Holy War Breaks Out at Public University Over Atheism, Evolution and Intelligent Design

Oct 4, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TheBlaze.com

When atheist activists launched a battle over intelligent design at Ball State University earlier this year, they sparked a holy war in higher education that has university officials scrambling to critically examine courses and professorial credentials.

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of207
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I read and look up a lot of things. I don't exactly remember where I saw it at but if you want to Google it and wade through the 1000's of sights that creationists have clogged the web with, help yourself. I am not doing it again lol.
And I'm not doing your homework for you. I'll just conclude that you have nothing to back up your claim.

Case dismissed.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

redneck wrote:
If god and science didn't go together, how do you explain scientology? Checkmate Atheists
Scientology is neither science nor religion. It is nothing more than a pseudo-church founded by a nutcase so other nutcases can associate with each other and enjoy mass brainwashing.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Oct 9, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't concern itself with non-scientific concepts.
How can there be a "God" part of the brain if God - by your own assertion - does not exist? It's just called "The Brain". Ya know, that thing you don't have.
By the way, no I ain't.(shrug)
name one non-scientific concept, and I'll show you how science relates to it you stupid f*ck.

Science related to the physical world, which is every f*cking thing you numbnut!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Oct 9, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Although I agree in this instance, your post still blew an irony meter.
Its quite ok considering your ass produces an unlimited supply of them.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
name one non-scientific concept, and I'll show you how science relates to it you stupid f*ck.
Science related to the physical world, which is every f*cking thing you numbnut!
This is why agnostics should do a thinking test, a little like a driving test, to make sure they are fit for the job at hand!

“Life is a learning highway”

Since: Mar 13

that too many get lost on

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
<quoted text>
Answer - No. There are other mechanisms involved too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechan...
<quoted text>
Wrong. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. Just as the theory of gravity does not rely on the origin of mass. Or the germ theory of disease doesn't rely on the origin of germs.
You are simply wrong, period. You refuse to accept this because you're stupid.
Not our problem.
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis does not rule out God. God may or may not have been responsible. Evolution is not atheism. Abiogenesis is not atheism. Weather prediction is not atheism. Scientific concepts are not "atheistic" just because they don't invoke God. Science makes no theological claims either way. As for abio, evolution doesn't care if:
1 - Goddidit.
2 - Natural chemical development.
3 - Panspermia.
4 - Aliens.
5 - Something else which no-one has thought of yet.
Of course "God" could still be compatible with all or none of those last four possibilities. But there's no way to tell. Know why?
God is simply not scientific, period.
So stop complaining that science doesn't mention your favourite magical Jew wizard.
What is funny is the only person bringing God into my comments is you!

“Life is a learning highway”

Since: Mar 13

that too many get lost on

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
make no mistake, Its because you're a cowardly creationist liar for your failing cult, that you cannot present any evidence for god or any evidence agains evolution.
What is funny is the only person bringing God into my comments is you!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you even capable of having a discussion or are you just an asshat all the time?
I can discuss **real** issues. And I have-- plenty of examples.

It is just that you? You are unworthy of such things.

You believe in ... magic (god).

Until you give up your fantasy-delusion (magic/god)? Your comments will continue to appear insane.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Good points. You hit on the example I should have used in response to Replay's posts. Your mention of selective breeding or artificial selection reminded me. Replay mentioned it, but I didn't key in on it at the time.
In artificial selection of crop plants for instance, traits of interest are identified and through controlled breeding are selected for. Thus selection is pushing for variation and not creating that variation. Should have thought of that example before.
Selective breeding would not even work, unless evolution were true.

It's just natural selection taken to an extreme case-- each generation is forcibly selected for whichever trait(s) is desired.

In the "wild" this can happen too-- if the environment takes a sudden (relatively speaking) change for something different? The generation-by-generation selection happens then as well.

What many folk ignorant of evolution do not understand, is that evolution would not happen, if the environment was not in a state of constant change as well.

It's a two-part system: life adapts to the environment, and as the environment changes (or life moves into new environments) life adapts to that.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Selective breeding would not even work, unless evolution were true.
I posted this on another thread, but I think it works here as well:

Fundies say there's no practical use for the ToE.

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-crop-productivit ...

