Atheists on the march in America

[postscriptt]

Thinking wrote:

Newton was also an alchemist. We've thrown away that rubbish, his religious convictions and kept the bits of Newton's work that, for want of a better word, actually work.
<quoted text>

You may as well toss the theory of evolution while you are cleaning science's house because it is likewise garbage.

You clueless atheists have boxed yourselves in. Science isn't omnipotent and since you are the first to admit that all the evidence isn't in yet, you can never claim your assertions are true. The minute your defense is challenged, it begins to unravel like a cheap sweater.

[Drew Smith]

postscriptt wrote:

You may as well toss the theory of evolution while you are cleaning science's house because it is likewise garbage.

Nope. The evidence says otherwise:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

postscriptt wrote:

Science isn't omnipotent

Nobody here claimed that it was.

postscriptt wrote:

and since you are the first to admit that all the evidence isn't in yet...

There is no such thing as "all the evidence being in". New evidence will always be discovered.

postscriptt wrote:

...you can never claim your assertions are true.

Science doesn't claim "truth". Religion does. That's an important difference.

Science claims only that its fact and theories are supported by the currently available evidence.

postscriptt wrote:

The minute your defense is challenged, it begins to unravel like a cheap sweater.

So far, you haven't successfully challenged the modern evolutionary synthesis. When do you plan to begin?

[Givemeliberty]

Well we have moved on past the universe was created by an ancient invisible sky wizard.

Do catch up half wit.

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
You may as well toss the theory of evolution while you are cleaning science's house because it is likewise garbage.
You clueless atheists have boxed yourselves in. Science isn't omnipotent and since you are the first to admit that all the evidence isn't in yet, you can never claim your assertions are true. The minute your defense is challenged, it begins to unravel like a cheap sweater.

[Thinking]

Why?

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
You may as well toss the theory of evolution while you are cleaning science's house because it is likewise garbage.
You clueless atheists have boxed yourselves in. Science isn't omnipotent and since you are the first to admit that all the evidence isn't in yet, you can never claim your assertions are true. The minute your defense is challenged, it begins to unravel like a cheap sweater.

[postscriptt]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
So far, you haven't successfully challenged the modern evolutionary synthesis. When do you plan to begin?

How about starting with Darwin hinself who said, "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."

Or Dr. Jonathan Wells who is not some anti-religious atheistic zealot like yourself but a qualified scientist, a post-doctoral biologist in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkley. He says,‘"the Darwinian paradigm is in serious trouble, of the kind that matters most in science. It doesn’t fit the evidence."

Or Biochemist Michael J. Denton who wrote: "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today."

[postscriptt]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Well we have moved on past the universe was created by an ancient invisible sky wizard.
<quoted text>

From a sky god to a magical realm where dead matter mysteriously comes to life. A quantum leap indeed! LOL!

[postscriptt]

Thinking wrote:

Why?
<quoted text>

Because no matter how you spin it, there is nothing virtuous or socially redeeming in viewing oneself as a disposable survival machine.

[Drew Smith]

So far, you haven't successfully challenged the modern evolutionary synthesis. When do you plan to begin?

postscriptt wrote:

How about starting with Darwin hinself

Are you going to challenge the modern evolutionary synthesis, or just take potshots at Darwin, who died decades before the synthesis was created?

postscriptt wrote:

who said, "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."

That particular instance of quote mining is already addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/p...

postscriptt wrote:

Or Dr. Jonathan Wells who is not some anti-religious atheistic zealot like yourself but a qualified scientist, a post-doctoral biologist in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkley. He says,‘"the Darwinian paradigm is in serious trouble, of the kind that matters most in science. It doesn’t fit the evidence."

That's his personal opinion. So what? Are you going to provide any actual *evidence* that refutes evolution, or just quote opinions?

postscriptt wrote:

Or Biochemist Michael J. Denton who wrote: "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today."

Already addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.h...

[Thinking]

We should be judged by our actions, not belief in myths.

