NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php

Darwin's claims were of course based on no scientific evidence or findings. But since the scientific understanding and technological means available at the time were at a fairly primitive level, the full extent of the ridiculous and unrealistic nature of his assertions did not emerge fully into the light of day. In such a climate, Darwin's scenarios received general acceptance from a wide number of circles.

Just to prove I am equal opportunities basher of people who attack science. It is as hilarious as other creationist efforts. Seems at one point it was using fishing lures rather than insects to make some rather dubious claims
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/permalink/the_fishing_lures_of_faith/

I've been saying this for a long time now, but it's only a matter of time before the conservative Christian Right and Muslims realize they have more in common than they thought, and that's when they will double-team against liberals.

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php



Just to prove I am equal opportunities basher of people who attack science. It is as hilarious as other creationist efforts. Seems at one point it was using fishing lures rather than insects to make some rather dubious claims
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/permalink/the_fishing_lures_of_faith/

I think we can sum this up as "religious fundamentalism vs. science" and agree it's neither more nor less stupid than Christians getting bent out of shape over evolution.

I think we can sum this up as "religious fundamentalism vs. science" and agree it's neither more nor less stupid than Christians getting bent out of shape over evolution.

Indeed, and should be an equal opportunity for piss-taking and hilarity.

However, I think it is important to disabuse people of the notion that only Christianity has it's problem with creationists. I remeber hearing a researcher talking at a conference about doing genetic research with native americans and how she was quite suprised to find when she first approached them that the tribes (or at least the tribal leaders she talked to, but these were apparently quite representative) did not, in any way, accept evolution.

I think we can sum this up as "religious fundamentalism vs. science" and agree it's neither more nor less stupid than Christians getting bent out of shape over evolution.

Hell yes, I would also extend it to anti-evolution atheists - though as yet none have stuck their heads above the parapet.

Yep, this is retarded.

You don't need a beard to be a dumbass...

What luck I have to live in a country in wich Creationism is not even questionned...

Hell yes, I would also extend it to anti-evolution atheists - though as yet none have stuck their heads above the parapet.

I've seen a couple.

What luck I have to live in a country in wich Creationism is not even questionned...

By that I hope you mean it's rightly laughed at and ridiculed. Because, that sentence could be taken to mean it has gained universal acceptance and that would make me sad for France (I'm guessing by your location descriptor).

Stupidity truly knows no boundaries, religious or otherwise.

Islam (or christianity or judaism or pretty much any religion) complaining that evolution has flaws is like saddam complaining that the 2000 US election had some flaws.

Well, they have a point about Darwin living in a relatively technologically primitive time, but fortunately for us all, science has made significant progress since Darwin's time. On the topic of evolution, we've found a little something called DNA. Pretty cool stuff.

*sigh*

I thought Allah disliked liars ?

Why do so many believers find it necessary to lie, turn, twist and distort things ? Would it not be better to spend some time exploring ones own beliefs, the evidence for it, and building a solid case as to why one is right instead of just making an ass of oneself attacking others ?

Hell yes, I would also extend it to anti-evolution atheists - though as yet none have stuck their heads above the parapet.Hans-Joachim Zillmer might fall into this category.

I've no idea if (Or how many of) his books have been translated into English, but they're worth a read - if you're cynical enough to laugh, rather than despairing upon reading the condensed idiocy inside them. Since they make Erich von Däniken's works look perfectly well-researched, sound and sensible, this may be difficult, though.

Wait, you mean Erich von Däniken's works were not well researched? :eek:

By that I hope you mean it's rightly laughed at and ridiculed. Because, that sentence could be taken to mean it has gained universal acceptance and that would make me sad for France (I'm guessing by your location descriptor).

Indeed, my sentence was not very clear ^^

What I mean is that in my country, we don't even speak of Creationism, here, near half the population officialy state they are atheist or agnostic, so this is not so much a surprise.

Evolution is taught since primary school, also into the religious private schools ( they have not the choice )

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar is his real name) is not even funny. IIRC, he plagiarizes from Christian arguments against evolution.

Wait, you mean Erich von Däniken's works were not well researched? :eek:Absolutely not! Never would I dare to question the wisdom of a man who spent the better part of his life sucking money out of simpleton- erm, providing alternative and highly useful insights in the realm of archeology, enabling us to escape the clutches of so-called specialists ignorant to every new concept that could revolutionise our view of history and reality as we know it!

I have nothing but respect and indeed, love, for this man.

Absolutely not! Never would I dare to question the wisdom of a man who spent the better part of his life sucking money out of simpleton- erm, providing alternative and highly useful insights in the realm of archeology, enabling us to escape the clutches of so-called specialists ignorant to every new concept that could revolutionise our view of history and reality as we know it!

I have nothing but respect and indeed, love, for this man.Well played. :hail:

I've been saying this for a long time now, but it's only a matter of time before the conservative Christian Right and Muslims realize they have more in common than they thought, and that's when they will double-team against liberals.

But as it stands right now the leftists and Muslims have realized they are allies in the fight against all things American and Israeli. But yes, sooner or later liberals are going to realize that Muslims are not the freedom lovers they portray them as.

But as it stands right now the leftists and Muslims have realized they are allies in the fight against all things American and Israeli. But yes, sooner or later liberals are going to realize that Muslims are not the freedom lovers they portray them as.

I like the way you do the old "hivemind" routine.

Now all we need to do is set the two Creationist Factions against each other and all obstacles to the mighty Liberal Empire will have been removed...

Not only indoctrinated, but wrong as well. Darwin had to fight hard for his theory to be accepted. Below is the well known cartoon that published in the press as a mockery of Darwin.

http://www.jewcy.com/files/images/Darwin_monkey_cartoon.mid-size.jpg

Not only indoctrinated, but wrong as well. Darwin had to fight hard for his theory to be accepted.

Oh shush. According to this piece of holy scripture *holds up old looking parchment*, everybody immediately believed Darwin. Therefor your facts must be wrong - and if you dare say my religious text is wrong I will sue you for discrimination and hatespeech.

Or to rephrase: SILENCE ! I KILL YOU !

Damn. People in power who wouldn't dream of caving to demands from Christian evangelicals will probably fall over themselves in their rush to capitulate when a radical Muslim makes the demand. Look at how quick ever one was to appease rioters by pulling those cartoons a few years back. While the Christian right may wield more power, Muslim fanatics inspire greater fear in our current society. Expect a lot of pandering and abolition of factual education if radical Islam becomes more vocal in its oppossision to evolution.