A step towards increasing crop productivity
October 9th, 2013 in Biology / Biotechnology

( Phys.org )A breakthrough in understanding the evolutionary pathways along which some crops have become significantly more productive as others may help scientists boost yields of some staple foodstuffs.

Research carried out at Cambridge and Oxford Universities, and published last week in the journal eLIFE makes an important contribution to worldwide efforts to develop high-yielding crops by mimicking the natural processes of evolution that have led some plants to be more productive than others.

Crops can be divided into two broad categories in terms of the way in which they use photosynthesis to convert sunlight and water into carbohydrates. In C3 plants carbon dioxide is first fixed into a compound containing three carbon atoms while in C4 plants carbon dioxide is initially fixed into a compound containing four carbons atoms.

This seemingly minor variation in photosynthesis makes an important difference: C4 plants are around 50% more efficient than C3 plants, and despite accounting for just 3% of plant species, C4 plants contribute 30% to terrestrial productivity.

The world faces pressure from a growing population, and productive land is increasingly at a premium. One way to improve yields without cultivating more land is to engineer crops to use C4 photosynthesis. To do this, scientists must understand the evolutionary steps that lead from C3 to C4 photosynthesis.

All C4 plants evolved from C3 plants. Scientists think that this process took place over many millions of years. No one knows exactly what causes the sequence of changes that makes it possible for plants to learn this trick, and although the C4 pathway is considered highly complex, this system has evolved independently in many groups of plants.

A collaboration bringing together plant sciences and mathematics initiated by Drs Ben Williams and Iain Johnston has revealed the series of events that allowed plants using the C4 pathway to evolve from C3 plants.

Their work on evolutionary pathways may help scientists to engineer current C3 crops to use the more efficient C4 pathway and because of their increased productivity, increase world food security. In doing so, scientists will be mimicking and speeding up the natural variations that have taken place in wild species.

Williams assessed the presence or absence of 16 traits known to be important for the C4 pathway in 73 different plants, some using C4 photosynthesis, some using the C3 pathway, and others that seem to use a blend of both C3 and C4. Johnston then developed Bayesian modelling techniques, to produce a model that predicts the steps associated with this highly complex evolutionary process. The model was underpinned by data occupying a 16-dimensional space with 65,536 nodes within that space.

Dr Hibberd said: "What their work reveals provides incredible new insight into a complex evolutionary process and furthermore is essentially positive news for those of us interested in engineering more productive staple food stuffs such as rice. This is because the work shows that there is significant flexibility in the evolutionary paths that plants have used to get from C3 to C4 photosynthesis.

"This finding therefore implies that the engineering effort is not constrained to only one route. This should help scientists to develop crops with significantly improved yields to feed the world. Like the proverbial roads that all lead to Rome, Ben and Iain have shown that there are many routes taken by plants in the evolutionary process towards C4 photosynthesis."

<truncated to fit Topix limitations. More at link above>
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
name one non-scientific concept, and I'll show you how science relates to it you stupid f*ck.
God.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Science related to the physical world, which is every f*cking thing you numbnut!
You can't teach me science. You can't teach what you do not know. Alas, that is the burden fundies have to bear...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
What is funny is the only person bringing God into my comments is you!
Really?

Page 1, post 5, this thread. You were the second person to mention God.

The first wasn't me.

Are you trying to compete with Skippy for tard of the century? Cuz it's a close run.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted this on another thread, but I think it works here as well:
Fundies say there's no practical use for the ToE.
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-crop-productivit ...
A step towards increasing crop productivity
October 9th, 2013 in Biology / Biotechnology
Of course (and not trying to downplay this at all) evolution has already been used to increase crop yields for decades. Which is why the West was quite economically prosperous while the Communists rejected Darwinian evolution, and hence their agriculture suffered as a result. One of but numerous factors which helped lead to the USSR's eventual downfall.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Oct 9, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course (and not trying to downplay this at all) evolution has already been used to increase crop yields for decades. Which is why the West was quite economically prosperous while the Communists rejected Darwinian evolution, and hence their agriculture suffered as a result. One of but numerous factors which helped lead to the USSR's eventual downfall.
Yes. Understanding evolution enables faster crop modification and improvement.

