We have approval!

We got word this morning that the TTC has approved our message:

Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign Advert
Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign Advert

Yay! This means that we’ll be able to start the logistics of getting this on out and should have your atheist buses rolling out soon! Thanks again for your contributions!

77 thoughts on “We have approval!”

  1. Its about time! This is a great thing. Its so good to see that other beliefs are finally aloud to be put in advertising and I can’t wait to see these buses in action! Awesome and keep up the good work I support it 100% :)

  2. What dark days we are living in when we’re celebrating a campaign that suggests that there is no life other than what we see. What purpose is there to life if there is nothing to look forward to? How could any of the things we see today exist if not provided to us by God? You can only go so far back before you realize that there’s something more substantial than a big bang theory or some evolution theory. Think about it, really think about it. I will keep you all in my prayers. God Bless.

  3. In God We Trust: I look at the ads in terms of Imagination…they’re expressing their imaginations, from whence everything springs, our hopes, desires, fears, anxieties, and beliefs…

    And each of us has our own comfort levels, things that we hold to be true, things we hold not to be true, etc — part of the joy in living in a multicultural etc country is that we all don’t believe the same things, we all aren’t comforted by the same things, yet we all live together and help each other out when needed :3

    Try thinking of it as an engagement with the Deep Meat of reality, the part that we experience: our Imaginations :3

  4. In God We Trust said, “Think about it, really think about it.”

    Just thinking about things without examining the evidence frequently results in wrong conclusions. If you think about it you would expect heavier objects to fall faster then lighter ones and people believed that for hundreds of years, but if you do an experiment you’ll find that they don’t.

    If you look at the evidence, big bang theory and evolution theory do explain all of the things we see today exist. There are still some gaps, but those are to be expected when trying to figure out exactly happens millions and billions of years ago and are being filled in at a steady rate.

  5. Granted, I hear what you’re saying about the scientific reasoning, but I look at it within the scope of nature’s own beauty: how do we know wind exists? We can’t physically touch it, hold onto it or even see it! We know it exists through its affects on the things around us – the trees, the leaves, etc. Similarly, I know God exists for the very same reasons. I see His affects on the people around me although even though I can’t physically see or touch Him myself. Thanks for listening.

  6. We know the wind the exists by the effect it has. It can be measured, tested and to a large extent predicted. We have a good understanding of what causes it.

    How do you measure the effects of God? How do you identify which effects are cause by Him and which the result of natural processes?

  7. Darwin – neither the big bang theory nor the evolutionary theory of origins actually explains anything. The only aspect of evolution that can be substantiated is natural selection within information that already exists in the gene pool. There is not a single substantiated example of new information being added to the gene pool through a mutation (which is the mechanism proposed by evolutionists for the evolution from simpler to more complex forms of life). Even mutations that seem to have adaptive value – rare though they are, they do happen – never add new information. And what about the transitional forms – how would they have survived? But that’s another whole topic, no room to do it justice here. Suffice it to say that evolutionary theory is actually so full of holes it’s amazing that anyone believes it. It totally contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is simply a belief system, a faith position, just like belief in God.

  8. Why wouldn’t mutations that have adaptive value not add new information? Their source may have been random, but natural selection means that only successful changes carry on.

    Which transitional forms would not have survived?

    The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The Earth receives a steady stream of energy from the Sun. Admittedly it will run out in a few billion years and life on Earth will collapse, but we’ve got a ways to go until then.

  9. On mutations that have adaptive value not adding new information – I’m saying that observation of mutations that actually occur in the present shows that they always involve a modification of information that already exists in the genetic code, not adding new information. This is micro evolution not macro evolution. It explains how natural selection works within existing species but does not explain, for example, how a fish could become an amphibian.

    As for transitional forms not surviving, the fossil record does not contain a single substantiated example of a “missing link”. The ones that were trumpeted as examples of this have all been disproven. Think about it – if new developments (a fin becoming a leg) were to happen by random mutation, how likely is it that the new form of life would survive? There’d be such a high percentage of failures. Probability theory alone shows that goo-to-you evolution is highly improbable and the evidence doesn’t support it. It’s a faith position, not provable science. Of course creationism isn’t provable either, but we never claimed it was. Still I maintain that the available evidence much more strongly supports creation than evolution. But of course, you have the right to your point of view – no argument there from me. Because I believe that people are made in the image of God, they are made with the right to choose …

  10. Michel, gotta love GBS. That man sure did struggle with “the Human Condition” and wrote some fine bits of literature to help us. There’s even an ‘ism’ created around him — Shavianism. Some kind of vital force in universe. What a man.

    Wisdom Hunter — I think that nothing can give us certainty, certainty is a human creation and that any tools we have (ideas, beliefs, perceptions, values, etc) are there for us to explore reality with. Evolution, while it is fallible, I think is the current best tool to examine certain aspects of the world with — like any good theory, it predicts. Now, I don’t know aboot your Creationism, but if it is religion, then is a whole separate critter from Evolution. They aren’t even the same tools — they both look at completely different aspects of existence. One helps with the World, the other is important to People. Perhaps complementary, but different.

  11. There are known “missing links”. Some are still around today, like the Lungfish a fish that can beath air after it’s pond has dried up and haves lobed fins for moving and digging on land.

    There may be a high percentage of failure, but with thousands to millions of individuals over millions of generations (many species live one year or less so generations are much shorter then in humans). That is billions or trillions of chances to make improvements. Do you have numbers to back up your statical claims?