Damn. People in power who wouldn't dream of caving to demands from Christian evangelicals will probably fall over themselves in their rush to capitulate when a radical Muslim makes the demand. Look at how quick ever one was to appease rioters by pulling those cartoons a few years back. While the Christian right may wield more power, Muslim fanatics inspire greater fear in our current society. Expect a lot of pandering and abolition of factual education if radical Islam becomes more vocal in its oppossision to evolution.

YUS! Two pages until a persecution complex reared its head!

Indeed, and should be an equal opportunity for piss-taking and hilarity.

*Note to self, keep an eye out for posts by Eofaerwic, when he reveals something he believes in which may or may not be based on any sort of religion or religious teachings and if it disagrees with mine pay the fuck out of him.*

But before you say anything Eofaerwic, I am not one of those young earth creationists and I do believe that Charles Darwin was/is on the right track.

YUS! Two pages until a persecution complex reared its head!

Sounds more like a rant about how the terrorists have won, rather than a persecution complex but hey whatever keeps you happy.

Oh shush. According to this piece of holy scripture *holds up old looking parchment*, everybody immediately believed Darwin. Therefor your facts must be wrong - and if you dare say my religious text is wrong I will sue you for discrimination and hatespeech.

Or to rephrase: SILENCE ! I KILL YOU !

Heh. Sadly it's not just backwoods places either. I can remember as a child (and I'm talking 7-9, so less than 20 years ago) being harassed by classmates because I believed in evolution. And this was in the Bay Area, at a good school, in the early 90's. "So you think you came from a monkey?" kids would say and laugh, to which I'd say "So you think a big guy in the clouds drew in the dirt and made you?"

Reason #3945 why I was not popular. -_-

I can also remember going to summer Sunday school (I did it because my friend did, I wasn't raised with religion) and arguing with the pastor about dinosaur fossils and carbon dating until he told me to shut up.

But before you say anything Eofaerwic, I am not one of those young earth creationists and I do believe that Charles Darwin was/is on the right track.

May I politely inquire as to your beliefs about the origins of life, if they are not strictly scientific?

Holy shit, this thing is hilarious.

By carrying out a great deal of research and investigation, and by establishing artificial environments in laboratories, they sought to come up with findings that would corroborate Darwin's theory. However, every piece of research and every new finding they obtained, only constituted evidence that refuted evolution rather than confirming it. Science and technology had made rapid progress since the beginning of the 20th century, and refuted the theory of evolution. All the branches of science concerned with the subject–such as microbiology, biomathematics, cell biology, biochemistry, genetics, anatomy, physiology, anthropology and paleontology- -revealed countless proofs that totally undermined the theory of evolution.

The fossil record is perhaps the most important evidence that demolishes the theory of evolution's claims. Fossils reveal that life forms on Earth have never undergone even the slightest change and have never developed into one another. Examining the fossil record, we see that living things are exactly the same today as they were hundreds of millions of years ago—in other words, that they never underwent evolution. Even during the most ancient periods, life forms emerged suddenly with all their complex structures–with the perfect and superior features, just as do their counterparts today.

*Note to self, keep an eye out for posts by Eofaerwic, when he reveals something he believes in which may or may not be based on any sort of religion or religious teachings and if it disagrees with mine pay the fuck out of him.*


I'm not talking about piss taking about of religious beliefs generally, but creationism, whatever it's form and whatever it's origin rightly deserves to be laughed at.

If I ever state creationists or other beliefs requiring taking a literal interpretation of a religious text over all other scientific evidence, you have my permission to laugh at me for I will deserve it.

I love this site. It has taught me so much about the truth of the world. Any religion that has so much evidentiary support for a Creator must be right! I mean, they've got pictures that look similar to other pictures!!!!11 ZOMG!!!!!1

Well well, where East and West meet ...
Common ground : idiocy

Holy shit, this thing is hilarious.

o.0
I am...without words...

Well, they have a point about Darwin living in a relatively technologically primitive time

They don't.
Darwin was born in 1809 and died in 1882. This means that, during Darwin's times:
-there were railroads all over Europe
-the modern DC motor was invented
-Maxwell wrote the laws of electromagnetism
-spectroscopy was used to analyse atoms
-silvered-glass mirrors were used in telescopes
-Meucci invented the telephone
-steamship tonnage exceeded sailship tonnage
-Bessemer invented his converter, and Siemens introduced the regenerative furnace
-fossiles and rock strata were being examined by geologists

...

Holy shit, this thing is hilarious. *quoted… things*

How can features be "perfect and superior" if there was never any inferiority to begin with?
…
Why do I bother? ;)

I'm filing this as support for my theory that idiots come to religion, rather than are made by it. I really believe that the universal conformity of all morons, regardless of national, religious, cultural, or political affiliation -- i.e., idiots more like each other than they are like the groups they associate with -- can only be explained by them being stupid before they were anything else.

Holy shit, this thing is hilarious.
I don't know what's funnier; this or Bananas: An Atheist's Nightmare...

Sounds more like a rant about how the terrorists have won, rather than a persecution complex but hey whatever keeps you happy.

From I could gleam from it, it was more a paranoid rant about how The Muslims (tm) will soon be forcing us to abolish evolution. Because they can do that.

I'm filing this as support for my theory that idiots come to religion, rather than are made by it.

But then what do you think of people who are religious, who believe in the science behind evolution, and think creationism is simply an allegory created by mankind's need to have had answers when they didn't even know what questions to have asked?

But then what do you think of people who are religious, who believe in the science behind evolution, and think creationism is simply an allegory created by mankind's need to have had answers when they didn't even know what questions to have asked?

I think (this was my reading) her contention was not that all religious people are stupid, but that high numbers of stupid people seem to flock to fundamentalist religions.

Of course, that doesn't account for the number of stupid atheists...

The Muslim scholars of yesteryear must be rolling in their graves.

From I could gleam from it, it was more a paranoid rant about how The Muslims (tm) will soon be forcing us to abolish evolution. Because they can do that.

You're right. Even now, they patrol the streets, musliming people.

