            Back to evolution, it seems that you don’t understand it. Yes, changes have been noticed, no they do not point towards the conclusion that we evolved from single celled organisms.

            If I have not made it clear enough, I’m not attempting to avoid insulting you at this point, seeing as how you continue to feel the need to do so towards me.

          • Blue

            You are still making ludicrous claims that are not backed up by any evidence supporting those claims. Believe me I understand this lack of knowledge as you have more than demonstrated your lack of understanding throughout your posts.

            If you are going to be a grammar Nazi at least point out where these mistakes are first before getting on your high horse, again just saying something doesn’t make it true, you have to back it up with specifics – my guess is you think that I make mistakes because I use words like realise, the reason I use those words is I am British and use real English not the dumbed down version that Americans use. Also, as I type very fast, I may forget to capitalise the odd I here and there or my most common mistake which is I generally type in teh instead of the, please feel free to make this the basis of your argument that somehow this makes me not who I am and unintelligent – because obviously that is completely relevant and shows how I must be not who I say I am.

            Geophysicist: – let me give you an example so you understand how incredibly idiotic and simplistic your personal attack is – http://www.princetonreview.com/Careers.aspx?cid=7

            Again just “believing” something does not make it right, if you want to argue regarding real theories then please expound on your lack of specific knowledge and I will be happy to put you on the right track and point you directly to the theory and the supporting evidence, I will do that here where I can for you.

            If you feel the need to add ad hominem attacks to your argument then you have already failed in your attempt at trying to make a persuasive argument as you have defaulted to the internet idiot cycle. Again as you do not know me and have no clue who I am (others here do by the way) then your inept personal attacks are taken for what they are; a lack of debating skill with the required knowledge of the person or subject you are trying to debate with.

            On the Jericho front; you are again failing in your responses, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for an earthquake in antiquity for the walls parable. Again what you are failing to understand (and I guess reading about the theory from illegitimate resources such as bible thumpers) is that the collapse can easily be explained via the pressure, walls, soil structural interaction caused by liquefaction and combined with normal erosion properties, again saying something does not make it true without actual facts supporting the theory and there are many studies available to planetary scientists and geophysicists like myself. These would not necessarily be what you would read so I will help where I can.

            And going back to what I stated above, as the Jordanian Rift Valley runs directly under the city and we have historic and current seismic activity, coupled with actual proofs that fit the various theories then the likeliest candidate is an earthquake. What you are failing to realise is that circumstantial evidence is not the same as actual evidence, the actual evidence is collected here:
            http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-erAnNq09xAC&a
            Which has plenty of evidence supporting a large earthquake happening in between 1300-1400 BCE, again if you are attempting to make a point it is best if you understand the studies in play and how they are applied to develop and determine actual cause and effect.

            By the way that book is about 20 years old now and has been superseded by even more study of the area, this is one thing that the layman does not take in to consideration, the definitive study is published but this does not stop the search for more evidence.

            You are right that no-one can say with any definitive proof that it was an earthquake, where you fail is that all evidence supports an earthquake theory, the only reason we cannot say with 100% certainty (only 99.99% certainty) is because there are no direct eye witness reports and nothing written down except for various religious texts such as the bible. However as the Roman Empire left several well understood historic earthquake records from the area including several directly at Jericho in between 31-37 BCE and again at 306CE then we can safely say yes it was an earthquake.

            Now couple this with the facts as we understand them today and the continuing seismic activity under the rift system and around the Dead Sea in general and you begin to understand why there is a consensus and why coming up with any other conjecture would be seen as pseudo-science at best. You have to understand that the record of seismic activity in the area dates back to the first written texts of the area along with the archaeological and geological physical environment – or is this too hard for you to comprehend?

            That my friend is the only reason for the 0.01% discrepancy as it is in any definitive study area. Theories are never fully complete as there are always other areas to study in the search for definitive proof.

            Again for the hard of thinking, which you would seem to be, the evidence supporting an earthquake is not only the probable cause, it is within such a small margin of error that to say it wasn’t an earthquake would mark a person out as not understanding even very basic geological evidence.

            Evolution, I am just not going to go in to that again in any depth as you really are and have missed the complete point of the post.

            Go back and revisit DNA and how even the smallest single celled organisms (and all life on the planet) share and are connected via DNA, then if you really want to look at this in a slightly more logical way, please understand how we are all clusters of single celled organisms, how we interact with many single celled organisms (some which can only be found in us and cannot live anywhere else due to being tied via our combined evolutionary paths – this is the same with many parasites, viruses and bacteria in many different forms of life on the planet – this is called symbiotic evolution), how many of these single celled organisms are vital to life like our gut bacteria and then come back to me and try and tell me I don’t understand.

            If you are gong to argue a point make it relevant and also make it feasible within scientific study, if you are just attempting to troll and you cannot provide a single shred of scientific evidence for your viewpoint then unfortunately you may continue to call me names in the vain attempt that this is somehow a reasonable response to an argument that you obviously cannot win.

            I have not insulted you, only your general lack of knowledge and your belief systems by using actual facts to make those points. That is the nature of a debate, you on the other hand are resorting to extremely basic insults aimed directly at the person as you cannot defend your arguments without resorting to these tactics – I understand this as you lack the intelligence and study in the specific arenas in which you are attempting to debate.

            Anyway please feel free to carry on insulting me and I will continue your education as necessary against your posts.

          • ww

            Blue:

            Yet again, you have shown a lack of understanding in both what I am saying and science itself.

            Yes, I did get to ad hominem attacks, but it was after you did so. Allow me to explain what ad hominem is, it is verbal abuse of the other side, whether it be the person or their beliefs. You ignored the scientific evidence that I gave, claimed that I didn’t give any, and then concluded that I lack intelligence. That was an attack aimed towards me.

            It seems that you still do not understand what I said about Jericho, unfortunately, I’m not able to make it amy simpler for you. Perhaps if you were to research it, you would understand.

            You seem to have made the mistake of calling a study that supports the bible as illegitimate, as you said in another section of your comment, simply believing something does not make it true.

            Perhaps you should look at my original comment and look at the other facts that I presented. I won’t make your mistake and claim that you ignored them because of a lack of evidence on your part. Why not look into what I wrote.

            Another thing you seem to not realize is the fact that the bible was written by eye witnesses, by the testimony of many people. Whether you have seen something reproduced or not does not mean that it never happened. Science is not the only form of proof, there are others such as legal proof, which does not ignore eye witness testimony.

            Let me go bank to my original argument, archeologists have found proof for the most of things and places in the bible. Combine that with the scientific statements found in it, and you’ll see that that puts the abrahamic religions well above any others.

