Bill Nye slams creationism

[Blake]

Now you know why I created "alternative" design.

And you have thought of nothing beyond the words ”alternative design”

[Blake]

Hitler



Godwin's theory

[mouse]

Because mythology isn't a science.

I take it you never heard of the Oort cloud.

[Avante]

Dinner is over, so you head off to the den to watch some TV, your 8 year old follows you there. Which is inusual. So you ask....yes? He asks, where did the elephant come from? This is long before computers and you don't have a book on tJe subject and the library is closed.

How do you explain that?

[baseline bum]

What's so Scientific about Romeo and Juliet?

Nothing, so it's not part of any reasonable science curriculum.

[Wild Cobra]

Because there's nothing scientific about religious dogma.
What peer reviewed study tells you that?

What if the Gods use science at levels we don't understand yet?

[redzero]

Just more stupid mounting up.

[Wild Cobra]

Just more stupid mounting up.
I just see deniers.

[baseline bum]

What peer reviewed study tells you that?

What if the Gods use science at levels we don't understand yet?

LOL, you really are a nihilist dipshit like mouse.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL, you really are a nihilist dipshit like mouse.
Why do you think inside a small limited box?

One premise of science is the ability to say "I don't know." How can you possibly know that a higher being capable of manipulating matter in ways we don't understand, is impossible?

That my friend is faith. As strong or stronger than any religion. That is not science.

[lakerhaterade]

Dinner is over, so you head off to the den to watch some TV, your 8 year old follows you there. Which is inusual. So you ask....yes? He asks, where did the elephant come from? This is long before computers and you don't have a book on tJe subject and the library is closed.

How do you explain that?

sup sbm?

[redzero]

Why do you think inside a small limited box?

One premise of science is the ability to say "I don't know." How can you possibly know that a higher being capable of manipulating matter in ways we don't understand, is impossible?

That my friend is faith. As strong or stronger than any religion. That is not science.

Unless presented with evidence to the contrary, I won't believe in God. It's only logical.

[Wild Cobra]

Unless presented with evidence to the contrary, I won't believe in God. It's only logical.

I have no problem with that opinion. But to believe God absolutely does not exist is unproven faith as well.

[mouse]

Dinner is over, so you head off to the den to watch some TV, your 8 year old follows you there. Which is inusual. So you ask....yes? He asks, where did the elephant come from? This is long before computers and you don't have a book on tJe subject and the library is closed.

How do you explain that?

If your RandomLie,Baseline Scum, or Blake your reply with "you fucking retard let daddy watch tv in peace"

If your Avante you reply with "what does it matter son we will all be dead soon now go to bed"

[baseline bum]

Why do you think inside a small limited box?

One premise of science is the ability to say "I don't know." How can you possibly know that a higher being capable of manipulating matter in ways we don't understand, is impossible?

That my friend is faith. As strong or stronger than any religion. That is not science.


No, you're throwing shit against the wall. Galileo throwing all this philosophical bullshit out is why we have ended up with such an amazing scientific revolution in the western world over the last 400 years.

[baseline bum]

LOL Wild Cobra think Flying Spaghetti Monster is science. And so is Poseidon, Bigfoot, and Nessie.

[Creepn]

So you have no evidence? Thought so.

Lol don't look to me as the bearer of evidence. Go explore. Find some answers. That would have more impact on you.

[redzero]

Nah. You made the claim. Back it up.

[Avante]

If your RandomLie,Baseline Scum, or Blake your reply with "you fucking retard let daddy watch tv in peace"

If your Avante you reply with "what does it matter son we will all be dead soon now go to bed"

I'm dead serious, who can "really" explain how we got the elephant?

According to evolution we all started out as some sea thingy.

So if we go step by step?

1.sea thingy leaves the ocean for dry land
2.

etc etc etc.........

[Blake]

Yes it does.

Just what are we considering "creationism?" If it's the extreme idea that God manipulated the universe in 6 days as we know them, and that the genealogy of mankind starts with the maned named Adam in the Bible, then I say hell no. That is absolutely silly.

The Torah doesn't say this at all. This is the re imaging of the Bible to fit King Jame's need to control mankind.

Genesis is part of the Torah, dipshit.

You are talking out of your ass, per the usual.

[mouse]

Back when cloning was first being talked about I said Science will eventually prove creation by becoming creators themselves.

[Blake]

Dinner is over, so you head off to the den to watch some TV, your 8 year old follows you there. Which is inusual. So you ask....yes? He asks, where did the elephant come from? This is long before computers and you don't have a book on tJe subject and the library is closed.

How do you explain that?


no doubt that uneducated, ignorant dad goes with "god made it".

then he tells junior to get with his Sunday School teacher if he has any more science questions.

[Blake]

I'm dead serious, who can "really" explain how we got the elephant?

According to evolution we all started out as some sea thingy.

So if we go step by step?

1.sea thingy leaves the ocean for dry land
2.

etc etc etc.........

if you're dead serious, you are seriously a dumbfuck.

[lakerhaterade]

if you're dead serious, you are seriously a dumbfuck.

it's sbm

how could one expect different?

[Avante]

if you're dead serious, you are seriously a dumbfuck.

Yep a total dumbfuck, so tell me how did we get the elephant starting with a little sea thingy.

I'm really stupid so make it as simple as you can.

[Blake]

Yep a total dumbfuck, so tell me how did we get the elephant starting with a little sea thingy.

I'm really stupid so make it as simple as you can.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, during the Archean era, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life


The earliest known ancestors of modern-day elephants evolved about 60 million years ago. Moeritherium, the ancestor of the elephants from 37 million years ago was aquatic and had a similar lifestyle to a hippopotamus.[64] By the time of the first Gomphotherium the animal developed tusks on both jaws, upper and lower. Here the lineage seemed to split with the Dinotherium specialising in tusks on the lower jaws, while Mammoths and Mastodons like modern elephants develop tusks only on the top jaws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant


Admitting you're stupid is the first step. Asking for assistance is the next.

But you've proven you are beyond stupid so I'm betting that's as far as you get.

[Avante]

Admitting you're stupid is the first step. Asking for assistance is the next.

But you've proven you are beyond stupid so I'm betting that's as far as you get.

Totally stupid, not a brain in my pin head. How did you get so smart?

[Jacob1983]

Why not come up with a compromise? Evolution can be taught in school as a theory. Creationism/intelligent design stays out of schools. Is that good or do you have to have evolution taught as fact and the only way and not allow people to have free thought and free will?

[Avante]

Why not come up with a compromise? Evolution can be taught in school as a theory. Creationism/intelligent design stays out of schools. Is that good or do you have to have evolution taught as fact and the only way and not allow people to have free thought and free will?

Why waste school time on a theory? So many far more important things the kids could be learning.

[Blake]

Totally stupid, not a brain in my pin head. How did you get so smart?

I'm not that smart. You're just that stupid.

[Blake]

Why not come up with a compromise? Evolution can be taught in school as a theory. Creationism/intelligent design stays out of schools. Is that good or do you have to have evolution taught as fact and the only way and not allow people to have free thought and free will?

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-Science-Creationism-Isnt/lm/R1288DTMHQJI13

[Avante]

I'm not that smart. You're just that stupid.

I come from a long line of idiots, it's not my fault. I envy intelligent people like you.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL Wild Cobra think Flying Spaghetti Monster is science. And so is Poseidon, Bigfoot, and Nessie.
Where did I say that?

Now the Flying Spegetti Monster is clearly someones fantasy. We can say that the traditional view of poseidon is also. But... What if... Just what is Poseidon was a real person or alien, that had trumped up stories made after he left or died? What if Bigfoot and Nessie are real?

Just because we have no evidence they don't exist doesn't mean that they don't. Now I agree that someone who says with certainty they exist is also as dumb as you for saying they don't.

Wait...

Let me take that back...

What if the people who claimed to see Bigfoot or Nessie really did? maybe they aren't dumb.

[Blake]

I come from a long line of idiots, it's not my fault. I envy intelligent people like you.

you're aiming too high.

you should start off by being envious of people with base intelligence that can figure out google along with simple ways of avoiding a spurstalk pinking.

[Blake]

maybe they aren't dumb.

there is no doubt that you are.

[Wild Cobra]

you're aiming too high.

you should start off by being envious of people with base intelligence that can figure out google along with simple ways of avoiding a spurstalk pinking.
I see you must be talking from experience. Get there yet?

[lakerhaterade]

you're aiming too high.

you should start off by being envious of people with base intelligence that can figure out google along with simple ways of avoiding a spurstalk pinking.

it's sbm

how many times does that have to resonate within that cuckolded mind of yours?

[mouse]

Why not come up with a compromise? Evolution can be taught in school as a theory. Creationism/intelligent design stays out of schools. Is that good or do you have to have evolution taught as fact and the only way and not allow people to have free thought and free will?

How is having one subject in the text books and one not in the text books a compromise?

Some of you may not know this but Evolution is mainly taught in America other countries with very smart students laugh at Americans thinking they have apes for ancestors. But that is just the beginning there are many lies in the text books besides Darwin's beliefs and theories.

Take the geological column for example it has been exposed as not accurate decades ago and is still in the text books.

[Blake]

I see you must be talking from experience. Get there yet?

I've been here for a while, looking down on you.

[Blake]

it's sbm

how many times does that have to resonate within that cuckolded mind of yours?

how many times are you going to tell me before it sinks in to that misguided mind of yours that I don't care

[Avante]

you're aiming too high.

you should start off by being envious of people with base intelligence that can figure out google along with simple ways of avoiding a spurstalk pinking.

Then I could always have no personality and follow people around, seems to work for you. Now there's some intelligence.

[Blake]

Some of you may not know this but Evoulution is mainly taught in America other countries with very smart students laugh at Americans thinking they have apes for ancestors.

name some of these countries.

[Blake]

Then I could always have no personality and follow people around, seems to work for you. Now there's some intelligence.

I don't follow people around but I could easily whimper wahwahwah about people following me around like you do, princess.

I don't do that either because even people with base level intelligence know just how unintelligent that would be.

[lakerhaterade]

how many times are you going to tell me before it sinks in to that misguided mind of yours that I don't care

keep talking to yourself then if you like. You're wasting your time..it's not like you got a trustworthy wife to fuck and waste time on.:tu

[Avante]

name some of these countries.

Trust me on this one amigo, yes there are countries that will not teach the "theory" of evolution, really surprised a real smart guy like you isn't aware of that....fact!

[Avante]

I don't follow people around but I could easily whimper wahwahwah about people following me around like you do, princess.

I don't do that either because even people with base level intelligence know just how unintelligent that would be.

Sure ya do slick.

What's with the lack of any personality? You are very boring.

[Wild Cobra]

I've been here for a while, looking down on you.

Well, if you stop holding that mirror at chest level, you can look up to me!

You might actually understand what I'm saying too, instead of having an inverted view.

[Blake]

keep talking to yourself then if you like. You're wasting your time..

I'm not talking to myself and I find this to be rather entertaining.

It's like striking gold to talk with arguably the three dumbest posters on this site at the same time regarding creation theories.


it's not like you got a trustworthy wife to fuck and waste time on.:tu

No, I currently have a girlfriend I waste time and money on. :tu :tu

[Blake]

Trust me on this one amigo, yes there are countries that will not teach the "theory" of evolution, really surprised a real smart guy like you isn't aware of that....fact!

great, name two that put out smarter kids than ours.

[Blake]

Sure ya do slick.


No I don't, princess.


What's with the lack of any personality? You are very boring.

Sorry, princess, I'm not here to entertain you.

[lakerhaterade]

I'm not talking to myself and I find this to be rather entertaining.

It's like striking gold to talk with arguably the three dumbest posters on this site at the same time regarding creation theories.
Keep at it. :tu your efforts are generating some much needed laughter.




No, I currently have a girlfriend I waste time and money on. :tu :tu

Godang bro. Mr. Blake got da local bar hookup going on. Hope this pans out for ya bud, can't imagine what it was like to know your wife was fucking another man while knowing of the affair yourself.

[mouse]

name some of these countries.

Denmark Sweden Estonia japan Yemen Niger Bangladesh Indonesia Malawi sir Lanka

[Blake]

Well, if you stop holding that mirror at chest level, you can look up to me!

