Holy War Breaks Out at Public Univers...

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

There are 207 comments on the TheBlaze.com story from Oct 4, 2013, titled Holy War Breaks Out at Public University Over Atheism, Evolution and Intelligent Design. In it, TheBlaze.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TheBlaze.com.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#142 Oct 11, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Comparing abiogenesis and God is fair as can be. There is no evidence for either one but yet your faith allows you to believe in abiogenesis and your hate allows you not to believe in a God even though neither have evidence supporting them. That is what is called a choice. A choice not based on evidence but on what you feel and want to believe.
Incorrect. There is irrefutable evidence that it occurred. The evidence shows that there was once no life on the planet. The evidence shows that at one point life began. Whether it's source was natural or supernatural can be debated but it did occur.

Now what is your evidence for the existence of a god?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#143 Oct 11, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.
Do show some evidence where they have tested/observed abiogenesis.
In the fossil record, 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago. After then we have life. Before then we don't. Ergo life came from non-life. Simple.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#144 Oct 11, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would God or a God feel the need to defend himself to idiots?
Exactly. There is no reason of it.
In which case no reason for you fundies to get upset and defend it then.(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#145 Oct 11, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I forgot to address this one.
You take a bunch of dead animals and put them together they start to assemble as well. We call that a food pile for the wild animals and bugs.
You take a bunch of dead people and they also start to assemble. We call that a grave yard.
SO again what was your point. Oh yes. Now you are saying dead, lifeless molecules assemble and make life. At the count of 3 wake up from your silly dream. LOL
You would do well to avoid the ridiculous examples.

Please provide an example of life consisting solely of living molecules as opposed to lifeless ones.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#146 Oct 11, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Cowardly religious liars like to move the discussion away from the lack of proof of god when given the chance.
Love is just a name for a behaviour found in mammals, like god, you can't actually define it, which is why religious liars like to bring it up when confronted for lying about god.
It's shameful that creationist cannot defend their god and have lie and mislead people away from the hard facts.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Then I suggest you stop doing so.
Hey Skippy, shame to say it but in this case Replay's right.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#147 Oct 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Hey Skippy, shame to say it but in this case Replay's right.
I don't trust the opinion of a poster who goes around making stupid accusations about others.

When you're able to understand the burden of proof better, you will matter more.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#148 Oct 11, 2013
Whoops, I messed up the quote-tags on the last one. Never mind.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't trust the opinion of a poster who goes around making stupid accusations about others.
When you're able to understand the burden of proof better, you will matter more.
Who cares what you trust? You're a lying fundie who's clueless about science. No different from Replay.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#149 Oct 11, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny you join in on their rant. I never said God was real. What I did say is that abiogenesis has no evidence of being true and look at you all go on like someone stole your piece of candy. LMAO
Actually I'd say that an ENTIRE PLANET full of life is pretty damn good evidence that abiogenesis occurred.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#150 Oct 11, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You can gripe, complain and whine but you can't read well.
Let's look at our posts again.
I say "if neither can be proven do not teach either. God or abiogenesis."
You say ""god" isn't a valid hypothesis." (Which I never claimed he was) It's abiogenesis or some other **reasonable** mechanism.(which you fail to name)
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. I said "A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.
Do show some evidence where they have tested/observed abiogenesis.
Then you say "SHOW ME WHERE I EVER CLAIMED "THEORY" WITH RESPECT TO ABIOGENESIS."
I say show me where I said you did or STFU.
You say "you always say "hypothesis" when referring to abiogenesis."
Again I say "A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.
Do show some evidence where they have tested/observed abiogenesis. or STFU
Tested and testing:

http://scienceofbusiness.files.wordpress.com/...

Now go there and tell 'em they've been wasting their time cuz their ideas don't have enough invisible Jew magic in it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#151 Oct 11, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I forgot to address this one.
You take a bunch of dead animals and put them together they start to assemble as well. We call that a food pile for the wild animals and bugs.
You take a bunch of dead people and they also start to assemble. We call that a grave yard.
SO again what was your point. Oh yes. Now you are saying dead, lifeless molecules assemble and make life. At the count of 3 wake up from your silly dream. LOL
Yup, dead molecules make life. Fact. Your body is the result of dead matter being converted via chemical processes into a now living organism. Even if your parents were gross enough to eat live organisms instead of dead things like most the rest of us, I can pretty much guarantee you they didn't stay alive for too long after an hour or two in the gullet. Suffice to say that it IS in fact a scientific fact that living beings are generated from NON-living material via natural chemical processes, and is in fact an every day occurrence happening all over the entire planet. Or at least, wherever you find life.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#152 Oct 11, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You know science did a study and found out that the people who always do/use name calling do not have self confidence and know/think they are not as good/smart/pretty as the people that surround them. Makes me wonder why all of your posts have some sort of name calling in them.
That damn science. Isn't it great. LMAO
You speak like a True Believer™

Full of your self-righteous hate.