            Let’s now go to your atheism, your belief that God is not real. Surely you know that humanity has not even come close to discovering everything there is to know. You also surely know that your total knowledge is far less than that of humanity as a whole (that is not ad hominem as it is true for every one). Therefore, you should admit that there is a POSSIBILITY that God exists and should be agnostic. That alone is definitely not enough for you to become a christian, but it, mixed with the proven accuracy of the bible should be. I do not expect you to convert through, and would be stupid to think that you would, I’m only pointing things out to you.

            My statements about your grammar and spelling were not meant to invalidate your argument, I simply meant to point them out to you for no other reason than my personal enjoyment. I was also not talking about your use of the word realise. I, as well as anyone else who has spent more than a week in Britain, understand that American english is slightly different from that of your people. It is not correct however, to claim that the American form of english is a dumbed down version of the British form.

            I do feel the need to apologize for claiming that you were the one who wrote the original comment that I responded to, I blame my phone for running slowly. If you were to look at it though, you would see that I did not bring up religion.

            I realize that I do not go into an extreme amount of detail with my facts, but that’s because I assume that you’re at last twenty and therefore, are capable of looking into it as I do.

          • Blue

            I accept your veiled apology, however I think that you need to revisit your historical belief that the bible was written by eye witnesses. The bible is a conglomeration of various belief systems much of which comes from Egyptian and Greek historical texts. In fact the Heliopolitian Myth of ancient Egypt is basically the Genesis story and you should look up Atum and the twins Shu and Tefnut and how these texts influenced our ancient cousins and how this story is the base imprint of Genesis.

            If you wish to view this on a more factual and historical level then there is plenty of evidence for the use of Greek and Egyptian beliefs in the bible, most importantly from an historic view is the works of Amen-em-opet and Akhenaten (Amenotep IV) being the first monotheists.

            These are then further developed by the Greek philosophy schools such as the Epicurean influence on Ecclesiastes, the Stoic influence on St. Paul and many have very direct parallels with Greek religious beliefs and parables.

            From a simple understanding of monotheism in general and understanding of the bible and how it was put together you can historically see the main influences being an Egyptian starting point with then direct influences from three major groups, Canaanites, Persians and Greeks which account for the origins of most Jewish and Christian doctrines.

            I don’t mean to presume anything here with your beliefs, I am stating pure archaeological and historical facts regarding how the bible has been assembled in its current form. I am actually fascinated by this and it is a side study I have personally undertaken as it is a direct influence on modern philosophy which, being a scientist, influences me daily. Its just something I have a deep interest in. And really I have not rubbished your claims regarding historic significance of the bible, I actually validated that with real scientific proofs.

            That is why I can make valid judgments and arguments, when you then talk about faith that is a wholly subjective personal bias either indoctrinated at an early age and breaking the cycle is very difficult psychologically or as a personal choice, usually at later stages in life because of some life changing event that influences ones decision, it actually does not stand up to philosophical debate because it is a belief system only. Again it is worth reading what I stipulated on how philosophy influences conjecture, hypothesis and evidencial support systems of theory.

            Now to take your points regarding “we don’t know”, that is the very essence of scientific study, areas where our knowledge is lacking are areas of immense study and theorising. Again I will point out what I stated in another post, a theory is backed up by testable experiment and further study. Where we lack knowledge is a gap, it is not because some deity did it, that is a cop out and what has held back the human race for over 2,000 years. I personally believe that without the interference of religion and the wars/fights these created during the late Roman Empire right up until the Middle Ages we could have had 2,000 further years of scientific discovery, however dogmatic idolisation has stifled this innate human ability for the quest for knowledge.

            I take your point about being agnostic, but as I stated I am a working scientist and I actually work in the field of physics, there is absolutely no evidence of any all powerful being or a creator so no I dont have to be agnostic as there is no evidence supporting that viewpoint. And I mean absolutely nothing, there are gaps in our knowledge but they close every day and each closure limits the possibility further of a creator. Personally I am 100% sure that there is no creator, I justify that with my knowledge of the sciences, that does not mean you should not believe, if it gets you through your day and helps you then who am I to stop that. A lot of people need to believe in something, I accept that, whether it is the cult of celebrity, going to a psychologist to validate your life or religion is a moot point, I think we all need a certain amount of validation – what you choose is up to you. I choose facts and science, purely because they are not belief systems, that is just the way my mind has always worked, I have never believed in a God or some all powerful being because I questioned this from a very early age.

            It is probably worth you trying to understand the singularity conjecture that is currently of great debate for the start of our universe. I would suggest that within 30-40 years even that will be understood. I think you need to also be aware of a logic step in your argument, if you wish to argue for a creator, then who created the creator, you cant have it both ways.

            I personally believe that quantum tunneling is probably the best explanation for our universes birth, but this may not be the end of the theory, it could include various other aspects and further truths even after this is validated. Your argument and most religious people to be honest is a lord of the gaps approach, and as our knowledge increases those gaps decrease and religions have to increasingly rely on smaller and smaller gaps to fuel their arguments. so yes in all honesty I can say I have no belief system and it is not an “I do not know” viewpoint which is agnostic, it is a “we have yet to find out scientifically” viewpoint. There is a huge difference, I do not, and never have, felt the need to say that cant be explained.

            I am sorry if that is not your viewpoint, I am being objective and not subjective which is the way my mind has always worked. I employ logic and facts where I can and follow the scientific method on areas where knowledge and facts are lacking.

            As for historical facts, of course they exist as the people writing the bible (note that as well it was written by people) have hand me down historical references, much the same as other influences such as the Iliad and other ancient texts, there is an element of truth to them all, it is only story telling that has distorted them. And the bible is a story, make no mistake on that front, it is quite eloquent in its own way and as I stated I have spent many hours researching its influences as I find it fascinating that one book, and the dogma behind it perpetrated by fanatics or the power hungry, could have so severely impacted our search for knowledge and limited our potential. As a set of rules to live by the bible is severely flawed and, in its many forms, has been systematically used by the powerful to keep that power, not just by the various denominations but also as a tool by church and state, it is even now still ongoing especially in America, where not one of your politicos has the balls to say I don’t believe due to religious interference in all aspects of your daily lives.

            On the Jericho front, I actually did my thesis for my PhD on historic sites of earthquakes and volcanic events so I actually do not need to research it as it has been part of me for 22 years since I started my PhD. And no I don’t need your validation for that, it is just my personal history and education, I actually spent 2 summers in the Dead Sea working on several historic sites as part of the geology department teams helping the archaeological departments of various universities date very precisely their findings. from there I then spent several years studying various regions including the African and Jordanian Rift Systems as well as the Kamchatka peninsular.