At base level intelligence, we know how mirrors work.

And I can see the top of your head.


You might actually understand what I'm saying too, instead of having an inverted view.

you never answered my question regarding your theory that aliens might have created us.

[Avante]

No I don't, princess.



Sorry, princess, I'm not here to entertain you.

Well yes you do and you don't entertain anyone. You seem so bland. Dude, show some humor or something, you put me to sleep with that same old...."I'm so smart, you are so dumb"...bit of yours. Turn the fucking record over moron...ok?

What's really funny is you are one of the dumbest posters here.

[Jacob1983]

What people forget sometimes is that evolution is a theory. It's not called Darwin's factual account of evolution or Darwin's facts of evolution. It's Darwin's theory of evolution.

Making a federal case over this debate is one of the reasons why American society can be so annoying and uppity sometimes. I mean seriously, who the fuck cares?

[Blake]

Godang bro. Mr. Blake got da local bar hookup going on. Hope this pans out for ya bud, can't imagine what it was like to know your wife was fucking another man while knowing of the affair yourself.

It sucked to be sure, but today, life is fucking good.

Can't see myself ever wanting to get married again, unless she is Oprah rich and doesn't care about a pre-nup.

[Blake]

Well yes you do

well no, I don't. But please try to prove it.


and you don't entertain anyone. You seem so bland. Dude, show some humor or something, you put me to sleep with that same old...."I'm so smart, you are so dumb"...bit of yours. Turn the fucking record over moron...ok?

At what point during this long conversation did you fall asleep?


What's really funny is you are one of the dumbest posters here.

No, what's really funny is that you got pinked.

It'll be even funnier when you get banned.

[Blake]

What people forget sometimes is that evolution is a theory. It's not called Darwin's factual account of evolution or Darwin's facts of evolution. It's Darwin's theory of evolution.

Making a federal case over this debate is one of the reasons why American society can be so annoying and uppity sometimes. I mean seriously, who the fuck cares?

holy shit.

Jacob1983, mouse, Avante and Wild Cobra posting at or around the same time, in the same thread.

Talking science.

Perfect storm.

[Avante]

well no, I don't. But please try to prove it.



At what point during this long conversation did you fall asleep?



No, what's really funny is that you got pinked.

It'll be even funnier when you get banned.

I don't look up threads.

I have no dounts you've been told you lack a personality and are boring before.

You seem more concerned with this pink deal than I am.

Banned for what?

[Wild Cobra]

holy shit.

Jacob1983, mouse, Avante and Wild Cobra posting at or around the same time, in the same thread.

Talking science.

Perfect storm.
If you say so.

[redzero]

Denmark Sweden Estonia japan Yemen Niger Bangladesh Indonesia Malawi sir Lanka

None of these countries teach evolution in class? Link?

[Slomo]

Denmark Sweden Estonia japan Yemen Niger Bangladesh Indonesia Malawi sir Lanka


I believe Sweden is one of only a few countries where the teaching of creationism is actually forbidden in school that are part of the public school system.
The official stance of the EU council on education is that only evolution is part of the official curriculum. So that would apply to Denmark and Estonia.

If you were looking for countries that agree with you to a certain degree (not completely - not by a mile) the list should have included Croatia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Turkey, Greece - and of course most of the Muslim countries with sharia based legislation.

[mouse]

I believe Sweden is one of only a few countries where the teaching of creationism is actually forbidden in school that are part of the public school system.
The official stance of the EU council on education is that only evolution is part of the official curriculum. So that would apply to Denmark and Estonia.

If you were looking for countries that agree with you to a certain degree (not completely - not by a mile) the list should have included Croatia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Turkey, Greece - and of course most of the Muslim countries with sharia based legislation.

Actually with all the Jr high school lunchtime cafeteria smack going on I didn't think anyone would research the answer, what can I say I rolled the dice.


But I did Google it real quick and got the info from this link.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110308125714AAZXIK7

I saw a Documentary about Evolution back in the 90s It said Darwin was like John Smith of the Mormon church he was only known in America.

I never suspected Asian people would associate themselves with a Gorilla being how smart they are.

Who knew how popular this lie would get? I stand corrected.

I guess Natural Geographic and public schools did a heck of a job in just 15 years.

[mouse]

The Blake Avante smack off was somewhat Entertaining considering it wasn't me, it may be Sunday morning before I can read each post carefully to determine the loser.

Since early times the Atheist have gone all out to censor our schools.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-263130-1.png

[mouse]

They make sure kids in Elementary school know the earth is 4 billion years old and all life formed from snails. It's no wonder we have all the Red Zero's And Avante's of today.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa10.jpg

[redzero]

Actually with all the Jr high school lunchtime cafeteria smack going on I didn't think anyone would research the answer, what can I say I rolled the dice.


But I did Google it real quick and got the info from this link.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110308125714AAZXIK7

I saw a Documentary about Evolution back in the 90s It said Darwin was like John Smith of the Mormon church he was only known in America.

I never suspected Asian people would associate themselves with a Gorilla being how smart they are.

Who knew how popular this lie would get? I stand corrected.

I guess Natural Geographic and public schools did a heck of a job in just 15 years.

That's a lot of words just to say, "I lied."

[mouse]

The man who was one of the first photo shoppers ever in the 1800s went to prision for creating this bogus embryo chart and the real crime to me is that it's still in the Texts books today!

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/44444.jpg

[mouse]

That's a lot of words just to say, "I lied."

Follow the link I didn't lie I posted someones info using Google.

Just like if someone Google'd The most annoying idiots on the WWW of 2012 and your post shows up.


My favorite fairytale.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/44.jpg

[redzero]

You looked at the link after you made the lie that several countries that do teach evolution, don't.

You lied. You were wrong.

[mouse]

You looked at the link after you made the lie that several countries that do teach evolution, don't.

You lied. You were wrong.

There "are" several countries I just didn't confirm them. Like if you claim you saw 5 of your friends from school at an N sync concert. You may have got the names wrong but you did see "5" friends. All I have to do is find the correct countries. It's not a lie its just mislabeling.

Like I really thought you was an intelligent poster in the Club but after your Mountain Dew Induced 7 page rant you just went on I may have to re-evaluate my findings.

After all doesn't Science Revive itself and say they are always researching things so they may "change" they're original findings?

And to think I was going to award you credit for rising above the Blake Avante intelligent bar they lowered 3 inches off the ground.


This is actual Gay Porn for Darwin worshipers.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/2222.jpg

[leemajors]

I thought you was an intelligent poster.

[mouse]

I thought you was an intelligent poster.

I got you to reply, so what does that really say about my intelligence?


Evolution is like reading the Globe or TMZ

it's borderline comedy
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/111-3.jpg

[leemajors]

You should really update your stock gifs, but it may make you deviate from biting Hoops Czar's posting style.

[Proxy]

Why not come up with a compromise? Evolution can be taught in school as a theory. Creationism/intelligent design stays out of schools. Is that good or do you have to have evolution taught as fact and the only way and not allow people to have free thought and free will?

It's fucking annoying that you intelligent design advocates don't know the definition of 'Theory'

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

[Proxy]

So in other words, The Theory of Evolution is proven to be a real thing. I don't hear anyone saying the theory of creationism or the theory of intelligent design.

[mouse]

So in other words, The Theory of Evolution is proven to be a real thing. I don't hear anyone saying the theory of creationism or the theory of intelligent design.

To prove the theory of Evolution you need fossils,bones,and false Carbon dating to insure you stay in the Science books.


To prove Alternative Design you just need to open your eyes.

[DMC]

Evolution is happening. How it's happening is what's up for debate.

[baseline bum]

Where did I say that?

Now the Flying Spegetti Monster is clearly someones fantasy. We can say that the traditional view of poseidon is also. But... What if... Just what is Poseidon was a real person or alien, that had trumped up stories made after he left or died? What if Bigfoot and Nessie are real?

Just because we have no evidence they don't exist doesn't mean that they don't. Now I agree that someone who says with certainty they exist is also as dumb as you for saying they don't.

Wait...

Let me take that back...

What if the people who claimed to see Bigfoot or Nessie really did? maybe they aren't dumb.

LOL conjecture and mythology isn't science.

[Agloco]

http://dailycurrant.com/2012/08/30/bill-nye-blasts-todd-akin-challenges-debate/

An excerpt from our Daily Currant:



After briefly discussing his show, the Smithsonian anchors asked Nye about Akin's recent accusation. The normally genial Nye wasted no time venting his rage about the comments:

"Look, these people they're fucking retarded. Rape can't cause pregnancy? Breastmilk cures homosexuality? I caused a hurricane by challenging creationism? Who can possibly take these people seriously anymore?"

The slightly uncomfortable anchors then tried to change the subject, but Nye persisted:

"It used to be these Republicans didn't believe in global warming or evolution. That was bad enough. Now they don't even believe in egg + sperm = baby. Where does Todd Akin think babies come from? Does he think there are separate storks for people who were raped and people who weren't? "

"Hey look over there! It's the rape stork. It drops its babies directly at the orphanage."

"He's a fucking idiot. Just a plain fucking idiot. I'm sorry - I don't say that word very often - but it happens to fit in this case. He's just a fucking idiot."

As the stunned anchors hurriedly tried to wind the conversation down and cut to commercial, Nye stared directly into the camera and issued a challenge to his new-found rival:

"So Todd I got an offer for you. You and me. Any time. Any place. Debating science mano- a-mano. I'll bring the facts, and you bring the Vaseline. Because your ass is gonna fucking need it when I'm done whipping."

:lmao:lol:lmao:lol:lmao:lol

[TE]

:lmao :lmao ^^

[DMC]

So God is the former. The former god. Here I was thinking "creator" for some odd reason.
I haven't read the term "intelligent design" in the Bible. It's completely fabricated as forced modification to creationism from Genesis that simply does not interface well.
Rev. 4:11 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rev.%204.11) says, "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

27 (http://bible.cc/genesis/1-27.htm)So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Are you trying to assert that the god of the bible isn't considered, by Christians, to be the creator of man? Are you trying to assert that the Bible doesn't say God created man in his own image?
What's the point of saying that without expounding?
In Genesis 1:27 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=27#27) we are told that God created man. The verb to create is the Hebrew bara. In Genesis 2:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&v=7#7) the Bible says God formed man (Hebrew asah). Since both of these verses speak of God creating man, we find that man was both created and formed.

Right and you speak fluent Hebrew.

:lol theistic evolution

In your stance there is no need for god. Occam's razor therefore eliminates the concept out of necessity. All you are doing is saying "god did it" to anything discovered as fact, and though the Jews by and large rejected evolution as heresy (rabbis who obviously also didn't understand the Torah as well as you), suddenly it's now become compatible through mental gymnastics and word wrangling. Keep holding on to that dogma, despite the speed of the boat of science that's dragging you through life.

What's wrong WC? You felt compelled to argue line for line but not compelled to respond to this?

[Proxy]

"So Todd I got an offer for you. You and me. Any time. Any place. Debating science mano- a-mano. I'll bring the facts, and you bring the Vaseline. Because your ass is gonna fucking need it when I'm done whipping."

What a badass

[Wild Cobra]

What's wrong WC? You felt compelled to argue line for line but not compelled to respond to this?
Why should I? What I said went completely over your head, so far, I'm not going to take the time.

I will say again, the Bible we know is not accurate.

I am not stating that such things like Intelligent Design are real. I am saying that a real scientist will accept that they could be, and are not disproved.

What we know of science and what the Torah says are not in conflict, and we don't know enough about science to say the the Torah is wrong. You simply have to accept that the Hebrew and Chaldean words did not all mean as interpreted to English.

A simple example is "Thou shalt not kill." The proper translation for the word used as "kill" should be "murder."

The word for "Adam" in the creation is a different word than the word "Adam" when the story of human interaction starts. In the creation, it means "mankind." It is not a proper name. In the story of Adam/Eve/Cain/Able, the word used is a proper name.

It's absolutely useless to continue such a debate with someone so ignorant of the Bible.

[redzero]

A real scientist doesn't deal with magic, so Crea--I mean, "Intelligent Design" should never enter the discussion.

[Wild Cobra]

A real scientist doesn't deal with magic, so Crea--I mean, "Intelligent Design" should never enter the discussion.
If I take a Bic Lighter back in time to the Salem Massachusetts, and use it, think I might get burned at the stake for using witchcraft?

