Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Comments (Page 5,245)

Showing posts 104,881 - 104,900 of223,140
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
IRYW

Malvern, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108186
Jun 26, 2012
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are looking at evolution from one direction, with no origination point you can identify. Like I said, assuming it works from the inside out.
Look at it from the other direction, inward. Standing waves, light, and various things focused together to make a pretty fancy hologram. The original may have been done that way, and it was thrust into an unprotected environment where it "evolved" from there. That is what Genesis kind of describes. Of course, there is always the possibility adjustments are made in the projector to account for environmental changes.
You are product. Period.
Good gracious, look how we can manipulate matter and energy now. You think that came about by accident, or do you just wish to think so?
I'm thinking Thorazine..........

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108187
Jun 26, 2012
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
These are not errors in evolution. They are hoaxes. Hoaxes prove or disprove anything.
Using your logic, the fact that it has been proven that pieces of the "holy cross" sold in mail order were actually carved off of a modern desk, disproves Christianity.
So now what?
There’s more to it than a simple analogy. Science is supposed to have the scientific method, peer review, solid research backed by evidence.

Yet these,“hoaxes” as you call them slipped right through into school textbooks, national magazines, and into the public domain as facts. Science is supposed to be above intentional errors, hoaxes, and fabricated data.

Personally, I think there is a hell of a lot more hoaxes yet to be revealed. Evolution is probably the only so called science that is chocked full of falsified data.

It is the only science that is aggressively pushed on scientist to believe. There are negative consequences if a scientist openly criticizes evolution. No one cares if a scientist doesn’t believe in certain Astronomical Theories. But if they oppose evolution they may be out of a job.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108188
Jun 26, 2012
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of what you list has been in error-- but not all.
More to the point?
Who >>>declared<< these were errors? Was it you godbots?
No?
Who was it, again?
That's right-- SCIENTISTS were the ones who proved the errors.
NEVER, EVER was it one of you True Believers™.
Ever.
Your sort of person cannot admit when something is in error...
I remember the Harckel’s Embro’s in my school text books and my sisters also.

How many years was this false information in our school textbooks?

30 to 40 years?

Evolutionary Science was making kids believe a lie. It’s probably the only science that has promoted falsified data as facts through education.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108189
Jun 26, 2012
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's touching. I'm glad you have found peace and spirituality for yourself.
Hugs for you.:)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108190
Jun 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
It has everything to do with ID considering the Discovery Institute largely constituted the movement.
<quoted text>
This is a response I would expect from a six year old.
<quoted text>
Because I know fully well that you are trying to make a point that there is no paper focussed "fully on ID".
Evidently you have not properly understood my request, or, you are being deliberately dishonest. I am asking for a research article that actually provides tests, experiments and data that supports ID theory,-not- a paper that, like Behe et al you have provided before, simply attempts to refute evolution.
Those papers have not contributed anything towards ID other than attempt to create a gap to insert it in.
<quoted text>
Yes, I did. Your refusal to acknowledge this does not change reality.
<quoted text>
In other words, nothing is going to change your mind regarding the blatant links between ID and creationism; not even "cdesign proponentsists" in Of Pandas and People.
<quoted text>
Why do you Christians act like six year olds?
You changed your story twice.

First, you asked for an article focusing only on ID.

Now, you request an article testing ID.

First, you said ID is creationism.

Now, you say ID is "linked" to creationism.

If you are being truthful now, asserting ID is "linked" to creationism, why did you lie before, asserting ID "IS" creationism?

Were you lying the first time, or are you lying now?

You and HFY want a rigged game. You want one standard of science for evolution, and a separate standard for ID.

Behe, Meyer, etc. are actual scientists, brilliant men, men with integrity who do peer-reviewed research papers and are published in scientific journals.

You malign them and belittle them - You - a Topix hack.

You have nothing, SuperSuc.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108191
Jun 26, 2012
 
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Not remotely close. When your first claim about evolution is so, way off the mark, there is no point reading through the rest of your post.
No, his claim was exactly correct.

“Live Good, & Feel Good.”

