NationStates Jolt Archive

Evolution is wrong and makes everyone into Nazis.


Natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Darwin invented evolution. Because evolution is wrong intelligent design is correct. Scientists are called 'evolutionists' and they worship evolution because they are afraid of change, look how little science has changed in the last few years.


Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.

Not this rubbish again.

This is like a parody of Spongebob Squarepants called Bongbob Hemppants.

It's redundant.

Because evolution is wrong intelligent design is correct.

False dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy).

Good day.

Is there a chance the OP is being sarcastic? Just sayin'.

Lol.

*throws a science book at you*

Where's your god now?!

May I take the opertunity to ask hoew believing (sp) in evolution makes me a Nazi?

Another miscreant troll shitting on and fouling up with garbage and graffiti our troll-friendly forum with troll-friendly mods.

it's a parody of Kohlstein's equivocating evolution (a process in nature) to Nazism (a political philosophy conceived by humanity).

Actually, I look at the OP as a public service. The poster has managed to distill every anti-evolution argument into one neat little turd pile. It's a work of art in a way.

Actually, I look at the OP as a public service. The poster has managed to distill every anti-evolution argument into one neat little turd pile. It's a work of art in a way.

Indeed. I found it amusing that people actually took this obvious parody seriously.

Indeed. I found it amusing that people actually took this obvious parody seriously.

Yea, I don't think anybody was taking it seriously.

People. Learn you'self some of that thurr sarcasm/ironic.

Tis a joke, tis not a nonjoke. Laugh. Don't shout.

Poor logic on the part of the OP.

Poor logic on the part of the OP.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

None of this acquits the OP. This is graffiti, it is micreant drivel intended to annoy people.

None of this acquits the OP. This is graffiti, it is micreant drivel intended to annoy people.You don't have to allow yourself to be annoyed. You can always click out of the thread and ignore it.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

haha, that made me laugh

You don't have to allow yourself to be annoyed. You can always click out of the thread and ignore it.

I only mentioned "intended to annoy people."

I'm guessing its DCD, anyone else have a guess on whos the puppet master.

I'm guessing its DCD, anyone else have a guess on whos the puppet master.

's not me..

I'd have a puppet to laugh at my jokes and sig me. Not make silly, redundant parody attempts.

Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.

I thought Gods magic wand clearly refuted all arguments...
Aaah, how religious beliefs evolve ;)

I'm guessing its DCD, anyone else have a guess on whos the puppet master.

I don't think DCD is allowed to do this sort of thing anymore...

Another miscreant troll shitting on and fouling up with garbage and graffiti our troll-friendly forum with troll-friendly mods.

that's gotta be the fourth time i've seen you post that.

why not just put it into your sig already?

Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.

Irreducible complexity is bullshit.


There, let's see irreducible complexity refute that.

False dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy).
If it was good enough for Socrates (often termed the "First Philosopher" by people who are fucking morons and have no idea what the word means) its good enough for me.

If it was good enough for Socrates (often termed the "First Philosopher" by people who are fucking morons and have no idea what the word means) its good enough for me.

Socrates died for your foolishness!

Couldn't resist.


I hate creationist folks. I think we should round 'em up and put 'em in kansas, where they may inbreed freely.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

Calm down.Share some love.Have a taco.
Stop posting pointless threads claiming that "EVERY1 IZ RONG COZ I SAIS SO."

The OP is suffering is under an
Insane Desperation In Obatining These Illogical Concepts condition.

Creationists are the living proof that not all humanity has evolved anymore since the early stone age.

Good grief, its a parody! Look at his sig.

Creationists are the living proof that not all humanity has evolved anymore since the early stone age.


lmao. That is so true.

Lol.

*throws a science book at you*

Where's your god now?!

In my pants.. no worship and kiss it :)

Evolution is wrong and makes everyone into Nazis.


Natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Darwin invented evolution. Because evolution is wrong intelligent design is correct. Scientists are called 'evolutionists' and they worship evolution because they are afraid of change, look how little science has changed in the last few years.


Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.

You left out evolutionism turning everyone into anti american anti semites
and that the democratic party is way further left than communism.

Not to mention how they stifle the teaching of intelligent falling in the classrooms.

Actually, I look at the OP as a public service. The poster has managed to distill every anti-evolution argument into one neat little turd pile. It's a work of art in a way.

It is truly masterful.

Evolution is wrong and makes everyone into Nazis.


Natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Darwin invented evolution. Because evolution is wrong intelligent design is correct. Scientists are called 'evolutionists' and they worship evolution because they are afraid of change, look how little science has changed in the last few years.


Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.

This is a perfect example of someone who is way behind in the evolutionary chain.

*pushes the crap stated in the first post aside and turns to the more important point about this thread*

What the hell does "Evolution is der der der doo mean? That's the only thing about this thread that is in need of explanation. Desperately.

*pushes the crap stated in the first post aside and turns to the more important point about this thread*

What the hell does "Evolution is der der der doo mean? That's the only thing about this thread that is in need of explanation. Desperately.

This should help explain things for ya :
Carlos Mencia - Dee, Dee, Dee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91MtHvcespM)

Scientists are called 'evolutionists' and they worship evolution because they are afraid of change, look how little science has changed in the last few years.


no your right science hasnt changed at all, particularly after einstien.:rolleyes:

isnt evolution all about change?

I hate creationist folks. I think we should round 'em up and put 'em in kansas, where they may inbreed freely.

i wouldnt be opposed of leaving them on an island somewhere or at least slave labour.

You left out evolutionism turning everyone into anti american anti semites
and that the democratic party is way further left than communism.

Not to mention how they stifle the teaching of intelligent falling in the classrooms.

Its because they hate america, and want the terrorists to win.

You left out evolutionism turning everyone into anti american anti semites
and that the democratic party is way further left than communism.

Not to mention how they stifle the teaching of intelligent falling in the classrooms.

You're right. Intelligent falling will come right after intelligent design. It's actually individual beings separate from the intelligent designer responsible for life. They push everything towards the earth.
Just like the intelligent designer isn't God, the intelligent pushers aren't angels.

Irreducible complexity is bullshit.


There, let's see irreducible complexity refute that.


Just look at the eye. How could an eye evolve?
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

Just look at the eye. How could an eye evolve?
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

Silly

it evolved from eyelets

which in turn evolved from islets

which had devolved from islands

which had eroded from continents

if erosion is real though
howcome there is still land.

You're right. Intelligent falling will come right after intelligent design. It's actually individual beings separate from the intelligent designer responsible for life. They push everything towards the earth.
Just like the intelligent designer isn't God, the intelligent pushers aren't angels.

Intelligent pushers give the first couple of hits for free
cos they make more money eventually.

Intelligent pushers give the first couple of hits for free
cos they make more money eventually.

True that.

*seriously* why is this still being argued? Scientists aren't trying to take away your faith, they are simply trying to uncover the truth, and reading the bible over and over isn't going to do that, so maybe lay off the people who are curious about studying the huge piece of evidence we call 'mother earth'.

Just look at the eye. How could an eye evolve?
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

If you actually do a little study, you will find that not all animals have eyes. Some just have light sensitive spots. Over time, the ability to sense light helped survival, those spots became more sensitive, etc.

Evolution is wrong and makes everyone into Nazis.


Natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Darwin invented evolution. Because evolution is wrong intelligent design is correct. Scientists are called 'evolutionists' and they worship evolution because they are afraid of change, look how little science has changed in the last few years.


Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.

*Rubs temples*

Goddammit, we had this discussion not even a week ago. I thougt we could be done for at least a week or two.

Alright, Darwin didn't invent Evolution. The idea had been around for quite some time. He just solidified it into a workable theory, based not only on his own observations, but also on the ideas and observations who came before him. Look up Lemark and Erasmus Darwin, for example.

Second, he didn't create Evolution. It was as though one day he said "Hey, I have this idea called "evolution". Let's see how I can make it work!" Instead, through his observations, he created a theory to explain what he was observing.

Next, "Intelligent Design" is not science. If you don't understand why, you don't understand science. Period.

Lastly, "irreducibly complex" has been disproven and albeit destroyed by anybody who knows what they are talking about.

So, you do not know what you are talking about, do not know anything about science, and spew out unintelligent, ignorant, and quite frankly idiotic statements.

Jesus, I was hoping we could go a week without this crap coming out again.

I'm guessing its DCD, anyone else have a guess on whos the puppet master.

I doubt it. If it is a puppet, DCD would have put a bit more thought into it, methinks. I mean, look at the complexity of Jesussaves. In it's simplicity, it was quite complex. This is just plain dumb. Either a really stupid puppet, or a really idiotic person.

Not sure which one is more annoying.

DCD is hilarious... this guy (OP), not so much...

DCD is hilarious... this guy (OP), not so much...

I concur

I thought this thread died yesterday.
It's so much bullshit I can't believe it-thread title says it all.
Let us all stop arguing about something none of us can possibly win.Evolution may have happened,it may not have,none of us can prove it,because none of us were there.Maybe we can go a year without another evolution thread-make it NSGs new challenge?

I'm quite suprised at how many people took this thread seriously.

I'm quite suprised at how many people took this thread seriously.

Wait.You spent the entire thread shouting "IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY!" and NOW you're joking.
Funny,that.Trying to save face?

I thought this thread died yesterday.
It's so much bullshit I can't believe it-thread title says it all.
Let us all stop arguing about something none of us can possibly win.Evolution may have happened,it may not have,none of us can prove it,because none of us were there.Maybe we can go a year without another evolution thread-make it NSGs new challenge?

so if it was snowing where you live, but during the night when everybody was sleeping and no one witnessed it, you couldn't know for sure how all that snow got there in the morning?

could we call it intelligent weather?

Lol.

*throws a science book at you*

Where's your god now?!

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/800px-Heavenlycat.jpg

so if it was snowing where you live, but during the night when everybody was sleeping and no one witnessed it, you couldn't know for sure how all that snow got there in the morning?

could we call it intelligent weather?

Yes,but,evolution is a tad more complex than that.There's only one argument that you can put forward to how the snow got there-it snowed overnight.Plus you can monitor weather movements via satellite,and so on.There are so many arguments concering why evolution is right or wrong,such as religion and the like.Maybe God put us all here,maybe we all evolved from apes,the fact is we simply don't know,and no amount of threads is going to give us an answer.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/800px-Heavenlycat.jpg

brilliant photo.

now for a poor joke.