Who's to say that magic isn't science? Just a science beyond what we understand.

[Landon Donofag]

Lots of people in this thread are going to hell. I will pray for you.

[redzero]

If I take a Bic Lighter back in time to the Salem Massachusetts, and use it, think I might get burned at the stake for using witchcraft?

Who's to say that magic isn't science? Just a science beyond what we understand.

Nah, it's magic and has no place in a scientific setting.

If you want to talk about God, you can do so at mass.

[Wild Cobra]

Nah, it's magic and has no place in a scientific setting.

If you want to talk about God, you can do so at mass.
I see you are just a troll.

Goodbye.

[redzero]

:lol No, I just refuse to to accept magic as a valid answer for anything. I also think that magic has no place in a scientific setting.

But keep calling me a troll because you have no real response. Like I said in my previous post, if you want to talk about God, go to Church. Keep it out of a scientific discussion.

[Proxy]

It's absolutely useless to continue such a debate with someone so ignorant of the Bible.

Why choose to have your beliefs influenced on writings that deem the universe to have man's ambition in mind? Seems a bit convenient that a place as big as the universe chooses to have an advanced breed of monkey on a minor planet in the boonies of a average galaxy as the central focus of this existence. Our species is a period on the end of this planet's timeline alone. The universe was around way before we came about and will be around long after we go extinct.

No, you can't disprove that an omnipotent being that cares about all life exists. You're right, but it's a weak argument you have going for you. We have yet to find anything with the slightest bit of evidence that happens to transcend the boundaries of math and physics that we know of. Even the elusive higgs boson was discovered. Everything points away from deities having the responsibility of creating things from nothing.

Would it kill you to know that anything that's happened on this planet was pretty much purposeless?

[lakerhaterade]

Why choose to have your beliefs influenced on writings that deem the universe to have man's ambition in mind? Seems a bit convenient that a place as big as the universe chooses to have an advanced breed of monkey on a minor planet in the boonies of a average galaxy as the central focus of this existence. Our species is a period on the end of this planet's timeline alone. The universe was around way before we came about and will be around long after we go extinct.

No, you can't disprove that an omnipotent being that cares about all life exists. You're right, but it's a weak argument you have going for you. We have yet to find anything with the slightest bit of evidence that happens to transcend the boundaries of math and physics that we know of. Even the elusive higgs boson was discovered. Everything points away from deities having the responsibility of creating things from nothing.

Would it kill you to know that anything that's happened on this planet was pretty much purposeless?

congrats for destroying a thread where everybody responded within 10-13 minutes.

fag

[SnakeBoy]

Evolution is happening. How it's happening is what's up for debate.

Give one example of observed macro evolution.

[DMC]

Why should I? What I said went completely over your head, so far, I'm not going to take the time.

You were playing a game of semantics as if the Bible doesn't call God the creator of man. You are trying to say that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive because of that misinformation. You responded that I don't understand ancient Hebrew as if you do.

I am well versed in the exegesis of the Bible. I don't need to debate it from an apologist standpoint in order to be viable.



I will say again, the Bible we know is not accurate.
Accurate as far as based in reality or as far as translation of the original text?


I am not stating that such things like Intelligent Design are real. I am saying that a real scientist will accept that they could be, and are not disproved.
No real scientist (No true Scotsman fallacy) would accept that it "could be". They will accept the scientific process, of which none exists for determining the supernatural.


What we know of science and what the Torah says are not in conflict, and we don't know enough about science to say the the Torah is wrong. You simply have to accept that the Hebrew and Chaldean words did not all mean as interpreted to English.
They certainly are in conflict. It requires poetic license and revisionist history to claim otherwise. Finding parallels in the words of the Bible or Torah to modern understanding of science would be interesting if the religious community saw it, oh.. 2000 or so years ago instead of waiting for the scientific community to publish it's findings on the matter before saying "yeah, we know that, that's what the Bible says".

It's certainly not what was taught, and now that you claim understanding of the Torah that just happens to match science, I will have to call you out on it. Where were these revelations when Darwin first published his book Origin of Species? Why didn't the Jewish community rally in support and claim he was only proving what the Torah says?

Do you really believe people 3000+ years ago knew about evolution when they were killing people for being possessed by demons?

Hell, that was happening in America just a few hundred years ago.

Your argument is scattered. You claim we could have been put here by an advanced race. You then claim creationism doesn't conflict with evolution and that the original Torah is misunderstood, as if it speaks of evolutionary processes. That means you either think humans are indeed evolving or that the Torah is also full of shit. I mean, if an advanced race put us here, how does that jive with evolution? If it doesn't, how does the Torah even come into play since, according to you, it jives with evolution?


A simple example is "Thou shalt not kill." The proper translation for the word used as "kill" should be "murder."
I don't need exegesis.


The word for "Adam" in the creation is a different word than the word "Adam" when the story of human interaction starts. In the creation, it means "mankind." It is not a proper name. In the story of Adam/Eve/Cain/Able, the word used is a proper name.
Ok


It's absolutely useless to continue such a debate with someone so ignorant of the Bible.I am certain I know as much about the Bible as you. Since you allow that an advanced race put humans here, then I don't get why you think proper exegesis of the Bible does anything to prove that evolution doesn't conflict with the Bible. It certainly does. The word "created" was used and you've danced around that little factoid.

Eventually though, all that matters is that the religious folks come to grips with the fact that science has showed them the err of their ways and that science is causing them to re-examine their long held belief system, and for those hangers on who pretend there's some compatibility with mysticism and science, the world must be a colder place.

Creationism: We were put here intentionally by God

Darwinian Evolution: We are here by chance, through random mutations.

Yes religion/ID and evolution are in direct conflict.

[DMC]

Give one example of observed macro evolution.
Micro and Macro in terms of evolution are just by words for creationists to try to find a part of evolution that they can disagree with.

Bacteria evolve. They develop a resistance to antibiotics.

How well do you understand phylogenetics?

Like all forms of life, bacteria undergo evolution. Evolution is a slow and gradual process, and it was the person of Charles Darwin (http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96feb/darwin.html), combining keen observation with a sharp mind, who first described the principles of evolution. Had microbiology existed in those days, then he would certainly have used bacteria to illustrate his ideas. Since bacteria are relatively simple forms of life, and have a short generation time, evolutionary processes can be observed directly, as opposed to most other life forms. The study of bacterial evolution has resulted in many insights of general biological processes, and modern research still uses bacteria as a model to study evolution. Evolution is based on three principles:

As organisms reproduce, more offspring will be formed than can survive. This causes competition for sources of energy and habitat. Only the fittest organisms will survive.

During cell division, minute changes will be introduced in the offspring. Such mutations will generate genetic diversity among the offspring.

The result of these two processes, competition and diversity, is a selection pressure that will favour certain populations that are best qualified to survive. Over time, this will result in notable changes of a species.

http://bacteriamuseum.org/cms/Evolution/evolution-in-bacteria.html

[DMC]

If I take a Bic Lighter back in time to the Salem Massachusetts, and use it, think I might get burned at the stake for using witchcraft?

Who's to say that magic isn't science? Just a science beyond what we understand.

1. Humans created the concept of magic. It's not an entity in and of itself. Basically it doesn't exist outside of our imaginations.

2. Why then propose it as a separate entity that's just misunderstood?

[mouse]

QUOTE=DMC;6097072]

Yes religion/ID and evolution are in direct conflict.[/QUOTE


You left out AD Alternative Design

[DMC]

I left out a host of other bullshit because there's absolutely zero reason to include it.

[mouse]

I left out a host of other bullshit because there's absolutely zero reason to include it.

So you say.

Why is it so difficult to find open minded posters to debate with that don't have to curse like some NY cab driver stuck in traffic ?



It doesn't matter if you can't stand the Bible or if you can't stand the narrow minded Atheist. Must you low IQ smack talkers turn every Evoultion or religious debate into a school yard rumble?



Just make your point or comment and leave your smack bat in the bat bag so we can move forward in a civil and semi intelligent manner.


On a side note any poster here who really thinks a snail from two billion years ago can evolve into a human and land a unmanned spacecraft on Mars to me is a fool.

[DMC]

So you say.

Why is it so difficult to find open minded posters to debate with that don't have to curse like some NY cab driver stuck in traffic ?



It doesn't matter if you can't stand the Bible or if you can't stand the narrow minded Atheist. Must you low IQ smack talkers turn every Evoultion or religious debate into a school yard rumble?



Just make your point or comment and leave your smack bat in the bat bag so we can move forward in a civil and semi intelligent manner.


On a side note any poster here who really thinks a snail from two billion years ago can evolve into a human and land a unmanned spacecraft on Mars to me is a fool.

Yeah but you were booted from college so it's no surprise.

[redzero]

Was mouse trying to be ironic with that post? I don't think he's smart enough for that, though.

[Wild Cobra]

DMC...

Your mind is so one dimensional. Of course science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and again you miss my points. Is it really that hard to comprehend? If you cannot understand the points I make, then stop wasting my time and just say so.

[mouse]

Yeah but you were booted from college so it's no surprise.

Steve jobs and Bill Gates both abandoned collage what's your point?

And what does it have to do with the topic?

[Agloco]

Steve jobs and Bill Gates both abandoned collage what's your point?


I didn't know they were artists as well. Did they ever finish their respective collages? Those would be worth a fortune probably.

[howbouthemspurs]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ld8bUy271rt5q34o1_500.png

[howbouthemspurs]

http://chzscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/funny-science-news-experiments-memes-a-true-science-guy.jpg

[howbouthemspurs]

http://www.philzone.org/discus/messages/439459/796189.jpg

[lakerhaterade]

howbouthemspurs fucked this thread up

[howbouthemspurs]

lol ,.... yup!

[mouse]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/devil-douche-2.jpg

[DMC]

DMC...

Your mind is so one dimensional. Of course science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and again you miss my points. Is it really that hard to comprehend? If you cannot understand the points I make, then stop wasting my time and just say so.

I believe I nailed your points down accurately.

1. You think anything is possible (it's not)
2. You allow conflicting possibilities (creationism and evolution)
3. You use circular reasoning to argue compatibility (relying on the Torah to validate itself) yet brush aside that which I pointed out to you, that God in the Torah is called the creator of man, and even "in his image" so unless you think God is a microbial life form, then it's simple incompatibility. The fact that God saw that man was perfect says man did not need to evolve to better himself. If you use the argument that millions of years = 1 day to God, then at which point along that timeline was the creation considered complete, and why are we still evolving?

Your refusal to participate after jumping in with both feet just says you don't know. It's ok to not know, but stop pretending like you do.

My mind allows for possibilities when they make sense. Yours do not make sense. It's just intellectual pandering to all sides.

[DMC]

On this issue, what's going to eventually happen is that scientists are going to have to stomp out the parasitical creationist ideals completely. They cannot be allowed to hitch a ride on the momentum of science. They had thousands of years to inflict their bullshit dogma and now that reality becomes undeniable and they are made to look like the stone age idiots they are, they want to bandwagon science but continue to wave their creation flag. They remind me of Mexicans who've defected and still rep Mexico in the US. Get in or get out, but we don't need your infection.

[Wild Cobra]

I believe I nailed your points down accurately.

1. You think anything is possible (it's not)
2. You allow conflicting possibilities (creationism and evolution)
3. You use circular reasoning to argue compatibility (relying on the Torah to validate itself) yet brush aside that which I pointed out to you, that God in the Torah is called the creator of man, and even "in his image" so unless you think God is a microbial life form, then it's simple incompatibility. The fact that God saw that man was perfect says man did not need to evolve to better himself. If you use the argument that millions of years = 1 day to God, then at which point along that timeline was the creation considered complete, and why are we still evolving?

Your refusal to participate after jumping in with both feet just says you don't know. It's ok to not know, but stop pretending like you do.

My mind allows for possibilities when they make sense. Yours do not make sense. It's just intellectual pandering to all sides.
LOL...

Really now.

What else are you taking from the English translation that might be incorrect?

Why is evolution and creationism in the possibility of intelligent design mutually exclusive?