Since: Aug 09

Atl.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108192
Jun 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You changed your story twice.
First, you asked for an article focusing only on ID.
Now, you request an article testing ID.
First, you said ID is creationism.
Now, you say ID is "linked" to creationism.
If you are being truthful now, asserting ID is "linked" to creationism, why did you lie before, asserting ID "IS" creationism?
Were you lying the first time, or are you lying now?
You and HFY want a rigged game. You want one standard of science for evolution, and a separate standard for ID.
Behe, Meyer, etc. are actual scientists, brilliant men, men with integrity who do peer-reviewed research papers and are published in scientific journals.
You malign them and belittle them - You - a Topix hack.
You have nothing, SuperSuc.
Indeed.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108193
Jun 26, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<
Behe, Meyer, etc. are actual scientists, brilliant men, men with integrity who do peer-reviewed research papers and are published in scientific journals.
.
Ummmmm Buck, when they publish papers in peer-reviewed journals it has nothing to do with ID, it has to do with their mainstream disciplines. They know they have nothing to publish about ID (that has not already been demolished). Have you actually read the Dover transcripts?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108194
Jun 26, 2012
 
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't expect an honest, intelligent answer from him.
That's the fool who posted a fake Supreme Court justice quote just a few pages back.
And he's the same fool who was touting pretend ancient copper scrolls about Jesus on another thread.
I don't. But the question had to be asked.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108195
Jun 26, 2012
 
The whole God of the gaps argument. Sad. These Know nothing Christholes watch a story on Faux News and get delusions of comprehension.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You spelled "pretty" wrong.
There have been no tests of ID in components or hypotheses. It has not theory - I've schooled you on this often enough. Your best argument is to insult rather than actually pony up something that passes for theory.
ID is just rewritten creationism. All they are capable of are ignorant and baseless attacks on evolution. Either they don't understand evolution - which they demonstrated in the trial - or they are lying for personal reasons.
The entire ID argument is:
"I can't understand evolution, so it must be wrong."
"We can't prove all the steps in evolution, so it must be wrong."
"I personally see design in apparent design, so there must be a designer."
All of the above are logical fallacies. Every single one of them. And that's how you get Intelligent Design, folks.
Taaaa-daaaa!

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108196
Jun 26, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You changed your story twice.
First, you asked for an article focusing only on ID.
Now, you request an article testing ID.
First, you said ID is creationism.
Now, you say ID is "linked" to creationism.
If you are being truthful now, asserting ID is "linked" to creationism, why did you lie before, asserting ID "IS" creationism?
Were you lying the first time, or are you lying now?
You and HFY want a rigged game. You want one standard of science for evolution, and a separate standard for ID.
Behe, Meyer, etc. are actual scientists, brilliant men, men with integrity who do peer-reviewed research papers and are published in scientific journals.
You malign them and belittle them - You - a Topix hack.
You have nothing, SuperSuc.
You can jump through flaming hoops if you like...it wont change the fact ID is classified as pseudoscience.

pseu·do·sci·ence/&#716;so &#862;od&#333;&#71 2;s&#299;&#601;ns/
Noun:
A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108197
Jun 26, 2012
 
Wisdom teeth are a great example of an intelligent designer. So are rabbits that eat their own sht to survive lol

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108198
Jun 26, 2012
 
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
"Irreducible complexity" is just the watchmaker argument in a new dress. On that point alone, it is not a double standard considering ID is simply a rehash not of previous analysis, but of previous philosophy.
Also, studying with the intention of demonstrating "the inability of the process of natural selection to account for it" adds absolutely nothing to a new theory unless you can otherwise explain what you claim natural selection cannot. But ID papers never do because 1) their arguments that natural selection/evolution cannot explain complexity has continually been shown to be refuted (or completely irrelevent to evolutionary theory such as origins of life etc), and 2) because they have no actual explanation for that particular phenomena.
In a nutshell, all ID "research" about "irreducible complexity" consists of is a massive argument from ignorance with no alternative explanation thrown into the mix, which would actually qualify it as science.
How, then, is it a double standard when one side does science, and the other side does not?
Wrong.

ID does not claim that natural selection cannot explain complexity. They claim natural selection can account for complexity just fine.

Wrong.

