20+ Questions for Theists
religionisillnes s

London, UK

#395 Jul 27, 2014
irreducibly complexity IS NOT science.

Its an ignorant half-thought from illiterate mentally ill creationists.

When you are smart enough to understand science, then you get to speak buck.
Patrick

United States

#396 Jul 27, 2014
religionisillness wrote:
irreducibly complexity IS NOT science.
I..........
Britain’s Prince George, who is celebrating his first birthday this week, is facing a rising chorus of criticism within the United Kingdom, with many calling the first year of his reign a major disappointment.

Alistair Strott, a journalist and one of George’s most outspoken critics, calls the Prince’s first year “long on hype and short on solid achievement.”

“Like a lot of us, I followed the royal birth last year with a great deal of excitement and anticipation,” says Strott.“But one year in, we all have to look at each other and say,‘That’s it?’”

While defenders of Prince George cite a packed schedule of events during his first year, Strott is unimpressed.“Yes, he’s been on TV and magazine covers,” he says.“So have the Kardashians.”

The journalist is not alone in criticizing Prince George, as a recent U.K. poll called his inaugural year the worst first year for a royal baby since the Second World War.

Strott acknowledged that George had spent much of his first year in office learning to walk, but added,“If he’s learned to talk, he certainly hasn’t said anything memorable.”

On most of the major issues facing Britain today, from unemployment to its relationship with the European Union,“George has been missing in action,” Strott says.

Buckingham Palace has already started the drumbeat of publicity for Prince George’s second year, but Strott remains skeptical.“People can call this child ‘royal’ if they like, but the word I’d choose is ‘overrated,’” he says.
religionisillnes s

London, UK

#397 Jul 27, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
Britain’s Prince George, who is celebrating his first birthday this week, is facing a rising chorus of criticism within the United Kingdom, with many calling the first year of his reign a major disappointment.
Alistair Strott, a journalist and one of George’s most outspoken critics, calls the Prince’s first year “long on hype and short on solid achievement.”
“Like a lot of us, I followed the royal birth last year with a great deal of excitement and anticipation,” says Strott.“But one year in, we all have to look at each other and say,‘That’s it?’”
While defenders of Prince George cite a packed schedule of events during his first year, Strott is unimpressed.“Yes, he’s been on TV and magazine covers,” he says.“So have the Kardashians.”
The journalist is not alone in criticizing Prince George, as a recent U.K. poll called his inaugural year the worst first year for a royal baby since the Second World War.
Strott acknowledged that George had spent much of his first year in office learning to walk, but added,“If he’s learned to talk, he certainly hasn’t said anything memorable.”
On most of the major issues facing Britain today, from unemployment to its relationship with the European Union,“George has been missing in action,” Strott says.
Buckingham Palace has already started the drumbeat of publicity for Prince George’s second year, but Strott remains skeptical.“People can call this child ‘royal’ if they like, but the word I’d choose is ‘overrated,’” he says.
Proven liars with no proof of god. Resort to spamming rubbish to cover up for their creationist lies.
Patrick

United States

#398 Jul 27, 2014
religionisillness wrote:
<quoted text>
Proven liars with no proof of god. Resort to spamming rubbish to cover up for their creationist lies.
No sense of humor ,
A sad trait in a person who posts defending what-ever it is that you are defending, so poorly.
Patrick

United States

#399 Jul 27, 2014
Pope Francis is marking the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I with an impassioned plea urging countries currently embroiled in conflict to find the "the necessary strength and wisdom" to embrace peace.

On Sunday, Francis cited current warfare between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as in Iraq and in Ukraine.

He told pilgrims and tourists in St Peter's Square that he was thinking of the children - killed, maimed or orphaned by war - who "play with toys made out of the remains of weapons."

"Stop please. I beg you with all my heart," Francis said.
He cited World War I-era Pope Benedict XV's denunciation of the Great War as a "useless massacre."
Patrick

United States

#400 Jul 28, 2014
A guy walks into a Pub.
Asks for a Pint of Bitter.

Bartender says : "Proven liars with no proof of God. Resort to spamming rubbish to cover up for their creationist lies."

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#401 Jul 28, 2014
religionisillness wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't even believe in science, so your 'scientific' argument FAILS AT THE FIRST HURDLE.
"believe in science"??

You are right. I have no religion.

You are free to enjoy yours.
Patrick

United States

#402 Jul 29, 2014
"You are free to enjoy yours..."