[Wild Cobra]

On this issue, what's going to eventually happen is that scientists are going to have to stomp out the parasitical creationist ideals completely. They cannot be allowed to hitch a ride on the momentum of science. They had thousands of years to inflict their bullshit dogma and now that reality becomes undeniable and they are made to look like the stone age idiots they are, they want to bandwagon science but continue to wave their creation flag. They remind me of Mexicans who've defected and still rep Mexico in the US. Get in or get out, but we don't need your infection.
Are you butthurt?

[Blake]

To prove the theory of Evolution you need fossils,bones,and false Carbon dating to insure you stay in the Science books.


To prove Alternative Design you just need to open your eyes.

Liar.

[Blake]

What we know of science and what the Torah says are not in conflict, and we don't know enough about science to say the the Torah is wrong. You simply have to accept that the Hebrew and Chaldean words did not all mean as interpreted to English.

A simple example is "Thou shalt not kill." The proper translation for the word used as "kill" should be "murder."

......with someone so ignorant of the Bible.

explain what a day literally means in Genesis 1.

[Blake]

Are you butthurt?

I admit that my ass gets chapped when religious nuts push their ignorant agendas on politicians

[Avante]

Would the USA ever elect an atheist as our president, of course not. What College/University teachs atheism? Who want to live a life so devoid of anything, ouch!!!!!!!! Nothing spiritual, no faith in anything, no hope of anything.

This..."can you prove it, huh? huh? huh?"....hahahaha!!!!!!!! Porr little misguided shits.

[Blake]

Would the USA ever elect an atheist as our president, of course not. What College/University teachs atheism? Who want to live a life so devoid of anything, ouch!!!!!!!! Nothing spiritual, no faith in anything, no hope of anything.

This thread isn't about atheism.


This..."can you prove it, huh? huh? huh?"....hahahaha!!!!!!!! Porr little misguided shits.

So you believe in fairy tales.

Poor dumbshit.

[Avante]

This thread isn't about atheism.



So you believe in fairy tales.

Poor dumbshit.

Are you really that totally fucked? You have proved God is just a fairy tale, right? Fucking moron!

[Blake]

Are you really that totally fucked? You have proved God is just a fairy tale, right? Fucking moron!

only fucking morons believe in things they can't see.

[Avante]

only fucking morons believe in things they can't see.

So all those billions who do believe in a God are morons and a little dumbass punk like you knows the truth....hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mouse]

only fucking morons believe in things they can't see.

I can't see the cell phone signal when I text but I believe there is one.

Blake has lowered the bar on immature posting replies in this topic and I may have to add him to the posters I avoid replying too list with RandomLie.

[Blake]

So all those billions who do believe in a God are morons and a little dumbass punk like you knows the truth....hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

billions of morons believe in different gods.

Stop your silly girlish laughing, pick one that you believe in, and explain why it is the truth.

[Blake]

I can't see the cell phone signal when I text but I believe there is one.

Me too.

Well done.


Blake has lowered the bar on immature posting replies in this topic and I may have to add him to the posters I avoid replying too list with RandomLie.

but that would mean no more stupid jpegs and youtubes!

[DMC]

LOL...

Really now.

What else are you taking from the English translation that might be incorrect?

Why is evolution and creationism in the possibility of intelligent design mutually exclusive?

I already told you.

1. Darwinian evolution says we are here by random chance, through survival of the fittest of genetic codes.

2. Creationism or the euphemism "Intelligent Design" says we were put here intentionally by an intelligent creator.

Those two are mutually exclusive as "planned" and "random chance" are antonyms.

Antonym of planned


Antonyms of verb plan


Antonyms of adj planned

2 senses of planned

Sense 1:
planned (vs. unplanned)

unplanned (vs. planned)
casual, chance (prenominal) ad hoc casual unpremeditated


ID says we were premeditated. Evolution says we were not.

[DMC]

Are you butthurt?

Is that your final answer?

[DMC]

Trying to interface creationism with evolution is like saying the medical diagnosis from 300 years ago were correct when they said there's a demon or dwarf living in the stomach of the patient. I mean, can't bacteria be considered a demon and can't a virus be considered a dwarf? Can't a tape worm be a demon?

They knew what they were talking about. The bleeding was the right thing to do and they knew it. We are just now learning just how smart they were.

[mouse]

I admit that my ass gets chapped when religious nuts push their ignorant agendas on politicians






I have to agree with Blake leave religion in the church and leave Evolution in the Myth / fiction area of Borders books store.


Something to ponder......if your willing to support Science and Evolution then you have to defend it when it claims the Earth is "4 Billion" years old.


There is ample evidence its not.

[howbouthemspurs]

Religion is stupid and pointless and it constantly destroys societies! The evidence for that is endless.

[mouse]

Religion is stupid and pointless and it constantly destroys societies! .


Then say goodbye to America.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/romney-kolob.jpg

[z0sa]

Religion is stupid and pointless and it constantly destroys societies! The evidence for that is endless.

Like America for instance.

Militant religious zealots and militant atheists are no fucking different. Get along people.

[DMC]

Like America for instance.

Militant religious zealots and militant atheists are no fucking different. Get along people.
They are different. Both are annoying, but they are different. Militant atheists are zealous about getting the truth established and the bullshit mysticism squelched. Religious zealots are by and large ignorant of anything.

[Avante]

Where did I read this....

There He stands that bull-father God with his gleaming phallus in his hand pissing on humanity. He made us then abandoned us, rumor has it He's sorry. He wasted His time, He sees us as a failure. A big mistake. Fuck our prayers.

[Wild Cobra]

explain what a day literally means in Genesis 1.
One meaning of the original word is cycle. The story of the creation may have been seven cycles of unstated lengths.

I already told you.

1. Darwinian evolution says we are here by random chance, through survival of the fittest of genetic codes.

So?


2. Creationism or the euphemism "Intelligent Design" says we were put here intentionally by an intelligent creator.

It doesn't exclusively mean that. That is the general interpretation, but is may be wrong.


Those two are mutually exclusive as "planned" and "random chance" are antonyms.

Antonym of planned


Antonyms of verb plan


Antonyms of adj planned

2 senses of planned

Sense 1:
planned (vs. unplanned)

unplanned (vs. planned)
casual, chance (prenominal) ad hoc casual unpremeditated


ID says we were premeditated. Evolution says we were not.

You need to start thinking outside the box. Why can't natural evolution be aided with intelligent guidance? Aren't we doing that in small ways today?

What evidence do you have that some alien race didn't terraform this world, then manipulate the genetics to suit their desires? There is old Sumarian text that can be interpreted to say that about 60,000 years ago, the slaves of this world that the Gods used to gather resources for them were altered. Made smarter.

Have you ever considered how many diverse religions have similar creation stories, similar stories of the flood, etc? Maybe there is a reason for it outside of mans necessity to explain things.

Granted, evolution is more likely, but you are saying that ID is impossible. How can you say that? At our progress in science, we are manipulating DNA and have hypothesis on how to terraform.

LOL...

Planned and unplanned...

If playing a dice game that has random and unplanned outcomes, while you are looking, someone changed one of the die, is it still unplanned and random?

[Blake]

I have to agree with Blake leave religion in the church and leave Evolution in the Myth / fiction area of Borders books store.

Leave mouse in the troll forum



Something to ponder......if your willing to support Science and Evolution then you have to defend it when it claims the Earth is "4 Billion" years old.


There is ample evidence its not.

There is ample evidence you're an idiot

[Blake]

Where did I read this....

There He stands that bull-father God with his gleaming phallus in his hand pissing on humanity. He made us then abandoned us, rumor has it He's sorry. He wasted His time, He sees us as a failure. A big mistake. Fuck our prayers.

Someone made that up.

Just like every religion.

[Blake]

You need to start thinking outside the box. Why can't natural evolution be aided with intelligent guidance? Aren't we doing that in small ways today?

What evidence do you have that some alien race didn't terraform this world, then manipulate the genetics to suit their desires?

still waiting for you to answer who created that alien race.

you're making up your own box to think outside of

[Fabbs]

Does it take more faith to believe in evolution or creation?

Belief in Evolution—An Act of “Faith”
Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”

[Proxy]

Does it take more faith to believe in evolution or creation?

Belief in Evolution—An Act of “Faith”
Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”

Except that the Theory of Evolution is proven through and through. It is fact, just like the Theory of Gravity.

[Fabbs]

Except that the Theory of Evolution is proven through and through. It is fact, just like the Theory of Gravity.
:lol but it isn't.
Fossil record? Nope.
Bone record. Look, humans come in all shapes and sizes from 7 footers to pygmies. Taking a jawbone of an ape and fabricating the rest of the drawing to form the 800th sensational find of "Ape Man" is not proof.

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.
The facts. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?
In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.
Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”21 And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants died or were weaker than wild varieties.”
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22
Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species. Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, whereas less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose the ones with gene mutations that made them capable of surviving in their new environment. As a result, evolutionists speculate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.
The facts. As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States refers to “the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”23
In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter R. and B.Rosemary Grant of Princeton University began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought on the islands, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since observing the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the NAS brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”24
However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. The researchers found that as the climatic conditions on the island changed, finches with longer beaks were dominant one year, but later those with smaller beaks were dominant. They also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. They concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one.25
So, does natural selection really create entirely new species? Decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power.26 In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H.Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.27
Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, information about these birds exposes the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.

Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”28
The facts. The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”29
To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lol Fabbs is another plagiarist creationist

[Fabbs]

:lol Fabbs is another plagiarist creationist
Insecure much in your evolutionism?
Never discuss the points but rather sling.

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lol Why the fuck would I be insecure? You are a creationist. You reject evolution because you think it interferes with your religion, so you go about looking for various sources that "prove" that evolution is unsound scientifically.

You also didn't cite your sources, which makes you a plagiarist.

[Blake]

:lol Fabbs is another plagiarist creationist

Apparently he's also a jehovah's witness.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010233

[z0sa]

They are different. Both are annoying, but they are different. Militant atheists are zealous about getting the truth established and the bullshit mysticism squelched. Religious zealots are by and large ignorant of anything.

The "truth" as you call it comes in many different shades of gray and can be spun or twisted, so I strongly disagree with the sentiment that militant atheists only care about establishing truth. See Hitler and the Master Race bullshit or the millions sent to the gulags in the Soviet Union. Obviously these are an extreme but not so much of an extreme that hundreds of millions didn't subscribe to them and tens of millions didn't die for them.

As long as you keep it scientific in basis I don't see any reason why an atheist is establishing truth while a believer in _____ is not.

[redzero]

I don't think Hitler was an atheist.

[z0sa]

I don't think Hitler was an atheist.

Basically all of his writing and speeches are very disdainful of religion. If he wasnt openly atheist its because of the political ramifications nothing else. The entire master race agenda was firmly rooted in pseudoscience which is my real point. The truth is rarely so simple as to be unable of being twisted.

[Wild Cobra]

still waiting for you to answer who created that alien race.

you're making up your own box to think outside of

There could have been evolution that brought a race to where they are. We might be such a race, we might not.

You keep forgetting. I am not saying that we are a product of intelligent design. I am just not dismissing that hypothesis/theory.

It is those who are certain that either evolution or creation is what happened that have the religious type faith of things, rather than having proper scientific values.

[redzero]

There is no scientific value in, "God did it."

[Wild Cobra]

There is no scientific value in, "God did it."
Who cares. The ID community is trying to show their hypothesis is correct, and they may do that some day. Even if they don't, what proof do you have that it is impossible? Our continued scientific advances tell me that some day, we will be capable or terraforming a world, and altering life on it.

[Proxy]

Who cares. The ID community is trying to show their hypothesis is correct, and they may do that some day. Even if they don't, what proof do you have that it is impossible? Our continued scientific advances tell me that some day, we will be capable or terraforming a world, and altering life on it.

you live in a fantasy world where you think anything is possible out of convenience.

[redzero]

Who cares. The ID community is trying to show their hypothesis is correct, and they may do that some day. Even if they don't, what proof do you have that it is impossible? Our continued scientific advances tell me that some day, we will be capable or terraforming a world, and altering life on it.

You aren't making any sense. There is nothing scientific about Intelligent Design, so complaining about somebody dismissing something that has nothing do to with science doesn't make any sense.

[DMC]

One meaning of the original word is cycle. The story of the creation may have been seven cycles of unstated lengths.