Showing that natural selection cannot account for certain aspects of life DOES contribute, as that is how scientific theories are shaped and refined.

Wrong.

ID does have an explanation for the living phenomena that their research suggests is not explained by natural selection. Their explanation is testable and falsifiable.

Wrong.

Irreducible complexity as the watchmaker argument is a straw man.

You have nothing, SuperSuc.

Curl up with a 9th grade science book.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108199
Jun 26, 2012
 
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooo. 7000 posts.
I get a prize, right?
If you do, I ought to get one when I reach 70,000... right?

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108200
Jun 26, 2012
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Lovely.
Tell that to those that invented microscopes, telescopes, satellites, computers, and all of those other goodies that enables science to do science.
If they did? They were not godbots-- they were scientists.

At the time, they obviously suppressed their faith.

Why?

Because faith is SURE. Faith is CERTAIN.

When a person is sure and certain, there is no need for... microscopes, telescopes, satellites, computers and other things.

THOSE are for people who do NOT know for sure.

People without...

... certain faith.

So I am 100% certain that none of those devices were invented by a godbot.

None.

And if they happened to have a tiny little bit of faith?

Fortunately, they were successful in suppressing it-- long enough to invent ...

... scientifically useful tools.

For science is the END of faith, you see...

... no need of faith, when you have...

... actual reality (facts).

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108201
Jun 26, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Wisdom teeth are a great example of an intelligent designer. So are rabbits that eat their own sht to survive lol
Ever seen running boards on automobiles? External headlights? Flashy grillwork? Wing windows? Oil bath air cleaners? Points and condensors?

Are they still called automobiles today?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108202
Jun 26, 2012
 
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave, you realize there's a ferret on your head, right?
If so, that ferret is much smarter than he.

Clearly.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108203
Jun 26, 2012
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are looking at evolution from one direction, with no origination point you can identify. Like I said, assuming it works from the inside out.
Look at it from the other direction, inward. Standing waves, light, and various things focused together to make a pretty fancy hologram. The original may have been done that way, and it was thrust into an unprotected environment where it "evolved" from there. That is what Genesis kind of describes. Of course, there is always the possibility adjustments are made in the projector to account for environmental changes.
You are product. Period.
Good gracious, look how we can manipulate matter and energy now. You think that came about by accident, or do you just wish to think so?
Intelligent design is neither.

There is zero evidence of irreducible complexity-- the sole hinging point for ID.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108204
Jun 26, 2012
 
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I remember the Harckel’s Embro’s in my school text books and my sisters also.
How many years was this false information in our school textbooks?
30 to 40 years?
Evolutionary Science was making kids believe a lie. It’s probably the only science that has promoted falsified data as facts through education.
Who corrected the errors again?

Was it you godbots?

No?

Interesting: science is self-correcting.

Is your godbot-religion?

No?

This explains why your religion is always... wrong.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108205
Jun 26, 2012
 
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Theories certainly are refined. However, the only way evolution could be "refined" enough for ID "scientists" to accept will be when evolution can no longer explain how life, including man, evolves over a prolongued period of time.
Why? Because it contradicts their literal interpretation of Genesis. You can cry "liar liar!" all you want, but your complete refusal to address the Wedge document demonstrates otherwise.
You cannot and do not possess the privelige of knowledge to know how a theory would have to be refined to be accepted by ID scientists.

And you have no point, since the refinement, if valid, is scientifically beneficial whether it satisfies the hopes of anyone or not, and it would be science.

On the sinister Wedge Document, the Discovery Institute has already addressed it well:

"The Wedge Document, like the individual scientist, is irrelevant to addressing the questions we are raising and the arguments we are making. It is now long past time that our intellectual opponents addressed the evidential case we are making and the challenges that now face neo-Darwinism and other similarly simplistic materialist theories. The nearly obsessive focus in some quarters on the focus of our funding, our motivations, and our allegedly sinister plans displays a deep intellectual insecurity in the Darwinist community. Those who have scientific arguments make them. Those who do not change the subject and focus on motives, conspiracies, and personal motivations."

Sounds like they're talking about you, SuperSuc.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 104,881 - 104,900 of223,140
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••