Dear AtheistsPosted by: thenack on Aug 26, 2010   |
  |
I often find that your run of the mill atheists really haven't thought things through. I suppose that is true of most people, but I thought I would explain in simple terms, what being a modern atheist really means. So we start out by defining and atheist as somebody who denighs the existance of a god.
This prompted the question, well, if god didn't do it, where did the universe come from, I mean why does the universe exist? The best and most up to date answer from world leading atheists is: nothing exploded and created everything. Yip, you see how they replaced God created everything with nothing created everything? Aparently according to atheists it is easier and cleverer to believe nothing did it than God.
Moving on to how life was created. Atheists, and this is really what they believe, the smartest and bestests like richard Dawkins believes that after nothing exploded and created everything (all dead matter that is), the rocks and water that made up earth got lucky and ended up in a nice, well freakishly perfect spot. It started to rain on the rocks, and the rocks disolved, and basically ... Life. Something about lightning and rocks and rain. Thats is serioulsy as far as their "scientific"argument goes.
Thus far we have nothing exploding, making rocks, rocks getting lucky, rocks getting wet, rock sludge getting .......(fit favourite fantasy) magically transformed in living rocks. WOW. now that is what I call science!
Then the living rock chemicals were lucky again. It turns out there was a boy and a girl chemical-gogga, and there were other dumb chemical-goggas to eat, (they also got lucky but a little less), and they had gogga babies because they were lcuky enough to know how to do stuff and what to do. Then after a billion years and a lot of lucky, the rock-soup-goggas had somehow mutated into humans. The end.
I do not have enough faith to believe that nothing exploded, created everything, that got lucky, got shocked, got somehow alive with food and sex and got to be einstein in a gazillion years.
I believe in the beginning was God, and then we can build a propper story with less lightning and luck and nothing becoming everything and such nonsens.
theNack
theNack
Comments (28)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by barrmar, August 26, 2010
Firstly, you do not do yourself any credit by misspelling three out of every four words. Do yourself a favour and check your spelling before posting - it will make you seem less illiterate and a little more educated.
Secondly, you are misrepresenting the scientific view - you obviously have no knowledge of the scientific method at all. By the way, some scientists are religious. Einstein was of the view that "G-d didn't play dice in creating the world," supporting the view that it was not a random process. In later life, Einstein thought that a belief in G-d was somewhat childish.
Thirdly, if G-d created the world, then who created G-d? Whichever way we look at it, there is no full explanation of how the world and life came into being.
Secondly, you are misrepresenting the scientific view - you obviously have no knowledge of the scientific method at all. By the way, some scientists are religious. Einstein was of the view that "G-d didn't play dice in creating the world," supporting the view that it was not a random process. In later life, Einstein thought that a belief in G-d was somewhat childish.
Thirdly, if G-d created the world, then who created G-d? Whichever way we look at it, there is no full explanation of how the world and life came into being.
-
- +2
-
-
written by thenack, August 27, 2010
Dissol, my point exactly, then why do evolutionists feed the public a bunch of ideas that they do not know and call it science? The fact is that there is a lot of evidence pointing to design and purpose in the universe and on earth. I believe that the "something did it" starting point would do science much better than the "let's try and ignore the evidence and prove nothing did it" approach.
Barman, I may not spell well, but I would out-science, out-math and out-think you on any day.
No I am not, I love science, I am saying that evolutionists and atheists often tout the "science vs evolution" view as a fact, while in reality as Dissol put it "we don't know". On the matters where certain Christian Scientists disagree with mainstream humanistic "scientists" are in fact areas where science has no answers. My problem is that atheists would rather believe nothing did everything than something did it.
The who created God thing has been answered so many times I won’t even waste my time, go to www.reasonablefaith.com
Barman, I may not spell well, but I would out-science, out-math and out-think you on any day.
No I am not, I love science, I am saying that evolutionists and atheists often tout the "science vs evolution" view as a fact, while in reality as Dissol put it "we don't know". On the matters where certain Christian Scientists disagree with mainstream humanistic "scientists" are in fact areas where science has no answers. My problem is that atheists would rather believe nothing did everything than something did it.