Only if you think the writer of the "original story" was somehow privy to events of the future and of the past beyond his years. That requires a deity, or time travel, or a creator or all three. It requires an unnecessary leap of faith to get there, since there are more plausible solutions. Do not needlessly multiply entities.


So?
So the two are mutually exclusive.


It doesn't exclusively mean that. That is the general interpretation, but is may be wrong.
There's no reason to think it may be wrong. It is what it is, and thousands of years of interpretations by men who've dedicated their lives to even building the books themselves understood this. For you to say it might mean something else indicates you possibly think the Torah was written by aliens and is misunderstood since.


You need to start thinking outside the box. Why can't natural evolution be aided with intelligent guidance? Aren't we doing that in small ways today?
Intelligent design (or aided, as you've regressed to) conflicts with random mutation and natural selection. There's simply no reason to consider it any more than I would consider that a pink invisible dinosaur is living in my garage. Sure I can find ways to make it not conflict with your perception of reality by conjuring up excuses to every objection you raise, but what's the point?

You only need to think outside of the box if the box doesn't contain the answer. It's usually reserved to inventors or someone seeking a method that's been overlooked for misunderstood reasons. When your gas tank is low, do you begin to think outside of the box and look for alternative means of travel, of fuel, ways to not need to travel, or do you just fill your tank? This is a simple issue. The Bible was put together long before men had any real understanding of the world around them. Everything back then was magical, mystical and such. Idols were worshiped even by the pharaohs because no one could explain things we now understand, such as the travel of the Sun across the sky, the disappearance of the moon, eclipses, natural disasters, illnesses and such. Man saw what he saw and did his best to explain it and similar to what you are now doing, he created answers where non existed, devoid of fact or research, just ad hoc answers.

Sciences have grown over the millennium, humans built understanding and scientific method on the shoulders of others who pioneered certain researches. Darwin didn't invent science, he was using a scientific line of thought to conclude what he did.

Anyone could just sit at home and speculate about some magical race or intelligent super creator that exists on a paradoxical plane, one need not even leave home, just accept it. Thinking outside the box means finding answers and using reason and logic to do so. It doesn't mean doing what millions of other people have done over thousands of years by postulating divine creation and lacking the ability and mental wherewithal to face the fact that humans are no more special than any other living organism.

So, you might want to consider understanding the contents of the box before you venture to thinking outside of it.


What evidence do you have that some alien race didn't terraform this world, then manipulate the genetics to suit their desires? There is old Sumarian text that can be interpreted to say that about 60,000 years ago, the slaves of this world that the Gods used to gather resources for them were altered. Made smarter.
No evidence is required to refute an assertion that's made without evidence. I can casually dismiss it as gibberish until such evidence surfaces to cause me to raise an eyebrow and feel compelled to give it more merit.

Argument by age of text means nothing. What if someone wrote that same claim today, how much merit would you give it?



Have you ever considered how many diverse religions have similar creation stories, similar stories of the flood, etc? Maybe there is a reason for it outside of mans necessity to explain things.
There is a reason. That reason has nothing to do with aliens or the hocus pocus you are proposing, regardless how exciting that might be. The reason is that all people were ignorant, and being ignorant means they misinterpreted nature in a very limited number of ways.


Granted, evolution is more likely, but you are saying that ID is impossible. How can you say that? At our progress in science, we are manipulating DNA and have hypothesis on how to terraform.
I am saying creationism is not compatible with evolution. If you accept that evolution is happening, you cannot also rationally allow that intelligent purpose is driving it. You can pander to both sides and refuse to commit, but that doesn't change the fact.


LOL...

Planned and unplanned...

If playing a dice game that has random and unplanned outcomes, while you are looking, someone changed one of the die, is it still unplanned and random?If the dice game has random and unplanned outcomes, then by definition it must still be unplanned and random or the dice game you described no longer exists in it's previous form. Your analogy fails because Darwinian Evolution states that evolution is a series of random events. It doesn't state that Evolution was a series of random events. Ergo evolution and creationism are incompatible and regardless how you try and how hard you swing that plastic hammer, that square creationism peg will not fit into that round evolutionary hole.

[mouse]

you live in a fantasy world where you think anything is possible out of convenience.

I'm sure Tesla was told the same thing when tried to introduce wireless in the 1800s

And Steve Jobs was told by IBM "you live in a fantasy world where you think anything is possible" right before they refused to support him in making Personal computers.


Little brains run rampant in this forum.

[mouse]

You aren't making any sense. There is nothing scientific about Intelligent Design,


So when Science creates a new fruit it's not Intelligent and has no design?


http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m856dz1vId1qztfsyo1_500.jpg

[mouse]

Apparently he's also a jehovah's witness.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010233

Who cares if he worships Satan himself. the man knows his music.

Besides Romney is a Mormon I don't see that getting in the way of you voting for him.

[Wild Cobra]

you live in a fantasy world where you think anything is possible out of convenience.
No, you are not understanding. I don't believe something is possible out of convenience. I just know that we don't understand science well enough to say it's impossible.

[Wild Cobra]

You aren't making any sense. There is nothing scientific about Intelligent Design, so complaining about somebody dismissing something that has nothing do to with science doesn't make any sense.
I see you know nothing about science.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sure Tesla was told the same thing when tried to introduce wireless in the 1800s

And Steve Jobs was told by IBM "you live in a fantasy world where you think anything is possible" right before they refused to support him in making Personal computers.


Little brains run rampant in this forum.
Don't forget Bill gates saying nobody would ever need more than 64 kbytes.

[mouse]

Don't forget Bill gates saying nobody would ever need more than 64 kbytes.

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Don't forget Bill gates saying nobody would ever need more than 64 kbytes.


:lmao
I misspoke. It was 640 k he referred to in the early 80's.

[Jacob1983]

Remember when being able to connect at 28k and 56k was the coolest thing ever?

[DMC]

No, you are not understanding. I don't believe something is possible out of convenience. I just know that we don't understand science well enough to say it's impossible.
But you're using that to rescue myths that have been debunked and dragging them around as some sort of symbolic, beyond science lurkers.

We will never know everything, but we have no reason to consider the absurd as possible answers.

For example: If you placed on your doorstep a saucer of milk, and you have a cat outside, and twenty minutes later you return to the saucer to find the milk is gone, would you assume the cat drank it? Wouldn't that be the most plausible answer? Or would you allow the possibility that an alien landed while you weren't looking and took the milk, or that an invisible being took the milk, or that the milk itself got up and walked away?

It's normally the uneducated that use the "we don't know everything" excuse when trying to get their dogma a free ride on the bandwagon of science, and we don't know everything but we do know how to determine plausible from silly.

[redzero]

I see you know nothing about science.

Nah, I know more than you, apparently, since you still think Intelligen Design should be taken seriously.

[Blake]

You aren't making any sense. There is nothing scientific about Intelligent Design, so complaining about somebody dismissing something that has nothing do to with science doesn't make any sense.


I see you know nothing about science.

ID isn't science. You're a fucking idiot.

[Proxy]

No, you are not understanding. I don't believe something is possible out of convenience. I just know that we don't understand science well enough to say it's impossible.

Nothing is faster than light, nothing is unbreakable, and the higgs boson was found. These are boundaries we've found in the current model. We understand science enough to know that an omnipotent presence oversteps the boundaries by which nothing has yet to do. Making hypotheses that state otherwise doesn't seem counterintuitive to you?

[Proxy]

I'm sure Tesla was told the same thing when tried to introduce wireless in the 1800s

And Steve Jobs was told by IBM "you live in a fantasy world where you think anything is possible" right before they refused to support him in making Personal computers.


Little brains run rampant in this forum.

I want a genie to grant me immortality, time travel, and the powers of the Silver Surfer.

[Wild Cobra]

I've said my peace. I no longer care if you wish not to understand it.

[Blake]

I've said my peace.

Me too.


ID isn't science. You're a fucking idiot.

[Phenomanul]

Except that the Theory of Evolution is proven through and through. It is fact, just like the Theory of Gravity.

See... this is such a blatant misuse of the word “proven”... and you all don’t even realize it.

Why not? Well, there is that vehement predisposition on your part to reject all things which may point to a Creator or gasp…! the possibility that “design and purpose” is explicitly woven into the very fabric of nature. Your own prejudice and confirmation bias latches on to fragmented evidence and foolishly props it up to dismiss arguments that the evidence itself is not equipped to counter. In fact, many times the evidence you all choose in these exercises does not support the conclusions that you all wish to draw from it. Your quote above is a prime example of this argumentative style. Aside from being a poorly worded argument, your phrasing is such that you actually provide the counter-argument that contradicts the primary point you are trying to make.

The Theory of Gravity is only qualified as a theory when trying to understand the “why” of gravitation’s behavior (due to interactions at an infinitesimally small scale / i.e. considered a theorem in reference to quantum gravity). For all intents and purposes though, the LAW of Gravity has been mathematically expressed in fairly simple terms by Newtonian physics (since the late 1600s) and by a series of field equations as first postulated by Albert Einstein under general relativity (in the early 1900s). Those field equations predicted the existence of black holes well before they were ever discovered, and could quantify the curvature of light on account of gravity before experiments could even confirm it. In any case, the mathematical laws describing the behavior of gravity, and the phenomena associated with it fall well within the scientific method’s toolset. Gravity can be subjected to any number of observable, repeatable and measurable tests that yield predictive mathematical expressions. As stated above, gravity becomes a postulated theorem when dealing with the super small scale of the quantum universe or with singularities containing high mass and energy. Classical physics however, adequately describes the observed effects of gravity over a range of 50 orders of magnitude of mass, i.e., for masses of objects from about 10^−23 to 10^30 kg - from Wiki lest you all accuse me of plagiarism too - as I am fully capable of typing my own arguments. In other words, the math behind gravity as it applies to most everything we deal with is fundamentally sound. I can take two objects with masses m1 and m2 and calculate the interaction between the two... such an experiment would be repeatable yielding identical results, and the expressions governing its behavior would apply to any other set of objects just the same.

The underlying principle behind the Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, cannot be proven on these terms or to this degree of confirmation (specifically Macroevolution). True, we can observe the mechanisms by which genes can be altered to produce different genetic expressions. But this alone does not confirm Macroevolution. Far from it – especially because we’re coming to terms with the reality that many of the physiological / phenotypical changes that we observe in nature have been pre-programmed in the DNA, further confirming the immense complexity encoded within DNA, and the vast reaches of its adaptive and expressive capacity (both evidence of design). Gene segments are used in as many as 50 different translation processes instead of the single, direct, translation process we once believed was responsible for the creation of every enzyme and protein in an organism (i.e. one gene segment / codon per enzyme). Mutations, hence, would be highly deleterious to an organism because the ‘mutated’ gene segment would corrupt the translation of not one, but as many as 50 different proteins. It isn’t surprising that the grand majority of the organisms that have been subjected to experimentation with indiscriminate mutagens (in the hopes of producing random mutations to confirm evolution) have been genetically weakened by the changes incurred, often proving fatal. In other words, many of the genetic adaptations we observe in nature (those that have largely been passed off as evidence for microevolutionary change) are hard-wired into the DNA’s programming and not the result of the environment acting on a gene pool, selecting individuals which have “evolved” / mutated because they were somehow more genetically fit to survive (i.e. Natural Selection). In short, organisms have genetic code that can be rearranged from within in response to a change in their habitat enabling them to adapt. This observation directly counters the macro-evolutionary premise and renders it null.

On top of that, genetically speaking there is very little in the way of proof that confirms the change from one species to an entirely different one... The flagship experiment that attempts to prove just that (Richard Lenksi’s E.coli) falls short on many fronts when people try to extrapolate its findings beyond the scope of the genetic change that was observed. In other words, the DNA era in microbiology demands a higher standard of evidence in order to “prove” the theory of Evolution. Lining up similar looking fossils and suggesting that “x” fossil was the progenitor of “y” fossil simply doesn’t cut it as evidence anymore (only those with aggressive confirmation bias are quick to accept such evidence as proof). What’s laughable is that most of the “fossil column” is assembled in this speculative manner; many times with as few as 2-3 bones constituting a different species. But no, that doesn’t stop illustrators from drawing out entire organisms to sway the masses. If that is what you accept as proof simply because your world view dictates that it is the only correct option for you, fine; just don’t expect the rest of us to follow suit in the wake of such blatantly misleading arguments.

