Comments
201 - 220 of 842 Comments Last updated 11 hrs ago
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#207
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly a consolation. However in order for creationism to be taught legally they need to get rid of the First Amendment first. Despite all attempts they still haven't managed to get around it yet.
But who knows, maybe one day.(shrug)
<quoted text>
I've seen it. Very nice 2 minute vid on youtube with some dumb hick teacher teaching dumb hick kids how to be even more dumb. Can't look it up on these computers right now but it's easy enough to find.
Your locations is UK?
Youtube is excellent for music. Stones , some excellent early music ...but not so good on politics?
America has a tradition of not observing laws with which they disagree.
Not only rural areas.
Peace
Thinking

Bolton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#208
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Against US advice, she retook the Falkland Islands from the Argentinian Junta. That was very popular in the UK and helped move Argentina to democracy.

Baroness Thatcher inherited a UK where you couldn't take more than £50 on holiday, the biggest house removals company (Pickfords) was state controlled, unions turned off the power and stopped collecting rubbish and burying the dead.

Tax rates of 83% for income and 98% for savings earnings stifled the economy. Inflation of 15% hit everyone.

So on the plus side Thatcher helped the UK rebuild, but on the downside she didn't bring the whole population with her. At the end of her tenure, she'd lost her political deftness and was making lots of mistakes.

There is a point of view that 80s financial deregulation is part of the reason the US and UK are so in debt today. In 20 years time, I wonder if history will be so kind to the Reagan and Thatcher era.
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
You could be correct on Darwin quote.
Aware of H Spencer and the Social Darwinism of the Tories
What did you think of "lady" Thatcher?
peace
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#209
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Thinking wrote:
Against US advice, she retook the Falkland Islands from the Argentinian Junta. That was very popular in the UK and helped move Argentina to democracy.
Baroness Thatcher inherited a UK where you couldn't take more than £50 on holiday, the biggest house removals company (Pickfords) was state controlled, unions turned off the power and stopped collecting rubbish and burying the dead.
Tax rates of 83% for income and 98% for savings earnings stifled the economy. Inflation of 15% hit everyone.
So on the plus side Thatcher helped the UK rebuild, but on the downside she didn't bring the whole population with her. At the end of her tenure, she'd lost her political deftness and was making lots of mistakes.
There is a point of view that 80s financial deregulation is part of the reason the US and UK are so in debt today. In 20 years time, I wonder if history will be so kind to the Reagan and Thatcher era.
<quoted text>
interesting, thanks
agree on Falkland Islands.
She supported Pinochet in Chile.
Privatization hurts middle and working class.
If in UK would most likely vote Labour .... voted for Obama twice.
Peace

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#210
Apr 9, 2013
 
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasting your time - LOL
Creationism 4004BC and 9:30 am is nonsense.
You assume those who find atheism a joke are creationists?
You find atheism a joke, yet you are a soward when if comes to proving a god.

That's how dishnoest and stupid you are.
Thinking

Bolton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#211
Apr 9, 2013
 
Are you looking to move further left than Obama? I would say the current UK coalition government is closer to Obama than Romney.

I think it is too simple to say that privatisation hurts middle and working class as a well run private company is better than one poorly run by the state. Power cuts were not a part of my formative years as a result.
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
interesting, thanks
agree on Falkland Islands.
She supported Pinochet in Chile.
Privatization hurts middle and working class.
If in UK would most likely vote Labour .... voted for Obama twice.
Peace
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You find atheism a joke, yet you are a soward when if comes to proving a god.
That's how dishnoest and stupid you are.
Atheists are fun ... good thread
Peace

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#213
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists are fun ... good thread
Peace
Creationist coward with no proof of god, attempting and failing to convert atheists to his cult.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#214
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
hey lying creationist piece of sh*t, I made a thread about you: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Notice no one bothers to make a thread about you, Skippy?

You know why? You don't matter. No one takes you seriously.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215
Apr 9, 2013
 
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Your locations is UK?
Youtube is excellent for music. Stones , some excellent early music ...but not so good on politics?
America has a tradition of not observing laws with which they disagree.
Not only rural areas.
Peace
Yes, I am aware they have that tradition. But politics has no bearing on scientific validity. In fact I wasn't speaking of politics at all. Here's the one I was talking about. It's just under three minutes for anyone who's interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Quite "enlightening"...
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#216
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
...If in UK would most likely vote Labour .... voted for Obama twice.
Peace
Interesting.

If in the USA, I would most likely vote Democrat, but I've noticed Calfornia's finances compared to Texas.

In the UK I tend to vote Tory or LibDem and am conservative (politically). Labour are definitely required sometimes, but they tend not to understand elementary economics.
JMHO
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#217
Apr 9, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am aware they have that tradition. But politics has no bearing on scientific validity. In fact I wasn't speaking of politics at all. Here's the one I was talking about. It's just under three minutes for anyone who's interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Quite "enlightening"...
Creepy

It well illustrates why it's impossible for the superstitious (and sometimes the religious) to simply follow the scientific evidence without bias.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Here's some more observed evolution for the believers to deny in the forlorn hope that it will go away......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

"Changes to their surroundings can trigger "rapid evolution" in species as they adopt traits to help them survive in the new conditions, a study shows.

