Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, they haven't mapped the ENTIRE observable universe. There are large gaps in observations along the galactic plane.
They've mapped enough to make fairly accurate estimates of the real numbers, though.

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey was pretty amazing, and they have continued to use the telescope and its spectroscopes for further projects. IIRC, it was the first data to show the web-like structure in galactic clusters.

BenAdam wrote:

<quoted text>
Their are millions of 'Fred Phelpses" still out there. Some even worse than him.

One of them is named Greg Kirschmann (aka Kimare)

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Which were those?
The scientist noted the idea that Someone initiated the Big Bang, I didn't.
Or maybe you are referring to the indication of radiation surrounding an Alien visitor who predicted the history of the Jewish culture? You know, the 'duh' moment of 'rational atheist' oxymorons...
Snicker.

Where can I find this scientific proof that someone initiated the big bang? I'd like to read that.

Oh wait, this is a claim by Greg Kirschmann, unrepentant liar.

I have no desire to eat locusts.
I have no opinion of those who do.
I am not threatened by locust eaters.

wilderide wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. What you are talking about is prediction, not knowledge. If God could merely predict the future based on our choices, then there would always be the possibility that God could be wrong. If God knew the future as a fact, then God would never be wrong but you would not have free-will anymore. It's really not that hard to figure out.

You employ a fallacy of displaced causality.

I could explain it, but you would still cling to atheist dogma. So enjoy it.

wilderide wrote:

<quoted text>
You've never seen any evidence that I've applied skepticism before? Well, I think that get's back to those reading and comprehension issues of yours that we've discussed in the past.

You claimed everyone is an atheist.

That disqualifies you from any discussion of reading comprehension or skepticism.

Kimare_is_a_wife_thief wrote:

<quoted text>
Where can I find this scientific proof that someone initiated the big bang? I'd like to read that.
Oh wait, this is a claim by Greg Kirschmann, unrepentant liar.

As far as I can see, the opinion that an agent had to be responsible for initiation the Big bang comes fro the article's author, Dr. Leslie Wickman. Wickman's masters degrees are in aeronautical and astronautic engineering and her PhD is in human factors and biomechanics. Impressive as that it, it does leave her qualifications in astrophysics open to question. Dr. Wickman is also an inspirational speaker who focuses on the interface between science and theology, which suggests that her opinions are not without bias.

She also cites Fred Hoyles famous quip,“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." Ironic, considering that, while he coined the term, "Big Bang," Hoyle did so in opposition to the theory, arguing instead for a "steady state" universe. He regarded it as pseudoscience, as irrational and unscientific as were arguments for a creator. Now Wickman uses his quip in support for another pseudoscientific argument in favor of a creator.

Wickman's mistake, from my point of view, is to try to speak as a scientist and as a religious apologist in the same breath. She compounds that error by relying on credentials that are outside of the fields on which she relies to support her thesis.

Arguing from authority is one of the basic fallacies, but if one is going to engage in it anyway, one should at least use greater ones than Wickman.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean in relation to the evolution of the laryngeal nerve. It is purely descriptive of the anatomy and has nothing to do with its evolution.

I accept that you have no idea what this means.

But for anyone who knows anything about science, it is clear what it means.

It means that your use of the redundant path of the laryngeal nerve is not evidence against intelligent design, and in fact, is better predicted by design theory than by Darwinist theory.

Spelling it out even more for you, it means the recurrent pathway of the nerve is less likely a purposeless holdover, but a uniquely beneficial design product.

To summarize, your best evidence against design theory turns out to work in its favor.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>

Yes, Buck, and for every odd-ball biologist such as Lonnig ...

Are you not embarrassed by this constant repetition of baseless personal smear of every source that disagrees with you?

You lie about Lonnig. You lie about David Barton. I proved you lied about Michael Behe, and doctored a quotation from him.

Are you embarrassed at all?

You are not just a disgraced liar, you are a living insult to science and math.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
You employ a fallacy of displaced causality.
I could explain it,....

ROFLMAO

I am sure you could babble on about almost anything. I have yet to see you explain a single thing in the last two years.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
I will be honest. I don't know.
You, on the other hand, are not honest and make sh*t up.

Lol

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Typical Buck. He won't address real arguments. Buck arguments consist of calling people names.
At least, most of the time. And always when you bring in the writings of an expert. Buck will not even bother to glance at them.
A "seeker of truth" my arse. All Buck is interested in is validation of his own beliefs.

You don't even understand your own argument. I'll explain your position to you, then I'll explain why it is wrong.

Your position is that the path of the laryngeal nerve from the brain to the larynx is best explained by Darwinian common ancestry, and refutes intelligent design, because that path is found in lower vertebrates, and if systems were influenced by intelligent design, a more efficient path would be the result.

Now, here is why you are wrong:

1. You assume design means designed from scratch for each taxon. The design inference can be present and also altered through succeeding taxons by purely evolutionary processes.

2, Design is not incompatible with common ancestry.

3. You assume the shortest distance between two points is the best design. You don't know this. You don't know all the design considerations in play and the constraints on them.

4. Gray's anatomy shows that the circuitous route of the nerve has design advantages, as branches provide other functions along its path, including during embryological development. Therefore, your preferred shorter distance may not be the best design.

In summary, when we discover there is a rational and reasonable purpose for the particular "design", then your objection to the design as irrational or inferior falls apart.

Are you getting accustomed to your arguments falling apart?

Atheist: I'll be honest. I lie all the time.

Atheist: I'll be honest. If I'm not lying, I wish I was but I couldn't think of a good one. If I'm not lying, something's wrong. If I'm not lying, there's a good chance death is around the corner. If I'm not lying, I'm headed for the big one, Lizbeth. I'm on my way, darling. I'm coming home honey.

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Who's the cult leader of Christianity?
Now that your pal Phelps is dead, who knows?
Pat Robertson? That Lively fellow? Phoney Baloney Mahony?

Who is the leader of atheism now that Stalin and Mao are dead?

Sam Harris would seem the logical choice, since he has similar thoughts about killing.

He's not as intelligent as Stalin, however.

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Seriously.
Saw a guy in the grocery store today with a tshirt that said "I'd rather die for my beliefs than live a life without meaning."
Sad, really.

Not sad for you. People willing to die for their beliefs is why you live free.

Obviously, no thanks to you.

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Come on, man, be honest, you may not agree with the way Phelps and his people go about promoting their "beliefs."
But you certainly share in many of them.
You've made that amply clear over time.
Dodging and dancing and changing the subject will get you nowhere, Redneck.
You are Phelpsian in many, many respects.

You may not agree with the way Stalin and Hitler promoted their beliefs, but you share many of them.

Their antipathy toward the religious, their Darwinism, it is prevalent among you liberal atheists.

You are Stalinist in many ways.

YOU ASKED FOR IT

BenAdam wrote:

<quoted text>
I bet you polish your boots with dogshit.

And dogshit is atheist.

(see Topix Atheist definitions)

scaritual wrote:

<quoted text>

You know, there are still Branch Davidians to this day, and there are still people that are Branch Davidians(not all)- and some call themselves Koreshians - that still believe the Koresh! was "god".
Sound familiar?

There would be many more of them if Bill Clinton and Janet Reno hadn't burned them alive.

Lucky break for us, huh?

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
And dogshit is atheist.
(see Topix Atheist definitions)

That made no sense, Buck.
I am not surprised.