Furthermore, the premise that Macroevolution is “a proven fact” is invalidated at the point of origin based on the inherent limitations of the scientific method when applied to events that occurred in the distant past... again reference an older post of mine below.


But you're using that to rescue myths that have been debunked and dragging them around as some sort of symbolic, beyond science lurkers.

We will never know everything, but we have no reason to consider the absurd as possible answers.

For example: If you placed on your doorstep a saucer of milk, and you have a cat outside, and twenty minutes later you return to the saucer to find the milk is gone, would you assume the cat drank it? Wouldn't that be the most plausible answer? Or would you allow the possibility that an alien landed while you weren't looking and took the milk, or that an invisible being took the milk, or that the milk itself got up and walked away?

It's normally the uneducated that use the "we don't know everything" excuse when trying to get their dogma a free ride on the bandwagon of science, and we don't know everything but we do know how to determine plausible from silly.

Like coming to the conclusion that life (specifically, genetically viable DNA) sprang forth from non-life? All by random chance? That process doesn’t satisfy Ockham’s Razor either... Naturalism alone cannot account for the inception of life. Only those prejudiced against the possibility of design reject this as truth...


The gargantuan disconnect here is that "origins" science has nothing to do with modern technology, or solving technological problems... "we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems" Nye says... Well I'm an engineer, I solve all sorts of real world problems and can troubleshoot with the best of the them (having to employ calculus, physics, thermodynamics, chemistry among other disciplines)... I need not believe that I share genetic ancestry with apes to do so... My belief in a Creator doesn't impact in any way, form or fashion how I go about solving said problems, nor does it limit my proficiencies... I work with observable, repeatable (let me repeat that one for emphasis), and measurable scientific data (you know, the three immutable pillars that the scientific method is built upon). The origins event cannot be repeated without incurring interference bias from those attempting such experiments. Any "best guess" experiment is merely that... a "guess", because no one can verifiably say that "x" or "y" process was the defacto process by which life began... No human! I repeat, no human was there to observe said event, much less to measure or quantify it.

If people were really honest about it, they would acknowledge that the concept of "origins" falls outside of the realm of the true scientific method... As such, the origin of life is not quantifiable by our science, falling within the realm of speculation (no matter how fancy or complex that speculative "theory" has become)... Of course, Nye's accusation could be redirected at those with his line of thinking considering he's not being consistent with the criteria required by the scientific process. Not that they'd ever accept that either. They're so busy trying to convince others that belief in a higher power is holding humankind back... of course as they do this they want folks to ignore the history of the scientific movement, to ignore that the Enlightenment was sparked by men of faith (reference older posts of mine below)... Geez... this topic has been discussed ad infinitum...





No, you haven't. I debunked most of your posts, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, DaVinci, etc.


Well then go on... don't stop there.

Nicolaus Copernicus - just because he was persecuted by the Vatican does not mean he wasn't a believer. He was a devout man of faith.

Johannes Kepler - One of the Fathers of Modern Astronomy

Louis Pasteur - Father of Microbiology

Gregor Mendel - Father of Modern Genetics

Michael Faraday - Distinguished Physicist

Blaise Pascal - Distinguished Mathematician

Sir Isaac Newton - Father of Calculus and Physics (without him the modern scientific era doesn't unfold)

Carolus Linnaeus - Father of Taxonomy

Leonhard Euler - Distinguished Mathematician and Physicist

Niels Bohr – The Atom, need I say more...

John Dalton – Distinguished Chemist

James Clerk Maxwell - Father of Electromagnetism

William Thomson "Lord" Kelvin - Father of Thermodynamics - Distinguished Physicist

Linus Pauling – Revolutionized the World of Chemistry

Werner Heisenberg – Father of Quantum Theory

Max Planck - Distinguished Physicist – Co-father of Quantum Theory

Enrico Fermi - Distinguished Physicist

John Ambrose Fleming - Distinguished Mathematician and Physicist

J. Robert Oppenheimer – Distinguished Physicist

Alexander Fleming – Discovery of Penicillin

Sir Robert Boyd - Distinguished Astrophysicist

Albert Einstein - Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." Much like Isaac Newton (more on him below), this belief actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed… My favorite quote of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I think that what really bothers many of you is having to admit that ‘science’ and what we now know as the ‘scientific process’ were largely invented by ‘religious’ people (and especially Christians)… Most branches of science were developed by Christians, even if schoolbooks abstain from mentioning such details… Furthermore, you all seem to strongly gravitate away from the idea that scientists can in fact be believers (this thread wreaks of it). But you all wouldn’t have such a hard time reconciling the two positions if you would only accept the fact that numerous professors and scientific leaders worldwide today are Christians... Either way, these facts make the statements that claim that "science and Christianity are enemies" as being absolutely false and extremely unfair distortions of history and of the present.

It is also a fact that Christian scientists often publish in respected journals, but if they write about ‘creation’ or something ‘religious,’ even if it’s rigorously testable scientifically, it’s almost always censored and banned from publication just like those who think of alternative theories to the Big Bang (even if not Christian) are censored and usually not allowed much freedom to publish. We never think of our free press being censored, but it is in several areas and especially in reference to the relationship between science and faith...

Unfortunately, some Christians have reacted to this ridicule with ridicule of their own. This has just hardened each camp in its position and greatly hindered progress and true scientific knowledge. I am trying hard to avoid this because I know and have met many very sincere atheists and evolutionists who want to understand what is true and accurate and follow it. There are many atheists and evolutionists who have contributed important things to science and they are dedicated and want to do good things for human beings. But, they have serious philosophical questions that make belief in God difficult for them and this should be respected and everyone should be allowed the freedom to theorize and try to prove their theories. So, I have much respect for those who search for truth and really try to be objective even if that means giving up a worldview or theory that they have held for a long time. This deserves much respect.

That said, it cannot help the truth to intentionally distort history and posit the idea that Christians are intellectually inferior, simply because of their Christian beliefs...



and secondly, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, there are exceptions to everything. Hitler was a Christian. So what?

He most definitely was not... FAIL. Or are you trying to make a Bill Maher-like argument here? Maher recently suggested that Stalin established a “state religion” while building his case against ‘religion’ only to conveniently lambast Christians for it? Talk about blinders… and revisionism… Stalin pushed one of the most devastating atheistic movements in the history of mankind. And as I stated in another thread, more than 40 million people lost their lives in opposition.



The large majority do not believe in a god, no matter if Newton did. There are many others who don't.

Except that you are conveniently minimizing who Newton was and what he represented… Isaac Newton is arguably one of the 10 most influential people of all time.

As an aside, in today’s age, scientists who openly embrace faith are blackballed by academic publishers… For that reason alone, I will always doubt the validity of such surveys/studies… if you can even call them that… these surveys do nothing more than propagate the notion that belief in GOD is tantamount to idiocy. Ironically these ‘studies’ do a great disservice to the virtues of scientific process they are trying to endorse…



Pasteur didn't practice religion like you do. His idea of a God was much more abstract and not specifically oriented.

So then you are saying he wasn’t a believer? Either he was or he wasn’t… clearly his writings show that he was. He just happened to take the position that many other great Deists, including Einstein, chose to follow. They believed in GOD regardless.



quote http://www.gradesaver.com/the-philosophical-writings-of-descartes/wikipedia/religious-beliefs/

"The religious beliefs of René Descartes have been rigorously debated within scholarly circles. He claimed to be a devout Roman Catholic, claiming that one of the purposes of the Meditations was to defend the Christian faith. However, in his own era, Descartes was accused of harboring secret deist or atheist beliefs. Contemporary Blaise Pascal said that "I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God. But Descartes could not avoid prodding God to set the world in motion with a snap of his lordly fingers; after that, he had no more use for God."

Using Descartes as definitive proof of an intelligent man who believed in a God is dishonest.
And using this as an argument against the supposed lack of intelligence in believers is a reach… and you know it. :wakeup





Look, all the people arguing that some smart people believe in God... so what? What does that have to do with the OP? I don't think the point was that NO smart person believes. Just that, on average, non-believers have higher IQs than believers. :lol

No one's saying it's a hard line and there are no outliers.

It's a 'fair' take... but, I think you among others here missed the point.

Such studies are biased from the get-go - a complete slap-in-the-face to the scientific process they are supposedly trying to uphold (have you seen their methods, their sample pools? laughable really). Its assertions are without merit. Yet, you all have gleefully taken them to heart as if they helped justify the lack of belief amongst those here.

The scientific movement was largely born out of people who wished to understand the world around them... because they inherently understood that we were gifted the capacity to reason and comprehend the 'workings' of our world and our place in it (unlike the other creatures around us)... more specifically, they understood their unique place among 'creation'. Hasn't anyone here ever questioned the philosophical implications of being situated in the one zone in the galaxy that allows us to 'safely' study the universe to begin with? Most other zones in our galaxy are a haven for biodestructive cosmic forces, and aren't as conducive to providing the stability required for life to flourish, much less for that life to 'develop' the cognitive ability to question their place in the universe and the means to understand it.

Anyways, it's disingenous to continually distort history to the point where you all fail to admit that Believers, by and large, propelled the scientific movement. All those people I listed (out of a much larger list) revolutionized their fields and helped usher in the modern technological era. It's also rather disingenous to presume that they would be athiests in today's world...

Ask yourself this question... Why wasn't the scientific movement born out of other world philosophies (Islam, Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Atheism since you all tout its virtues so much)??? NOW, I'm not saying that their adherents lacked the intellectual capacity to do so... simply that they weren't gifted with the perspective to put it together, or to seek out Truth. Nowadays everyone shares in the benefit of all past contributions, and embraces the scientific process... but many (as exemplified in this thread) believe it to be a product of secularism, and the pre-requisite rejection of faith. Nothing can be further from the truth...

If some of the brightest minds ever have come to the realization that our universe was created, how is it you all can nonchalantly ignore the significance of their realization? Sure, go ahead and think for yourselves... ultimately matters of faith are entirely up to you all... but don't for a second believe you completely grasp the nuances of the physical laws that govern our universe, or the implications of the subatomic world which has unfolded before us... If you all think that being 'smart' is to accept only that which can be seen and measured then IMO you all aren't very smart at all. As I've said many times before... Science isn't the catch-all, be-all, end-all tool you all wish it to be... it's only a tool, it alone cannot dictate the terms of our world views.

As an aside, Atheism these days is becoming rather religious... except that many of its adherents can't even see, much less admit this irony...

[redzero]

:lol creationist so indoctrinated by his religion that he will write essays to scientific theories

[Blake]

Your own prejudice and confirmation bias latches on to fragmented evidence and foolishly props it up to dismiss arguments that the evidence itself is not equipped to counter.

lol arrogant, hypocritical ass hole.



Like coming to the conclusion that life (specifically, genetically viable DNA) sprang forth from non-life? All by random chance? That process doesn’t satisfy Ockham’s Razor either... Naturalism alone cannot account for the inception of life. Only those prejudiced against the possibility of design reject this as truth...

Occam's razor logic would be that since we cannot visibly see a creator, a creator does not exist.

Your wordiness doesn't hide the evidence of you being an idiot

[Phenomanul]

lol arrogant, hypocritical ass hole.

Your petty insults were expected... you exemplify all that is hateful with our species. Why so bitter? :lol



Occam's razor logic would be that since we cannot visibly see a creator, a creator does not exist.

Your wordiness doesn't hide the evidence of you being an idiot

Many people have seen GOD. You just conveniently choose not to believe their written accounts in order to validate your premise that the Creator cannot be seen. Don't be so selective with the facts. Of course, I understand that you'd rather label them all as liars... typical.

Later Blake... I'm off to church to go get indoctrinated some more... :lmao

[redzero]

:lol I guess leprechauns, Big Foot, little green men, The Loch Ness Monster and The Chupacabra all exist, since people have seen them, too.

:lol goes to great lengths to show that evolution is false scientifically
:lol takes some accounts of God appearing at face value

:lmao creationist standards
:lmao convenient skepticism

[Blake]

Your petty insults were expected... you exemplify all that is hateful with our species. Why so bitter? :lol

Because religious quack fucks like you have historically kept our species from moving forward


Many people have seen GOD. You just conveniently choose not to believe their written accounts in order to validate your premise that the Creator cannot be seen. Don't be so selective with the facts. Of course, I understand that you'd rather label them all as liars... typical.

occams razor is still cutting up your premise.


