Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Star Press

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Comments (Page 358)

Showing posts 7,141 - 7,160 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7560
Dec 3, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”– Richard Dawkins
Thanks, but I already had this one.
derek4 wrote:
By today's rules, criticism of Darwinism is simply unscientific.
It's usually religious.
derek4 wrote:
is Darwinism so obviously true that no honest person could doubt it?
Are you honest, Dim? Are your fetched cut-and-pastes honest? Is it honest to imply that there is controversy in the scientific community over the validity evolutionary science. No, Dim, it is not.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7561
Dec 3, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The disproof of anyone's god lies exclusively within the minds of those to whom proof matters none at all.
I'm sure that you think that that is profound. Personally, I don't care much for the thinking of people to whom proof doesn't matter.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7562
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:
These conflicting descriptions rule out no entity whatsoever.
They simply rule out the combinations described.
They rule out object to which the words allegedly apply.
Buck Crick wrote:
And on number 11 - totally erroneous conclusion. You have not the slightest clue of what exists outside universe time - if even time itself.
Read it again. You changed my words.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7563
Dec 3, 2012
 
whats a polar bear doing in the middle east
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Welcome back.
During your absence, I've been reminding Khatru that Noah and his family made up 100% of the world's population.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7564
Dec 3, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
The theory of evolution is based on fraudulent science
The theory of evolution is confirmed.

Have I mentioned to you that you have no standing in this matter and hence no vote?

Worse, you're a Christian, meaning that you have no ethical boundaries regarding defending your religion from the revelations of science. There is no lie you won't tell, is there Dim?

The issue is decided. You're most of a century too late.

Since: Mar 11

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7565
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I guess you are having trouble keeping up with your own Bullsht. Not surprising lardass as you constantly spew it.

Remember you believe Chris Angel has legitimate magic powers and there is scientific proof for reincarnation.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you said it.
Making it likely stupid.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7566
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you said it.
Making it likely stupid.
F*ck off you lying sack of creationist sh*t.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7567
Dec 4, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
The Darwin Deception
..
And what about Catholics and all the Protestant groups that accept evolution. Are they heretics? Think about joining the 21st century.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7568
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
[from monday]Your post is probably the most blatant and ridiculous falsehood ever posted. Genesis and God have not been disproved.
If an infinitely super-intelligent being had written a book. You would think he would do a better job of it.

Try to think rationally. The bible is seriously flawed, as sane people have known for at least 150 years.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7569
Dec 4, 2012
 
You cannot prove or disprove the existence of invisible fairies living at the bottom of my garden. However such a belief is highly unreasonable. Rational people do not believe in invisible super-natural beings, without good evidence to support and justify such a belief.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7570
Dec 4, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberty
Explain the Big Bang, how was this possible. Why were laws of physics set a side until the universe was set.
Who said they were? The laws *we know about* do not apply once quantum gravity is dominant, but that is because we don't know which quantum gravity to apply.
If black energy is truly stronger then gravity why do black hole still exist?
1.The term is *dark* energy, not black energy.

2. Dark energy has little to do with the formation of black holes.
If not why is the expanse of the universe still increasing in speed and size?
That is due to dark energy (or a cosmological constant), which provides a pressure driving faster expansion.
What is wrong with your God? You have no good explanation of your failed theory's
Like the Theory of relativity or the theory of Quantum Mechanics. If dark energy is more powerful then gravity and if so why are there black holes. How can all these contradiction still survive unanswered?
Dark energy is a large scale phenomenon: it is distributed thinly enough that it is irrelevant to the formation of black holes. For that matter, it has very little effect on galactic dynamics. Its effect is felt in very large scale situations involving thousands of galaxies (to millions). Your question is sort of like asking why the nucleus of an atom can exist given that there is air: it makes no sense.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7571
Dec 4, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution is based on fraudulent science, therefore often “changed over time” in an attempt to conceal the defects.
You are merely showing your ignorance of the scientific process. ALL scientific theories are 'changed over time' to encompass new phenomena, to come into agreement with observation, and to get logical consistency. The theory of evolution has changed a great deal since Darwin's time: the details of genetic were unknown to Darwin, the effects of small populations were not considered, etc. But the basic material: that most change in species is due to natural selection, is stable and verified many times over.
As more time goes by, the theory will eventually be proven false and unrecognizable, like that of Lamarck. The Bible doesn't need amending.
The Biblical stories are just that: stories. There was no global flood, the universe is billions, not thousands of years old, the earth is about 1/3 the age of the universe, species change over time due to changes in the environment, etc.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7572
Dec 4, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
“Darwin’s theory assumes that organisms evolve and change from some common ancestor (a singular cell organism). And since Darwin’s theory is based totally on materialism (matter in motion) it implies that this singular cell organism emerged from DEAD matter. In other words, LIFE and CONSCIOUSNESS emerges from atoms and sub-atomic particles SPONTANEOUSLY. Yet, we all know and experience life and consciousness as totally necessary (a given) if new life and consciousness is to evolve or develop. Life, in other words, emerges ONLY from PRIOR life.
Show me one atom in your body that is alive. Show me one molecule in your body that would be different if it was in a non-living body. The point? ALL living things are actually made of non-living matter. None of the atoms or molecules in your body are alive. So you are not made of 'living matter'. Instead, the *organization* of this non-living matter is what makes something alive. The fact that the chemical reactions in your body are far from equilibrium and are driven by the food you eat and the oxygen you breath is a scientific fact. But the laws of chemistry do not change simply because the chemicals are inside of a living body. On the contrary, it is those constant laws of chemistry that *make* that body alive.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7573
Dec 4, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who in your opinion has been the most influential scientist in history.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7574
Dec 4, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
Darwin’s Theory a Deception
“Darwinism claims that humans evolved from apes: a theory which directs us to believe that all species evolved through simpler forms to more complex ones. Darwin himself was a seminary dropout with absolutely no degree or authority in scientific matters whatsoever. It is a wonder then, that he still had people naïve enough to believe in him and stick by his theories - people who were, and still are, willing to deceive themselves thereby.
Darwin was a well-respected naturalist. His colleagues were other scientists. But there were no degrees in naturalism at the time, so he did not have such a degree. But that is not the same as saying he was unqualified.