But then what do you think of people who are religious, who believe in the science behind evolution, and think creationism is simply an allegory created by mankind's need to have had answers when they didn't even know what questions to have asked?

I'm pretty sure she's not an atheist or agnostic. I doubt it was a general attack on people who are religious.

They don't.
Darwin was born in 1809 and died in 1882. This means that, during Darwin's times:
-there were railroads all over Europe
-the modern DC motor was invented
-Maxwell wrote the laws of electromagnetism
-spectroscopy was used to analyse atoms
-silvered-glass mirrors were used in telescopes
-Meucci invented the telephone
-steamship tonnage exceeded sailship tonnage
-Bessemer invented his converter, and Siemens introduced the regenerative furnace
-fossiles and rock strata were being examined by geologists

...

This does appear to be technologically primitive relative to today.

This does appear to be technologically primitive relative to today.

But Newton and Hooke had even more primitive scientific instruments....always knew the theory of gravity was bollocks.

You're right. Even now, they patrol the streets, musliming people.

I'm certainly glad that stalwart veterans of the 151st Fighting Keyboards are out there, roaming forums, warning us that a vicious musliming could be waiting for you around the next corner.

But Newton and Hooke had even more primitive scientific instruments....always knew the theory of gravity was bollocks.

This has been known for some time. Haven't you heard of intelligent falling? (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)

But Newton and Hooke had even more primitive scientific instruments....always knew the theory of gravity was bollocks.

Yup. Those bastards went and made up a bunch of lies about 'gravity' and the evil leftist scientists went along with it.

The Muslim scholars of yesteryear must be rolling in their graves.
QFT

One of the sayings of the Muslim Prophet Hz. Muhammed (s.a.v.) - as uttered properly by Muslims around here - means (can't translate without losing the gist of it right now) followers of Allah should seek science and reason no matter how hard it may be to reach.

Although I'm no believer I like the early teachings of Islam. Now, it has lots of religious marble-heads as any of the religion has.

Cheerio!

Yup. Those bastards went and made up a bunch of lies about 'gravity' and the evil leftist scientists went along with it.

Gravity doesn't exist.

Why yesterday I went outside and I made myself float by sheer willpower.

Gravity doesn't exist.

Why yesterday I went outside and I made myself float by sheer willpower.

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s165/SpaghettiSawUs/gravity-just-a-theory.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii22/rattrap2474/ReverseGravity.jpg

From I could gleam from it, it was more a paranoid rant about how The Muslims (tm) will soon be forcing us to abolish evolution. Because they can do that.

That too, certainly not about a persecution complex.

This has been known for some time. Haven't you heard of intelligent falling? (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)

Ok, ok, now I have heard it all, why do I not like America yet another reason, and this is exactly why normal religious people cannot get any credit from anybody because people are going around saying stuff like this, that's it I have had it, where's NeoB?

May I politely inquire as to your beliefs about the origins of life, if they are not strictly scientific?

I thought Charles Darwin and his work on evolution was strictly scientific?

I'm not talking about piss taking about of religious beliefs generally, but creationism, whatever it's form and whatever it's origin rightly deserves to be laughed at.

If I ever state creationists or other beliefs requiring taking a literal interpretation of a religious text over all other scientific evidence, you have my permission to laugh at me for I will deserve it.

It doesn't matter what it is mate, it may for example be your beliefs on free trade, I am going to give you shit for it. And I won't be seeking your permission to do it either I couldn't give two rats arses if I had it or not.

That too, certainly not about a persecution complex.

So... a paranoid rant about an imaginary hivemind persecuting him is not a persecution complex?

So... a paranoid rant about an imaginary hivemind persecuting him is not a persecution complex?

Nah, it's a religion. Can you not hear the voice in your head ?

"Awaken my child, and embrace the glory that is your birthright. Know that I am the Overmind, the eternal will of the Swarm, and that you have been created to serve me".

Serve the hive ! And persecute ;)

I'm certainly glad that stalwart veterans of the 151st Fighting Keyboards are out there, roaming forums, warning us that a vicious musliming could be waiting for you around the next corner.

Absolutely. I had no idea I was living in the European Caliphate as a "D'himmi" until some right wing crank with a blog was good enough to warn me. I even carried home my stout in transparent bags, oblivious to the Muslim Patrols ruling the streets. Imagine my terror when I realised the severe musliming I had unwittingly escaped!!!!!!!!

Absolutely. I had no idea I was living in the European Caliphate as a "D'himmi" until some right wing crank with a blog was good enough to warn me. I even carried home my stout in transparent bags, oblivious to the Muslim Patrols ruling the streets. Imagine my terror when I realised the severe musliming I had unwittingly escaped!!!!!!!!

From your crazy claims that not every Muslim forms part of an overall Muslim hive mind, it's quite clear that you've already been muslimed and changed your name to El Nod Al Noddy. Thank God you're Irish, meaning you'll probably pull the grenade out and throw the pin when you go off on your rampaging Jihad through the streets of Arklow.

It doesn't matter what it is mate, it may for example be your beliefs on free trade, I am going to give you shit for it. And I won't be seeking your permission to do it either I couldn't give two rats arses if I had it or not.

Wait, you mean to say that because I posted a comment indicating that creationism is a laughable concept that should not be taken seriously you are going to search through all the threads I post on and make fun of any opinions/beliefs I may post.

... You do realise how incredibly petty that makes you sound.

But fine, go right ahead. Since I believe in free speech, say whatever you want (I know you don't care about my permission, but still you have it). I personally am going to invoke my right to just ignore you.

From your crazy claims that not every Muslim forms part of an overall Muslim hive mind, it's quite clear that you've already been muslimed and changed your name to El Nod Al Noddy. Thank God you're Irish, meaning you'll probably pull the grenade out and throw the pin when you go off on your rampaging Jihad through the streets of Arklow.

The people of my village resent your stereotyping, and were the legs not about to fall off the donkey powering the generator, I'd give you a good piece of their mind.

So... a paranoid rant about an imaginary hivemind persecuting him is not a persecution complex?

Did you even read the original post?

Wait, you mean to say that because I posted a comment indicating that creationism is a laughable concept that should not be taken seriously you are going to search through all the threads I post on and make fun of any opinions/beliefs I may post.

... You do realise how incredibly petty that makes you sound.