"always said god was a pussy!!!"

Wait.You spent the entire thread shouting "IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY!" and NOW you're joking.
Funny,that.Trying to save face?

That was the point. It was an attempt at satire. Either it was fantastic satire, or some on NSG are a bit too quick to jump to conclusions...

Yes,but,evolution is a tad more complex than that.There's only one argument that you can put forward to how the snow got there-it snowed overnight.Plus you can monitor weather movements via satellite,and so on.There are so many arguments concering why evolution is right or wrong,such as religion and the like.Maybe God put us all here,maybe we all evolved from apes,the fact is we simply don't know,and no amount of threads is going to give us an answer.

that kind of logic gets you nowhere. what makes you think god didn't create the snow and then fooled the satellites?

That was the point. It was an attempt at satire. Either it was fantastic satire, or some on NSG are a bit too quick to jump to conclusions...

Combination of both?

that kind of logic gets you nowhere. what makes you think god didn't create the snow and then fooled the satellites?

Oh my God!My argument!Broken by a truly awful analogy!
Grow up.The fact is you can't compare your example to the theory of evolution,because one is far simpler than the other.

Evolution is wrong and makes everyone into Nazis.


Natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Darwin invented evolution. Because evolution is wrong intelligent design is correct. Scientists are called 'evolutionists' and they worship evolution because they are afraid of change, look how little science has changed in the last few years.


Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.

Anybody that does not belive that we evolved is clearly mad, religious or not.

Anybody that does not belive that we evolved is clearly mad, religious or not.

Things are never that easy... what IF anoter explanation is found?

Anybody that does not belive that we evolved is clearly mad, religious or not.

Dealing in absolutes is the way of the sith.

Things are never that easy... what IF anoter explanation is found?


Okay you do have a point, but as scinces goes, it's a very very strong argument, and has answered all the questions thrown at it. Heh thats the thing with makeing broad statements you know at some time you'll have to pull em back, or just lie though your teeth about it. Mauhahwhahha.

However I'm gonna stand by this one.

Dealing in absolutes is the way of the sith.

Heh really, saaaay that's an absolute statement if ever I seen one. Umm your not Sith are ya?

Oh my God!My argument!Broken by a truly awful analogy!
Grow up.The fact is you can't compare your example to the theory of evolution,because one is far simpler than the other.

right then, my point was that if you accept that a supernatural being is involved, then natural causality is broken, and you won't get any science that way.

is that more grown up for you?

This is getting ridiculous. It's one thing to have a legitimite argument, but it's another to keep bringing up these topics without any evidence. Just ignore this fundamentalist bastard. Maybe he'll go away...

right then, my point was that if you accept that a supernatural being is involved, then natural causality is broken, and you won't get any science that way.

is that more grown up for you?

That is rubbish, why can not God have used the laws of evolution to create? Of course you can be both scietific and religous. Geez heh science was started by the religous anyhow.

That is rubbish, why can not God have used the laws of evolution to create? Of course you can be both scietific and religous. Geez heh science was started by the religous anyhow.

well science doesn't give a damn if god is behind evolution as long as he's consistent. what can't be accepted by science is just saying "god did it", without any rule or any way to make prediction.

Wait.You spent the entire thread shouting "IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY!" and NOW you're joking.
Funny,that.Trying to save face?


Yes, you've found me out. Since in all the other evolution threads I was fighting those wicked evolutionists.

Things are never that easy... what IF anoter explanation is found?

The Truth is out there.

http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/images/thumb/8/86/180px-Xf_promotional_ftf.jpg

Like I said he has an I.D.I.O.T.I.C. condition.

that kind of logic gets you nowhere. what makes you think god didn't create the snow and then fooled the satellites?

Why would one desire to worship a God that is deliberately trying to deceive you ?

Regardless of whether or not this was DCD's puppet, I wanna thank DCD for being such an awesome bastard in general. Everytime I see a quote from him (and it happens often) it always gives me the giggles.

DCD, we love you!

Dealing in absolutes is the way of the sith.

Actually we like to mix gray areas and absolutes, makes it so much easier to manipulate people and corrupt them when they get confused.

Actually we like to mix gray areas and absolutes, makes it so much easier to manipulate people and corrupt them when they get confused.

Yeah, absolutes seems much more like a Jedi fundamentalist trait in that they barely allow for human emotion to play a factor in anything a Jedi does.

"You're in love? Fuck you, shove that shit down and be a robot." and then all surprised when Anakin cuts their shit off.

Why would one desire to worship a God that is deliberately trying to deceive you ?

Ask any number of people whom believe that God created all of the fossils, and made the earth and universe appear far older than it "truly"(In their eyes, that is) is. Honestly, I have no idea, but heh. That's just me.

It's one thing to see people who can't grasp evolution, but the number of people who actually that this topic was serious? Honestly, " Evolution is der der der doo"? Der der der doo? You fell for that!?

It's one thing to see people who can't grasp evolution, but the number of people who actually that this topic was serious? Honestly, " Evolution is der der der doo"? Der der der doo? You fell for that!?

Well he was a n00blet.
.....And we were bored.
And "der der der doo" is so tempting :(

This thread makes me chuckle.

Chuckle chuckle chuckle.

Yes, you've found me out. Since in all the other evolution threads I was fighting those wicked evolutionists.

Don't worry about people who just don't realise that irreducible complexity
answers all, except perhaps people who cannot tell a joke from a faith
based stance, they are definitely not all that complex. Lets hope
they are reducible.

Don't worry about people who just don't realise that irreducible complexity
answers all, except perhaps people who cannot tell a joke from a faith
based stance, they are definitely not all that complex. Lets hope
they are reducible.

Actually, not sure if you are serious or not, but IC raises far more questions, and answer nothing(scientifically), than anything.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

No actually its not very complex at all. Your point consists of saying "I'm right and you're wrong" without ever backing it up with facts.

Evolution is wrong and makes everyone into Nazis.


Natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Darwin invented evolution. Because evolution is wrong intelligent design is correct. Scientists are called 'evolutionists' and they worship evolution because they are afraid of change, look how little science has changed in the last few years.


Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.How do you pronounce Kearny? My dad has a dispute with an Irishman with that last name.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

Hilarious.

richard dawkins says that religion is a mental disease. no, its not a mental disease but the people who follow it may have a mental disease.

richard dawkins says that religion is a mental disease. no, its not a mental disease but the people who follow it may have a mental disease.

Yeah, but Richard Dawkins is also an IRL troll.

Yeah, but Richard Dawkins is also an IRL troll.

irl? what does that mean? irish?

irl? what does that mean? irish?

In real Life.. normally.. though I would hardly describe Dawkins as a Troll.

Someone who is pushing at the boundries of accepted society .. yes. A troll.... hardly.

In real Life.. normally.. though I would hardly describe Dawkins as a Troll.

Someone who is pushing at the boundries of accepted society .. yes. A troll.... hardly.

you then said he is a real life troll?
what?
what boundries is he pushing?

you then said he is a real life troll?
what?
what boundries is he pushing?

Well apparently - from wikipedia
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, insulting, or otherwise inappropriate messages.

So Vetalia called Dawkins a troll presumingly meaning he tries to cause disruption
by being inflammatory.

Dawkins apparently isnt big on the existence of God

Foolish man doesn't realize that Irreducible Complexity is the answer
to everything

Foolish man doesn't realize that Irreducible Complexity is the answer
to everything

clearly.

whats the meaning of life? Irreducible Complexity.
why didnt i get laid today? Irreducible Complexity.

Well apparently - from wikipedia
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, insulting, or otherwise inappropriate messages.

Heh .. ok I suppose by that definition apart from the off-topic or inappropriate messages he would be a troll to the religious community...

Though I don't see him as Trolling for responses as more being actually thought provoking.

I tend to think of Trolls as being people who say something that they don't personally believe, just to get a response.

I believe that Dawkins really does genuinely believe what he is saying is true. Which makes him a pain in the neck... but not a troll..

Dawkins was called an IRL troll not because he's an atheist, but he's a dick about it to everyone who isn't.

Well apparently - from wikipedia
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, insulting, or otherwise inappropriate messages.

So Vetalia called Dawkins a troll presumingly meaning he tries to cause disruption
by being inflammatory.

Dawkins apparently isnt big on the existence of God

Foolish man doesn't realize that Irreducible Complexity is the answer
to everything

Post something from Dawkins to a creationst discussion group and let the fun begin...

Dawkins was called an IRL troll not because he's an atheist, but he's a dick about it to everyone who isn't.

Bingo. The guy's a very intelligent man, but his dickery chases off a lot of allies, especially the Catholic Church, that could help him with the goal of keeping science in science classrooms.

Wait.You spent the entire thread shouting "IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY!" and NOW you're joking.
Funny,that.Trying to save face?

Actually now that I read the first post, my sarcasm detector has gone off the hook. It should have hit me when he started to make trollish statements and the mods didn't say anything.

Dawkins was called an IRL troll not because he's an atheist, but he's a dick about it to everyone who isn't.

Its about time too...

Dawkins was called an IRL troll not because he's an atheist, but he's a dick about it to everyone who isn't.

He's sort of my hero in that respect. The theist community has more than its fair share of dicks, why shouldn't we get one?

He's sort of my hero in that respect. The theist community has more than its fair share of dicks, why shouldn't we get one?

Well, here's the real question: Do you want to stoop to the level of the fundie trolls?

Well, here's the real question: Do you want to stoop to the level of the fundie trolls?

He's no where near the level of fundie trolls. He's just not mincing words anymore. Like that Jonathan Miller guy.

He's no where near the level of fundie trolls. He's just not mincing words anymore. Like that Jonathan Miller guy.

And that's making people associate his dickery with evolution, pushing them to the side of ID. I'd say Dawkins has driven more people to support Intelligent Design than any of their "scientists".

Well, here's the real question: Do you want to stoop to the level of the fundie trolls?

No I don't want to... thats why its nice to have someone else do your dirty work for you :)

I don't think his approach stands much of a chance of helping too many fundamentalist religious types to stop and check the facts... but they were unlikely to do that anyway.