            I have reread through all of your posts and I cannot see any scientific evidence held in them. You have posted your thoughts and your beliefs but you have not given any direct evidential supporting systems. I don’t mean to be a prig here I am just doing as you stated, if you have actual evidence post them for me and I will research them, but please do not give me conjecture only give me actual scientific studies that have been validated as otherwise I will have little recourse but to post the actual studies dismissing those claims.

            Again I am not attacking you personally I am attacking your lack of knowledge on the subjects, I understand that you are not an expert, however I also am only correcting you against popular fallacies which are opinion based and not factually based.

            Anyway I am sorry if you felt I personally attacked you, that was not my intention, I attacked your lack of knowledge and as you stated I called you unintelligent, that was my mistake, I should have explained it more eloquently than calling you unintelligent, although personally I do believe that anyone who has a religious belief system is acting unintelligently, that does not mean you are unintelligent, just misguided. I really should refrain from using that in a debate, you are quite correct to point this out and call me out on it.

            But please do not make the mistake of thinking I do not understand science or scientific discovery, by degree I am a geologist (actually a volcanologist) and by PhD I am a geophysicist, I have dedicated the past 28 years to these fields and various impacting study arenas and I really do resent your implication and it will get my back up, I point this out as I really am a working scientist and will feel the need to defend myself.

          • ww

            I do feel that I could have reacted better, but I’m not going to claim to be perfect. As I hinted at earlier, I am a biologist, I work fairly closely with genetics (which is why I’m offended when told that I lack intelligence). You, nor anyone else on the internet, have any reason to believe me. I’m pointing this out because of your claims of being a doctor in geophysics (or what ever the actual field is called). I simply have no reason to believe it, whether it’s true or not. The truth is, when taking to someone on the internet, it’s safer to assume that they’re not doctors.

            I do feel that I’ve used science and research to confirm my religion and am sorry that you don’t feel the same. As I said, I do feel that looking into the flood and the exodus will provide a detailed explanation.

            As I said before, I don’t truly expect you to change your beliefs, I don’t expect you to agree with a lot of what I said.

            I can think of two ways to get me (and most other christians) into a religious argument. The first being the defense of my religion, and the second being a desire for people to be happy. I simply have a desire for people to know that they’ll be rewarded for being good in life and to be generally happy people, it’s not meant to offend anyone.

            I don’t really want to continue arguing with you because I’ve seen that I can’t convince you to see my side. I would like to answer your question about what created God as it’s something I’ve thought about before. I say that God is the original creator, the uncaused cause. If he had a creator, the next logical question would be what created that. This would lead to an infinite loop of creators, which is not logical.

            Again, my intention isn’t to offend anyone, simply to let them know that they’ll be rewarded with eternal happieness for being good people. And again, I don’t wish to continue arguing.

          • Maggot

            @Blue: I take your point about being agnostic, but as I stated I am a working scientist and I actually work in the field of physics, there is absolutely no evidence of any all powerful being or a creator so no I dont have to be agnostic as there is no evidence supporting that viewpoint.

            These religious apologists always seem to get caught up in trying to pigeon-hole others into these “categories” or definitions, which I find to be just a transparent diversionary tactic. I’ve been down this road here before. Your response here addresses it admirably. I’ve always contended (I, being a layperson, not a scientist) that the mere suggestion of something alone does not instantaneously give it credence enough to then have to consider it as being possible, and thus call oneself an agnostic about it, as opposed to just calling it what it is – a made up gap-filling crock (by which then you’re accused of being a hypocritical “believer” in its non-existence). That’s why purposely ridiculous parodies like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and whatnot come to be, so as to show how preposterous that cart before the horse faux-baseline approach is.

            Obviously it is beneath a working scientist (yes, I “believe” you to be one, and I for one have appreciated your inputs here) to have to resort to that level of gamesmanship, and you basically summarized it with the simple statement: “Anything that can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof – that is the scientific method in a nutshell.” Succinctly put. Which makes me hard pressed to “believe” that ww here is also a working scientist, as he so claims. He may well in fact be one, as yes, I get that scientists in general can also have their personal spiritualism, faiths, and beliefs, but to let those feelings interfere with actual science, such as the dumb “fish to cat” rhetoric and claiming “eyewitness” anecdotes be on par with scientific proof i.e. testable and repeatable and falsifiable empirical evidence from a myriad of disciplines, is shameful.

          • ww

            Blue: After reading your last comment, I do believe that you can be reasonable, and be convinced to at least avoid insulting me. I know that my last comment was directed towards you as well, but I feel I should give a bit of defense for Maggot’s comment.
            Maggot: I do believe that I’ve tried to reason with you before, with no such luck. Let me point something out to you though, simply because I disagree with your religion does not make me wrong. And as I said, there’s no reason for anyone to believe me about my profession.

            Because I’m sure Maggot, that you’ll respond in an attempt to get me to argue, I’d just like to let you know that you’ll look petty doing so (or at least more so, a I’ve already said that I don’t wish to continue arguing). I do not plan to respond to you as whatever comment you leave is likely to be insulting.

          • Blue

            @ Maggot:

            I think you are hitting the nail right on the head and have understood the points made fully, I know I can do this in quite a long winded way but without a thorough explanation the lord of the gaps religious arguments become “opinion” and this is what the vast majority (especially in the US) get via biased or just plain bad reporting and other media/spin elements.

            And, without casting aspersions on anyone that comes here, I tend to dismiss journalism out of hand as the vast majority of the people reporting have no knowledge of what they are reporting on and therefore misinformation and opinion are the norm; unfortunately this is where most people now derive their “knowledge” from. Word of mouth is not fact and should be questioned, that is why I like responding sometimes on this forum, you probably see that my posts get a lot of vitriolic responses and troll posts, its the old adage opinions are like…………but with factual responses the uninformed (rather than unintelligent as I stated above to WW – I should refrain from personal attacks myself) viewpoint can be dismantled very easily by logic and facts.

            Facts are not opinions and basically, as I have continually stated, I try to get away from rhetoric where I can and actually involve the scientific method to uncover the facts. From a personal perspective I have always done this, I was a very precocious child and would question everything, I was not led to do this, it just seems to be my natural inclination, however it has served me very well and I do try and be reasonable in my responses, but sometimes my hubris gets the better of me. Something I guess we are all guilty of to some extent.

            In terms of who or what you believe I am, of course because you do not really know me that is conjecture also, but hopefully my knowledge does come through in my posts and I thank you for your comment.

            In all honesty you are one of the people that I tend to read posts from here in the comments section and I think you have been lurking here as long as I have, so I am just sending back my regards and respect.

            @WW:

            I think we can agree that we have moved on from an argument and are now actually having a reasonable debate, but I will understand if you do not wish to continue the discussion.

