Science Disproves Evolution

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#410 Jun 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That would not surprise me in the least-- at $0.001/post, he has a lot of SPAMMING to do.
;)
On the atheism forum, I agree.

He won't get rich money wise here, but I'll take a wild guess he thinks he gets God power-up points if he converts just one atheist to come to the flock.

That alone, in his mind, will absolve him of all mortal sins he voluntarily commits with the excuse of "in the name of Jesus."

After all, tricking one person to do "right" makes up for everything.

It's just the Lady Hope story trying to be applied. Doesn't matter if that story was fictitious, it just gives hope to the believers they can convince the world that Santa Claus is real.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#411 Jun 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
Widoze is likely the **worst** of all possible operating systems.
Except for all the rest...
<laughing>
Until the Divine reveals to us a golden code Holy Book, I'd say every OS has their pluses and minuses.

You could almost say that computer OS's is evolving at a rate that creationists would jump on. They'll say that according to the Theory of Evolution, the golden code will take millions of years.

But here it is, divinely gift wrapped and given to us. It's called a "manual" or "help screen" or "log" pr a "miraculous patch from the prophets."

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#412 Jun 18, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
On the atheism forum, I agree.
He won't get rich money wise here, but I'll take a wild guess he thinks he gets God power-up points if he converts just one atheist to come to the flock.
That alone, in his mind, will absolve him of all mortal sins he voluntarily commits with the excuse of "in the name of Jesus."
After all, tricking one person to do "right" makes up for everything.
It's just the Lady Hope story trying to be applied. Doesn't matter if that story was fictitious, it just gives hope to the believers they can convince the world that Santa Claus is real.
Yeah.

And there is the ego thing: I asked him if he had managed to convince **one** person in his entire life.

Back in the day?**I** would have replied something like "nobody-- it's not up to me, is it" or some such.

But not he: his **ego** forced him to take credit for several--as his reply indicated.

I would say this guy is about as narcissistic as they come.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#413 Jun 18, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Until the Divine reveals to us a golden code Holy Book, I'd say every OS has their pluses and minuses.
<hehehehe> "divine golden code".... too funny!

As if a chaotic system that is semi-conductor electronics could ever be perfect... it literally operates off of chaos/random fluctuation and quantum states. Love it!
greymouser wrote:
You could almost say that computer OS's is evolving at a rate that creationists would jump on. They'll say that according to the Theory of Evolution, the golden code will take millions of years.
:) We'll never get a perfect OS. But.

With sufficient processing power? Who would notice? The errors--as they inevitably crop up, will be self-correcting, without need for operator intervention in any visible way.

We are already moving in this direction, and have been for awhile.
greymouser wrote:
But here it is, divinely gift wrapped and given to us. It's called a "manual" or "help screen" or "log" pr a "miraculous patch from the prophets."
:)

In their simple-minded universe, things are either "on" or "off". There is no in-between, quantum-states of anything to a god-botherer.

And they **like** it that way, too: no exercise of their lazy minds here. Goddidit. Simple. Mindless. Easy.

<laughing>

The universe, unfortunately for **them** is anything but-- it's chaotic, messy, comprised of massive loads of uncertainty too.

The exact **opposite** of what they so deeply fantasize of.

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#414 Jun 20, 2013
Fossil Gaps 2

The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” David M. Raup,“Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

“Surely the lack of gradualism—the lack of intermediates—is a major problem.” Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stanley, p. 95.

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff,“Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#415 Jun 20, 2013
I see poo hole's posting sh!t again.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
<hehehehe> "divine golden code".... too funny!
As if a chaotic system that is semi-conductor electronics could ever be perfect... it literally operates off of chaos/random fluctuation and quantum states. Love it!
<quoted text>
:) We'll never get a perfect OS. But.
With sufficient processing power? Who would notice? The errors--as they inevitably crop up, will be self-correcting, without need for operator intervention in any visible way.
We are already moving in this direction, and have been for awhile.
<quoted text>
:)
In their simple-minded universe, things are either "on" or "off". There is no in-between, quantum-states of anything to a god-botherer.
And they **like** it that way, too: no exercise of their lazy minds here. Goddidit. Simple. Mindless. Easy.
<laughing>
The universe, unfortunately for **them** is anything but-- it's chaotic, messy, comprised of massive loads of uncertainty too.
The exact **opposite** of what they so deeply fantasize of.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#416 Jun 20, 2013
What is it called when the priest pours holy water on the baby's head at a christening?