Also funny that those 'naive' followers were the respected scientists of the time. It is funny that those who actually do research in biology uniformly agree with evolution.
To be sure, there is not a single piece of evidence for evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles, but no fossil has ever been found having a ‘half-scale/ half-wing' representation.
Not at all what evolution would expect. Your lack of understanding of the theory does not make the theory wrong.

With modern developments in molecular biology, it is impossible for us to believe the theory of natural selection to be a scientific fact. Biologists from both camps - those of the secular evolutionary and those of the non-secular non-evolutionary school - have brought forth fossils which are millions of years old, but the fact remains that, to date, no one has brought forward an intermediate fossil from anywhere on earth.
Many intermediates have been found. But each intermediate gives two 'gaps' for the idiots to complain about. The evolution of birds from feathered dinosaurs is one of the better series of intermediates we have, by the way.
Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Cockroaches, ants, sharks and grass hoppers are some examples of the most primitive species that are still alive and well on this planet. The cockroach, in particular, has been around on earth for a staggering 320 million years. Fossil records show that this species has remained the same today as it was when it first appeared on earth. Why then have there been no changes in this species?
First, the cockroach is NOT the same species today as it was 320 million years ago. They are recognizably similar, but no ancient species is the same as any modern species. The species have, indeed, changed over time.

Second, evolution does not *require* change when a species is well-adapted to the environment it is in. It is changes in the environment and the changing adaptedness that changes species over time. Cockroaches are very well adapted to the environments they inhabit.

Similar comments apply to ants, for example. No modern species of ant is the same as any fossil species. They have a family resemblance, but they are not identical. Furthermore, we can trace some of the changes to ant species over time from the specimens captured in amber.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7575
Dec 4, 2012
 
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Who in your opinion has been the most influential scientist in history.
I don't think it is that easy to compare the influence of different scientists. Newton comes up as a prime candidate: he was the first to provide a reasonably comprehensive universal mathematical theory of mechanics. He also did important work in optics. Maxwell is another good candidate: he unified electricity and magnetism into a single mathematical theory that also explained light for the first time. he also did fundamental work in statistical mechanics.

Other good names are Galileo, who showed that the old Aristotelian models are unworkable, Darwin, who changed the way we look at biological species and our biological nature, Faraday, who did many of the basic experiments in electricity and magnetism, etc.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7576
Dec 4, 2012
 
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
And what about Catholics and all the Protestant groups that accept evolution. Are they heretics? Think about joining the 21st century.
There have always been heretics in all denominations. I mean, you're a great example of one. According to yourself, you were once a fake christian, then you switched to being a fake atheist, lol. You're basically just a fake.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7577
Dec 4, 2012
 
Adam wrote:
You cannot prove or disprove the existence of invisible fairies living at the bottom of my garden. However such a belief is highly unreasonable. Rational people do not believe in invisible super-natural beings, without good evidence to support and justify such a belief.
Is there anything unique or new about your observation that we haven't already seen a thousand times from other atheists? In what way do you feel you've contributed to the forum? You just typed some insignificant, meaningless words, lol. Why?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7578
Dec 4, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution has changed a great deal since Darwin's time: the details of genetic were unknown to Darwin, the effects of small populations were not considered, etc. But the basic material: that most change in species is due to natural selection, is stable and verified many times over.
A great deal indeed was unknown to Darwin. His theory should be discarded. He didn't really have anything credible to present. His friend Haeckel, actually made up drawings, some of which are still used in textbooks today, lol.

“Fossils fascinated and frustrated Charles Darwin. While on the HMS Beagle expedition,“I have been wonderfully lucky with fossil bones,” Darwin wrote.“Some of the animals must have been of great dimensions: I am almost sure that many of them are quite new.”
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/tag/fraud/

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
Charles Darwin

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Charles Darwin

“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us.”
Charles Darwin

“The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.”
Charles Darwin

“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.”
Charles Darwin

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7579
Dec 4, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me one atom in your body that is alive. Show me one molecule in your body that would be different if it was in a non-living body. The point? ALL living things are actually made of non-living matter. None of the atoms or molecules in your body are alive. So you are not made of 'living matter'. Instead, the *organization* of this non-living matter is what makes something alive. The fact that the chemical reactions in your body are far from equilibrium and are driven by the food you eat and the oxygen you breath is a scientific fact. But the laws of chemistry do not change simply because the chemicals are inside of a living body. On the contrary, it is those constant laws of chemistry that *make* that body alive.
You are attempting to dispute a portion of web content previously posted.

Just a reminder to everyone in the forum: If you wish to dispute the contents of a web page, you should refer to the publisher at the link provided, since I have no interest in your unsubstantiated objections to web content.

Also, please refrain from going into lengthy unprofessional scientific dialogue which you've copied somewhere but failed to link to the unknown author. When you do that, it's not credit worthy - therefore is a waste of my time and your time.

Thanks for your usual fine cooperation. LMAO

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 7,141 - 7,160 of11,195
|
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.

9 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 20 min CunningLinguist 223,105
Our world came from nothing? 36 min Patrick 43
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Buck Crick 21,333
Why do i deserve no respect. 8 hr Carchar king 7
Introducing The Universal Religion Wed NightSerf 718
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed ChristineM 802
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) Wed Buck Crick 324
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••