But fine, go right ahead. Since I believe in free speech, say whatever you want (I know you don't care about my permission, but still you have it). I personally am going to invoke my right to just ignore you.

No don't be stupid, do I seem like the type of guy who has the time to wade through your posts?

When I see you saying something that I disagree with I am going to laugh at you and give you shit for saying it.

Don't try and turn this into a rant about free speech, I support free speech more than you do my little friend.

I hope you haven't hit the ignore button, because that would be a shame first of all it means I have won and second of all telling me constitutes a rule violation.

No don't be stupid, do I seem like the type of guy who has the time to wade through your posts?

When I see you saying something that I disagree with I am going to laugh at you and give you shit for saying it.

Don't try and turn this into a rant about free speech, I support free speech more than you do my little friend.

I hope you haven't hit the ignore button, because that would be a shame first of all it means I have won and second of all telling me constitutes a rule violation.

Right, I think I'm moving away from this conversation because I think it's heading dangerously personal territory. No, I have not put you ignore, I agree that's a shame, because you can make good points. I just won't be responding to your mockery of my beliefs simply because I said it.

Frankly, if your comment was to try and point out that I should not be laughing or ridiculing anyone's beliefs, irrespective of content, it may be a fair point (though not one that I agree with). If so, couldn't you have made that point directly?

Apologies to the mods if this has gone too far, I probably should have walked away after the first comment.

It doesn't matter what it is mate, it may for example be your beliefs on free trade, I am going to give you shit for it.

You know - for a second there I thought you meant you would mock/criticise his beliefs, no matter what kind, if they did not fit reality.
Believing that everyone under Stalin was happy ? Believing the earth is flat ? That nobody could have known in advance that the current Iraq situation would happen ? That Obama is a Muslim ? That Biblical creationism is an accurate description of how humans came to be ? Mockmockmockmock.

That I could respect. But then I read your followup posts :(

You know - for a second there I thought you meant you would mock/criticise his beliefs, no matter what kind, if they did not fit reality.
Believing that everyone under Stalin was happy ? Believing the earth is flat ? That nobody could have known in advance that the current Iraq situation would happen ? That Obama is a Muslim ? That Biblical creationism is an accurate description of how humans came to be ? Mockmockmockmock.

That I could respect. But then I read your followup posts :(

Reality is different to different people, now if we are talking about free trade then people will have different beliefs on it. Each one of those beliefs will be in essence reality to that person, I was saying that I would ridicule those beliefs if they disagreed with mine, or another way to put it did not fit in with my reality. While some things are almost black and white there are some things such as the best way to handle climate change which people will hold different beliefs, now we could mock their beliefs and them if they are different from ours or we could argue in a reasonable manner while still respecting that they hold those beliefs no matter how absurd they seem to be.

Right, I think I'm moving away from this conversation because I think it's heading dangerously personal territory. No, I have not put you ignore, I agree that's a shame, because you can make good points. I just won't be responding to your mockery of my beliefs simply because I said it.

Frankly, if your comment was to try and point out that I should not be laughing or ridiculing anyone's beliefs, irrespective of content, it may be a fair point (though not one that I agree with). If so, couldn't you have made that point directly?

Apologies to the mods if this has gone too far, I probably should have walked away after the first comment.

And apologies to you. I know I didn't behave in the best way just then and originally my point was obscure and then I took it to the extreme

Yes I should have made that point directly as I don't understand why we can't let these people live in their own world and respect that they have different opinions to us we can criticise them and debate with them and on the whole not agree with them but I don't see why we should ridicule these people, as it doesn't help and only fan the flames of perceived oppression. Notice I am not saying that they are being oppressed.

While I won't be going out and looking to pick an argument with you, indeed I have already agreed with you on your choice of dictator, and why I won't laugh at you at everything you say I may disagree with you on some points, which I will respect that you don't have the same opinion as me and will place my points across and if you don’t want to change your ways I will let you to continue in your beliefs. As I say I did make an obscure post and then continued with it acting a bit like a fool, so yes sorry for that but my point still stands.

Yes I should have made that point directly as I don't understand why we can't let these people live in their own world and respect that they have different opinions to us we can criticise them and debate with them and on the whole not agree with them but I don't see why we should ridicule these people, as it doesn't help and only fan the flames of perceived oppression. Notice I am not saying that they are being oppressed.

I know, mockery will just heighten perceived divisions and tensions and increase the sense of the 'us' v 'them' that they carry. And if I was trying to convince them and or on the fence by-standers, I would use a different tact, one of calm and rational debate. I don't think it will work necessarily against them, but it will hopefully convince those who don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other.

However, at the same time I firmly believe in the principle of equal opportunity mockery and piss taking, if the content (not the source) of the argument is so ridiculous and out of touch with reality (be it religion, politics, society, economics... ). Especially when such things are published in the public domain as fact and with a view to convert/persuade others. Which is why, as I said, if you choose to mock me for what I say, that's fine, it's mocking for who says it, isn't.

While I won't be going out and looking to pick an argument with you, indeed I have already agreed with you on your choice of dictator, and why I won't laugh at you at everything you say I may disagree with you on some points, which I will respect that you don't have the same opinion as me and will place my points across and if you don’t want to change your ways I will let you to continue in your beliefs. As I say I did make an obscure post and then continued with it acting a bit like a fool, so yes sorry for that but my point still stands.

I apologise for possibly over-reacting somewhat too :$. I think it will be safest if we stick to debating content. I suspect we probably don't have the same opinion on a lot of things (dictators not included ;)) but that's no reason we can't debate like adults. And my point still stands... I think we may need to agree to disagree on this one. :fluffle:

Heh. Sadly it's not just backwoods places either. I can remember as a child (and I'm talking 7-9, so less than 20 years ago) being harassed by classmates because I believed in evolution. And this was in the Bay Area, at a good school, in the early 90's. "So you think you came from a monkey?" kids would say and laugh, to which I'd say "So you think a big guy in the clouds drew in the dirt and made you?"

Reason #3945 why I was not popular. -_-

I can also remember going to summer Sunday school (I did it because my friend did, I wasn't raised with religion) and arguing with the pastor about dinosaur fossils and carbon dating until he told me to shut up.

What the fuck?