Studying soil mites in a laboratory, researchers found that the invertebrates' age of maturity almost doubled in just 20-or-so generations."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20425468

"Scientists are increasingly finding evidence of evolution in action. They are recording in numerous and varied detail how populations of similar animals, from lamprey and sea urchins to Drosophila flies and crickets, are diverging - splitting into two or more distinct groups, driven apart by natural processes."
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#219
Apr 9, 2013
 
Careful, we're starting to sound a bit interesting and that's not the first evidence I've read of that evolution can happen quite quickly (and 'in spurts') rather than only over epochs or ages.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#220
Apr 9, 2013
 
An interesting point of view...
http://atheism.about.com/b/2012/02/27/evoluti...
"So why does evolution appear to be so slow over the long term? It may be that rapid shifts in one direction then in another direction seem to disappear when viewed over a long time period. The fossil record provides us with just a small sample of everything that's lived and, what's more, may only be providing us with something akin to the "average", such that any extreme shifts that occur in shorter time periods are cancelled out."

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#221
Apr 9, 2013
 
EdSed wrote:
Careful, we're starting to sound a bit interesting and that's not the first evidence I've read of that evolution can happen quite quickly (and 'in spurts') rather than only over epochs or ages.
You need to understand that "quickly" is a relative term.

The "quick evolution" of one species may occur over several hundred years due to sudden access to a new food source.

Compared to the "slow evolution" of a similar species which is facing gradual climate change taking place over 10,000 years.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#222
Apr 9, 2013
 
EdSed wrote:
An interesting point of view...
http://atheism.about.com/b/2012/02/27/evoluti...
"So why does evolution appear to be so slow over the long term? It may be that rapid shifts in one direction then in another direction seem to disappear when viewed over a long time period. The fossil record provides us with just a small sample of everything that's lived and, what's more, may only be providing us with something akin to the "average", such that any extreme shifts that occur in shorter time periods are cancelled out."
HEre's the bit that most sites don't mention.

The fossil record is a "window" into the past. And, like any window, you can only see one part of hte world through it.

If you have a window that happens to look on a species as it evolves in a particular area over a long period of time, then the changes seem small.

From this perspective:
small change
small change
small change
small change
small change
small change
small change
small change

However, if your window points to an area focusing on a different but similar species, you might not see any changes.

Except that, one day, the species which has evolved just out of your site, gains access to the area you can see and quickly out competes it's cousins.

From your perspective:
same
same
same
same
same
same
massive change new species appears, old species gone
every settles down
same
same
same
same

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#223
Apr 9, 2013
 
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasting your time - LOL
Creationism 4004BC and 9:30 am is nonsense.
You assume those who find atheism a joke are creationists?
I agree.

God would have created the world at 05:30 am (shortly before dawn) so we can get in a full day's work.

Those who claim it was 9:30 am are lazy slackers and will burn in the lake of fire for sleeping in.
Mr Smartypants

Hayfield, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#224
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EdSed wrote:
Careful, we're starting to sound a bit interesting and that's not the first evidence I've read of that evolution can happen quite quickly (and 'in spurts') rather than only over epochs or ages.
My background's in aerospace engineering and not a life science, but my understanding is that lately evolutionary theory is moving in the direction of punctuated equilibrium. In other words, the mutation rate in a stable environment is very, very slow. However, change the environment, and speciation occurs really fast, sometimes over only a dozen or so generations, until it reaches a new equilibrium...

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#225
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Compatible Senders and Receivers

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules.(The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences who completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#226
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Pahu wrote:
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Walt Brown is still a non-scientist liar for Jesus who was debunked long ago.

.

Pahu, before you can present more religious apologetics you have to deal with the fact that your foundations have already been deconstructed, so until addressed, all that follows falls.

Especially when you invoke two different creationists with RADICALLY opposing views: one who thinks Goddidit with magic 6,000 years ago and definitely did not use evolution even though evolution is a requirement due to global flood, and one who thinks Goddidit with magic billions of years ago, using evolution, and that God is now dead.

So again I point out, since your "scientific alternative" is MAGIC why the hypocrisy on your part by contradicting yourself over and over and claiming science debunks evolution, despite the fact it quite clearly does not?

In short, why do you creationists always have to ignore the 9th Commandment when arguing your position?

Keep dodging.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

10 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 10 min CunningLinguist 29
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 34 min CunningLinguist 224,605
Our world came from nothing? 49 min NightSerf 258
Atheists, give up your lost religion and seek t... (Nov '13) 2 hr CunningLinguist 229
Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 3 hr CunningLinguist 70,963
Introducing The Universal Religion 9 hr Patrick 737
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 9 hr Patrick 397
•••
•••