  12. If you check out the truth about the lungfish you’ll find that it shows evidence of design – it is no evolutionary accident. See the following articles :


    As for the issue of statistics and probability – first a comment from me, then some in-depth analysis from an expert.
    My comment: It takes a lot more faith to believe in spontaneous generation of complexity and order from disorder than it does to believe in creation. I’m a computer scientist and I know that no matter how many keystrokes I type, they will organize themselves into logical readable useful information unless I impose some external order and intelligence.
    For some in-depth analysis by Jonathan Sarfati, a PhD in physical chemistry, have a look at this :

    The author, by the way, is a former atheist …

  13. Darwin – sorry – I realize I didn’t address the “missing link” issue directly in my reply to your last comment. I meant to do this but the referenced articles do so, especially the first one.

  14. Wisdom Hunter…explain then why cetaceans have ‘Flippers’ that contain all the structural components of a terrestrial mammal’s leg?..The whale has vestigial toe bones. That is but one example. Secondly, I would suggest that if all species were created separately…then God has a sick sense of humour…That tape worm was just a bad idea.

    You talk of ‘Micro-evolution’ vs ‘Macro-evolution’. I think human languages are a good example to use to explain how one species turns into another.

    The ‘genes’ of the language are in the sequences of letters used. Some 3000 years ago, the ‘genes’ were set up in a way to give Latin..but as time passed, new Gene’s were introduced from other populations, populations of latin speaking people got isolated from each other, some pronunciations changed, new meanings were given to existing words and different populations invented new words to represent various novel concepts….as time continued to roll on, these various populations continued to propagate their unique way of speaking via descent, and subsequent generations continued to introduce new concepts, creating new words to represent these concepts. These dialects, with time, differentiated to a point where they split off to form entire new languages (species)…Hence the current presence of Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese.

    Even now, within Linguistic clades, we see diversification. Quebec French is very different from Parisian french despite the fact that they only diverged from each other some four hundred years ago…In fact, many Parisians complain that they cannot understand Quebecers…Perhaps one day, Quebec’s official language may not be considered to be French anymore.

    So you see, in a little over 3000 years, latin evolved ancestor evolved into several descendant langauges, each keeping some characteristics of the common ancestor, but sufficiently different to be considered distinct from the common ancestor as well as each other. And all that without anyone intending it to happen that way.

    Now, in the text above, replace ‘language’ by ‘species’
    and spread the time out over Billions of years rather than mere thousands of years (3.4 billion years is the generally accepted hypothesis) and it begins to make sense…no?

    Furthermore, if ‘Macro-evolution’ were impossible, one could not expect to be genetic similarities between species. However, science has been demonstrating for years that mammal species are more similar to each other genetically than they are to Birds or reptiles…and that the Carnivora are more similar to each other than they are with other mammals such as artiodactyla or perissodactyla.

    In fact, the more phenotypic traits shared between two species, the more likely that they will also share similar genetic features (in general…this does not preclude the possibility of independant evolution of similar functional traits)…and since genes are transmitted from generation to generation, this is very much in line with the ‘modification through descent’ described in the linguistic example.

    You may wish to read up on Gould and Lewontin’s work on punctuated equilibrium which explains the changes in evolutionary rate. This brings the interaction between genetics and environment into perspective…explaining potential accelerations and decelerations in evolutionary change.

    So, unless you wish to ignore the hundreds of thousands of scientifically sound studies that, through the process of falsification of hypotheses, have provided rock-solid evidence in support of evolution through natural selection, I suggest that you should be doubting your belief in creation by now.

  15. Richard – as I said, the post that addresses these issues is awaiting moderation. However the bottom line is that even honest evolutionists admit that they cannot come up with verifiable missing links. Most evolutionary science texts present imaginary scenarios as if they were facts, show drawings that look like missing links, and then call them missing links. Dr. Colin Paterson, former senior paleontoligist at the British Museum of Natural History, was a little more honest.

    Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

    ‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

    He went on to say:

    ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’

    If I add the URL again, I’m afraid it may cause my post not to be accepted – but this quotation comes directly from a source that I am able to reference and substantiate. Contact me by e-mail if you want the reference.

  16. One more thought – on enjoying your life – there have been studies showing that practising believers in Christ, contrary to the popular caricature of us, are actually happier than the majority of the population. Anyway, I have no problem with you guys publicizing your position. Feel free – in the end it is a debate that is impossible to win by rational argument alone. It’s all about faith – evolutionary/atheist faith or theistic faith.

  17. Ah…you’re less ignorant because you’ve seen the ‘light’ of religious fervor and cannot admit that you spend all your time trying to poke holes in solid theory without realizing that your God of the gaps position is a house of cards! Well, staring at the sun for too long can blind any man…But that would infer that energy is coming from somewhere outside of the Earth…which means that your 2nd Law of thermodynamics argument is false…

    Here’s ywhat I suspect your true position is: If the science disagrees with scripture (or in this case, with your understanding of the way the world works) then the science is necessarily wrong (despite the evidence because the scientists made it all up) because I cannot possibly be wrong.

    I will not debate with you any longer because you purposely ignore anything you disagree with and then accuse other of ignorance? It is not true debate…it is like talking to a stone. Please evolve.

  18. It’s unlikely that anyone on this site would be moved by the quote-mined statements provided by Wisdom Hunter above, but just in case there is, you might want to check out the following link that provides a bit of context and explanation about Dr. Patterson’s words:


    Also, I’m wondering if Wisdom Hunter could provide us with the definition of ‘information’ that he is using with regards to mutations/evolution.

  19. Mark X: bang up job…However, I truly doubt that it will affect Wisdon Hunter in any way. For him, it’s not about truth, it’s about being right. He certainly doesn’t wear his pseudonym very well.

Comments are closed.