Reality is different to different people, now if we are talking about free trade then people will have different beliefs on it. Each one of those beliefs will be in essence reality to that person, I was saying that I would ridicule those beliefs if they disagreed with mine, or another way to put it did not fit in with my reality. While some things are almost black and white there are some things such as the best way to handle climate change which people will hold different beliefs, now we could mock their beliefs and them if they are different from ours or we could argue in a reasonable manner while still respecting that they hold those beliefs no matter how absurd they seem to be.

I must disagree. Reality isn't dependent on who you are. Look at creationism, as an example: some people think the earth is 6,000 years old. Those people are wrong. They don't "have a different reality." They have a different belief about reality-- one that is incorrect.

Now, in that case, it is easy to see what reality is. There are no good arguments for young earth creationism. Not one. However, some things are a bit trickier to know what is true. Economics, for example. Opposing positions often do have good points-- however, that does not change reality. Ultimately, there is an objective truth as to what the impact of any given economic policy would be-- it's just difficult to predict, especially because there are so many factors in play.

But that doesn't mean that every opinion is equally true. To quote Douglas Adams, "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

So, there are certain disagreements where I can respect the other person's opinion, because theirs is at least arguable. But certain things-- like creationism-- are stupid ideas and deserve to be mocked as surely as an adult believing in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

But Newton and Hooke had even more primitive scientific instruments....always knew the theory of gravity was bollocks.

Technically, Newton's theory of gravity is wrong. http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/emotes/emot-eng101.gif

Technically, Newton's theory of gravity is wrong. [

what about the Theory of Relativity?is it wrong?even though all observational data has confirmed it?

I don't understand why we can't let these people live in their own world
Unfortunately, we all live in the same world. I would gladly ship creationists to a different planet if that solution were available.

what about the Theory of Relativity?is it wrong?even though all observational data has confirmed it?

Both General Relativity and Special Relativity cease to function at the quantum scale, and are thus technically wrong. They are useful at the macroscopic scale, however.

Both General Relativity and Special Relativity cease to function at the quantum scale, and are thus technically wrong. They are useful at the macroscopic scale, however.

Just as (in the interest of fairness) quantum mechanics breaks down at the macroscopic scale. The issue of reconciling the two theories is one of the central topics of theoretical physics these days (not counting all the other stuff that's going on in the background, but isn't "sexy science" enough to make it to the paper......*sulk*)

Just as (in the interest of fairness) quantum mechanics breaks down at the macroscopic scale. The issue of reconciling the two theories is one of the central topics of theoretical physics these days (not counting all the other stuff that's going on in the background, but isn't "sexy science" enough to make it to the paper......*sulk*)

I've found that a handy rule to follow is that anything related to physics is wrong on some level or another. It hasn't failed me yet.

I've found that a handy rule to follow is that anything related to physics is wrong on some level or another. It hasn't failed me yet.

Practical limitations on human ingenuity and technology is typically what I chalk it up to. Someday, we'll figure enough out that we won't have a theory that is WRONG so much as incomplete.

Of course, I honestly hope the day never comes when we figure everything or near everything out. That would suck.

But certain things-- like creationism-- are stupid ideas and deserve to be mocked as surely as an adult believing in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

But not god,of course. Oh no, that would be insensitive.:rolleyes:

But not god,of course. Oh no, that would be insensitive.:rolleyes:

Ahhhhh, but belief in God does no try and use logic and science to back itself up, it's a matter of faith.

Intelligent design attempts to portray faith-based assertions as scientific, and therefore lays itself open to ridicule.

...I don't understand why we can't let these people live in their own world.....

Because we don't yet have the technology to create alternate realities for everyone who is wilfully ignorant about this one.

But not god,of course. Oh no, that would be insensitive.:rolleyes:

If you know Pirated Corsairs's posting history, this is hilarious.

To clarify, I agree with Pirated Corsairs that such views should be mocked.
Some other people would normally agree with that, except when it comes to god.
Then they act as if there is a difference.

It's good to know that Christian Fundamentalists and Muslim Fundamentalists have so much in common. Now if we could just get them to agree to stop killing us in the process of trying to kill each other.

I know, mockery will just heighten perceived divisions and tensions and increase the sense of the 'us' v 'them' that they carry. And if I was trying to convince them and or on the fence by-standers, I would use a different tact, one of calm and rational debate. I don't think it will work necessarily against them, but it will hopefully convince those who don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other.

However, at the same time I firmly believe in the principle of equal opportunity mockery and piss taking, if the content (not the source) of the argument is so ridiculous and out of touch with reality (be it religion, politics, society, economics... ). Especially when such things are published in the public domain as fact and with a view to convert/persuade others. Which is why, as I said, if you choose to mock me for what I say, that's fine, it's mocking for who says it, isn't.

OK, yes well I may have to agree with you on this, I don't mind mocking an idea, concept or belief and what it says, but not to mock the people behind it, which is what sometimes happens and I may have accidentally placed you in that group and criticised you for it. I too don't mind equal mockery on all beliefs, provided people won't mind if it happens to them, and as you have indicated you don't care if that does happen. As you say 'mocking' the concept is fine 'mocking' the person isn't.

I apologise for possibly over-reacting somewhat too :$. I think it will be safest if we stick to debating content. I suspect we probably don't have the same opinion on a lot of things (dictators not included ;)) but that's no reason we can't debate like adults. And my point still stands... I think we may need to agree to disagree on this one. :fluffle:

Oh I am sure we do have many varying opinions on various issues, and if so I will more than likely engage you in reasonable debates as adults, I look forward to it.

Unfortunately, we all live in the same world. I would gladly ship creationists to a different planet if that solution were available.

No, we can let them believe what they want to believe, just like my next door neighbour who thinks I am not allowed to cut branches hanging over my backyard because they belong to a tree on his property (I am by law btw), I originally argued with him he still doesn't like the fact that I did it and bitches on about it, as I say I let him live in his own little world it may be different from what is actually true but hey I am not fussed about it.

I must disagree. Reality isn't dependent on who you are. Look at creationism, as an example: some people think the earth is 6,000 years old. Those people are wrong. They don't "have a different reality." They have a different belief about reality-- one that is incorrect.

Now, in that case, it is easy to see what reality is. There are no good arguments for young earth creationism. Not one. However, some things are a bit trickier to know what is true. Economics, for example. Opposing positions often do have good points-- however, that does not change reality. Ultimately, there is an objective truth as to what the impact of any given economic policy would be-- it's just difficult to predict, especially because there are so many factors in play.