            You wont change my mind at all on religion, its dogma, idolisation or historic importance simply because unless a “creator” can be proven then it can be dismissed. I am not trying to convert your belief system, all I am and have been doing is pointing out how illogical it is in the face of scientific discovery and the straws which are being clutched by the misguided who still feel the need for a “belief” system when there are no facts supporting that belief, and I don’t mean some I mean absolutely zero facts.

            I really have no clue who you are so I am not going to make a judgement about you being a biologist, however I do find your response fascinating from a purely objective standpoint, and this is the point you can either answer or not, that is entirely up to you.

            Let me just begin by giving some background for my questions to develop: As stated I work in the geophysics field, primarily that involves working with other physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, geologists and several other planetary science disciplines. However the work impacts on, and we work with palaeontologists, botanists, biologists, evolutionary scientists, chemists and several other scientific study areas but the ones mentioned are the main groups.

            I personally am in a very fortunate position that I developed a technology (with several others) over a decade ago that allowed me to become “self sufficient” and I can pick and choose where I work or what I wish to be involved in, this has included several investment opportunities and working on areas of study of great interest to me such as palaeontology and as described previously work on historic sites of major geologic occurrences such as the Jordanian Rift.

            As mentioned to Maggot above, I was a very precocious child; even going so far as to respond to people who asked me as a five year old what I wanted to be when I grew up and stating a “palaeontologist” which blew their mind as no-one had even heard of the study back then, let alone coming from a small child – I come from an area where fossils are abundant. I grew out of wanting that when I discovered physics and geology, however I have been involved in this field of study on an amateur and professional level and have a substantial fossil collection from all over the world’s greatest fossil sites where my credentials have allowed me access to restricted dig sites such as the Burgess Shales and on a professional level I have been heavily involved in dating specific fossil beds and describing the morphology and continental movements of our planet allowing the fossilization processes.

            So your responses are bringing up several questions to me on your personal beliefs given your study in biology:

            1. As a biologist surely you cannot begin to deny the facts of evolution? You must understand even something as simple as a baby’s growth in the womb and the characteristics of our evolutionary path it displays in the womb? Of course this happens in all animals but as humans are the dominant species at this time the stages of development of a baby in the womb are extremely well understood.

            2. You also understand that a human starts life as a single celled organism as all animal life does on our planet? And that human embryonic development factually displays our evolutionary path by going through various stages of development such as developing gills and other vestigial characteristics both molecular and anatomical?

            3. Even at the most basic level you must understand that all life forms are transitionary life forms and continually evolve and exploit their niches?

            4. From your biological study arena you understand that all life forms on the planet are interconnected via DNA from a single life form that is all life’s oldest living ancestor?

            5. You therefore realise that this ancestor is 3.8 billion years old with direct fossil evidence from Africa, Greenland, Antarctica, North and South America, Europe Asia and Australia?

            6. You also therefore are aware that all iron ore deposits on the planet are a direct result of these early single celled organisms producing oxygen via photosynthesis by converting carbon dioxide held in the atmosphere making the by-product oxygen which reacted with our worlds natural iron rich early sea environment and creating our “rust” belts?

            7. And therefore you are aware that these organisms are still alive today as they were and are a highly successful life form called stromatolites? Which have huge amounts of fossil evidence from 3.5billion years ago right up to and including the present and the Genus of Collenia being the most common throughout the fossil record?

            8. You must then also understand that these cyanobacteria are responsible for the oxygen in our atmosphere and therefore are a direct influence on our world and its many diverse life forms? Including our current technological reliance on iron ore?

            9. You should be aware that the fossil record shows a gradual increase in predation of these cyanobacteria from the 1.25-1 billion year mark by grazing multi-celled organisms which resulted in evolutionary responses and what is wrongly termed the “Cambrian explosion”? (I come from Cambria by the way which fuelled my earliest years in this area)

            10. You surely must therefore acknowledge that evolution is a fact supported throughout the fossil and geological record? Thereby eliminating the need for a creator?

            Now I can go in to much more depth than this I am just asking questions in the hope that you are able to discuss them; for example; life as we know it requires some basic constituents to get started, all of which are produced by stellar evolution and atmospheric conditions and can be replicated in the lab (that I can go in to in more depth if you like).

            I am not trying to bait you here I am actually interested in your responses to the facts posed. These are not conjecture or hypothesis these are actual scientific facts which are evidenced throughout the fossil record, our knowledge is not complete of course but these are actual facts at this stage in our discovery. If you want me to go in to how unlikely fossilization is I will be happy to explain that for you, but even given the unlikely occurrence of fossilization there is ample evidence supporting these theories.

            I do find it fascinating that you have this response simply from dealing with other scientists daily. While I cant give you a fully statistical approach on this, my personal experience is that probably 95% of the people I work with have no need of a creator, this includes all of the scientists mentioned above, of the other 5% most are American and, confidentially, the vast majority I have discussed this with say the same thing but their reliance on their funding sources out of the US (most of which have a heavy religious influence either at the university or at the sponsorship level) either have to say they believe or I don’t know simply to continue getting their funding, privately they are either deeply agnostic or atheists. From personal discussions I would say that 97% are non-believers, 1-2% agnostic and 1-2% believers. I would also state that of the non-believers several percent attend a religious service once in a while, I put this down to familial or peer pressure.

            If you have the inclination please explain to me, as a biologist, how you reconcile the specific facts above with your beliefs as I am extremely interested to hear your views and what backs them up.

          • ww

            Blue:
            I’ll attempt to put my perspective into words.

            I do know that animals change to fit their surroundings, and sometimes they change through mishaps when copying their DNA. I also understand how people can look at these small changes and believe that they stack up. I have yet to find however, evidence of single celled organisms becoming something else. I do see your example of the development of a fetus, and understand how that can be taken as evolution. It is not as the original cell has the DNA of the parents and has natural ability to form into a fetus (again, I do have difficulty finding the right words to describe things).

            The change that animals have when moving to a new environment is adaptation, not evolution. Because evolution is a broad term, I feel I should elaborate. I speak of evolution as a single celled organism changing over time to a fish to a land creature to something else, such as a cat.

            Surely you’re aware of Darwin’s finches ( I believe it was finches, it may have been something else). They changed over time to fit their surroundings, the biggest change being their beaks. My point is that this was adaptation, not evolution. They did not mutate, they simply changed by, for lack of a better description, bringing up certain parts of the DNA. In my personal experience, certain parts of DNA can be “turned on or off.” This can lead to things such as an ostrich having teeth. Going back to the finches, one could do the same to them. Take a finch with a short, blunt beak and “turn on” the parts of their DNA that would give it a long, thin beak.

            Going to your statement that their is no evidence of God, allow me to say this: if you were to be given evidence, you (likely) would not accept it. This is because of your presupposition that he does not exist. I feel that you could be given evidence and, inside, think ” God is not real, therefore this is not evidence.”