What it does do though is it enables people who have been thinking what he is saying to come out of the woodwork and find each other.. thus making a community for non religious folk.. which really is a new kind of entity.

I think thats a worthwhile contribution if nothing else.

And that's making people associate his dickery with evolution, pushing them to the side of ID. I'd say Dawkins has driven more people to support Intelligent Design than any of their "scientists".

Maybe in the US. I don't think that's the case in the UK. Anyway, why should he keep his opinions to himself? If you are swayed to ID because of a personal animus about Dawkins, it's not like you'd ever really be capable of accepting evolutionary theory anyway.

What it does do though is it enables people who have been thinking what he is saying to come out of the woodwork and find each other.. thus making a community for non religious folk.. which really is a new kind of entity.

Yeah, but at the same time he's also polarizing the groups. And, as always, agnostics end up getring caught in the middle...I can't side with the atheists or the theists.

I think thats a worthwhile contribution if nothing else.

I'd say The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Ancestor's Tale are going to be a lot more valuable in the long run than anything else.

He needs to stop fighting religion and start fighting creationism and anti-science attitudes within religion.

He needs to stop fighting religion and start fighting creationism and anti-science attitudes within religion.

But he believes that religion is dangerous and evil. The man has to be true to himself.

And that's making people associate his dickery with evolution, pushing them to the side of ID. I'd say Dawkins has driven more people to support Intelligent Design than any of their "scientists".

I don't think he has really convinced many people one way or the other... what he has done is polarised people... he has forced people to get off the fence and choose a side.

That can be a useful thing on occassion.

Maybe in the US. I don't think that's the case in the UK. Anyway, why should he keep his opinions to himself? If you are swayed to ID because of a personal animus about Dawkins, it's not like you'd ever really be capable of accepting evolutionary theory anyway.

The problem is, the US is the ID capitol of the world...it's not exactly the best place to be encouraging creationism. And it's not that people support ID because it's valid, they support them because they don't like people like Dawkins.

I mean, if you lose here, you're dealing a crippling blow to scientific inquiry worldwide. This is the place where science is threatened more than anywhere else in the developed world, and furthermore it's where I live. I don't want my country's science education trashed by religious tyranny, and I don't want that to happen because of one of the people on our side is inadvertently acting like a fifth column.

But he believes that religion is dangerous and evil. The man has to be true to himself.

And that helps absolutely nothing. There are times when it's important to keep opinions to yourself, especially at this watershed point in the ID vs. evolution controversy.

I'd say The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Ancestor's Tale are going to be a lot more valuable in the long run than anything else.

His scientific work was excellent... but almost no one gets remembered for great scientific work. Challenging all the major religions of the world... at once... with reason... now there is a feet to go down in history.

He needs to stop fighting religion and start fighting creationism and anti-science attitudes within religion.

There are plenty of people already fighting creationism and anti-science attitudes within religion. Those bases are already being covered.

The fight against the dishonesty of established religion. Dishonesty to itself, on a logical well thought out basis is not being commonly fought in the public arena.. and thats what makes Dawkin's stand unique... and inspiring.

Maybe in the US. I don't think that's the case in the UK. Anyway, why should he keep his opinions to himself? If you are swayed to ID because of a personal animus about Dawkins, it's not like you'd ever really be capable of accepting evolutionary theory anyway.

Intelligent people take creationism and ID seriously they can be swayed by intelligent argument and they can be pushed into ID by Dawkins attitude.

Evolutionists who call themselves scientists are just Nazis hiding under
a cloak of supposed respectability.

Science has never produced anything worthwhile especially when compared with religion.

Irreducible Complexity answers all.

Only a fool would argue.

And that helps absolutely nothing. There are times when it's important to keep opinions to yourself, especially at this watershed point in the ID vs. evolution controversy.

Idiots were banging on about ID before Dawkins started to get vocal about religion. It's a relatively new thing for him, though he's always been public about his atheism. If it wasn't Dawkins, it would be something or someone else they'd use as a rallying cry.

And as I said, if you are supporting ID because of your personal dislike of someone, you're the kind of person who would end up in the ID camp anyway.

If anything part of the problem is the rational people have been to afraid of hurting the feelings of religious people for too long.

And that helps absolutely nothing. There are times when it's important to keep opinions to yourself, especially at this watershed point in the ID vs. evolution controversy.

Absolutely there is no advanced nation that is not having a debate about
ID vs Evolution and there is none where ID is not likely to win.

Also penguins are in terrible danger of being wiped out by the predatory
nature of polar bears but you don't hear so called scientists commenting on that.

Intelligent people take creationism and ID seriously they can be swayed by intelligent argument and they can be pushed into ID by Dawkins attitude.

Evolutionists who call themselves scientists are just Nazis hiding under
a cloak of supposed respectability.

Science has never produced anything worthwhile especially when compared with religion.

Irreducible Complexity answers all.

Only a fool would argue.

Evolution is also only a theory. WE MUST INCLUDE ALL ALTERNATIVES.

This includes alternatives to the theories of general relativity, special relativity, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, quantum field theory, and cell theory. *nod*

Our children deserve an equal view of all the sides, not the one which is scientifically factual.

Evolution is also only a theory. WE MUST INCLUDE ALL ALTERNATIVES.

This includes alternatives to the theories of general relativity, special relativity, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, quantum field theory, and cell theory. *nod*

Our children deserve an equal view of all the sides, not the one which is scientifically factual.

you forgot gravity

but otherwise a good solid well balanced stance.

Why should our children just be thought "scientific" "fact"

Science classes should be optional extra mural activities that parents are not FORCED
to have their children exposed to

Why would one desire to worship a God that is deliberately trying to deceive you ?

you tell me, 'cos I don't...

I believe that Dawkins really does genuinely believe what he is saying is true. Which makes him a pain in the neck... but not a troll..

how is he a ain in the neck?

had a conversation with me ma about this. she thought he was very intelligent. i dont on the basis i dont know in person. to me he is just a believer of evolution that thinks religion has very negative effects on socuety. to me thats just the basics of any kind of intelligence.

you forgot gravity

but otherwise a good solid well balanced stance.

Why should our children just be thought "scientific" "fact"

Science classes should be optional extra mural activities that parents are not FORCED
to have their children exposed to

Please tell me that this thread is still in parody mode. :p

Just look at the eye. How could an eye evolve?
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

but the eye isn't "irreducibly compex". The earliest 'eyes' (e.g. flatworms) consist of a collection of cells which can only discernn light and dark. Natural selection (which isn't random) brought about our eyes (there [U]are[U]intermediate eyes) and even better ones than ours

Evolution is wrong and makes everyone into Nazis.


Natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Darwin invented evolution. Because evolution is wrong intelligent design is correct. Scientists are called 'evolutionists' and they worship evolution because they are afraid of change, look how little science has changed in the last few years.


Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.

Just read Richard Dawkins' latest book and try to actually use your (not) god given brain.

Bingo. The guy's a very intelligent man, but his dickery chases off a lot of allies, especially the Catholic Church, that could help him with the goal of keeping science in science classrooms.


The man frankly scares me rigid. He calls for the abolition of religion, calling it a blight on the face of humanity, he says that all religous people are in the least mentaly ill, if not dangerous to the betterment of the human speices. He is full of hate filled rethoric, and the thing that scares me most is I have seen some normaly quite decent Atheist who up until now have been prepeard to 'live and let live' become as hatfull and pridefull and arogant as he is.

I spend my time telling people that belife in God is a totaly personal thing, and that if we can get this message out to the religous fundies then things will be better, whilst that Dawkins fella just wants rid of us.

Shit shades of Hitler there, I kid you not.

Please tell me that this thread is still in parody mode. :p

Yeah, I wish. That ended on when people started debating on the first page. :rolleyes:

The man frankly scares me rigid. He calls for the abolition of religion, calling it a blight on the face of humanity, he says that all religous people are in the least mentaly ill, if not dangerous to the betterment of the human speices. He is full of hate filled rethoric, and the thing that scares me most is I have seen some normaly quite decent Atheist who up until now have been prepeard to 'live and let live' become as hatfull and pridefull and arogant as he is.

I spend my time telling people that belife in God is a totaly personal thing, and that if we can get this message out to the religous fundies then things will be better, whilst that Dawkins fella just wants rid of us.

Shit shades of Hitler there, I kid you not.

The way I see it, he just says what he thinks : religion is one of the worst things that happened to humanity.

besides, I don't see a lot of common ground between hitler and Dawkins... or maybe I missed him calling for the extermination of jews?

Just look at the eye. How could an eye evolve?

I'm so glad you asked!

Here are some excellent articles to get you started:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/the_eye_as_a_contingent_divers.php

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/07/creationists_muscling_in_on_my_territory_1.php

If you have any questions or points of confusion as you read these, please let me know what they are and I would be happy to help clear things up for you.

Have a great day!

Science classes should be optional extra mural activities that parents are not FORCED
to have their children exposed to

no. every child should be thought physics at a young age.

The way I see it, he just says what he thinks : religion is one of the worst things that happened to humanity.

besides, I don't see a lot of common ground between hitler and Dawkins... or maybe I missed him calling for the extermination of jews?

I have no problem with people saying it how they see it. However if you really cannot see the common ground I speak of then there is nowt I can do to change your mind on that score.

I would though say ask if you see nowt wrong, in this:

'...he says that all religous people are in the least mentaly ill, if not dangerous to the betterment of the human speices.'

The way he talks of religoun and people of religoin is not conducive to any peacefull process of all people getting on. He talks about the betterment of humanity, and in his eyes this is eqauted with the abolisment of faith.

He speaks like a rabble raiser, and he is having the disaired effect. He himself makes a mockery of his claims for the betterment of humanity, as does anybody who preaches intollerance for one part of society, wilst expounding on ideas of abolishment.

Wasn''t Der der der doo a song by the Police?

The way I see it, he just says what he thinks : religion is one of the worst things that happened to humanity.

besides, I don't see a lot of common ground between hitler and Dawkins... or maybe I missed him calling for the extermination of jews?

ah come on now, that being overly absurd.
he ranks jews, christians and muslim equal bad.
the only way he wants to stop it, is to stop religion being forced at such a young age then let them make thier choice at 18.

i would agree, children shouldnt have a religion until they are old enough to know what they are saying. if they cant support a political party, why have a religion?