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Because no matter how you spin it, there is nothing virtuous or socially redeeming in viewing oneself as a disposable survival machine.

[postscriptt]

Drew Smith wrote:

So far, you haven't successfully challenged the modern evolutionary synthesis. When do you plan to begin?
<quoted text>
Are you going to challenge the modern evolutionary synthesis, or just take potshots at Darwin, who died decades before the synthesis was created?
<quoted text>
That particular instance of quote mining is already addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/p...
<quoted text>
That's his personal opinion. So what? Are you going to provide any actual *evidence* that refutes evolution, or just quote opinions?
<quoted text>
Already addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.h...

Talkorgins again? Is that your ace in hole? Science is 99% opinion and 1% fact.

[postscriptt]

Thinking wrote:

We should be judged by our actions, not belief in myths.
<quoted text>

Since you believe you came from nothing, you're going nowhere ao why worry about judgements?

[Drew Smith]

postscriptt wrote:

Talkorgins again? Is that your ace in hole?

If you're going to keep bringing up "problems" that have already been refuted by talkorigins, then I'm going to keep pointing out where in talkorigins your "problems" have already been refuted.

Got anything that *hasn't* been refuted yet?

[postscriptt]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
If you're going to keep bringing up "problems" that have already been refuted by talkorigins, then I'm going to keep pointing out where in talkorigins your "problems" have already been refuted.
Got anything that *hasn't* been refuted yet?

Do you? It's all been hashed and rehashed a gazillion times over. The fact remains, religion can't prove God exists and science can't prove God doesn't exist. It's an endless circular argument - round and round it goes proving nothing. Using a raft of fallacious arguments based on the out-dated pseudo science of talkorigins doesn't make your assertions any more plausibe, or even intelligent for that matter.

[Drew Smith]

Got anything that *hasn't* been refuted yet?

postscriptt wrote:

Do you?

I'm not the one here claiming that the theory of evolution has problems. If you want make such a claim, then support your claim with evidence.

postscriptt wrote:

The fact remains, religion can't prove God exists and science can't prove God doesn't exist.

Science has no burden of proof in that matter. Religion does. If you're going to claim that something exists, then provide some evidence to support the claim.

Otherwise, the rational position is to reject the claim.

postscriptt wrote:

Using a raft of fallacious arguments based on the out-dated pseudo science of talkorigins...

Funny how you have failed to indicate what is "outdated" or "pseudo science" among the content from talkorigins presented to you.

Why is that?

[postscriptt]

Drew Smith wrote:

.......

Content deleted due to redundancy.

[Thinking]

Because unlike many religious people such as Hitler and his millions of christian followers, I strongly believe in doing the right thing now.

How does being "forgiven" by god for a shitty but eventually repentant-at-the-11th-hour life ever undo the hurt caused to others?

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you believe you came from nothing, you're going nowhere ao why worry about judgements?

[postscriptt]

Thinking wrote:

Because unlike many religious people such as Hitler and his millions of christian followers, I strongly believe in doing the right thing now.
<quoted text>

Two World Wars and the purges of Stalin and Mao can hardly be attributed to religion. Hitler did his evil in the name of an insane and unscientific eugenics theory. But then how would atheists who profess no moral guide know what's right?

[Drew Smith]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Content deleted due to redundancy.

In other words, you're afraid to address it. Yeah, we get that.

[Thinking]

Unscientific he may have been but Hitler was a catholic leading a majority protestant Germany.

He probably thought he could murder because he would be forgiven by your shitty god myth.

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Two World Wars and the purges of Stalin and Mao can hardly be attributed to religion. Hitler did his evil in the name of an insane and unscientific eugenics theory. But then how would atheists who profess no moral guide know what's right?

[postscriptt]

Thinking wrote:

Unscientific he may have been but Hitler was a catholic leading a majority protestant Germany.
He probably thought he could murder because he would be forgiven by your shitty god myth.
<quoted text>

And you? What's your moral guide, science?