But that doesn't mean that every opinion is equally true. To quote Douglas Adams, "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

So, there are certain disagreements where I can respect the other person's opinion, because theirs is at least arguable. But certain things-- like creationism-- are stupid ideas and deserve to be mocked as surely as an adult believing in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Yes there are wrong the world isn't 6000 years old but it is what they believe, so I don't see that if they refuse to believe differently why we just don't allow them to live in their own reality.

Now some things people may disagree with you say while having good points may not agree with reality, but really it just disagrees with your reality, why? because they don't agree with what you believe (and I am talking about anything here) while those points may be apart of reality and have some truth behind it, so to may those points you agree with and be apart from reality, those that don’t we will dismiss because they don’t agree with our reality.

EDIT: Dismiss a lot of the above I am thinking more across the lines of what we WANT reality to be, and I am sure you hold opinions on what you want reality in the same way that I hold issues that I want reality to be like. Now some may be easily dismissed, however, they are some which cannot be easily dismissed due to conflicting evidence, however, we will dismiss those that does not fit in with what we want because they do not fit in with what we want our reality to be.

This, is a bit more what I am trying to say, however, I have not thought through this properly and would need more thought put into it by myself other people and debated, if only I was living 200 years ago I could have my philosophical rants published. ;)

What the fuck?

Was that a "What the fuck, a pastor told a little kid to shut up?" or a "What the fuck, what kind of weird ass little argumentative kid were you?" or a different what the fuck entirely?

I've found that a handy rule to follow is that anything related to physics is wrong on some level or another. It hasn't failed me yet.

I might have to sig that.

To clarify, I agree with Pirated Corsairs that such views should be mocked.
Some other people would normally agree with that, except when it comes to god.
Then they act as if there is a difference.

And when your views are mocked as well i'm sure

Yes there are wrong the world isn't 6000 years old but it is what they believe, so I don't see that if they refuse to believe differently why we just don't allow them to live in their own reality.
Let's turn that around:
Why should we let them live in their fantasy world ? What is the benefit to society for allowing that ?

EDIT: Dismiss a lot of the above I am thinking more across the lines of what we WANT reality to be, and I am sure you hold opinions on what you want reality in the same way that I hold issues that I want reality to be like.

Hence why the scientific method is focussed on proving things wrong instead of true.

Let's turn that around:
Why should we let them live in their fantasy world ? What is the benefit to society for allowing that ?

What benefit is there for not allowing it? I mean apart from allowing us to direct our anger towards these people such as my neighbour.

Hence why the scientific method is focussed on proving things wrong instead of true.

How do we apply the scientific method to the best Nationwide medical health care program? How do we apply it to the economics, especially as many people here including yourself I believe said that economics is not a science?

EDIT: Doesn't the scientific method start out with a hypothesis, and then they set out to test this hypothesis?

*sigh*

I thought Allah disliked liars ?True, that.

Why do so many believers find it necessary to lie, turn, twist and distort things ? Only the things that, at first glance, appear to call their delusion into question.

What benefit is there for not allowing it? I mean apart from allowing us to direct our anger towards these people such as my neighbour.


Well, obviously we should legally allow any belief, but:
we should strongly discourage certain stupid beliefs like creationism. Creationists relentlessly attack science and attempt to destroy the teaching of biology, which can ruin a young child's education. If there were no creationists, then children could actually learn biology properly, become interested in it, and perhaps go on the develop life-saving medicines and such.

Well, obviously we should legally allow any belief, but:
we should strongly discourage certain stupid beliefs like creationism. Creationists relentlessly attack science and attempt to destroy the teaching of biology, which can ruin a young child's education. If there were no creationists, then children could actually learn biology properly, become interested in it, and perhaps go on the develop life-saving medicines and such.

Why shouldn't they be able to attack scientific thought? Other scientists do it all the time anyway, and challenge what is the norm.

If there were no creationists I still doubt that children would learn about biology properly, and the rest of your dribble.

It still doesn't answer my question as to why can't we let them just believe in what they want to believe in their own little world.

Was that a "What the fuck, a pastor told a little kid to shut up?" or a "What the fuck, what kind of weird ass little argumentative kid were you?" or a different what the fuck entirely?

No, it was "what the fuck kinda pipe were these people smoking?"

What benefit is there for not allowing it?
If they kept their stupidities to themselves, I wouldn't care. But they spread it, especially aiming at children to instill in them a contempt for habits of critical thought in general. As a teacher I see that every year the kids are notably more stupid: I don't mean "ignorant", i.e. lacking information (all of us are ignorant, just about different things), but hostile to acquiring information and incapable of processing it when they have it. This cultural decay will continue to be reflected in economic decay.

What benefit is there for not allowing it?
For starters, Baby Fae wouldn't be dead.

What benefit is there for not allowing it? I mean apart from allowing us to direct our anger towards these people such as my neighbour.
That doesn't answer the question.

The difference between religion and science is that science has never once claimed to know everything about the universe or even life on earth!

The funny thing about his first quote is the fact that they try and say its not scientific, ermmm is there any scientific evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve and even a creator God... There wasn't last time I checked!

Are we forgetting the evolution is a faith? No one was around 4.6 billion years ago (when matter or form or whatever you wackos believe started), so you have to 'believe' that what some men wrote down in books is a explanation for how the universe began. Evolutionists 'believe' and 'have faith' that all of the order in the universe and all that we are is the result of a cosmic soup (being held who knows where) was struck by lightning (from who knows where). Creationists 'believe' and 'have faith' that there is something out there that is more powerful and more knowing than all of us combined, who created the universe. I know, this is a sad thought for most so called intellectuals and so called free thinking people. The thought that there may be something smarter than man. But, we alll have our 'beliefs' my friends.

Do you believe in the cosmic soup, or the creator? From my point of view, it's more of an intellectual stretch of the imagination to believe in the soup.

The difference between religion and science is that science has never once claimed to know everything about the universe or even life on earth!

There are several other differences.

Ifreann
LOL yeah I know, this one is fairly fundamental though

The difference between religion and science is that science has never once claimed to know everything about the universe or even life on earth!

The funny thing about his first quote is the fact that they try and say its not scientific, ermmm is there any scientific evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve and even a creator God... There wasn't last time I checked!