Later Blake... I'm off to church to go get indoctrinated some more... :lmao

Ask your preacher why God endorses slavery.

Laters.

[redzero]

The last time I brought up slavery in the Bible, Phenomenaul changed the subject to Evolution and The Big Bang.

:lol I wonder why.

[Phenomanul]

The last time I brought up slavery in the Bible, Phenomenaul changed the subject to Evolution and The Big Bang.

:lol I wonder why.

Maybe cause the subject of that thread was Evolution... and you brought up slavery for no reason at all... oh wait... that's right... because in your finite view of a infinite GOD you seem to have Him all figured out and wanted point out an incongruence in your assessment...

[redzero]

Your infinite God was completely fine with slavery and murder.

I'm better than He is.

[Phenomanul]

Because religious quack fucks like you have historically kept our species from moving forward

Again you keep distorting who brought about the Enlightenment... oh that's right...

The athiest movement did... :rolleyes

Yep...

Besides you are wholly incapable of seeing the hipocrisy in the source article... Bill Nye is advocating that policy be used to control the education of believers' children? Most of you all here agree that "religion be kept out of politics" but yet you all insist and demand that the children of believers be indoctrinated as you wish. What type of totalitarian hypocrisy is that? I will raise my children as I and my wife see fit. I don't need the government to tell me what they should or shouldn't learn. As it is my 7 year old is already learning calculus...




occams razor is still cutting up your premise.

My premise was that Proxy couldn't use Ockham's razor to suggest that because evolution makes sense to him that then Evolution was a proven fact... a non-sequitor on your part.




Ask your preacher why God endorses slavery.

Laters.
Because this is a world that's already subjected and shackled by sin. He provides the means to break that bondange but few wish to embrace that path... you seem to endorse slavery yourself since you seem so caught up trying to stay the course... but again... that's not really the subject of this thread is it? :downspin:

[Phenomanul]

Your infinite God was completely fine with slavery and murder.

I'm better than He is.

Whatever you say man... we'll see how true your claim is a couple of years down the road when we've all passed from this ephimeral life on Earth...

[redzero]

:lol What a completely nonsensical response.

Would it not make more sense for God to tell his followers that slavery was immoral instead of giving them guidelines on how to treat slaves? Wouldn't that help mankind more than telling them that in certain situations, beating people to death is okay?

[Phenomanul]

I've never denied that my belief in GOD is based solely on faith.

People here can't have it both ways though... making statements that "Evolution is a proven fact" is undeniably false.

[Phenomanul]

:lol What a completely nonsensical response.

Would it not make more sense for God to tell his followers that slavery was immoral instead of giving them guidelines on how to treat slaves? Wouldn't that help mankind more than telling them that in certain situations, beating people to death is okay?

Only by your standards... because, you said so yourself... You're better than GOD....

We're not the only ones that trim weeds out of the lawn... or kill the pests from our orchards...

But again... that's not the topic of this thread.

[redzero]

Phenomenaul, would you say that it is morally acceptable to keep a person against their will and force them to do things for you?


20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. Exodus 21:20-21I, along with most of America, do not think it's okay for man to own slaves or beat them to death, so I'm better than God.


Whatever you say man... we'll see how true your claim is a couple of years down the road when we've all passed from this ephimeral life on Earth...

No we won't, because we'll be dead.


47 And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. Luke 12:47-48:cry Our God is an awesome God. Nothing says all-loving like telling one's followers to beat the people they have forced to work for them.

[Phenomanul]

Again, not the subject of this thread...


Phenomenaul, would you say that it is morally acceptable to keep a person against their will and force them to do things for you?

I, along with most of America, do not think it's okay for man to own slaves or beat them to death, so I'm better than God.

Most of corporate America is a slave to their employer... and sometimes bosses come down with punishment. Just not of a corporal nature. But you're missing the point altogether... The Hebrew nation was taking in slaves even though it was not GOD's desire that they do so... GOD doesn't command, "you shall own a slave, or else!"... they were doing so as an unwise extension of their economic system, one that was established the world over in that time period. At that point HE was basically trying to regulate their interactions to try and protect the slave.


No we won't, because we'll be dead.

Speak for yourself.... :lol



:cry Our God is an awesome God. Nothing says all-loving like telling one's followers to beat the people they have forced to work for them.

I'm pretty sure that's not what is being advocated in that illustration... and what does this have to do with Bill Nye's declaration?

[Phenomanul]

Anyways, I'm off to eat dinner... have fun with your bitterness... peace!

[it's me]

I've never denied that my belief in GOD is based solely on faith.

When I understood what faith actually is, and why it's essential for christianity, I left religion for ever, I'm a happy and free agnostic now.

If reading non-orthodox christian material isn't a sin for you.... go read some real scholarship work on biblical criticism, grab some books from Bart Ehrman, Robert Price, John Spong .... or ex pastor John Loftus..... even some conservative Christians like Dan Wallace or Bruce Metzger, then come back and explain why you still believe the biblical accounts are accurate and true.

Faith justify believing virtually ANYTHING you decide to believe..... like 34000 different christian doctrines in the world .... all claiming to be the REAL one. lol

[redzero]

:lmao Phenomenaul thinks that being held against one's will with the fear of being beaten to death is in any way comparable to a having job in corporate America

:lol Here's an idea! How about, instead of making murder illegal, the United States government instead creates a set of guidelines on how to murder people?! Apparently, an omnipotent, omniscient being is too stupid to get across the point that slavery is wrong and shouldn't be practiced. He can tell his followers that homosexuality is wrong and should be punishable by death. He can tell them not to eat seafood. He can tell them not to commit adultery, lie, worship other gods, etc. But when it comes to slavery, he becomes retarded and accidentally condones it.

:lol You trying your hardest to :downspin: God's condoning of slavery is comedy gold. Please, keep going. You apologists are hilarious.

[mouse]

I keep reading in this topic Evoulution is a "fact" has anyone posted any proof?

[Clipper Nation]

Ask your preacher why God endorses slavery

While you're at it, also make sure to ask him why your god endorses destroying the Earth (Malachi 4:6), cutting your enemies into pieces (Psalm 58:6-7) and feeding their blood to your dog (Psalm 68:23), incest (Exodus 6:20), lying (1 Kings 22:21-22), discrimination against women (1 Timothy 2:11-12), stealing from your neighbors (Exodus 11:2), and being a judgmental prick (1 Corinthians 2:15).....

[Wild Cobra]

:lol creationist so indoctrinated by his religion that he will write essays to scientific theories
And you are one that makes fun of people just because you don't understand their faith. Shame on you.

[Wild Cobra]

lol arrogant, hypocritical ass hole.


Wow...

So obvious that you are looking in a mirror.

[Wild Cobra]

Your infinite God was completely fine with slavery and murder.

I'm better than He is.
Really? How do you know that? A thorough study of the bible indicates that there is not just one god, but many. What if these Gods have agreements they have among each other as to how each God can influence us? What if one of their internal rules are that they cannot undo what another God has done?

Jehovah has never tried, to my knowledge, to change society outside his own believers. His rules seem to accept the laws of society, and that he added to them for how his believers to cope in the existing frame of rules.

Not saying this is that fact of the matter. Just pointing out that you are assuming fact that might not be.

[redzero]

And you are one that makes fun of people just because you don't understand their faith. Shame on you.

Another stupid post by you. I understand their faith, but don't agree with it.


What if one of their internal rules are that they cannot undo what another God has done?

There are several times the Bible contradicts itself rules-wise, so not really.

God endorses slavery.

[Blake]

Again you keep distorting who brought about the Enlightenment... oh that's right...

The athiest movement did... :rolleyes

Yep...

Who brought up ” enlightenment”?....oh that's right....

Nobody did. :rolleyes


As it is my 7 year old is already learning calculus...

neat.

Of course, when it comes to science he will be stupid because daddy will indoctrinate him with bible science.


Because this is a world that's already subjected and shackled by sin. He provides the means to break that bondange but few wish to embrace that path... you seem to endorse slavery yourself since you seem so caught up trying to stay the course... but again... that's not really the subject of this thread is it? :downspin:

So god does endorse slavery. I sure as hell don't.

You seem to endorse slavery yourself since God endorses it.

You and your god are evil backwoods hillbilly asshole posers.

[Blake]

Really? How do you know that? A thorough study of the bible indicates that there is not just one god, but many.

exactly where does the bible indicate this, professor?

[Ginobilly]

God or no God, evolution being true or false, doesn't change the fact that all of you'll are pussies when being confronted by the realities of life. That's what Bill Nye is trying to say.

[Blake]

God or no God, evolution being true or false, doesn't change the fact that all of you'll are pussies when being confronted by the realities of life. That's what Bill Nye is trying to say.

Probably not

[Avante]

Believers in God die and there was no God, they will never know it.

Atheist dies and there is a God, they are in deep shit, ah...flames.

[Blake]

God hates atheists more than pedophiles, murderers, rapists and slave owners.

What an awesome god. :tu

[Avante]

God hates atheists more than pedophiles, murderers, rapists and slave owners.

What an awesome god. :tu

It works like this....

He gave all of us a free will, it's on us as to what we do with it. It's us humans who have this wrong idea that He is suppose to be involved in our day to day life. That's a bogus belief.

You trust in Him meet His criteria you will make the cut, turn your back on Him you will burn for all eternity.

[Blake]

It works like this....

He gave all of us a free will, it's on us as to what we do with it. It's us humans who have this wrong idea that He is suppose to be involved in our day to day life. That's a bogus belief.

You trust in Him meet His criteria you will make the cut, turn your back on Him you will burn for all eternity.

Exactly. If you make the cut as a believer, you will be living in heaven with murderers, rapists, pedophiles and thieves in your neighborhood.

Meanwhile, there will be a large number of good, philanthropic atheists burning in hell.

Makes perfect sense. :tu

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I almost choked on my lunch out of laughter when I read the "My 7 year old is learning calculus!" line.

[Blake]

I almost choked on my lunch out of laughter when I read the "My 7 year old is learning calculus!" line.

par per par goods per Phenomanul

[Avante]

Exactly. If you make the cut as a believer, you will be living in heaven with murderers, rapists, pedophiles and thieves in your neighborhood.

Meanwhile, there will be a large number of good, philanthropic atheists burning in hell.

Makes perfect sense. :tu

Let me slow it down....

Did I not mention....meet His criteria...? There are things we can't do if Heaven is our goal, there are no pedophiles, theives, raptists and other fuck ups in Heaven. They don't make the cut they get sent to Hell.

Ateists simply suck and are stupid.

[redzero]

:lol Avante's dumbass still believes in Pascal's Wager
:lol retard

[Blake]

Let me slow it down....

Did I not mention....meet His criteria...? There are things we can't do if Heaven is our goal, there are no pedophiles, theives, raptists and other fuck ups in Heaven. They don't make the cut they get sent to Hell.

Ateists simply suck and are stupid.

The thief on the cross next to Jesus is in heaven.

If you don't what you're talking about, either ask or just step aside and let the grown ups talk.

That goes for Wild Cobra and Phenomanul too.

Thanks.

[Clipper Nation]

While you're at it, also make sure to ask him why your god endorses destroying the Earth (Malachi 4:6), cutting your enemies into pieces (Psalm 58:6-7) and feeding their blood to your dog (Psalm 68:23), incest (Exodus 6:20), lying (1 Kings 22:21-22), discrimination against women (1 Timothy 2:11-12), stealing from your neighbors (Exodus 11:2), and being a judgmental prick (1 Corinthians 2:15).....
Still no evangelical rebuttal to these truth bombs, per par....

[Avante]

The thief on the cross next to Jesus is in heaven.

If you don't what you're talking about, either ask or just step aside and let the grown ups talk.

That goes for Wild Cobra and Phenomanul too.

Thanks.

Trust me amigo the last thing you are is grown up. That's funny.

Work with me here...

The locals have talked about a giant creature in the woods, you know better than that so you take nothing with you while everyone else has a rifle. You head off west, everyone else in other directions, guess what...yep, a giant creature and he doesn't like you.