            I do hope we can have a properly civil debate without the personal jabs and statements of one anothers lack of intelligence. If you wish for me to elaborate on any of my points, please feel free to ask.

          • Blue

            WW:

            I really do not think you understand that evolution is adaptation fuelled by minor mutations.

            Also I dont think you understand your own point regarding single celled organisms evolving in to multi-cellular organisms. The easiest way for me to explain this and provide the proof is that all plants and animals start as single celled organisms, that is your proof in a nutshell that we “evolved” from single celled organisms as we are reliant on this very basic fact.

            Darwin’s finches actually prove that adaptation is evolution simply because they are adapting and evolving to their circumstance and environment. Please revisit what I wrote earlier regarding how organisms adapt and evolve:

            “Organisms do not spend most of their time adapting and evolving, they have far more pressing concerns such as finding food and breeding; however they are perpetually challenged by, and adapting to, a rapidly changing suite of viruses, parasites, predators and prey, climate and geological morphology and many other competing factors which drives their evolution over time and it is this basic premise that you are completely failing to understand.”

            if you want to see this in action then Darwin’s finches are a perfect example of island dimorphism and this is an extremely well understood study area and there are many more examples of this currently with species like gecko’s evolving to exploit their habitats (and some in the process of developing giving live birth where their egg shells are thinning perceptibly over new generations) and much further within the fossil record such as the reduction of size of mammoths and other mega-fauna when they have become trapped by rising sea levels or plate tectonic activity. Madagascar is a perfect example of this in action on a paleo and current basis as is Australia with its marsupials.

            I also think you fail to realise that it is this adaption that has fuelled evolution, and just to give you a couple of examples using my previous posts, oxygen is a fuel, of this I am sure you are aware, single celled organisms started to cooperate together with the advent of higher levels of oxygen which allow them to work together (I say allow as there are plenty of examples of this still ongoing within single celled organisms). These cooperative groups eventually evolved predation techniques and started to graze on cyanobacteria and other singles celled organisms, via mutation these groups then adapted and an evolutionary “arms race” ensued fuelling evolution which is still ongoing and will not stop as long as the earth can maintain life.

            Just on the absolute most basic level of understanding anatomical structure’s you must understand that all plants and animals are a conglomeration of single celled organisms that work together to create the whole?

            This is without going in to that much depth regarding how cells interact with one another and the chemical bonds that they have, the DNA and genetic material which tells a cell what to be and how this is all cooperative and “builds” anatomical structure.

            I think you are mistaking mutation and adaption. Mutation can certainly be an impact but it is the adaptation that these mutations enable that drive evolution. So in our example above of island dimorphism in mega-fauna, what you are seeing there is that smaller animals are more successful and over time these “pygmy” groups become more dominant and successful as they are adapting to their environment and the resources that environment has to offer. This is well understood and there are literally thousands of examples from the fossil record and actually in action such as Darwin’s finches who are adapting to their source of food.

            On to the area of a foetus: this is not only a provable fact, DNA can be manipulated to produce what I will term “throwbacks”. That is we can take specific DNA and the genes this contains and implant it to grow different body structures. Stem cells are a prime example of this and once again prove without any shadow of a doubt the link between all plant and animal groups.

            It is probably worth you visiting how mammals and other viviparous vertebrate embryos develop for definitive studies in this area.

            A foetus perfectly mirrors our evolutionary path and this is perhaps the very simplest form of understanding evolution. Foetuses do not just look like our ancient ancestors, they are actually our ancient lineage laid bare, this goes from them being single celled organisms (the egg and the sperm) and then via cell division and cell cooperation via the genetic codes held in the DNA they develop through various evolutionary stages, including our aquatic and reptilian ancestry.

            These are provable visible facts, they are not conjecture or hypothesis, they are theories and are backed up by understanding such items as mammalian auditory ossicles, with many many examples of transitionary fossil evidence and actual physical adaptation of these items within the womb. In reptiles, the eardrum is connected to the inner ear via a single bone, the stapes or stirrup, while the upper and lower jaws contain several bones not found in mammals. Over the course of the evolution of mammals, one lower and one upper jaw bone (the articular and quadrate) lost their purpose in the jaw joint and were put to new use in the middle ear, connecting to the stapes and forming a chain of three bones (collectively called the ossicles) which amplify sounds and allow more acute hearing. In mammals, these three bones are known as the malleus, incus, and stapes (hammer, anvil, and stirrup respectively).

            Now if you want to see this in transitional form then all you need do is look at the Oligokyphus an advanced herbivorous cynodont from the late Triassic which is an actual transitionary fossil which shows the above ossicles separating and still attached even though the group is synapsid it is developing fully mammalian features. This then shows a direct link to later transitionary fossils such as Maotherium.

            All of these structures can be traced directly by embryology studies and the direct evidence is contained within all mammalian animals. Mammals are the only living synapsids, we became distinct from the sauropsid lineage in the late Carboniferous period around 320-315 million years ago. These facts are incredibly well supported throughout various studies including our anatomical understanding.

            Comparitive anatomy is a well understood discipline and along with the study of embryology has shown with absolute conclusive proof that these adaptations take place in the womb. Again I can go in to much more depth here as I have been party to several embryogenesis studies and how various cell division such as Somitogenesis form ancient traits and are either discarded and form vestigial traits or do not form at all.

            Perhaps it would be worth you looking in to molecular phylogenetics as a starting point, this is a comparatively new study area (about the 1960’s onwards and Linus Pauling was part of its early development) but it serves to show the an.alysis of hereditary molecular differences, mainly in DNA sequences, to gain information on an organism’s evolutionary relationships. The result of a molecular phylogenetic analysis is expressed in a phylogenetic tree. Molecular phylogenetics is one aspect of molecular systematics, a broader term that also includes the use of molecular data in taxonomy and biogeography. I point this out as you mentioned genetics above so you should be eminently familiar with this study area or at least have access to it.

            I mentioned earlier that I am an investor in several areas, one of these areas is stem cell research, now if you want proof of everything’s interconnectedness all you really need to do is study stem cells and how they can be manipulated to literally become any other type of cell and are our cell/anatomy renewal systems and are found in every multi-cellular organism that has mitosis cell division.

            If I was given proof of a creator then my job is to question that proof and define its characteristics, again it is worth pointing out that proofs have to be testable and stand up to critical false positive testing. Let me just reiterate for you what I said previously, there is absolutely no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise for a creator, in fact we can dismiss this as a study area as it just does not exist.

            In conclusion there are literally now thousands of years of combined study in the evolutionary field with many other thousands of combined years of study in supporting fields such as my own, biology, anatomy, embryology, genetics, palaeontology, geology and morphology, bacteriology etc etc all with the supporting scientific proofs and testable experiment underpinning their theories and study areas.