Science will get many a thing wrong, but in the end, it will get most things right.
Religion will "never" get things "wrong", but in the end, still wont know what its about.

The difference between religion and science is that science has never once claimed to know everything about the universe or even life on earth!
And which religion espouses such knowledge?

And which religion espouses such knowledge?

None. Because to do so would be to claim to be God.

Chumblywumbly, which religion does not?

Worldly Federation,

But revelation would indicate God has given us all the knowledge we need. And the Bible, Qua'ran ect. is the world of God and therefore everything must be true, yet we find that a lot of scientific discoveries find that certain aspects of the books are not true such as the creation of Earth.

Many very religious people (especially evangelicals, and other extremist religious groups) would say that God HAS given us all the secrets of life and the universe.

If you take that away from some religions then what is left? morals? I've been an atheist all my life as have my parents and my parents parent yet I still know right from wrong, meaning you don't actually need religion for morals so if you take the cosmic knowledge side of religion away from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or even Buddhism and Hinduism ect. then what do you have left?

Worldly Federation,

But revelation would indicate God has given us all the knowledge we need. And the Bible, Qua'ran ect. is the world of God and therefore everything must be true, yet we find that a lot of scientific discoveries find that certain aspects of the books are not true such as the creation of Earth.

Many very religious people (especially evangelicals, and other extremist religious groups) would say that God HAS given us all the secrets of life and the universe.

If you take that away from some religions then what is left? morals? I've been an atheist all my life as have my parents and my parents parent yet I still know right from wrong, meaning you don't actually need religion for morals so if you take the cosmic knowledge side of religion away from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or even Buddhism and Hinduism ect. then what do you have left?

Morality is subjective. For example, for many religious people, homosexuality is immoral. I doubt that you have the same viewpoint. For Muslims, drinking alcohol is immoral. I also doubt that you have the same viewpoint.

As a Catholic, I can say that the Bible is of course often metaphorical and has certainly been polluted by man both by the original writers and the translators. Of course, if you can not accept that possibility, there is always another which is that parts of religious texts are INTENTIONALLY incorrect, because it is not so much important for a new religion (facing persecution) to learn about the science of the universe as it is for it to survive.

Chumblywumbly, which religion does not?
I don't know of any religion that professes to hold all knowledge of the entire universe, or detailed facts about the total life on Earth.

I know of many religions that profess to hold some knowledge that unbelievers don't, but that's hardly the same as the above.


Morality is subjective. For example, for many religious people, homosexuality is immoral. I doubt that you have the same viewpoint. For Muslims, drinking alcohol is immoral. I also doubt that you have the same viewpoint.
The appearance of different moral codes doesn't necessitate a subjectivity in morals. Some could just be plain wrong.

Morality is subjective.
I am not inclined to agree. The fact that people make errors about morality no more means that it is subjective than the errors people make about mathematics.

Oh no I know its metaphorical that wasn't really my argument.

My point is that the point is many religions is to have a belief system that explains the universe, you can't deny that aspects of Christianity do this! as well as every other religion under the sun! there is a cosmic belief that is part of all religion that is simply not present in science! Science seeks to explore the possibilities of the universe in a very methodical and... well scientific way! what is found and claimed has evidence to back it up, religion is a set of beliefs and is therefore not backed up by science (even though some aspects of certain religions do have a somewhat dubious scientific backing, such as rebirth in Buddhism and Hinduism and the possibility of a creator God in the sense of someone or something setting off the big bang in liberal Christian thought).

HOWEVER all claims by religion are BELIEFS, they may be metaphorical, they may not, they maybe based on ideals at the time of writing or not but the fact is that religion has a cosmic element, that seemingly explains the universe, from the creation of the world to the predictions of the end of it and all that is in between. These are in my opinion claims to know everything about life on Earth if not the universe that science does not and cannot make!

I am not inclined to agree. The fact that people make errors about morality no more means that it is subjective than the errors people make about mathematics.

But you can prove mathematics errors wrong. It's difficult (if not impossible) to do that with morals.

IMHO most religions do not try to explain the "how?" (the scientific aspect of the universe), but rather the "why?" of our existence.

IMHO most religions do not try to explain the "how?" (the scientific aspect of the universe), but rather the "why?" of our existence.

I would agree that religion isn't that worried about the "how?" and that science is, but I think Science asks "why?" a lot too!, like why are some people gay and some people aren't? why are some people black and some people white? why does the world spin around? why are we more intelligent than chimpanzees or dolphins?

These questions are answered by both religion AND science. Indeed its where the two clash the most!

Why shouldn't they be able to attack scientific thought? Other scientists do it all the time anyway, and challenge what is the norm.

No, scientists seek to improve scientific knowledge, not destroy it.


If there were no creationists I still doubt that children would learn about biology properly, and the rest of your dribble.

What major group other than the Creationist movement tries to get children to not learn biology?


It still doesn't answer my question as to why can't we let them just believe in what they want to believe in their own little world.

Like I said, we shouldn't ban any thought, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't mock stupidity or try to show people why their ideas are stupid.

But you can prove mathematics errors wrong.
People who are determined to be wrong won't pay any attention to the proof. In that respect it is the same with morality.

People who are determined to be wrong won't pay any attention to the proof. In that respect it is the same with morality.

2 + 2 = 5

*nod*

I don't know of any religion that professes to hold all knowledge of the entire universe, or detailed facts about the total life on Earth.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13876153&postcount=28
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13876073&postcount=19
Does s/he make a strong enough argument?

No, scientists seek to improve scientific knowledge, not destroy it.

Yes but if a scientist finds out something that is against what used to be commonly thought by the scientific community, then he has both improved scientific knowledge and destroyed the old thoughts.

What major group other than the Creationist movement tries to get children to not learn biology?

Isn't this thread about Muslims? Regardless you missed my point, you said that without Creationism (despite the fact that many other religions and groups of people have their own creationist stories) children would learn about biology properly. They will not due to many factors, such as poor teaching, poor funding etc.

Like I said, we shouldn't ban any thought, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't mock stupidity or try to show people why their ideas are stupid.

I never said there wasn't any thing wrong with arguing with people and trying to prove to them that they are wrong, but as they won't change their mind, why bother why not just let them be? I am sure you will live a better life if you do.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13876153&postcount=28
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13876073&postcount=19
Does s/he make a strong enough argument?