The who created God thing has been answered so many times I won’t even waste my time, go to www.reasonablefaith.com
-
- +0
-
-
written by thenack, August 27, 2010
Barman, I was going to try and spell check but MyDL keeps bombing when I try to edit.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dissol, August 27, 2010
No the nack, it was not what you were saying, you seem to be very confused about the whole situation!!!
Biological Evolution is scientific fact. There is zero evidence for a designer. But evolution does not say anything about abiogenesis. Evolution informs us how life has changed and adapted to the environment. It does not say how life first formed, although we are getting closer, and some experiments using different amino acids are pointing the way, but that is not evolution.
As for where the universe comes from, that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. For someone who claims to be able to "out science" others, your knowledge on this seems so thin to be transparent. There are several competing ideas, and, as yet, we don't know. One idea is that the universe started with the big bang, and this has some credibility with the measurement of the remaining microwave radiation (that snow that you pick up on a TV that is untuned). But there are other theories that suggest there are up to 11 dimensions, and the universe that we are in is just a sheet of one of the dimensions. Many of these theories are based on quite complex mathematics, and I have to admit that my brain freezes when I read or listen to some of the proponents of the different ideas. But the important aspect is that any of these hypotheses are put forward, and are testable. Other scientists will attempt to disprove them in a variety of different ways. There is plenty of evidence that points to different concepts, and the final answer must be able to deal with all the facts; it cannot ignore any of them at its own whim.
I have never heard an atheist or scientist tout the science vs evolution line, I think that is just another thing you have made up to suit your position. Evolution is scientific fact as accepted by the vast majority of scientists. There are aspects of evolution that are still unkown, and subject to conjecture, but the basic principle is accepted by every important scientific body in the world. Evolution is beyond doubt, as much as any scientific theory can be. But I repeat, evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis, or the start of the universe. Now there is a debate about science vs religion. For most people, there seems to be no problem. Several members of my family are religious, and none of them have any problems with mainstream science. They are quite happy to accept evolution as fact, but are still certain about their faith in their god. For them, they are non-overlapping magisteria. I accept their position. For me, it does not work like that; I cannot see any evidence for any supernatural entity, and there is nothing I have come across that makes me think there is anything. Indeed, much of what I read and hear from people like yourself prostylising religions makes me even more sure that there is no supernatural entity. When I hear, or read people making up nonsense in the way that you do, it smacks of desperation, when people have to ignore whole sections of tried and tested and accepted science, in order to accomodate their belief in a supernatural entity, then I find it amazing (and shocking) that they can really believe themselves, in the face of all evidence to contrary. For people to think that ancient texts, written before the dawn of the scientific age have to be factually correct is actually so bizarre as to be laughable. The stories contained in the various ancient texts may have some value as myths and legends, but that is all they can be. We know through science and factual evidence that there was no Adam & Eve, no Noah's Ark, no parting of the Red Sea. But I am willing to accept that some of the stories may have some use...and I understand that many people view the different texts as special or sacred, and so I treat the various copies I have with a certain amount of respect, as I am aware of the potential hurt mistreatment may cause the people. But to me, they are only books.
If you want to knock science, then I suggest you learn something about the subject before you make ridiculous comments. Certainly if you claim to be able to out science others then you ought to have some knowledge of the subjects. Clearly you have little or no understanding of biology, or physics. If you want to make statements and be taken seriously, then make sure those statements are correct before you post them, making stuff up to support your position is pathetic!
Biological Evolution is scientific fact. There is zero evidence for a designer. But evolution does not say anything about abiogenesis. Evolution informs us how life has changed and adapted to the environment. It does not say how life first formed, although we are getting closer, and some experiments using different amino acids are pointing the way, but that is not evolution.