            In contrast there may literally be millions of years of combined theological study and the beliefs behind those studies and there is zero proof that has been defined and can scientifically be tested. That is the measure you should be aware of, with all of the study whether this is formal theology or church based belief study, there is absolutely no proof and therefore religion can be dismissed as a fallacy.

            That really is why we can say with 99.99% certainty that there is no creator (remember what I stated earlier about hubris and claiming a 100% certainty in anything), the reality of this is that the 0.01% (it is actually closer to a decimal point followed by infinite zero’s than just a 0.01% chance statistically against the hours of study but I cant write that down) is of such an insignificant value that it really is 100%.

            That does not mean I am agnostic by the way, what that means is through reliable scientific study and proof we can say with absolute certainty that there is no creator. From a purely statistical approach 50.01% gives you objective proof; each added percentage point further limits the statistical probability that you are wrong, when you get past 99% basically it is “true” and cant be wrong. You will not be able to find a study that has been turned around anywhere that had that much proof (note not consensus actual proof).

            I can see how the religious would jump on this as saying “but there is a possibility”, of course there is logically, just the same as saying that the Earth is flat, statistically it could be, it isn’t so therefore saying the Earth is a sphere is true with a 99.99% with the .9’s to infinity and that is the same for the proof of a creator, it is 99.99% > infinity that there is not one given the lack of any proof for one and the scientific study areas providing proofs, via testable discovery, that we don’t need one to explain anything.

            So with full confidence I can say that there is no creator, no deity and no God simply because every study “proves” that there isn’t and further study limits the possibility of me being wrong to such an infinite degree that to say there is such a being would mark me out as being unintelligent. Again I am not calling believers unintelligent I am saying that all of the proofs that they dismiss make them oblivious to the “truth”.

            Objectively and to make this viable for you, current human influenced climate change is accepted by 97% of scientists asked, that is consensus and is therefore likely to be “true” as it has a 3% margin of error, each new study develops this theory and reduces that 3%, just 10 years ago the figure was 91% and 9% respectively. Basically human influenced climate change is a fact and the scientists who work in the field have 100% proof but via media and spin campaigns by the perpetrators of fossil fuel burning and various other interested parties there are huge divisions in the “layman” ranks even though scientifically it is fully proven and scientifically accepted. Opinion is not fact.

            I am not trying to change your mind I am providing you with the proofs and I really am struggling to work out why you think adaptation, which is the purest form of evolution, isn’t actual evolution and as a biologist/geneticist how you could possibly arrive at your viewpoint?

          • ww

            You certainly did take your time composing your last comment. I’m sorry to say this, but you seem to be confusing facts. You continue to claim that there is no evidence for God, calling him the “lord of gaps.” I’m sure I’ve given the cosmological argument. I’ve pointed out the historical and scientific arguments, but you can’t seem to find them. The bible accurately describes the chemical nature of man, the hydraulic cycle, the innumerability of the stars( yes, there is a finite amount of stars, but no matter how hard we try, we can’t seem to count them all. You should take into consideration the technology of the people at the time.), and the shape of the earth. I’ve had disputes over it says about the shape of the earth, people saying that the bible calls the earth a circle. Take into consideration the original hebrew words. Their word for circle had other meanings as well, such as compass and circuit.
            For evolution, you’ve misunderstood what I said. in adaptation, the genes for the specific phenotype are already in the DNA, this is not the case for mutation, which creates a new genotype.

            I feel I must make the assumption that you are not being objective (I am sure that you aren’t, and you would not admit to not being so). You have the presupposition that He does not exist and therefore would never take anything as evidence. It IS very difficult to change your presupposition, as you’ve stated before. Again, I’m sorry if you don’t understand it.

            I don’t plan on continuing this discussion as there is predictability as to WHEN you will comment. Feel free to make another comment, just know that I will not reply. I do plan on continuing to defend my religion when I see an offensive comment, so I ask that you not reply when I do so as you’ve shown that I can’t convince you, and I will do the same for you. On other matters, I’ll be happy to debate with you (topics such as guns, abortion, execution, and my personal favorite: pancakes vs. waffles).

            Before I end, I feel the need to include just one more thing. Something that you not any other atheist will accept as you have not experienced it. After the acceptance of God, after becoming nearly absolutely sure, I was, and other good christians were, filled with a sense that we’re right. A warm, happy feeling that only confirms our belief to us, that erases any remaining doubt. I’m sure that you’ll collapse laughing after reading that, that you’ll try to come up with any number of arguments against it, but that’s because you can’t seem to understand anything more than what you believe.

          • Blue

            WW.

            The comment was in moderation for several days, nothing to do with me composing it, I posted it on Sunday and had to post it again on Tuesday after it was ignored/lost by the moderator.

            You do not have to answer this post, I dont mind that, as really at this stage you are not able to provide me with any evidence of your dogmatic belief only personal anecdote so we can safely say again that what I am stating is correct – anything that can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

            You have given no argument regarding any “facts” supporting your belief systems as you really cant, it does not matter what you wish to retcon in to the bible, I have explained this previously that we humans are an ingenious lot, however religion has stifled this creativeness via countless examples of calling someone “heretic” and disclaiming their views – Copernicus is a prime example and now the Catholic Church would like to retcon him in to their ranks even though he was almost executed for his hypothesis.

            I really do not think you understand genetics at all to be perfectly honest. The genotype of an organism is the inherited instructions it carries within its genetic code. Not all organisms with the same genotype look or act the same way because appearance and behavior are modified by environmental and developmental conditions. Likewise, not all organisms that look alike necessarily have the same genotype. Phenotypes are the composite of an organism’s observable characteristics or traits: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, phenology, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird’s nest). Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism’s genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two.

            I am being entirely objective as stated above objectivity is backed up by provable facts and in the lack of specific facts, by scientific consensus arrived at via studies that have certain facts and truths already within the study.

            You are confusing objectivity with subjectivity. All theological study is subjective as there are no facts attached to the study, again I point this out a you seem to want to discuss this on a high philosophical level but I think you completely misunderstand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, I think it would be worth your while actually looking up the differences before you make wild accusations and assumptions.

            You can say what you like about your faith and what it has done for you, that is your choice, it is entirely subjective but it is your opinion. But like I stated opinion is not fact.

            Just to reiterate you may “feel” that you are right, however scientifically and objectively, you are not simply because there is no actual evidence supporting your claims and by that I mean absolutely zero evidence. You have not answered any of the actual points I raised, you are going around in circles saying the same things.

            Argue you points by being specific against the points I raised, this will allow you to show that you understand what I have written. When you ignore those facts and do not respond to them, you are doing yourself a disservice and not only showing a lack of knowledge on the subjects but you are posting irrelevancies in the hope of deflecting away from this lack of knowledge or the ability to argue your points coherently.