I have no problem with people saying it how they see it. However if you really cannot see the common ground I speak of then there is nowt I can do to change your mind on that score.

I would though say ask if you see nowt wrong, in this:

'...he says that all religous people are in the least mentaly ill, if not dangerous to the betterment of the human speices.'

The way he talks of religoun and people of religoin is not conducive to any peacefull process of all people getting on. He talks about the betterment of humanity, and in his eyes this is eqauted with the abolisment of faith.

Forgive me, but I don't see why this means that Dawkins is sharing ground with Hitler. He's not advocating that anybody be forced to give up religion against their wishes, or that any people be harmed or abused because they are religious. He's not advocating laws banning religion or faith.

What he is saying is that he believes religion is a harmful force, and that people who are religious are either mentally ill or potentially dangerous (or both).

How is this different from the people who say the same about racism? I believe humanity would be better off if we abolished racism...does that mean I share common cause with Hitler? I believe racism is harmful and often very dangerous, and destructive to humanity in general...does this mean I'm a Nazi for speaking out against racism and those who choose to embrace it?


He speaks like a rabble raiser, and he is having the disaired effect. He himself makes a mockery of his claims for the betterment of humanity, as does anybody who preaches intollerance for one part of society, wilst expounding on ideas of abolishment.I speak out against racism. I don't try to "make common cause" with racists, or find some "middle ground" with racists. I believe racism is wrong, period, and I'm not about to accomodate the irrational, hateful, destructive beliefs that racists cling to. I think their beliefs are foolish and dangerous, and I don't see any reason why I should worry about sparing their poor tender feelings by not saying what I think.

Does that mean that I'm a "rabble raiser" who is making a mockery of my claims for the betterment of humanity when I work to build a world free from racism?

Forgive me, but I don't see why this means that Dawkins is sharing ground with Hitler. He's not advocating that anybody be forced to give up religion against their wishes, or that any people be harmed or abused because they are religious. He's not advocating laws banning religion or faith.

What he is saying is that he believes religion is a harmful force, and that people who are religious are either mentally ill or potentially dangerous (or both).

How is this different from the people who say the same about racism? I believe humanity would be better off if we abolished racism...does that mean I share common cause with Hitler? I believe racism is harmful and often very dangerous, and destructive to humanity in general...does this mean I'm a Nazi for speaking out against racism and those who choose to embrace it?

I speak out against racism. I don't try to "make common cause" with racists, or find some "middle ground" with racists. I believe racism is wrong, period, and I'm not about to accomodate the irrational, hateful, destructive beliefs that racists cling to. I think their beliefs are foolish and dangerous, and I don't see any reason why I should worry about sparing their poor tender feelings by not saying what I think.

Does that mean that I'm a "rabble raiser" who is making a mockery of my claims for the betterment of humanity when I work to build a world free from racism?

Hey Bottle,

Yeah I see your point. I wish other could see mine, heh but such is life.

I said that fella scares me rigid, and then laid out why he does so. The saliant point being:

'and the thing that scares me most is I have seen some normaly quite decent Atheist who up until now have been prepeard to 'live and let live' become as hatfull and pridefull and arogant as he is.'

And that really does scare me rigid. Not the man himself but what others that take up his message may do in his name.

Hey Bottle,

Yeah I see your point. I wish other could see mine, heh but such is life.

I see your point, I just don't agree with you.

I can understand how it feels to have people view your beliefs as irrational, dangerous, or sick. Remember, I'm a non-hetero non-male non-believer who supports access to abortion, gay marriage, and secular humanism. I get that kind of stuff all the time.

But I don't go around telling people that they are akin to Hilter for having that opinion of my views. If they want to lock me up in camps, torture me, take away my rights, violate my family, or otherwise directly infringe on my freedoms, then MAYBE it will be time to go Godwin on their asses.


I said that fella scares me rigid, and then laid out why he does so. The saliant point being:

'and the thing that scares me most is I have seen some normaly quite decent Atheist who up until now have been prepeard to 'live and let live' become as hatfull and pridefull and arogant as he is.'

And that really does scare me rigid. Not the man himself but what others that take up his message may do in his name.
Meh. Atheists are the least of your worries, quite frankly. You have far more to fear from believers who don't like your personal brand of belief. They are the ones most dedicated to taking away YOUR freedoms and YOUR rights in favor of installing their own values as supreme law of the land.

I see your point, I just don't agree with you.

I can understand how it feels to have people view your beliefs as irrational, dangerous, or sick. Remember, I'm a non-hetero non-male non-believer who supports access to abortion, gay marriage, and secular humanism. I get that kind of stuff all the time.

But I don't go around telling people that they are akin to Hilter for having that opinion of my views. If they want to lock me up in camps, torture me, take away my rights, violate my family, or otherwise directly infringe on my freedoms, then MAYBE it will be time to go Godwin on their asses.


Meh. Atheists are the least of your worries, quite frankly. You have far more to fear from believers who don't like your personal brand of belief. They are the ones most dedicated to taking away YOUR freedoms and YOUR rights in favor of installing their own values as supreme law of the land.


Ahh fair enough then. We can of course agree to disagree, but the truth of the matter is that's how I see him. I work for a TV company, the same one that filmed his 'Root of all evil' not that I claim to have met him first hand, but what I do know of him, what I have seen the way he treats people like me just scares me. I feel it to be a very dangerous precedent that he sets, and I have lots of first hand experiance of the way peoples outlook of my good self has changed after reading his works. In short he has changed peoples attitudes to religous people and not in any good way.

I don't like it, it is very scary.

Evolution is wrong and makes everyone into Nazis.


Natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Darwin invented evolution. Because evolution is wrong intelligent design is correct. Scientists are called 'evolutionists' and they worship evolution because they are afraid of change, look how little science has changed in the last few years.


Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.

How did you get into New Jersey? You obviously don't meet the IQ requirements.

I have no problem with people saying it how they see it. However if you really cannot see the common ground I speak of then there is nowt I can do to change your mind on that score.

I would though say ask if you see nowt wrong, in this:

'...he says that all religous people are in the least mentaly ill, if not dangerous to the betterment of the human speices.'

The way he talks of religoun and people of religoin is not conducive to any peacefull process of all people getting on. He talks about the betterment of humanity, and in his eyes this is eqauted with the abolisment of faith.

He speaks like a rabble raiser, and he is having the disaired effect. He himself makes a mockery of his claims for the betterment of humanity, as does anybody who preaches intollerance for one part of society, wilst expounding on ideas of abolishment.

have you got any quote from him, or just what people think of him? 'cos I think I already saw someone here try to make him pass for a nazi...

Evolution is wrong and makes everyone into Nazis.


Natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Darwin invented evolution. Because evolution is wrong intelligent design is correct. Scientists are called 'evolutionists' and they worship evolution because they are afraid of change, look how little science has changed in the last few years.


Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.

I. Don't. CARE!

have you got any quote from him, or just what people think of him? 'cos I think I already saw someone here try to make him pass for a nazi...

I though I had already made it clear that my being scared of what his words may lead to stems from my personal experiances with Atheist friends who now see me in a differant light, and not one of 'live and let live' as it has always been between us, but in a far more dangerous, religion must be abolished kind of way?

How do you pronounce Kearny? My dad has a dispute with an Irishman with that last name.

Kearny

As if it were "Car Knee". Named after the badass civil war general.

How did you get into New Jersey? You obviously don't meet the IQ requirements.
Irreducible complexity.


clearly.

whats the meaning of life? Irreducible Complexity.
why didnt i get laid today? Irreducible Complexity.

Indeed.

I though I had already made it clear that my being scared of what his words may lead to stems from my personal experiances with Atheist friends who now see me in a differant light, and not one of 'live and let live' as it has always been between us, but in a far more dangerous, religion must be abolished kind of way?

But he has a good point. People are tolerant of other peoples religious ideas.. purely because they are religious.

If someone says they think the world is flat then most people would be inclined to tell them that you thought that they were wrong, and give your reasons. If someone tells you that their religion suggests that the world is flat.... suddenly you have to be respectful of that idea. You can't out and out say that you think they are wrong.

If someone says that you should be able to beat your wife to a bloody pulp because she cheated on you then most people would be intolerant of that. Its just not considered morally acceptable (currently.. you don't have to go back to far in history to find a time when it was). But if your religion says that its ok to beat a cheating woman to a bloody pulp then it has to be considered worthy of at least some respect.

Its a strange dichotomy.

Why should an idea be more valid.. more deserving of respect when attached to religion than when viewed in a separate light.

If someone says they think the world is flat then most people would be inclined to tell them that you thought that they were wrong, and give your reasons. If someone tells you that their religion suggests that the world is flat.... suddenly you have to be respectful of that idea. You can't out and out say that you think they are wrong.

But how many religions really say that? And, of those that do, how many of them actually believe it? I mean, the Catholic Church didn't officially accept heliocentrism until 1992, but that doesn't mean they didn't believe it to be the case; it was a clerical error more than anything.

Dawkins goes after religious people who support evolution because he is opposed to religion, not because of religion's flaws. He's not attacking extremism, he's attacking religion to try and evangelise people to his religion of atheism at the expense of everything else (and it is a religion in his case...it's the very basis of his worldview and he has unshakeable faith in its superiority over other beliefs).

His entire argument against religious belief is a straw man, using the extremists to try and attack everyone else.

Why should an idea be more valid.. more deserving of respect when attached to religion than when viewed in a separate light.

It's not. That's why we no longer condone spousal abuse or slavery; religion has changed with the times just like any other idea. It is as mutable as any other idea or belief system, and has evolved to meet the needs of each society it is a part of.

Evolution is wrong and makes everyone into Nazis.


Natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Darwin invented evolution. Because evolution is wrong intelligent design is correct. Scientists are called 'evolutionists' and they worship evolution because they are afraid of change, look how little science has changed in the last few years.


Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.

Yup. Darwin invented evolution. He sat alone in his lab thinking to himself "hmmm! God really went half hearted with this whole 'human' thing. There's got to be a way to improve them. And everything else for that matter. Farmers get better cows by breeding the ones that show the qualities that they like. Humans could do the same."