Nicea Sancta has joked around before, and just because one person says that this is what the religon claims doesn't actually mean that is what the religion claims.

If they kept their stupidities to themselves, I wouldn't care. But they spread it, especially aiming at children to instill in them a contempt for habits of critical thought in general. As a teacher I see that every year the kids are notably more stupid: I don't mean "ignorant", i.e. lacking information (all of us are ignorant, just about different things), but hostile to acquiring information and incapable of processing it when they have it. This cultural decay will continue to be reflected in economic decay.

And that just has to be the fault of religions :rolleyes:

I am sure that you as a teacher doesn't spread your thoughts and beliefs into children. Now I am not saying you are but many teachers do and as I say beliefs don't have to be about religion.

Nicea Sancta has joked around beforeThey don't take long to act like they have a thin veneer of skin.
and just because one person says that this is what the religon claims doesn't actually mean that is what the religion claims.So it's not intentionally lying, per se, so much as simply being either wrong or deluded? In any case, not to be taken seriously?

For starters, Baby Fae wouldn't be dead.

You may have to extend my knowledge on this one, I know she was born with a heart defect, and then a doctor placed a simian heart into her, and the she died 21 days later.

I do know that PETA other squabble like them were complaining about it but what that has to do with letting people believe in 6-day creationism is beyond me.

So it's not intentionally lying, per se, so much as simply being either wrong or deluded? In any case, not to be taken seriously?

One person's say so of course not, if I was to tell you how my companies policy then that wouldn't be adequate enough.

Is NiS a member of the Catholic Church? If I went around telling people this was how the American school system worked would that mean that you will take that as face value?

One person's say so of course not, if I was to tell you how my companies policy then that wouldn't be adequate enough.I don't quite follow, my bad. Do you mean to say that if you explained policy standards from your company, as in employment, or as in your presence? Do you mean that they would be nonsensical? As in why bother explaining it anyway?

Is NiS a member of the Catholic Church?Could be. I really wasn't paying that much attention. *shrug*
If I went around telling people this was how the American school system worked would that mean that you will take that as face value?That would really depend upon what i already knew about it, methinks ... as well as my nature of cynicism to other peoples' approach to a topic.

I don't quite follow, my bad. Do you mean to say that if you explained policy standards from your company, as in employment, or as in your presence? Do you mean that they would be nonsensical? As in why bother explaining it anyway?

Yes say environmental policy or employment policy, would you take what I say on the issue because I am a member of the company?

I certainly wouldn't without having something else to back it up say the senior managers or something from the official website on what the company thinks. It is all very well to say well this person said this so it must be true, but I have heard from people that the reason why the Catholic school had a fountain in the courtyard was to drown the babies of unwed teenage mothers. Now would you accept that because they said so or would you want some more concrete evidence.

YUS! Two pages until a persecution complex reared its head!

Um, no I don't have a "persecution complex." Are you trying to insinuate that I am Islamophobic or racist? I don't think the evil Muslims are out to get me, as you seem to be implying. I think that certain elements of the Islamic faith use violence or threats thereof to get what they want, and that certain elements of the political and media mainstream have a history of caving to those demands. Therefor, I suspect that radical Islamic attacks on evolution may be more successful in some areas than radical Christian attacks on evolution have been to date. If you wish to argue against that assertion, by all means, try. But please argue against the actual point, rather than launching personal attacks.

You may have to extend my knowledge on this one, I know she was born with a heart defect, and then a doctor placed a simian heart into her, and the she died 21 days later.

I do know that PETA other squabble like them were complaining about it but what that has to do with letting people believe in 6-day creationism is beyond me.

The doctor was a creationist. As such, he saw no difference between the baboon heart he used and any other heart. Had he accepted evolution, he would have known that the evolutionary distance between baboons and humans was far too great for a successful transplant. Instead, he would have used a chimpanzee heart, which would have worked.

The doctor was a creationist. As such, he saw no difference between the baboon heart he used and any other heart. Had he accepted evolution, he would have known that the evolutionary distance between baboons and humans was far too great for a successful transplant. Instead, he would have used a chimpanzee heart, which would have worked.

Can you show me more on this, I did a bit more research and there was couple of doctors involved including the fact that the doctor had to get permission before the operation could proceed.

Now from some literature I do remember reading was that she lived for 21 days, which was longer than the 10 days previously when other such cross species transplants had been undertaken.

You say it would work can you show me other case studies before this operation took place (not after) where their are people who have lived for a long time with a chimpanzee heart.

And that just has to be the fault of religions :rolleyes:
It doesn't "have to" be so, but as a matter of fact, the Christian creationists are the major cause.

It doesn't "have to" be so, but as a matter of fact, the Christian creationists are the major cause.

If you say so.

If you say so.
Apparently you are not in the United States?

EDIT: Eastlansinga is a good example of the kind of student I get more and more of lately (East Lansing is, if you can believe it, a university town in my state).

Are we forgetting the evolution is a faith? No one was around 4.6 billion years ago (when matter or form or whatever you wackos believe started), so you have to 'believe' that what some men wrote down in books is a explanation for how the universe began.

No, Science is about looking at the evidence, making hypothesises based on it and then testing them. Authority doesn't come into it; it's only the Creationists who are committed to the accuracy of a particular book.

Evolutionists 'believe' and 'have faith' that all of the order in the universe and all that we are is the result of a cosmic soup (being held who knows where) was struck by lightning (from who knows where).

May I suggest that you read some books on Cosmology and Evolution written by actual scientists? My impression is that you've been lied to by Creationists who've presented a distorted, straw-man version of evolution.

Creationists 'believe' and 'have faith' that there is something out there that is more powerful and more knowing than all of us combined, who created the universe. I know, this is a sad thought for most so called intellectuals and so called free thinking people. The thought that there may be something smarter than man. But, we alll have our 'beliefs' my friends.

Do you believe in the cosmic soup, or the creator? From my point of view, it's more of an intellectual stretch of the imagination to believe in the soup.

Seriously, I don't even know what you're talking about when you say "cosmic soup'. I think you've got a dishonest description of Big Bang theory and the formation of galaxies mixed up with a dishonest description of Abiogenesis. I recomend Carl Zimmer's Evolution as a good introductory read, and there are any number of great Cosmology books out there.