Brainwashing.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#417 Jun 20, 2013
What do you call a pregnant islamist?

A dope smuggler.
swerty wrote:
What is it called when the priest pours holy water on the baby's head at a christening?
Brainwashing.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#418 Jun 20, 2013
My girlfriend suffers from that disease that prevents her from thinking.

Christianity.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#419 Jun 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I see poo hole's posting sh!t again.
<quoted text>
Yeah, best if ignored.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#420 Jun 21, 2013
Funny jokes!

Alas, too close to the truth.

:)
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#421 Jun 21, 2013
swerty wrote:
What is it called when the priest pours holy water on the baby's head at a christening?
Brainwashing.
+1 very good
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#422 Jun 21, 2013
Thanks for telling me about my troll's thread, btw.
I hadn't noticed it.
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
+1 very good

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#423 Jun 21, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
How about I'll keep slapping your face with these four crystal clear points.
1. You have no evidence that "god is possible". YOu haven't provided any evidence of your claim
2. You still and I repeat still (almost half a year) have not provided any example of an item that is both real and unfalsifiable. You tried, to your credit, but failed.
3. When Nuggin got slaughtered for his ridiculous logic, you ducked out to avoid a beating, and now still cower behind him like a wuss.
4. You still haven't looked up the burden of proof, which lies upon the idiot who invents bullsh*t ie. you, to provide it.
So provide it or f*ck off you waste of forum space.
And you keep trolling and lets see who wins, eh?
F*cking rank amateur.
This is just simply a question, but why would someone need evidence to prove that a god is "possible" It is possible for a creator to exist, we simply don't have proof that it does. Neither do we have evidence that to prove that it doesn't. Science has yet to unlock the secrets that the universe's hold...and we will long be gone before they do.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#424 Jun 21, 2013
There may be some form of god out there but it is impossible for an all powerful compassionate god to exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.

That's why I wouldn't worship a god.
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
This is just simply a question, but why would someone need evidence to prove that a god is "possible" It is possible for a creator to exist, we simply don't have proof that it does. Neither do we have evidence that to prove that it doesn't. Science has yet to unlock the secrets that the universe's hold...and we will long be gone before they do.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#425 Jun 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
There may be some form of god out there but it is impossible for an all powerful compassionate god to exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
That's why I wouldn't worship a god.
<quoted text>
This is also why I don't worship a god. I think that it is possible for a creator to be out there somewhere, but I doubt it. Now life somewhere out there aside from just ours here on earth I don't doubt at all. I just can't believe in a religious god.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#426 Jun 21, 2013
Did you ever mess about with Drake's Equation? I also think life "elsewhere" is very likely.

I got into a discussion with someone about Panspermia once, which I didn't think was very useful because it just pushes back the beginning of life to another location.

On further contemplation though, it made me think that life "elsewhere" is even more likely because we may have a mechanism where life on a planet isn't obliged to have originated there.
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
This is also why I don't worship a god. I think that it is possible for a creator to be out there somewhere, but I doubt it. Now life somewhere out there aside from just ours here on earth I don't doubt at all. I just can't believe in a religious god.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#427 Jun 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Did you ever mess about with Drake's Equation? I also think life "elsewhere" is very likely.
I got into a discussion with someone about Panspermia once, which I didn't think was very useful because it just pushes back the beginning of life to another location.
On further contemplation though, it made me think that life "elsewhere" is even more likely because we may have a mechanism where life on a planet isn't obliged to have originated there.
<quoted text>
I'm actually not familiar with Drake's equation, but I would love to look it up and do some research. Are you able to loosely tell me about it? I'm also not familiar with Panspermia.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#428 Jun 21, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm actually not familiar with Drake's equation, but I would love to look it up and do some research. Are you able to loosely tell me about it? I'm also not familiar with Panspermia.
Enjoy:-
http://www.fennzart.com/planetarysystems/drak...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#429 Jun 21, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
Well now that's freakin cool :) I don't know if I was supposed to change anything on the bottom when I did the equation myself, but it came to 2000...

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) 3 min Out of the Night 70,612
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 min IB DaMann 30,658
Where have all the Atheists gone? 30 min nanoanomaly 121
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 56 min Into The Night 258,477
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr crap finder 3,867
News Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) Sun Eagle 12 70,633
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Sat John 14,736
More from around the web