He then put the world in his freshly patented Evolvomatic TM and created a stystem by which educatable people came together and produced college students. Football players mated with Cheerleaders to produce cashiers.

Only the people of Kansas were strong willed enough to resist this influence of Darwin and so they have managed to avoid evolving at all.

You may be asking how it's possible that Kansas, which didn't exist in Darwin's day, managed to resist his influence. Well, this theory is so dense that it warped space-time making modern Kansas contemporary with Darwin.

How do you pronounce Kearny? My dad has a dispute with an Irishman with that last name.

That doesn't mean anything.

There's a street in NYC called Houston, pronounced HOUSE-ton. There's a city in Texas by the same spelling pronounced HYOO-ston.

People in England and Ireland named Staunton pronounce it STAN-ton. The town of Staunton in Virginia pronounces it the same way. Americans named Staunton pronounce it STAWN-ton, and many branches of that family have changed the spelling to STAN-ton to match the pronunciation.

DuBois (maybe debois) is a French name pronounced du-BWAH. The town of the same name in Pennsylvania is pronounced de-BOYZ.

The argument with the Irishmen is likely to proove fruitless.

Many years ago now, probably during the 80's
On the Late Late Show

The Irish here will know it (with gaybo you know)

They discussed the serious topic of cults.

The problem as it was expressed was they were targetting young people
aged 18/19. Away from home - often for the first time - when they went
to university. There was widespread agreement from the assemble Catholics
that this was a terrible thing to do , when people were young and vulnerable.


Couldn't agree more myself.
I started school around 4 years of age
Montessori at the convent of the sacred heart.
I just thank goodness that when I left my secondary school and the
safety and security provided by the priests that I didn't fall victim
to a cult myself.

Cults should be banned

But I got off the point there
Our children must be allowed to be educated in complete nonsense alongside
science for balance.
Then they can choose what they believe themselves instead of having
facts and suchlike forced down their throats.

But how many religions really say that? And, of those that do, how many of them actually believe it? I mean, the Catholic Church didn't officially accept heliocentrism until 1992, but that doesn't mean they didn't believe it to be the case; it was a clerical error more than anything.

LOL clerical error

that was a joke right?

or are you american?


Dawkins goes after religious people who support evolution because he is opposed to religion, not because of religion's flaws. He's not attacking extremism, he's attacking religion to try and evangelise people to his religion of atheism at the expense of everything else (and it is a religion in his case...it's the very basis of his worldview and he has unshakeable faith in its superiority over other beliefs).

Yeah he claims that religion de facto leads to fundamentalism and
repression of truth and diversity. All he has to go on is historical fact
but he doesn't understand that if its not in the bible
ITS NOT A FACT just an opinion, possibly scientific and therefore suspicious
if not a downright lie.



His entire argument against religious belief is a straw man, using the extremists to try and attack everyone else.


Agree entirely, lets call it worzel


It's not. That's why we no longer condone spousal abuse or slavery; religion has changed with the times just like any other idea. It is as mutable as any other idea or belief system, and has evolved to meet the needs of each society it is a part of.

Proof positive that religion is based on universal and god given truth
is its changeability and adaptive nature. Contradiction PROVES it is
sensible, mature & develops and fosters intelligence.

I though I had already made it clear that my being scared of what his words may lead to stems from my personal experiances with Atheist friends who now see me in a differant light, and not one of 'live and let live' as it has always been between us, but in a far more dangerous, religion must be abolished kind of way?

well, I may seem extremist to you, but I also think the world would be a lot better off without religion. that doesn't mean I would try to forbid religion (like that kind of thing worked anyway...), and it doesn't mean either that I hate believers. if all he does is argue against religion, how is that dangerous? (well, it might be dangerous for religions, but not for believers...)

Darwin invented evolution.

Yeah, and Newton invented gravity because it didnt excist before him.

'irreducible complexity' does not exist.
Just because some ill-educated bible thumper doesn't understand how something works/came to evolve doesn't make it irreducible - it just makes the person arguing 'irreducible complexity' ignorant of the facts.

Go to university, learn about biology and evolutionary theory - or just go to your local library and read a non-christian, scientifically based book about life, then come back and argue, if you still can.

Simply stamping your feet whilst yelling "creationism is true because I don't understand evolution and life without 'god' is too scary" just makes you look stupid. Sorry, but it is the truth. :)

Is there a single serious word anywhere in here?

'irreducible complexity' does not exist.
...
Simply stamping your feet whilst yelling "creationism is true because I don't understand evolution and life without 'god' is too scary" just makes you look stupid. Sorry, but it is the truth. :)


Yeah, sez you.

Shouting Irreducible Complexity is how we show that evolution is made up
by evolutionists who hate god.
Even so god loves them and will be sorry he has to send them to hell
to suffer eternal torments for defying his book.
We don't care if you think we look stupid just cos of being ignorant and
pig headed. The fact that you think evolutionism is real is only cos of
you being ignorant and pigheaded and because you hate God who loves you.
You didn't see him the last time you said that but he was really hurt.

AND WE JUST LAUGH OUT LOUD at you thinking its the ONLY thing that makes us look stupid too.


ps its been proven time and time again that the eye could not have evolved cos you cant have
half an eye. You only have to think about half an eye and you know the jelly would just fall out
yet you still get evolutionists trying to pretend it could have evolved wilfully disbelieving the proof
that god made everything just like it says in the good book.

What is irreducible complexity?

Seriously, I'm going to have to write a paper on the thermodynamics. This is probably because I am a chemist, and the bulk of my interest is in quantum theory and thermodynamics, but I don't understand irreducible complexity.

From a thermodynamic perspective, all complexity is reduced, as everything proceeds to its simplest state (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). As far as I know, the only exception to this is Loschmidt's Paradox, and thats dealing with an ideal gas in a state of non-equilibrium (essentially it cannot be created in the real world).

So, can someone explain irreducible complexity to me?

Evolution is wrong and makes everyone into Nazis.


Natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Darwin invented evolution. Because evolution is wrong intelligent design is correct. Scientists are called 'evolutionists' and they worship evolution because they are afraid of change, look how little science has changed in the last few years.


Irreducible complexity clearly refutes any arguments you may have.

You are perhaps one of the worst satirists I've ever met.

ps its been proven time and time again that the eye could not have evolved cos you cant have
have an eye. You only have to think about half an eye and you know the jelly would just fall out
yet you still get evolutionists trying to pretend it could have evolved wilfully disbelieving the proof
that god made everything just like it says in the good book.

What about single cellular organisms that respond to light? I'm sure photoresponsive bacteria are not impossible to find.

What is irreducible complexity?

Seriously, I'm going to have to write a paper on the thermodynamics. This is probably because I am a chemist, and the bulk of my interest is in quantum theory and thermodynamics, but I don't understand irreducible complexity.

From a thermodynamic perspective, all complexity is reduced, as everything proceeds to its simplest state (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). As far as I know, the only exception to this is Loschmidt's Paradox, and thats dealing with an ideal gas in a state of non-equilibrium (essentially it cannot be created in the real world).

So, can someone explain irreducible comoplexity to me?

Yup its when something is too comperlicated for people to understand
how it couldve evolved, like for example the ever popular eye.
You cannot have half an eye, it needs all its bits or it just wouldn't work
so it can't have evolved which means it had to be made
and zo zer u have irreducible complexitiness.

Other popular examples are or have been the bacterial flagellum.

The argument cannot be beaten cos even if you explained how it could happen
it would either be denied because some of the bits were never intended to be part of what they became
or we will pick something else you havent explained in detail and say that is proof

we is good at logic and argumenting.

bad satire

You are perhaps one of the worst satirists I've ever met.

You need to get out and meet more people

Yeah, sez you.

Shouting Irreducible Complexity is how we show that evolution is made up
by evolutionists who hate god.
Even so god loves them and will be sorry he has to send them to hell
to suffer eternal torments for defying his book.
We don't care if you think we look stupid just cos of being ignorant and
pig headed. The fact that you think evolutionism is real is only cos of
you being ignorant and pigheaded and because you hate God who loves you.
You didn't see him the last time you said that but he was really hurt.

AND WE JUST LAUGH OUT LOUD at you thinking its the ONLY thing that makes us look stupid too.

Of course, because Charles Darwin was not at all a very, very devout Christian, but a Godless communist Nazi atheist. (note: Darwin died before Nazism existed)

And it is not evolutionism; it is evolution. There is no "Theory of Evolutionism"

In addition, I do not hate God because it is quite very hard for me to hate an abstract concept that as far as I see, does not exist. But I'm not here to debate my beliefs.

ps its been proven time and time again that the eye could not have evolved cos you cant have
have an eye. You only have to think about half an eye and you know the jelly would just fall out
yet you still get evolutionists trying to pretend it could have evolved wilfully disbelieving the proof
that god made everything just like it says in the good book.

The first eye was completely and totally primitive, only consisting of several photoreceptor cells that could only detect "light" or "dark". Of course, this might be difficult for you to understand because you seem to only think of things in terms of how you live.

Sarcasm + internet = fail.

Seriously. Sarcasm only goes so far in person; bringing it to text just makes it vague without all the appropriate body language and inflection.

You need to get out and meet more people

I'm sorry; I didn't think this was serious after the first completely absurd sentence of the OP.

Of course, because Charles Darwin was not at all a very, very devout Christian, but a Godless communist Nazi atheist. (note: Darwin died before Nazism existed)


Well at least you're willing to admit that much


And it is not evolutionism; it is evolution. There is no "Theory of Evolutionism"


You know putting an ism on it demonstrates it is just a belief system
which is why you object so strongly.


In addition, I do not hate God because it is quite very hard for me to hate an abstract concept that as far as I see, does not exist. But I'm not here to debate my beliefs.


You don't hate god you just deny him - our point made


The first eye was completely and totally primitive, only consisting of several photoreceptor cells that could only detect "light" or "dark". Of course, this might be difficult for you to understand because you seem to only think of things in terms of how you live.
That was not a human eye, with iris and lens and jelly
You cannot get the human type eye to evolve because you simply cannot have exactly half of it and evolution is a step by step process
so what would you have us believe
light sensing
then jelly that magically stays in place
while a spherical container forms and magically a lens gets put in place

rrrrreallly credible

anyway evolution is supposed to take place over millions of years but man was made in one day, how does that fit with your science-ism.