Classic.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#153 Oct 11, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have nothing. Just as I thought. I have no use for you anymore.
I posted a link, stupid.

I'm so sorry you are too stupid to click on a link...

Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#154 Oct 11, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So is abiogenesis. But I "guess" you take "guesses" as scientific evidence. lol
Nope. Scientific experiments have shown much support for the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

Where is your **SCIENCE** that supports this idiot "god" notion?

Hmmm?

What's that? You got.... NOTHING?

Interesting.

On ONE hand? Thousands of **scientific** experiments have strongly suggested abiogenesis was how life got started on earth.

On the OTHER hand?

NOT ONE. NOT ONE THING IN THE HISTORY OF EARTH, suggests "goddidit".

Interesting.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#155 Oct 11, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I forgot to address this one.
You take a bunch of dead animals and put them together they start to assemble as well. We call that a food pile for the wild animals and bugs.
Are you seriously this much of an idiot?

Seriously. A pile if dead animals is just that: a pile of dead animals.

A soup of the fundamental chemicals of life-- chemicals which are found **everywhere**-- especially in the OORT clouds that surround most solar systems-- if you put those chemicals in water? They begin to self-assemble.

That is strongly suggestive of abiogenesis.

You are seriously ignorant of the whole process, aren't you?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#156 Oct 11, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because I am fed up with grey box tards I am going to be an @ssss. You say you asked your wife to get naked but she didn't believe your snake could really talk and she wouldn't give your snake a kiss no matter how many times you asked.
Maybe she is tired of your limp little worm. Maybe some one else's snake is taking to her and getting her kisses. Just a thought.
Oh looky! The True Believer™ is .... jealous.

And he thinks atheists give a shyt about his opinion.

How cute.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#157 Oct 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, dead molecules make life. Fact. Your body is the result of dead matter being converted via chemical processes into a now living organism. Even if your parents were gross enough to eat live organisms instead of dead things like most the rest of us, I can pretty much guarantee you they didn't stay alive for too long after an hour or two in the gullet. Suffice to say that it IS in fact a scientific fact that living beings are generated from NON-living material via natural chemical processes, and is in fact an every day occurrence happening all over the entire planet. Or at least, wherever you find life.
There **is** some question if he is actually alive or not.

The jury is still out, as he has, so far, demonstrated little in the way of sentience, here.
Sterkfontein Swartkrans

Doylestown, PA

#158 Oct 11, 2013
Public universities should be teaching facts that can be verified by science. If this guy wants to teach creationism that classify the class as a course in mythology. Problem solved!
Thinking

Royston, UK

#159 Oct 11, 2013
Maybe there should be specific buildings for teaching creationism to those that are that way inclined.

We could call such buildings "churches".
Sterkfontein Swartkrans wrote:
Public universities should be teaching facts that can be verified by science. If this guy wants to teach creationism that classify the class as a course in mythology. Problem solved!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#160 Oct 11, 2013
Sterkfontein Swartkrans wrote:
Public universities should be teaching facts that can be verified by science. If this guy wants to teach creationism that classify the class as a course in mythology. Problem solved!
I think it would also be appropriate to teach it in an abnormal psychology class.

And even in a criminal behaviorist class-- as an example of the sort of criminal behavior people engage in.
Justin

United States

#161 Oct 11, 2013
I don't see why creationism, feminism, activism, marxism, optimism, pessimism, transcendentalism, or any of the -isms should be taught as part of the undergraduate core curricular at a state funded university. For 95% of of students, they all have little relevence when it comes to preparing for their professional lives.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 37 min Simon 79,916
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 61
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Wed Eagle 12 - 32,581
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Wed The pope 258,485
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Sep 16 blacklagoon 3 91
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Sep 15 xfrodobagginsx 101
News Atheist billboards to mock Romney, Obama faith (Aug '12) Sep 15 superwilly 47
More from around the web