Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,983

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Full Story
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#67656 Feb 7, 2013
John: Poe, mental or both?
John can't be as thick as he appears in his posts, can he?
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
You are one crazy mofo.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#67657 Feb 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't creationists ever understand the Archimedian property: if you add a lot of small changes, it gives rise to a large change.
On paper it works, but not in reality. There is no evidence in fossils or experiments that mutations create "new" forms.

The theory of evolution has gone the way of gravity, accepted as an ultimate law, mathematically and physically defined but unresolved into any causes.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#67658 Feb 7, 2013
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the alternative? Let's look at the atheist's favorite fairy tale, Darwin's brainstorm, called the theory of evolution. Say you're making a giraffe. The necessary mutation would be a long neck for eating leaves. But first the giraffe has to be a pre-giraffe because a long neck isn't going to help a pre-lion who eats meat, or a pre-zebra who eats grass. The long neck mutation is only useful to an animal that already lives under trees, who is already trying to reach higher leaves before the mutation. But wait, if the pre-giraffe couldn't reach the leaves before the mutation, why the freak was it there in the first place? Was it just hanging around wistfully looking up at leaves waiting for a mutation? If this sounds ridiculous, it is! The combination of specific mutation and specific environment is so unlikely that even God couldn't make sense of it. LMAO!
Good one!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67659 Feb 7, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
On paper it works, but not in reality. There is no evidence in fossils or experiments that mutations create "new" forms.
Fossils cannot show mutations because they don't preserve DNA. They *do* show that species change over time. Lab experiments *do*show that mutations can 'create' new forms.
The theory of evolution has gone the way of gravity, accepted as an ultimate law, mathematically and physically defined but unresolved into any causes.
It is circular to ask for causes of physical laws.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#67660 Feb 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fossils cannot show mutations because they don't preserve DNA. They *do* show that species change over time. Lab experiments *do*show that mutations can 'create' new forms.
<quoted text>
It is circular to ask for causes of physical laws.
Science knows HOW to some extent, but it doesn't know WHY. The chief "causes" for the orderly evolution of creatures is entirely unknown, which means that science is looking for truth in all the wrong places.

It needs a new superhero to show the way. Stephen Hawkings is a defector. His theories would turn science into another religion. "If the Grand Unification Theory were constructed, then the greatest triumph in human endeavor would be realized. For then we would know the mind of God." - A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking.

The narcissistic Richard Dawkins is too busy debating Christians for the publicity to spend any time filling the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.

No. Science needs a hero with the mythical qualities of a "phoenix" to arise out of the ashes of its dead evolution theory, and explain the production of a blade of grass using natural laws ordained by no intention. A magical feat indeed!

The conundrum for science has always been backasswards thinking. From matter backward into energy rather than from energy forward into matter and form. It places the cart before the horse.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67661 Feb 7, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
On paper it works, but not in reality. There is no evidence in fossils or experiments that mutations create "new" forms.
The theory of evolution has gone the way of gravity, accepted as an ultimate law, mathematically and physically defined but unresolved into any causes.
You're full of sh*t and have no proof of god at the end of the day.

You're trying to sell us morals while lying about god. Good luck trying to convert us to your stupidity.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67662 Feb 7, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Science knows HOW to some extent, but it doesn't know WHY. The chief "causes" for the orderly evolution of creatures is entirely unknown, which means that science is looking for truth in all the wrong places.
It needs a new superhero to show the way. Stephen Hawkings is a defector. His theories would turn science into another religion. "If the Grand Unification Theory were constructed, then the greatest triumph in human endeavor would be realized. For then we would know the mind of God." - A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking.
The narcissistic Richard Dawkins is too busy debating Christians for the publicity to spend any time filling the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.
No. Science needs a hero with the mythical qualities of a "phoenix" to arise out of the ashes of its dead evolution theory, and explain the production of a blade of grass using natural laws ordained by no intention. A magical feat indeed!
The conundrum for science has always been backasswards thinking. From matter backward into energy rather than from energy forward into matter and form. It places the cart before the horse.
You can't criticise science until you've proven the god you lie about every day.

its been that simple since the dawn of time itself

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#67663 Feb 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Could be! But he doesn't seem complex and sophisticated enough to be a collection of computer code.
It could be ineptly written code.

In keeping with the ineptly written bible, of course.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#67664 Feb 7, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
They are taught to be sheeplike. Herd mentality waiting to be sheared. Look in their eyes and see a programmed drone.
When you look at us from early tribal people to today you can see we are hunters. Clever, resourceful, doing what we need to do for us and our tribe to survive and progress.
Let them be sheep my friend, we'll be hunters :)
<quoted text>
Yep.

To be a True Believerô? You must first learn how to suppress any and all..

... thoughts.

:)

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67665 Feb 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. The opposite of randomness is order, not design. A salt crystal is very ordered, but it isn't designed: it forms spontaneously under the right conditions. The early universe was ordered (more precisely, it was low entropy) but that says nothing about design. The laws of physics are not 'random': they are very specific (even when all they predict is probabilities) and the early universe was governed by the same laws of physics as today.
Wrong

A salt crystal was designed.

"The laws of physics are not 'random': they are very specific"

They were designed too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#67666 Feb 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Bollocks.
<quoted text>
Indeed it is. I never read his shyte as a matter of course.

I see the poster, and skip to the next one.
John

United States

#67667 Feb 7, 2013
Good grief you antitheists are bat shit crazy. You have zero evidence that meet your rules for evidence. You post nothing in a forum about nothing. You hate a God you don't believe in. Keep up your convincing nonargument LOL.