I'm sorry; I didn't think this was serious after the first completely absurd sentence of the OP.

Why criticise him, he just drew together all the cogent positions of many threads that have gone before. I do not see how you can claim it was absurd.
Even if you don't believe them, you have to respect the beliefs of others.
As long as they are religious people, atheists you don't have to respect.

Yeah, sez you.


Alright, not sure if this is sarcasm, or not...


Shouting Irreducible Complexity is how we show that evolution is made up
by evolutionists who hate god.


Darwin based his theory on observations that he made, and on the observations of others. He didn't make up the concept of evolution, he simply gave an explanation as to how a certain phenomona occurs. Also, he was not somebody whom hated God. Infact, when he began his work on evolution, he was quite the Christian(And was even studying to be a priest at one point). Infact, there are many Christians whom believe in God and Evolution... but hey. I guess you are the Almighty's personal messenger on everything that is true, I suppose.


Even so god loves them and will be sorry he has to send them to hell
to suffer eternal torments for defying his book.


You defy his book everytime you call the savior "Jesus". That was not his name. But heh, whatever.

As an aside, the "Young Earth" idea is not very well grounded, even in biblical terms, due to the mistranslation and misunderstanding of the original context that was used when referring to the Earth being created in 6 days(The First Day, Second day, etc which refer to specific 24 hour days), and 6 periods(Day One, Day Two, etc, which are indefinate periods of time, and do not refer to 24 periods). But hey, who am I to tell you what the original texts say. You go for the mistranslated, probably King James Version, bible.


We don't care if you think we look stupid just cos of being ignorant and
pig headed. The fact that you think evolutionism is real is only cos of
you being ignorant and pigheaded and because you hate God who loves you.
You didn't see him the last time you said that but he was really hurt.


Oy, the illiteracy. Anywho, the reason why evolution is used is because it has a great deal of scientific evidence supporting it, and that it is what appears to be happening. And, like I said, there are a great many Christians whom believe in evolution.


ps its been proven time and time again that the eye could not have evolved cos you cant have
half an eye. You only have to think about half an eye and you know the jelly would just fall out


Wow. That is so utterly stupid, I cannot believe it. That is not how it works. For instance, there are FAR simpler eyes than the human eye. Infact, if you believe that is how evolution states how the eye evolved, there is no debating with you. You have no idea the concept of evolution, whatsover. If you have no knowledge, you cannot be debated through your ignorance.


yet you still get evolutionists trying to pretend it could have evolved wilfully disbelieving the proof
that god made everything just like it says in the good book.

What proof? And evolution doesn't state anything like that. Evolution only states how life changed after it began, not how it began or how it was created.

Oy, this was painful to read through the ignorance and stupidity.

Why criticise him, he just drew together all the cogent positions of many threads that have gone before. I do not see how you can claim it was absurd.
Even if you don't believe them, you have to respect the beliefs of others.
As long as they are religious people, atheists you don't have to respect.

Claiming that believing in evolution makes you a Nazi is quite very absurd, mind you.

Darwin based his theory on observations that he made, and on the observations of others. He didn't make up the concept of evolution, he simply gave an explanation as to how a certain phenomona occurs. Also, he was not somebody whom hated God. Infact, when he began his work on evolution, he was quite the Christian(And was even studying to be a priest at one point). Infact, there are many Christians whom believe in God and Evolution... but hey. I guess you are the Almighty's personal messenger on everything that is true, I suppose.

There are murderers who not only studied to be a priest but in some cases
actually were priests or ministers, just because you hold the position
or thought about maybe holding the position doesn't make you a decent christian.
There are also people who call themselves Christian who think its okay
to be lie with other men or think its okay not to be born again or think its okay to not support their country in war.


You defy his book everytime you call the savior "Jesus". That was not his name. But heh, whatever.
Blasphemy pure and simple


As an aside, the "Young Earth" idea is not very well grounded, even in biblical terms, due to the mistranslation and misunderstanding of the original context that was used when referring to the Earth being created in 6 days(The First Day, Second day, etc which refer to specific 24 hour days), and 6 periods(Day One, Day Two, etc, which are indefinate periods of time, and do not refer to 24 periods). But hey, who am I to tell you what the original texts say. You go for the mistranslated, probably King James Version, bible.

Yeah because people really misunderstand the concept of a day
they mistake it for that other "day" that means several million years.
DUrrr


Oy, the illiteracy. Anywho, the reason why evolution is used is because it has a great deal of scientific evidence supporting it, and that it is what appears to be happening. And, like I said, there are a great many Christians whom believe in evolution.


Lots of things appear to be happening, if you take drugs even more things
appear to be happening. In the Bible we have the pure unadulterated
TRUTH which tells us not only what is happening but what happened and what is going to happen.


Wow. That is so utterly stupid, I cannot believe it. That is not how it works. For instance, there are FAR simpler eyes than the human eye. Infact, if you believe that is how evolution states how the eye evolved, there is no debating with you. You have no idea the concept of evolution, whatsover. If you have no knowledge, you cannot be debated through your ignorance.


There are far simpler eyes but there is no eye thats about to become the complex eye that humans and some animals have. Because it cannot exist
except fully formed. If you can prove, not guess at but PROVE that the
eye can evolve I will move onto something else you haven't proved yet.


What proof? And evolution doesn't state anything like that. Evolution only states how life changed after it began, not how it began or how it was created.


So evolutionism pretends to answer only some of the questions
The Bible ACTUALLY answers all of the questions, it doesn't just say well
this bit we can't even pretend to have an answer for.
The Bible tells us where the universe came from and who created it and why
it tells us how we were made and why
it tells us what will happen to us and why

If science expects to be taken seriously it will have to answer those questions
and if its answers don't match the bible then they'll be the wrong answers.


Oy, this was painful to read through the ignorance and stupidity.

Get an education, go to a religious college, go to church and then you wont have to read through ignorance and stupidity because you will be part of it.

That was not a human eye, with iris and lens and jelly
You cannot get the human type eye to evolve because you simply cannot have exactly half of it and evolution is a step by step process


Of course, that's not how it works. The eye would evolve in stages, piece by piece. First to evolve would be the "necessary" parts, the membrane and the general makeup(The "jelly" as you put it). Next would be slightly more complex version of photoreceptors. Later on, the lense(Not all eyes have lenses). So forth and so on. You seem to be under the impression that under evolution, the pieces magically appear from nowhere. Instead, it is a gradual process of genetic variation causing certain traits to become more predominant.


so what would you have us believe
light sensing
then jelly that magically stays in place
while a spherical container forms and magically a lens gets put in place
rrrrreallly credible


That's an idiotic way of putting, really. It is. It is the most ignorant way of phrasing evolution.

Alright, let's break this down(We don't know exactly how the eye evolved, but we have a general idea):

The first "eyes" were simply a cell cluster that were light sensitive. Those individuals with a membrane over these cells would have an advantage, as the membrane would protect the cells. Those with photoreceptors that could differentiate between different light waves(Color) had an advantage, and this became more predominant. Those whose membrane were more lense-like had an advantage, as it is what makes objects more distinguishable. Those whose membranes were thicker, and had a more jelly-ish substance in it, had an advantage as it allowed objects to become more in focus, and more easily distinguishable.

This is a basic model of how an eye could have evolved.


anyway evolution is supposed to take place over millions of years but man was made in one day, how does that fit with your science-ism.

Simple. The original Genesis text is taken out of context through mistranslation. In Hebrew, the term for "The First Day"(24 hour period, definate period of time) is "Hayyom harison". However, this is not the term used. Instead, the original text uses "yom ehad", which in turn means "Day One". In English, these terms are indistinguishable, however in Hebrew, they mean two different concepts. "The First Day" refers to "The first 24 hour period", however "Day One" refers to an indefinate time period. Had the original writers been referring to the celestial 24 hour period, "hayyom harison" would have been used, however this is not the case as "yom ehad" is used, which infact is not a definate period of time.

So, thus, man was not created in one day, not even in the Genesis texts. It was a mistranslation into latin, and then later languages, that is what makes the bible appear to say such.

I love me.

Claiming that believing in evolution makes you a Nazi is quite very absurd, mind you.

Eugenics

There are murderers who not only studied to be a priest but in some cases
actually were priests or ministers, just because you hold the position
or thought about maybe holding the position doesn't make you a decent christian.
There are also people who call themselves Christian who think its okay
to be lie with other men or think its okay not to be born again or think its okay to not support their country in war.


Ah. So only your idea of what a true Christian is is the truth. Alright. Gotchya.


Blasphemy pure and simple


Not at all. His real name was either Yeshua, Yahushua(Hebrew for "God is Salvation", roughly), or Eesho'(In Aramaic). Note that in Hebrew, the "j" sound does not exist. When transcribed into Greek, there were a few problems. The transcribers had to make a choice: Either translate the name phoenetically, or translate the name according to meaning. They chose Phoenetics over meaning. Also, other problems ensued: The two language were very different, and some othe Semetic letters didn't have a corresponding Greek letter, or letter that sounded the same. Another problem is that in Greek, masculine names end in "s". Thus, it was tranlated into Greek as "Iesous", which is similar to the original. However, transcibing into latin later proved even more problematic. When translated, it turned into "Iesus". "I" when used in such a way has the "Y" sound. Note that at this time, the letter "J" was not in any alphabet. Only MUCH later on, around the middle ages, did the letter "J" become used, and due to a mistranslation of the "I" in "Iesus", "Jesus" came about.




Yeah because people really misunderstand the concept of a day
they mistake it for that other "day" that means several million years.
DUrrr


No, because in "Hebrew", the term "yom ehad" refers to an INDEFINATE period of time. Not a definate period. It can mean any number of things, and it widely open to interpretation. It does not, however, refer to 24 hours, in any way, shape, or form.


Lots of things appear to be happening, if you take drugs even more things
appear to be happening. In the Bible we have the pure unadulterated
TRUTH which tells us not only what is happening but what happened and what is going to happen.


Unfortunately, most translated bibles are not unadulterated. They are riddled with mistranslation(Yeshua, the whole "inn" thing, and many more), as well as omitions of many original texts(King James), and so forth and so on.