But even if a person doesn't understand it? Crop improvement is still possible-- witness modern dog breeds. Impossible unless evolution is true, but still possible even if understanding of evolution is entirely absent.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Understanding evolution enables faster crop modification and improvement.
But even if a person doesn't understand it? Crop improvement is still possible-- witness modern dog breeds. Impossible unless evolution is true, but still possible even if understanding of evolution is entirely absent.
I'd suggest that technically speaking there is a modicum of understanding in that it involves some recognition of inheritance via common ancestry, even if they are unaware of the overall implications of this effect.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Oct 9, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
God.
<quoted text>
You can't teach me science. You can't teach what you do not know. Alas, that is the burden fundies have to bear...
The concept of god is unscientific, science applies to god in that it can test physical reality. Every scientific test for the fictional god has shown no evidence that it is real or plausible. That is how science applies to god. That is why 90%+ of scientists are atheists, and that is how you are wrong!!!

I can't teach you science, you are correct, Its difficult to teach and obstinate idiot who does not understand the scientific and logical importance of the burden of proof.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Oct 9, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
What is funny is the only person bringing God into my comments is you!
You can't fool us, creationist, when you can prove the god you're sent here to lie about, your opinions and comments will matter more.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The concept of god is unscientific
WHOA! Hold on thar, bub! You can't claim on one thread that it's scientific then on another say it isn't.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCS...

I know you like to do the fundie thing and cover all your bases but really all you're doing is demonstrating that your own position is internally inconsistent.
-Skeptic- wrote:
science applies to god in that it can test physical reality.
So God is a physical real thing? Funny, since I thought there was no evidence at all.

And remember, no evidence in YOUR case means unequivocally and categorically does NOT exist, period. Like aliens or the multiverse.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Every scientific test for the fictional god has shown no evidence that it is real or plausible.
What tests? You've never described one.
-Skeptic- wrote:
That is how science applies to god.
So your way of explaining to me how science applies to God is to NOT explain how science applies to God.

Well done.
-Skeptic- wrote:
That is why 90%+ of scientists are atheists
Irrelevant.
-Skeptic- wrote:
and that is how you are wrong!!!
How am I wrong? You haven't shown that yet.

Ever.

Not once.

In over two years.

Not even a ickle tiny widdle bit.
-Skeptic- wrote:
I can't teach you science, you are correct
Indeed. It's because you don't know any.

After all that's why on any thread it's always other posters debunking creationists, not you. You just insult them.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Its difficult to teach and obstinate idiot who does not understand the scientific and logical importance of the burden of proof.
Nope, sorry, but that was addressed VERY directly on this thread right here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TNK...

You know, the thread were you denied the existence of lizards and the moon landings.

“Happy New Year”

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Oct 9, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Selective breeding would not even work, unless evolution were true.
It's just natural selection taken to an extreme case-- each generation is forcibly selected for whichever trait(s) is desired.
In the "wild" this can happen too-- if the environment takes a sudden (relatively speaking) change for something different? The generation-by-generation selection happens then as well.
What many folk ignorant of evolution do not understand, is that evolution would not happen, if the environment was not in a state of constant change as well.
It's a two-part system: life adapts to the environment, and as the environment changes (or life moves into new environments) life adapts to that.
Agreed. The evidence supports that drastic changes in the environment opens up so many new niches that evolution advances rapidly to fill these new niches. For instance Lake Victoria is known to have some 500 species of cichlids that have rapidly evolved from one or a few ancestor species in about 15,000 years.

“Happy New Year”

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Oct 9, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course (and not trying to downplay this at all) evolution has already been used to increase crop yields for decades. Which is why the West was quite economically prosperous while the Communists rejected Darwinian evolution, and hence their agriculture suffered as a result. One of but numerous factors which helped lead to the USSR's eventual downfall.
The Russian people suffered as well from that ignorance.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 of207
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

16 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Islam wins the battle of P.C. causes 5 min Amused 2
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 min number four 216,721
'Good without a god': Faces of atheism in Oklahoma (Jul '13) 22 min Atheist Silurist 7,040
Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not ... (Sep '13) 28 min Thinking 2,988
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 28 min Thinking 1,064
Introducing The Universal Religion 1 hr NightSerf 562
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr DonPanic 20,819
•••
•••
•••
•••