You didn't cover your ass because you are just too fucking smart to beleive in a giant creature, you need proof, well now you have it.

[Ginobilly]

The thief on the cross next to Jesus is in heaven.

If you don't what you're talking about, either ask or just step aside and let the grown ups talk.

That goes for Wild Cobra and Phenomanul too.

Thanks.

Cause the thief repented the life he lived in sin once he noticed who he was being crucified next to. He got lucky. He probably was a non-believer who didn't care who he hurt. You have lots to learn blake.:lmao
Blamming a book and religion for your chick cheating on you.
the bible and religion causing the Human race from advancing.:lmao
advance to what??
Doesn't humanities fat-ass have everything it needs?
food stamps, air conditioner, cable, schooling, etc.

Nobody is stopping anybody from doing anything except yourselfs.
If your so self-righteous about everything blake, why don't you go liberate black Africans from the white mans rule.

[redzero]

That analogy is horrible and in no way comparable to believing in deities.

If somebody told you not to sleep at night or the Boogie Man would get you, would you stay up indefinitely?

[Avante]

That analogy is horrible and in no way comparable to believing in deities.

If somebody told you not to sleep at night or the Boogie Man would get you, would you stay up indefinitely?

So tell me slick, how come most the world believes in dieties? You are the one who knows better, right?

[redzero]

Wow, you are trying to run through every logical fallacy in the book, aren't you?

A lot of people believing in something doesn't make it true.

I'll ignore the fact that you completely dodged my question (as you often do when you have no response), and I'll ask you this:

If one person believes in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, does that mean that it exists?

[it's me]

Let me slow it down....

Did I not mention....meet His criteria...? There are things we can't do if Heaven is our goal, there are no pedophiles, theives, raptists and other fuck ups in Heaven. They don't make the cut they get sent to Hell.

Ateists simply suck and are stupid.

:lmao true...just EX pedophiles, theives, raptists and other fuck ups..... that "repented" before the cut.

[it's me]

:lmao true...just EX pedophiles, theives, raptists and other fuck ups..... that "repented" before the cut.

Read about this fucking SOB ..Joshua Milton Blahyi...... dude is a christian pastor now..... unbelievable.:depressed

[Clipper Nation]

So tell me slick, how come most the world believes in dieties? You are the one who knows better, right?

By that logic, since the majority of Americans were once pro-slavery, that justifies slavery in your book, tbh....

Racist Avante with the pro-slavery bads, per par....

[Avante]

Wow, you are trying to run through every logical fallacy in the book, aren't you?

A lot of people believing in something doesn't make it true.

I'll ignore the fact that you completely dodged my question (as you often do when you have no response), and I'll ask you this:

If one person believes in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, does that mean that it exists?

You not believing in something doesn't make it true either, right?

So tell me slick, what do you know that all those who do believe in a God don't know? Elaborate.

Let's ignore Pink Unicorns, that was stupid.

[Avante]

By that logic, since the majority of Americans were once pro-slavery, that justifies slavery in your book, tbh....

Racist Avante with the pro-slavery bads, per par....

Slavery was proven to be wrong, where is the proof there is no God?

[redzero]

You not believing in something doesn't make it true either, right?

So tell me slick, what do you know that all those who do believe in a God don't know? Elaborate.

Let's ignore Pink Unicorns, that was stupid.

You are really incapable of having a conversation. All you do is deflect, deflect, deflect.

Answer my question about the Pink Unicorn. It has to do with the point you are trying to make.

[johnsmith]

Slavery was proven to be wrong, where is the proof there is no God?

Where is your proof that there is a God?

[redzero]

Slavery was proven to be wrong, where is the proof there is no God?

How was slavey "proven" to be wrong? And why is God okay with slavery if it is wrong?

[Avante]

You are really incapable of having a conversation. All you do is deflect, deflect, deflect.

Answer my question about the Pink Unicorn. It has to do with the point you are trying to make.

Ok man...:rolleyes

We have the Bible all about that Pink Unicorn, His only son Pink Jr was crucified for our sins, so every year we celebrate Pinkmas His birth. All thru history we have paid homage to the Pink Unicorn. Songs have been written about Him, monuments built in His honor, places to worship the Pink Unicorn have been built. Wars have been fought over the Pink Unicorn. Our money has ...In The Pink Unicorn We Trust. We are...One Nation Under The Pink Unicorn.

When anything is that powerful you don't..."has anyone actually seen The Pink Unicorn".

[Jesus]

Where is your proof that there is a God?

ahem

[Avante]

Where is your proof that there is a God?

Where is your proof He doesn't exist?

Key word.....FAITH!

[Avante]

How was slavey "proven" to be wrong? And why is God okay with slavery if it is wrong?

When it became illegal.

What did God say about slavery?

[redzero]

Ok man...:rolleyes

We have the Bible all about that Pink Unicorn, His only son Pink Jr was crucified for our sins, so every year we celebrate Pinkmas His birth. All thru history we have paid homage to the Pink Unicorn. Songs have been written about Him, monuments built in His honor, places to worship the Pink Unicorn have been built. Wars have been fought over the Pink Unicorn. Our money has ...In The Pink Unicorn We Trust. We are...One Nation Under The Pink Unicorn.

When anything is that powerful you don't..."has anyone actually seen The Pink Unicorn".

You cannot answer a simple question. This is kind of pathetic.

If one person believes in The Invisible Pink Unicorn, does that mean that it exists? Yes or no?

[baseline bum]

My 8 year-old aced differential geometry.

[johnsmith]

Ok man...:rolleyes

We have the Bible all about that Pink Unicorn, His only son Pink Jr was crucified for our sins, so every year we celebrate Pinkmas His birth. All thru history we have paid homage to the Pink Unicorn. Songs have been written about Him, monuments built in His honor, places to worship the Pink Unicorn have been built. Wars have been fought over the Pink Unicorn. Our money has ...In The Pink Unicorn We Trust. We are...One Nation Under The Pink Unicorn.

When anything is that powerful you don't..."has anyone actually seen The Pink Unicorn".

Obviously you have decided to use the Pink Unicorn as a metaphor, so let's break this down.

"We have the Bible all about that Pink Unicorn"

Do you know who edited and basically wrote the bible as you've known it your entire life?

"His only son Pink Jr was crucified for our sins, so every year we celebrate Pinkmas His birth"

You actually think December 25th is the birthdate of Christ don't you?

"All thru history we have paid homage to the Pink Unicorn"

Really, all thru history? What about when we worshipped the SunGod? Or Gods of Olympia?

"Songs have been written about Him, monuments built in His honor, places to worship the Pink Unicorn have been built"

Songs have been written about raping chicks, monuments have been built to honor ruthless dictators, and places to worship have been established long before your God ever existed.

"Wars have been fought over the Pink Unicorn. Our money has ...In The Pink Unicorn We Trust."

Money and wars, those seem like two awesome things to base your spirituality around.

[johnsmith]

Where is your proof He doesn't exist?

Key word.....FAITH!

But you're arguing that he does indeed exist.

And don't answer my question with a question.


Plus, I never said I don't believe in him now did I? Why is that?

[redzero]

When it became illegal.

What did God say about slavery?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6099829&postcount=434

Check the quotes from the Bible in that post.

There is more, if you actually want to look. Google "Bible" and "slavery."

[Avante]

You cannot answer a simple question. This is kind of pathetic.

If one person believes in The Invisible Pink Unicorn, does that mean that it exists? Yes or no?

Still can't comphrehend anything can you, very very sad.

Pay attention..

When anything is as huge as religion is you don't play this lameass/retarded....prove it! Why play that? Obviously billions of others have bought into it, what you are unique?


Fuck Unicorns:rolleyes:rolleyes:rolleyes

[johnsmith]

Still can't comphrehend anything can you, very very sad.

Pay attention..

When anything is as huge as religion is you don't play this lameass/retarded....prove it! Why play that? Obviously billions of others have bought into it, what you are unique?


Fuck Unicorns:rolleyes:rolleyes:rolleyes

Sooooo, no?

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6099829&postcount=434

Check the quotes from the Bible in that post.

There is more, if you actually want to look. Google "Bible" and "slavery."
Make sure you it from the Torah, so it isn't historical revisionism.

[Avante]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6099829&postcount=434

Check the quotes from the Bible in that post.

There is more, if you actually want to look. Google "Bible" and "slavery."

Not that concerned with it.

Why this need to battle those who do believe, do you honestly think anyone is going to be changing their mind becasuse of a redzero, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude, farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr more people trust in God than play this silly shit you play, you do know that right? How come very few play what you play?

[johnsmith]

Make sure you it from the Torah, so it isn't historical revisionism.

Right, because if it's written down, then it's always the truth.

[johnsmith]

How come very few play what you play?

What are you doing right now?

And how is redzero debating the merits of God's existence on this site any different than the shit you post about? It's entertaining for him.

[redzero]

:lmao Jesus Christ, this dude is absolutely retarded. It is the ultimate irony that he calls so many people childish, but acts like a baby himself.

I asked him a simple question, and instead of responding like an adult, he deflects and pulls logical fallacies out of his ass.

One question, Avante. Are you really so childish that you can't answer one simple question?

[Wild Cobra]

Right, because if it's written down, then it's always the truth.
No...

The English during King John's time translated it from the Greek, who translated it from Hebrew.

How many inadequacies and revisionism might there be, intentional and accidental?

[redzero]

Not that concerned with it.

Why this need to battle those who do believe, do you honestly think anyone is going to be changing their mind becasuse of a redzero, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude, farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr more people trust in God than play this silly shit you play, you do know that right? How come very few play what you play?

:lol Of course, you aren't.

Maybe if you keep ignoring everything that conflicts with your beliefs, your beliefs might actually become true!

[johnsmith]

No...

The English during King John's time translated it from the Greek, who translated it from Hebrew.

How many inadequacies and revisionism might there be, intentional and accidental?

We're not on the same page. I agree with you on what you've posted above. It's that I don't believe what was originally written.

[Avante]

:lmao Jesus Christ, this dude is absolutely retarded. It is the ultimate irony that he calls so many people childish, but acts like a baby himself.

I asked him a simple question, and instead of responding like an adult, he deflects and pulls logical fallacies out of his ass.

One question, Avante. Are you really so childish that you can't answer one simple question?

You are trying to talk the existence of God and think there is a simple answer to anything, are you really that stupid?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

My 8 year-old aced differential geometry.
My 6 year old cousin will have completed his PHD in mathematics within the next year.

[Wild Cobra]

We're not on the same page. I agree with you on what you've posted above. It's that I don't believe what was originally written.
Well, I do believe that what was originally written was by Moses, but how much might he have changed from the truth?

There has been all kinds of research on the topic and similar ideas of the accuracy. Here is one of them:

Data Integrity Patterns of the Torah (http://www.research-systems.com/codes/mathcode-web.pdf)

[Avante]

What are you doing right now?

And how is redzero debating the merits of God's existence on this site any different than the shit you post about? It's entertaining for him.

Let's cut thru all the bullshit.

Most people believe in a God because it makes them feel better about this life.

Few people don't want or need a God in their life.

Neither can actually prove anything so it's all about faith and no faith.


You disagree?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

How many inadequacies and revisionism might there be, intentional and accidental?
What if one of those intentional or accidental inadequacies/revisionism was the part about Homosexuality? What if the bible actually says nothing is wrong with homosexuality and all those who persecute homosexuals are going to hell?

lol admitting a book you strongly believe in has inadequacies and revisionism.

[redzero]

You are trying to talk the existence of God and think there is a simple answer to anything, are you really that stupid?

:lol What a strawman. You are unbelievably dishonest.

My question has a simple yes or no answer. Stop trying to lie and deflect.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I sometimes wonder if people like RaZon are really this intellectually dishonest the way they argue about things or if they're really stupid enough to not realize how many logical fallacies are in their arguments.

[redzero]

People like RaZon, mouse, and Culburn know that they are being dishonest or are in severe denial.

[Saved By Zero]

People like RaZon, mouse, and Culburn know that they are being dishonest or are in severe denial.

You and Bill are in deNyeal.

[redzero]

You and Bill are in deNyeal.

I was just thinking about how much I wanted to look at something that's not funny. Thank you for obliging me.