Also, remember, that Religion is used to explain how certain phenomona appears to happen. So really, any attack on science saying that what appears to be happening is false is also an attack on Religion itself.


There are far simpler eyes but there is no eye thats about to become the complex eye that humans and some animals have. Because it cannot exist
except fully formed. If you can prove, not guess at but PROVE that the
eye can evolve I will move onto something else you haven't proved yet.


But it can exist not fully formed. It's a gradual process where certain traits become more predominant. I explained this earlier.

Also, Evolution does not prove anything. It mearly tries to explain how things seems to be happening.

Lots of things appear to be happening, if you take drugs even more things
appear to be happening. In the Bible we have the pure unadulterated
TRUTH which tells us not only what is happening but what happened and what is going to happen.Pity that the "when" is a bit off.
There are far simpler eyes but there is no eye thats about to become the complex eye that humans and some animals have. Because it cannot exist
except fully formed. If you can prove, not guess at but PROVE that the
eye can evolve I will move onto something else you haven't proved yet.Can you prove that it cannot?
So evolutionism pretends to answer only some of the questions"Evolutionism" is a creation of creationists. It does not exist in real life, only in some people's imaginations.
The Bible ACTUALLY answers all of the questions, it doesn't just say well
this bit we can't even pretend to have an answer for.Such as abortion. Clear cut answers there. (jk)
It does tell you the appropriate times for stoning members of your family.
The Bible tells us where the universe came from and who created it and why
it tells us how we were made and why
it tells us what will happen to us and whySo do a lot of other myths.
If science expects to be taken seriously it will have to answer those questions
and if its answers don't match the bible then they'll be the wrong answers.Why?

Eugenics

So believing in Christ makes you a crusader?

Believing in electricity means you are for the death penalty(Electric Chair)?

Believing in the words of Muhammad makes you a terrorist?

I believe in evolution, and I adhore Eugenics. Seems you fail at practical reasoning.

This is still a Joke thread right. A whole bunch of roleplaying atheists pretending to argue with themselves ....... Or did I miss something?

Ah. So only your idea of what a true Christian is is the truth. Alright. Gotchya.

Being a christian isn't something you pick and choose from.
Its all laid out and you follow it or you aint no christian.



Not at all. His real name was either Yeshua, Yahushua(Hebrew for "God is Salvation", roughly), or Eesho'(In Aramaic). Note that in Hebrew, the "j" sound does not exist. When transcribed into Greek, there were a few problems. The transcribers had to make a choice: Either translate the name phoenetically, or translate the name according to meaning. They chose Phoenetics over meaning. Also, other problems ensued: The two language were very different, and some othe Semetic letters didn't have a corresponding Greek letter, or letter that sounded the same. Another problem is that in Greek, masculine names end in "s". Thus, it was tranlated into Greek as "Iesous", which is similar to the original. However, transcibing into latin later proved even more problematic. When translated, it turned into "Iesus". "I" when used in such a way has the "Y" sound. Note that at this time, the letter "J" was not in any alphabet. Only MUCH later on, around the middle ages, did the letter "J" become used, and due to a mistranslation of the "I" in "Iesus", "Jesus" came about.

John Ivan Sean

All variations on the same name, all true names

We don't speak Aramaic, Hebrew, Ancient Greek or Latin

IN the language we speak his name is what it is and begins with a J


No, because in "Hebrew", the term "yom ehad" refers to an INDEFINATE period of time. Not a definate period. It can mean any number of things, and it widely open to interpretation. It does not, however, refer to 24 hours, in any way, shape, or form.

In English it does, God allowed the Bible and its truth to be translated
to its present form. If it were untrue God would let us know.
It is therefore true and gods word as it is in English.


Unfortunately, most translated bibles are not unadulterated. They are riddled with mistranslation(Yeshua, the whole "inn" thing, and many more), as well as omitions of many original texts(King James), and so forth and so on.


The Bible is what God wishes it to be.
Sounds like you want all of us to be pre christian jews.
Christ did not die on the cross so we could speak Aramaic and lend money in temples.

It ain't going to happen Christianity won that particular battle as it will win all others.


Also, remember, that Religion is used to explain how certain phenomona appears to happen. So really, any attack on science saying that what appears to be happening is false is also an attack on Religion itself.

Religion is not USED to explain how things APPEAR to happen.
At times it appears contradictoryto how things APPEAR to happen because it
is the TRUTH. Stick to that and you stop worrying about how things
APPEAR to happen because you know that even if you don't understand
what is happening you also know that GOD knows exactly how it happens
and what he considers suitable to tell us is what we should know.

...
I believe in evolution, and I adhore Eugenics. Seems you fail at practical reasoning.

Would that be what you science lovers call a freudian slip.

Accidentally missed this.


So evolutionism pretends to answer only some of the questions


No, it only tries to explain that which is pertinent to it. A given phenomena occurs, we study it, we come up with a possible explanation. We test this explanation, and if it does not prove false, it is considered a possible answer. Evolution is only an explanation of a phenomena, that is all.


The Bible ACTUALLY answers all of the questions, it doesn't just say well
this bit we can't even pretend to have an answer for.
[quote]

However, the bible is open to interpretation. You may say not, however, you must remember you have your own translation and interpretation. You may not view it as so, but you have interpreted in your own way.

[quote]
The Bible tells us where the universe came from and who created it and why
it tells us how we were made and why
it tells us what will happen to us and why


No it does not tell us how were were created. It is entirely open to interpretation.


If science expects to be taken seriously it will have to answer those questions
and if its answers don't match the bible then they'll be the wrong answers.


Ah. So anything that disagrees with you is wrong. Remember, up until fairly recently, the earth was considered flat, the sun and planets revolved around the earth, and so forth. Of course, this is false, due largely to a single interpretation of the bible.

Such is the idiocy of people like you: You don't like listening anything you disagree with. I don't mind if you don't believe in evolution, just don't make your goddamn idiotic statements about how you have "Disproven" evolution with idiotic statement which have been shown time and time again to be falacious.


Get an education, go to a religious college, go to church and then you wont have to read through ignorance and stupidity because you will be part of it.

Heh, that is a funny way of putting. You have just stated that religion is ignorant and stupid.

This leads me to believe you are a troll, whom doesn't truly believe what you say.

So believing in Christ makes you a crusader?

For God and truth

Believing in electricity means you are for the death penalty(Electric Chair)?
Electricity is a thing, a creation of god that can be used or misused.
Bringing an end to murderers is one of the things it is used for.


Believing in the words of Muhammad makes you a terrorist?
Seems that way


I believe in evolution, and I adhore Eugenics. Seems you fail at practical reasoning.

You showed your true feelings here

You showed your true feelings hereThank goodness that the bible teaches you to judge other people so that God doesn't have to.

Being a christian isn't something you pick and choose from.
Its all laid out and you follow it or you aint no christian.



Sure it is. You can choose to be Christian or not.


John Ivan Sean

All variations on the same name, all true names

We don't speak Aramaic, Hebrew, Ancient Greek or Latin

IN the language we speak his name is what it is and begins with a J


It's still not his true name, just as "Sean" and "John" are two different names. "Jesus" is a transcription of "Yeshua", but the two are not one in the same.


In English it does, God allowed the Bible and its truth to be translated
to its present form. If it were untrue God would let us know.
It is therefore true and gods word as it is in English.


Er... I'm not even going to touch this, as you have no comprehension of language translations, the differences in meaning in languages, and the problems when transcribing one langauge into another. Let's look at this:

God created the bible as the truth, and guided the hands of the writers.

Had God meant to have "24 hours", "hayyom harison" would have been used, ORIGINALLY. To say that the original text was false would mean that God made a mistake, that he later corrected. If he made a mistake, he is not omnipotent.

Also, you may say that the first writers were wrong, and misunderstood God. However, how is it possible to know whom is right and whom is wrong? It is not.


The Bible is what God wishes it to be.


And how does one know that man has not corrupted it?


Sounds like you want all of us to be pre christian jews.
Christ did not die on the cross so we could speak Aramaic and lend money in temples.


First off, I'm agnostic.
Second off, I grew up Catholic.
Third off, I prefer people to understand how their religion came about than to spew off dogmatic bull.
Fourth-Christ probably spoke Aramaic(Among other languages, however Aramaic was likely his original tongue).



It ain't going to happen Christianity won that particular battle as it will win all others.


What battle are you talking about?



Religion is not USED to explain how things APPEAR to happen.
At times it appears contradictoryto how things APPEAR to happen because it
is the TRUTH. Stick to that and you stop worrying about how things
APPEAR to happen because you know that even if you don't understand
what is happening you also know that GOD knows exactly how it happens
and what he considers suitable to tell us is what we should know.

All religions are used to explain how the world works. These are based on observations which currently have no empirical explanation. Really, take a world Religions class. Either you will storm out the first day, or will be left wide-eyed.

Why?

Because the bible is gods truth.

If science contradicts the bible then it will by definition be wrong.


Look how many things science has said are this way only to find theyre
that way and then another way.

Scientists are groping in the dark and feeling bits of an elephant

The Bible tells us everything we need to know about the elephant
but scientism tells us elephants are like trees or like big bones or whatever
bit of the elephant their touching at the time.

It misleads people and prevents them from coming to Gods truth which is eternal.

Electricity is a thing, a creation of god that can be used or misused.
Bringing an end to murderers is one of the things it is used for.


Micheal Faraday created electricity. Not 'god'.

Because the bible is gods truth.Why?

Until you can answer that question, all of this is irrelevant because it has no basis:
If science contradicts the bible then it will by definition be wrong.


Look how many things science has said are this way only to find theyre
that way and then another way.

Scientists are groping in the dark and feeling bits of an elephant

The Bible tells us everything we need to know about the elephant
but scientism tells us elephants are like trees or like big bones or whatever
bit of the elephant their touching at the time.

It misleads people and prevents them from coming to Gods truth which is eternal.

For God and truth


Alright crusader. Whatever ya say.


Electricity is a thing, a creation of god that can be used or misused.
Bringing an end to murderers is one of the things it is used for.