Free at last, free at last .....
:-)
Growupchildren

London, UK

#403 Jul 29, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
No sense of humor ,
A sad trait in a person who posts defending what-ever it is that you are defending, so poorly.
Shaddup you foolish creationist mouthpiece.
Growupchildren

London, UK

#404 Jul 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"believe in science"??
You are right. I have no religion.
You are free to enjoy yours.
Go back to prison buck, do not pass go.
Moonie

Indian Trail, NC

#405 Jul 29, 2014
Growupchildren wrote:
<quoted text>
Shaddup you foolish creationist mouthpiece.
Hey Septic aka Jim aka Skeptic go bother someone else with your crap.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#406 Jul 29, 2014
Growupchildren wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back to prison buck, do not pass go.
Kenneth! What is the frequency?
religionisillnes s

London, UK

#407 Jul 29, 2014
Moonie wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Septic aka Jim aka Skeptic go bother someone else with your crap.
Liars with no evidence of god always attack atheists.
religionisillnes s

London, UK

#408 Jul 29, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Kenneth! What is the frequency?
Known Creationist liar with no evidence against science.
Patrick

Newberry, SC

#409 Jul 29, 2014
religionisillness wrote:
<quoted text>
Known Creationist liar with no evidence against science.
"against known liar with science creationist evidence no"

dyslexia helps?
Thinking

Roydon, UK

#410 Jul 30, 2014
Puck Frick is a challenged person that can't order gum without ending up in prison. At least, that's how most of his fantasies seem to go.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
If you take that paragraph out of context, it's easy to interpret it to show a critique of materialism. But that's not what Lewontin is doing - he's arguing that materialism is the only way to investigate science - adding any kind of dualism into science derails explanatory power into worthless dogma.
Patrick

Starke, FL

#411 Jul 30, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Puck Frick is a challenged person that can't order gum without ending up in prison. At least, that's how most of his fantasies seem to go.
<quoted text>
How would you diagnose your issues?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#412 Aug 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
This refutes no example offered by ID, and ID theorists disagree with no part of it.
It directly contradicts Behe's idea that the aforementioned were "irreducibly complex." If he's changing his game now b/c of the evidence offered by research, that's fine - if he's changing his ideas b/c his theoretical model allows for different interpretations. If his theoretical model doesn't, he's just adjusting to new knowledge and trying to find some other gaps in our knowledge to exploit.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#413 Aug 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Scientific conclusions are not derived by consensus. They derive from observation and testing.
In the unlikely event you are asked to review an ID article, you may express your opinion as you wish. Your opinion will not decide the issue. Scientists in command of a much higher level of expertise on the matter than you, like Scott Minnich and David Snoke, disagree with you, and assert that ID is indeed science. When someone like you gets to erroneously define what ID is, you can define it as not being science. But that exercise, in itself, is not science. It is advocacy.
ad·vo·ca·cy
noun,
the act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal:
2. If you are going to make a critical judgement on whether an article addresses "irreducible complexity" as ID addresses it, it is incumbent on you to know how the term is used, rather than demand a subsequent definition from others. Again, Minnich and Snoke are more steeped in the subject than you, and both rightly state that the article uses "irreducible complexity" exactly as Behe does.
3 & 4. "No evidence for ID" is simply a mis-statement of fact. I offered no detraction of the validity of BB theory, but simply that objections to its implications are not objections to the validity of the theory. You offered objections to potential implications of ID as evidence against the theory. Scientists resisted BB initially because of implications of a creator. Talk to them if you disagree, not me.
5. I had no problem offering the theoretical framework. That's why I did it.
You argue your position poorly on this subject. I suggest if you are going to attempt an actual scientific rebuttal of ID, you would need to learn something about it other than the elementary popular objections, most of which are fallacious.
1. You're incorrect here. And so are Minnich and Snoke.

2. Again, their definitions do not match those given in the paper. Clearly they want to attach their pseudoscience to the article, to claim as much support as possible. But their definition doesn't match. Hence, the word choice was different.

3. Your comparison of the BB to ID is a false comparison. That's what I'm referring to. ID does not enjoy any supporting evidence.

5. You have never offered the theoretical framework. At least, to me. You may have written it to someone else. When I searched for it, b/c of your reticence, I found that the Biologic Institute claimed there was no theoretical framework and that they were working on one. That directly refutes your claim here and it's coming from the ID people themselves.
Thinking

Salisbury, UK

#414 Aug 7, 2014
Believers go to war a lot.
Patrick wrote:
Pope Francis is marking the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I with an impassioned plea urging countries currently embroiled in conflict to find the "the necessary strength and wisdom" to embrace peace.
On Sunday, Francis cited current warfare between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as in Iraq and in Ukraine.
He told pilgrims and tourists in St Peter's Square that he was thinking of the children - killed, maimed or orphaned by war - who "play with toys made out of the remains of weapons."
"Stop please. I beg you with all my heart," Francis said.
He cited World War I-era Pope Benedict XV's denunciation of the Great War as a "useless massacre."

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) 47 min Science 83,120
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Sat Science 2,565
High School Atheism Nov 14 Reason Personified 3
Reasoning with Insanity (Jun '16) Nov 14 Reason Personified 106
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Nov 14 Eagle 12 - 3,988
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... (May '17) Nov 6 Frindly 1,175
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing Oct 24 xfrodobagginsx 1
More from around the web