            I have stated this many times within this discussion, you are bringing your own personal views which are highly subjective and are not objective in the slightest. What you need to do is come back with actual scientific reasoning and proofs for your claims. This will then allow us to have an actual debate as all I can see right now is your skirting around the facts I posted and going off on tangents.

            Stick to the posts and present your arguments against the facts they contain. You are not doing this, you are deflecting which shows you either a) do not understand the subject matter or b) that you wish to provide personal views that you cannot back up objectively. I do not mind which it is I am just pointing out that you are logically failing to address the specific points contained and giving a personal opinion on other areas which my posts have not asked you to address.

        • Blue

          WW:

          I just wanted to touch on something else within your last post about being right and in another post where you claim the moral high ground with regards to compassion and other such areas.

          I am not going to dwell on this subject but I think it would be worth you looking at these articles which give you a better understanding of the nature of what atheists and agnostics actually do to help, most charitable giving within churches go towards the upkeep of the pastor/priests/fathers Cadillac’s and Rolex watches. So I would be careful in how you define “goodness” as well as your beliefs, perhaps as much as 80% of all “tithes” are used “administratively” rather than for actual charitable donation and getting to the groups that teh churches and various denominations support.

          Here are some studies for you:

          http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivathttp://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religiohttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012

          And back to point, I also think it is worth noting that one of our great spiritual leaders, the Dalai Lama, has this to say on scientific study and empiricism:

          “My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

          Perhaps this is the best example for you to understand actual logic and objective thought processes.

      • You know, I dont currently believe in a God, so I cant in all honesty recommend religion to anyone, but I was actually extolling the virtue of *keeping* it and making available the educational resources to everybody so that they have the capacity to make up their own minds – or have you already made up their minds for them?

        Aaaaand on top of that, your argument for the existence of a god is that some stuff in the bible matches up with reality, therefore it ALL must be the literal truth.

        I’m sorry to be your “Bad Guy” but even *I* can come up with better arguments for the existance of a god than that.

        • ww

          I understand that you don’t believe in God, I’m ok with that, I don’t have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is being insulted and having my religion insulted. I understand that the bible lining up with history isn’t enough; which is why I tend to include other arguments. These arguments, I feel, give adequate evidence for God. I don’t expect to convert you or any other atheist, I simply want to give the facts and see how people respond.

          • So you don’t like being insulted? Well, that makes two of us, three if you count my intelligence.

            Believe me, I know that atheists are just as prone to being a****holes as anyone.

            However:

            Arguments are not facts.

            Enough evidence for you is not necessarily a universal proof.

            A religion is not just a book, its a way of life, and is no more (or less, I begrudgingly offer, though that might be a matter of opinion) valid than mine or any other.

          • ww

            To p1t1o:

            Since we’re counting our intelligence as separate people, we’d like to be regarded as five people. (I do hope you take that as a joke.

            No, arguments are not facts, I do tend to use the word for both facts and actual arguments.
            I’ll admit that there are plenty of irritating christians who bring religion into every topic. I would like to point out that I did not bring up religion, I simply responded to an offensive comment.

          • @ww

            That did actually make me laugh :)

          • Blue

            Actually you brought up the religion aspect here:

            ww / 4 Sep, 2012 at 11:45 am

            Obviously, you’re a very confused person. The bible has proven to be historically and scientifically accurate.

            Again if you are going to argue a point you would do well to look back at your own arguments first.

          • ww

            To blue:
            Perhaps it would be best if you were to look at the comment you had posted before I responded.

          • Blue

            I responded to your post:

            Here let me help:

            ww / 4 Sep, 2012 at 11:45 am
            Obviously, you’re a very confused person. The bible has proven to be historically and scientifically accurate.

            My response:

            Blue / 4 Sep, 2012 at 10:33 pm
            Ok you need a reality check regarding your religious nonsense, just because there are no facts in your post.

            You see that? I responded nearly a full 11 hours after your first post. There is a reason for this as I am based 8 hours ahead of GMT in South East Asia.

            Again saying something is true can only be backed up by facts, I just posted the facts to prove you wrong. Please feel free to try and respond with some direct evidence.

      • simon

        Show me the temple of Solomon:)

    • Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth, I was drawing comparisons to the original idea of “forgetting” these serial killers’ words.

      • ww

        I don’t know if you’re notified or not when you get a reply. Or whether or not you want to continue the discussion, if you do, I responded to one of your comments.

  • undaunted warrior 1

    As kreepy as this list is, it was a an enjoyable read.

  • TruStory

    These list, while entertaining, offer very little in intellect, and a lot in redundancy. These list of serial killers, rapist, terrorist, and killer dictators constantly hit the most viewed and popular on Listverse…there’s not a single criminal on this list that hasn’t been discussed in more detail on another list.

  • Sardondi

    Why do people repeat urban legends without the least bit of research?

    DEBBIE HARRY NEVER MET TED BUNDY. She certainly didn’t escape from Ted Bundy’s car. http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/debharry.asp

    • Will Trame

      That was an interesting site. Who can really discern the truth anymore? Not to get off topic, but I think people like urban legends due to the controversy, sensationalism, and the penchant to make people think on an oddball keel about existence. Another such urban legend involved the Ohio Players (remember them?). It was reputed,,,and debunked…that a woman was murdered while the group recorded “Love Rollercoaster”. Her “death scream” was “heard” during the instrumental break.

  • Pippa

    Am I last?

  • Pippa

    Ha ha! I’m still last!

  • Some of your information of Albert Fish is wrong. He said that he had had children in every state, not consumed children. Experts on the subject believe that he was talking about molesting children, not eating them.

  • serial killers suck

    Albert Fish did consume human flesh. He apparently told one of his jailors how to cook a child’s behind to perfection. The man was so bereft of human emotion or decency he should not have been able to function, yet he married and had 6 children I beleive it was. How does someone that damaged come to be? The abuse as a child was supposedly horrific and I understand it warped him but he seemed to revel in his evil. Human freaks attract us like moths to light because we cannot fathom the depths of our own depravity.

  • ni99a

    I had my very first, last period. but iam 47. what is wrong? do you thing i am having my very last, first period?

    • ni99a

      UPDATE

  • Biddy

    fantastic list best one iv read in many months nice work

  • dsafaf

    Wow John’s quote gave me chills up my spine. Very creepy.

  • Kokeisha

    I hate bigots. They are the reason the world is such a miserable place. Even in The Qur’an there’s a verse that sounds like this “for me, my religion and for you, your religion” . Stop harassing people should they choose to have a religion, any kind of religion. Humility is a “GREAT” virtue, even if you’re so proud to be an atheist.