In response to your fumbling attacks against believers I offered to debate the evidences/reasons for belief in a prime mover vs any accountable position. Your nothing has never been louder. It's interesting to watch cowards becoome bullies on the internet though.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#67668 Feb 7, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
You are one crazy mofo.
He lied. When he wrote his first ugly post here? Most of the responders back then, were atheists, and most replied.

Giving many and countless positions.

He ran away for weeks soon after, then returned and pretended nobody answered.

He's been doing that ever since: pretending nobody answers. When countless people have.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#67669 Feb 7, 2013
Any resistance to science on these forums has the effect of splashing holy water on the possessed. It agitates you atheistic demons, provoking a slabbering flurry of foul language and nonsensical blather. Who needs movies like the Exocist? This is far more entertaining!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67670 Feb 7, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
A salt crystal was designed.
Wrong. The salt crystal spontaneously forms because of the laws of physics and chemistry, including the second law of thermodynamics.
"The laws of physics are not 'random': they are very specific"
They were designed too.
Can't happen. Design only happens when working through the physical laws to make something happen that you want. So design of physical laws is contradictory.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67671 Feb 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. The salt crystal spontaneously forms because of the laws of physics and chemistry, including the second law of thermodynamics.

[QUOTE]"The laws of physics are not 'random': they are very specific"
They were designed too.
"

Can't happen. Design only happens when working through the physical laws to make something happen that you want. So design of physical laws is contradictory.
Guess who made those laws?

LOL you have no concept on what a creator means.
John

United States

#67672 Feb 7, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
He lied. When he wrote his first ugly post here? Most of the responders back then, were atheists, and most replied.
Giving many and countless positions.
He ran away for weeks soon after, then returned and pretended nobody answered.
He's been doing that ever since: pretending nobody answers. When countless people have.
I don't need to lie Bob. I'm just fine exposing you. Once again you made some claims but bring no evidence. Do you have an accountable position of belief that meets the evidentiary standard you hold others to. No. That's why you write about evidence, but never have any. Thanks for nothing!
John

United States

#67673 Feb 7, 2013
You make the presupposition that there is no evidence without admitting you do not have the scientifically measurable evidence to support your position of nothing. You have placed limits on what may be limitless. You have placed limits where they need not be. Thus far I have seen no evidence provided by an atheist that would support what is disingenuously called natural mechanisms only. If you think there isn't evidence of design you would be wrong. Admittedly, this can not be proven using your constricting criteria, but nothing in this arena has been proven using this standard. You know this by now. That is why it is so frustrating to the forum when it's pointed out. Judging by the ever-growing anecdotal evidence of this forum overwhelmingly congregated by atheists, atheism is something else entirely. There is a large contingent of antitheists, a portion devoted to secular humanism, and some interplay with other assorted isms. The common denominator is that every single one of these positions is lacking in evidence. The notion that man is the be all end all is flawed in my opinion. Of course you wish to shirk any burden of proof. That's transparent and shows a weak position. Atheism has been co-opted by the new atheist. Much more vocal and commited to breaking down the populace writ large that actually do have a position. I've given more than enough opportunity for atheists to engage in debate that is not circular. The brilliance and weakness of atheism is no accountability. That's why it's not challenging to debate this topic with you loons. Apologies to the few that aren't driven by more than uncertainty. When Reagan debated Gorbachev on our nuclear arsenals each man had a position. If there was a political debate the political atheist would attack the other position and not have to be responsible for one himself. If one football team was atheist and the other was not they would have the ball on offense the whole game. Fumble, and the ball would be returned. This is what you ask for here, but is unacceptable in every other topic. I'm conservative btw. A rational freethinker. I'm sure you are a centrist LOL. What's the mushy middle thought on government size, abortion, tax rates?
If there isn't a position don't bother responding. How is the fence DREW, Curious, Mikey,,,,? You got the post wedged good and deep yet? Stump an antitheist! Ask it what it believes. Still going strong 64,940 plus posts in.
Still nothing about atheism in the atheist forum. No position, no post #. Lies, spin, ad hominem, and boredom.
Waiting for an example of what passes the cut for evidence from atheists. Cowards!

Since: Mar 11

United States

#67674 Feb 7, 2013
It is sad because they lose their ability to use logic and reason, which is what makes us unique.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
To be a True Believerô? You must first learn how to suppress any and all..
... thoughts.
:)

Since: Mar 11

United States

#67675 Feb 7, 2013
The reject who says we are made of god-stuff wants to bash science?

Let me explain something to you half wit, even if we don't have all the answers we don't assign those unknowns to an imaginary god. Instead we keep researching and progressing.

You ilk thought the world was square flat and rested on top of pillars.
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Science knows HOW to some extent, but it doesn't know WHY. The chief "causes" for the orderly evolution of creatures is entirely unknown, which means that science is looking for truth in all the wrong places.
It needs a new superhero to show the way. Stephen Hawkings is a defector. His theories would turn science into another religion. "If the Grand Unification Theory were constructed, then the greatest triumph in human endeavor would be realized. For then we would know the mind of God." - A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking.
The narcissistic Richard Dawkins is too busy debating Christians for the publicity to spend any time filling the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.
No. Science needs a hero with the mythical qualities of a "phoenix" to arise out of the ashes of its dead evolution theory, and explain the production of a blade of grass using natural laws ordained by no intention. A magical feat indeed!
The conundrum for science has always been backasswards thinking. From matter backward into energy rather than from energy forward into matter and form. It places the cart before the horse.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 30 min RealDave 1,110,499
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 44 min mudfoot 153,599
Ukraine president to address Congress, meet wit... 1 hr Obama Bad 3
Who is the worst president since WWII ? 1 hr mjjcpa 488
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 3 hr Earthling-1 32,662
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 hr LRS 178,060
Former Massachusetts Senator Brown to kick off ... 10 hr Billy Ringo 74
•••

2012 Presidential Election People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••