The idea of Electricity is used to kill people. Just as the idea of Evolution can be used to kill people. To beleive that Eugenics is to Evolution is to believe that the Electric Chair is to Electricity.


Seems that way


Only a very small minority(Infact a smaller minority than Christians involved in the Crusades) are terrorists. Most Muslims I have met, and most muslims in the world, deplore terrorists, and condemn them.


You showed your true feelings here

Sorry, as I thought "adhore" was a word(. Not sure where that idea came from. Deplore is what I should have used.

Sure it is. You can choose to be Christian or not.
Which is what I said, what you cannot do is say you are christian but not
do the bits you dont want to.
Then you are not a christian and will probably go to hell.



It's still not his true name, just as "Sean" and "John" are two different names. "Jesus" is a transcription of "Yeshua", but the two are not one in the same.

The Bible says it is


Er... I'm not even going to touch this, as you have no comprehension of language translations, the differences in meaning in languages, and the problems when transcribing one langauge into another. Let's look at this:

God created the bible as the truth, and guided the hands of the writers.

Had God meant to have "24 hours", "hayyom harison" would have been used, ORIGINALLY. To say that the original text was false would mean that God made a mistake, that he later corrected. If he made a mistake, he is not omnipotent.

Also, you may say that the first writers were wrong, and misunderstood God. However, how is it possible to know whom is right and whom is wrong? It is not.


So you think that things evolved over time to become completely different
from how they started out and think thats fine.

God is outside time, he knows exactly what translations would happen
and if he wanted them to happen differently they would have happened differently.
So God knew that here and now the Bible would be as it is and he was happy to leave it that way. Who are you to question that?


And how does one know that man has not corrupted it?

God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent

You think somebody corrupted it while he wasn't looking perhaps?


First off, I'm agnostic.
Second off, I grew up Catholic.
Third off, I prefer people to understand how their religion came about than to spew off dogmatic bull.
Fourth-Christ probably spoke Aramaic(Among other languages, however Aramaic was likely his original tongue).


He spoke whatever he had to speak to be understood, just as the bible
has the words that are needed for people to understand.



What battle are you talking about?


Good and Evil
Right and Wrong



All religions are used to explain how the world works. These are based on observations which currently have no empirical explanation. Really, take a world Religions class. Either you will storm out the first day, or will be left wide-eyed.

Forshadowings or pale imitations of the one true religion.

Micheal Faraday created electricity. Not 'god'.

Well, technically electricity existed before he discovered it. ;)

Alright crusader. Whatever ya say.
Glad you're seeing sense



The idea of Electricity is used to kill people. Just as the idea of Evolution can be used to kill people. To beleive that Eugenics is to Evolution is to believe that the Electric Chair is to Electricity.


I don't think people would mind an idea of electricity in the idea of an electric chair.

It's not the idea that kills anyone its the actual electricity in the actual chair


Only a very small minority(Infact a smaller minority than Christians involved in the Crusades) are terrorists. Most Muslims I have met, and most muslims in the world, deplore terrorists, and condemn them.

Lot of problems defining terrorism


Sorry, as I thought "adhore" was a word(. Not sure where that idea came from. Deplore is what should be used.
abhor maybe

Micheal Faraday created electricity. Not 'god'.

Actually, technically speaking, electricity has always existed. Human knowledge of it hasn't, and the ability to control it hasn't, however it has always existed.

Micheal Faraday created electricity. Not 'god'.

What a world without lightning must have been like before Faraday invented it

Why?

Until you can answer that question, all of this is irrelevant because it has no basis:

And your question is why does the Bible hold Gods truth.

Because its not the yellow pages or the latest stephen king novel

To hold Gods truth is the reason it exists.

And your question is why does the Bible hold Gods truth.

Because its not the yellow pages or the latest stephen king novel

To hold Gods truth is the reason it exists.Then I am truly sorry. I hope you aren't going to hell. :(

Well, technically electricity existed before he discovered it. ;)

Ish. Constant electric current of the type that faraday's discoveries led too doesn't really occur naturally. It's very much an artifact of technology needing a battery or generator and a conductor to flow through. (Though, admittedly, the greeks seemed to have known something about it because there is that ancient battery thingamyjig).

It would be like saying that whittle discovered the jet engine.

What a world without lightning must have been like before Faraday invented it

That's electrostatics. It's different.

Ish. Constant electric current of the type that faraday's discoveries led too doesn't really occur naturally. It's very much an artifact of technology needing a battery or generator and a conductor to flow through. (Though, admittedly, the greeks seemed to have known something about it because there is that ancient battery thingamyjig).

The Baghdad battery, to be precise. Very interesting. Probably didn't produce much voltage, but it was quite astounding. The technology of the ancient people was absolutely brilliant, and with more discoveries, it only becomes more amazing how technologically advanced they were. But that's another point for another time.

What about those potato batteries. WITH LEMONS!

What is irreducible complexity?

Seriously, I'm going to have to write a paper on the thermodynamics. This is probably because I am a chemist, and the bulk of my interest is in quantum theory and thermodynamics, but I don't understand irreducible complexity.

From a thermodynamic perspective, all complexity is reduced, as everything proceeds to its simplest state (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). As far as I know, the only exception to this is Loschmidt's Paradox, and thats dealing with an ideal gas in a state of non-equilibrium (essentially it cannot be created in the real world).

So, can someone explain irreducible complexity to me?

Actually the more modern term is 'irreducible stupidity'. This is a state where everything is just too hard to understand and so we decide to give up thinking.

Rockin'.

Ish. Constant electric current of the type that faraday's discoveries led too doesn't really occur naturally. It's very much an artifact of technology needing a battery or generator and a conductor to flow through. (Though, admittedly, the greeks seemed to have known something about it because there is that ancient battery thingamyjig).

It would be like saying that whittle discovered the jet engine.

Oh, okay. That makes sense. (although it's possible that there might be a similar current in nature somewhere...who knows?). However, wasn't there a battery developed in ancient Babylon or somewhere like that? Now that was an impressive accomplishment.

Oh, okay. That makes sense. (although it's possible that there might be a similar current in nature somewhere...who knows?). However, wasn't there a battery developed in ancient Babylon or somewhere like that? Now that was an impressive accomplishment.

Unfortunately, it would seem that the battery was being used for some idiotic homeopathic remedy and not for turning motors or anything.

Actually there is electricity involved in the process which causes rust.

Unfortunately, it would seem that the battery was being used for some idiotic homeopathic remedy and not for turning motors or anything.

Well, considering how low of a current they produced, they really weren't exactly capable of much of anything useful.

Unfortunately, it would seem that the battery was being used for some idiotic homeopathic remedy and not for turning motors or anything.

Oh, nice job guys. Not like that would've had some kind of use...

Unfortunately, it would seem that the battery was being used for some idiotic homeopathic remedy and not for turning motors or anything.

Well, if it worked, was it necessarily idiotic?

The Baghdad Battery could have also been used in some type of religious ceremony as well (OK, I'm using MythBusters as a source...is that allowed? :) )

Actually there is electricity involved in the process which causes rust.

That's electrochemistry really.

That's electrochemisty really.

The same thing happens inside a battery

Oh, nice job guys. Not like that would've had some kind of use...

My sense is that the ancient greeks knew a lot more about physics than they are normally given credit for (Hero's steam powered toy for example) but they lacked the precision manufacturing ability to turn them into useful things like practical steam engines and such. That had to wait for western europe 2,000 years later.

The same thing happens inside a battery

The flow of current in a cell can be generated by the same thing. But rusting can happen without any current flow too.

My sense is that the ancient greeks knew a lot more about physics than they are normally given credit for (Hero's steam powered toy for example) but they lacked the precision manufacturing ability to turn them into useful things like practical steam engines and such. That had to wait for western europe 2,000 years later.

If only they could've linked up with the Chinese...I mean, the Han and later dynasties had some pretty damn advanced precision manufacturing by the 1st century AD that might have been capable of making those ideas a reality and thereby changing the world.

Well at least you're willing to admit that much



You know putting an ism on it demonstrates it is just a belief system
which is why you object so strongly.



You don't hate god you just deny him - our point made


That was not a human eye, with iris and lens and jelly
You cannot get the human type eye to evolve because you simply cannot have exactly half of it and evolution is a step by step process
so what would you have us believe
light sensing
then jelly that magically stays in place
while a spherical container forms and magically a lens gets put in place

rrrrreallly credible

anyway evolution is supposed to take place over millions of years but man was made in one day, how does that fit with your science-ism.

please tell me you're being satirical...

Because the bible is gods truth.

If science contradicts the bible then it will by definition be wrong.


Look how many things science has said are this way only to find theyre
that way and then another way.

Scientists are groping in the dark and feeling bits of an elephant

The Bible tells us everything we need to know about the elephant
but scientism tells us elephants are like trees or like big bones or whatever
bit of the elephant their touching at the time.

It misleads people and prevents them from coming to Gods truth which is eternal.

boy, your life must be really simple...

for that elephant thing, you're right, it's actually pretty much the way science works, with the aim of describing the whole elephant.

religion tells us everything about the elephant, except that it tells you it's a dragon.

ook how little science has changed in the last few years.


Look how little religion has changed in the past.....ummm...few hundred years?

It's still as primitive as ever.

If only they could've linked up with the Chinese...I mean, the Han and later dynasties had some pretty damn advanced precision manufacturing by the 1st century AD that might have been capable of making those ideas a reality and thereby changing the world.
What, and get a head start on screwing up the world?

_____________________________________________

As for the human eye, it's not nearly as impossible as people seem to think.

Start of with an area of light-sensitive cells on the surface of an organism, which would help to distinguish day from night and up from down. From there, you might get a covering to protect the cells, even a convex lump of clear material to focus and concentrate the light. You get the picture.

Nobody's saying that one day a plasmodial slime mold woke up and had a fully formed human eyeball on it.

One more straw man to feed the fire.

And your question is why does the Bible hold Gods truth.

Because its not the yellow pages or the latest stephen king novel

To hold Gods truth is the reason it exists.

Y'know, the first time you tried putting this on it was funny and I really did think you were just trying to be funny rather then intentionally fooling people, this time however I'm not so sure.

Or maybe you've spouted that twisted logic for so long that you absorbed some of it and actually started to beleive it! Quick, you've got to stop before its too late!