    • Jamie

      Please don’t start pulling out bible/Qur’an quotes, You won’t win.
      The whole thing is ridiculously stupid and contradicts itself every other page. It is actually laughable.

    • There are bigots on both sides unfortunately.

      And as for your very enlightened and reasonable quote from the Qur’an, its a pity so few followers actually take the words to heart isn’t it?

      So “for me, my religion”, unfortunately I don’t have one and so am cursed to a violent death and eternal torment by the very same document.

      Absolutely chock full of humility, huh?

  • simon

    your list is full of inaccurate statements which could have been easily identified and prevented.

  • ZodiacRevisited

    Great list! Fascinating reading.

    One minor correction, though. The Zodiac Killer named himself “The Zodiac” in his letters. Early on, the press had given him a different name: the “Cipher Killer.” But, the self-assigned name in the one that eventually stuck.

  • Nicole

    Manson shouldve been on here.
    He had a ton of good, chilling quotes.

    • simon

      Manson never killed anyone himself. He does not qualify as a serial killer.

      • Terribilis

        Who is worse – someone who kills or someone who gets others to kill for them? Manson is at least bad as any of the nutjobs on this list.

      • FlatEric

        I don’t think Hitler killed anyone himself, either. He’s still considered the evilest man that ever lived.

        • The three of you are way overreacting, we all know Hitler was Evil/Twisted but simon didn’t say they were nice people.

          Hitler can run for evilest but he still doesn’t qualify as a serial killer, and if Manson didn’t either then neither does he. Murderers yes, serial killers no.

          Also, Godwin’s Law.

  • disagree heartily

    you have GOT to be kidding! you would have the worst of what society offers and turn them loose again? What kind of backhanded justice is that? to a number the victims say they do not feel safe until there tormentors are put away for life or killed…unable to come after them again. how many of these monsters have been put away numerous times, only to repeat their heinous behaviour after release. These people cannot help themselves. They crave the release of their killing ways.

    • Who are you disagreeing with?

  • Nobody deserved death more than Bundy and Gacy. Their crimes were despicable and their sentences were just.

  • Dee Y

    Albert Fish was really one sick weirdo. I think one extract from his diary went something like “Grace sat on my lap and kissed me. I made up my mind to eat her. I didnt f**k her though I could have. She died a virgin.” And that was apparently one of the milder extracts. I know that jurors at his trial vomited and passed out when some other stuff was read out. He was labelled a “polymorphose pervert”, in other words someone whose perversions were simply too numerous to name individually.

  • Jesse

    carl panzram is a distant relative of mine kinda scary when you think about it O_O

  • I met Gacy 6 months before his arrest at Woodfield Mall in Schaumburg Illinois…He was dressed as Pogo the Clown.

  • Serial killer Rodney James Alcala on the Dating Game:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uf95INZmWI

    Charles Manson’s opinions on Ted Bundy:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaAcnSnI-fI

  • bloody distrubing!

  • daddyostjames

    wasn’t son of Sam murders in 1977?

  • David Reiss

    Deborah Harry didn’t have a narrow escape from Ted Bundy..

    http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/debharry.asp

  • mongZ

    #10 is veeery disturbing. i already read some stories of some of the people on this list. that woman is gonna haunt me in my nightmares.

  • Laji

    The zodiac killer might be a hit man. The blue meanies is meant for Police.

  • Joe

    During his execution the electric chair short circuited due the amount of needles in his body.

    ^ That last bit about Albert Fish is a long-since-debunked rumor.

  • Danille

    If someone tried to kidnap Debbie Harry, it was not Ted Bundy. There is no record of him ever traveling to New York, and the vehicle he actually drove at the time this supposedly happened was completely normal. Debbie said there was no door handle or window crank, yet these modifications were not made to his car until years after she said this happened. Please check up on your facts a bit more when making a list, it doesn’t take long and can prevent the spread of untrue stories such as Debbie’s.

  • He’s called the Zodiac killer because he gave himself that name after the Zodiac watch he bought. It has a cross-hair symbol on it exactly like the symbol he used in his letters.

    http://techcrunch.com/2007/09/01/where-did-the-zo

  • Is the dabte between Blue and WW the most epic one on here or what!

    Is there some sort of column-inches world record?

    :D

  • leroy

    my friend’s mother-in-law makes $67 hourly on the laptop. She has been without work for 8 months but last month her income was $19178 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this web site NUTTYRICHdotcom

  • charlz

    medical question: i wake up 5 times a night with my penis tingling frantically does this mean i’ve hit puberty?

  • lobo

    Long time passive fan of this site first time commenter. first things first, Very good list.
    I just wanted to say to the blowhards who thought it was a nice idea to have the never ending internet debate on the need or removal of religion/the existence or none existence of God.please, the next time you want change each others minds or prove that the other is wrong and or stupid. Do it somewhere else.the fact that the posts where of page lengths says that you lik to here yourself speak and you have no lives.
    So handle your pissing contest somewhere,so those who want to enjoy the site can without your idiocy. By the way: the greatest minds in the world Can’t settle on those subjects,what makes you think a couple of douches on listverse can?

    • Maggot

      I just wanted to say to the blowhards who thought it was a nice idea to…

      Yeah? How about you go f.uck yourself. How’s that for a nice idea?

      So handle your *****ing contest somewhere,so those who want to enjoy the site can without your idiocy

      For a “passive fan” who’s busting his posting cherry, you sure are presumptuous and more than a little full of yourself. Since when do you hold a monopoly on “enjoying” the site? If other people are engaged in a lengthy and detailed discussion or debate in the comments, about whatever subject, then obviously THEY are enjoying the site too, in their own way, and don’t need approval from some punk like you on how to go about doing it. At least they have something to say. Why don’t you put your efforts into running off all the no-content troll posts that are becoming more and more prevalent around here, instead of trying to quell intelligent conversation just because it’s over a subject you’re not interested in?

      the greatest minds in the world Can’t settle on those subjects

      You don’t realize the contradiction within your own rant? If the greatest minds of the world find it to be a subject worthy of discussion and debate, then why can’t other people find it interesting enough to discuss as well? Or are you saying that the world’s greatest minds are also pissing contest douches with no lives? You can’t have it both ways, chump.

  • lobo

    Sorry if there are any grammar or spelling issues in that comment my auto correct is being a bastard.

  • Bjb

    Idiot

  • vermillionskin

    This list is good, sad, disturbing… Another reason to be scared of clowns :/
    I feel horrible for these children, I ca’t imagine the horror they lived and saw in their last moments! these are monsters and not humans… :'(

  • latvik

    No surprises here all Americans!!!

  • tr8!

    is someone a troll?

  • Lol

    Test comment.