As for where the universe comes from, that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. For someone who claims to be able to "out science" others, your knowledge on this seems so thin to be transparent. There are several competing ideas, and, as yet, we don't know. One idea is that the universe started with the big bang, and this has some credibility with the measurement of the remaining microwave radiation (that snow that you pick up on a TV that is untuned). But there are other theories that suggest there are up to 11 dimensions, and the universe that we are in is just a sheet of one of the dimensions. Many of these theories are based on quite complex mathematics, and I have to admit that my brain freezes when I read or listen to some of the proponents of the different ideas. But the important aspect is that any of these hypotheses are put forward, and are testable. Other scientists will attempt to disprove them in a variety of different ways. There is plenty of evidence that points to different concepts, and the final answer must be able to deal with all the facts; it cannot ignore any of them at its own whim.
I have never heard an atheist or scientist tout the science vs evolution line, I think that is just another thing you have made up to suit your position. Evolution is scientific fact as accepted by the vast majority of scientists. There are aspects of evolution that are still unkown, and subject to conjecture, but the basic principle is accepted by every important scientific body in the world. Evolution is beyond doubt, as much as any scientific theory can be. But I repeat, evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis, or the start of the universe. Now there is a debate about science vs religion. For most people, there seems to be no problem. Several members of my family are religious, and none of them have any problems with mainstream science. They are quite happy to accept evolution as fact, but are still certain about their faith in their god. For them, they are non-overlapping magisteria. I accept their position. For me, it does not work like that; I cannot see any evidence for any supernatural entity, and there is nothing I have come across that makes me think there is anything. Indeed, much of what I read and hear from people like yourself prostylising religions makes me even more sure that there is no supernatural entity. When I hear, or read people making up nonsense in the way that you do, it smacks of desperation, when people have to ignore whole sections of tried and tested and accepted science, in order to accomodate their belief in a supernatural entity, then I find it amazing (and shocking) that they can really believe themselves, in the face of all evidence to contrary. For people to think that ancient texts, written before the dawn of the scientific age have to be factually correct is actually so bizarre as to be laughable. The stories contained in the various ancient texts may have some value as myths and legends, but that is all they can be. We know through science and factual evidence that there was no Adam & Eve, no Noah's Ark, no parting of the Red Sea. But I am willing to accept that some of the stories may have some use...and I understand that many people view the different texts as special or sacred, and so I treat the various copies I have with a certain amount of respect, as I am aware of the potential hurt mistreatment may cause the people. But to me, they are only books.
If you want to knock science, then I suggest you learn something about the subject before you make ridiculous comments. Certainly if you claim to be able to out science others then you ought to have some knowledge of the subjects. Clearly you have little or no understanding of biology, or physics. If you want to make statements and be taken seriously, then make sure those statements are correct before you post them, making stuff up to support your position is pathetic!
-
- +0
-
-
written by thenack, August 27, 2010
It is what I was trying to show with my little story, which insidently is exactly what most evolutionists/atheists teach as "FACT", you can try to deny it but they do. They talk about observational science, and then they just subtly shift over to "theories" and speculation, and then they force you to take it as fact. Deny all you want, atheists in general will tout this type of nonsens as science. But like you rightly stated, it is not.
Dissol, this reply is so typical, I am not trying to "knock science" as you put it, but there is a good example of you using the "science vs religion" argument to throw people who don't know better of.
You denied it happens at all, and then you do it yourself.
Evolution is not a scientific fact, it cannot be tested like real science in a lab. It is a fabrication of millions of little lies and speculations. Just like the big bang. You yourself admit that it is just one of many possible theories, yet in popular science and on TV it is also stated as "FACT", just like evolution. Get with the program man, many non Christians are already abandoning the Beagle, 20 years from now ID will be the theory of choise (not Creationism mind you). You will soon look the fool for being so rigid on something as flimsy as evolution.
the fact of the matter is that you and Barman have not really argued with me, and like always Dissol you very quickly resort to personal attack and bullying. This is not an argument, it is just a list of statements you make. You are welcome to have your opinion, but they are just that, not facts. So if you are going to try and convince somebody, at least engage in some arguments.
Finally, I hoped we could have a healthy debate here, but it seems your love for equivocating and half truths have gotten the better of you again.
Dissol, this reply is so typical, I am not trying to "knock science" as you put it, but there is a good example of you using the "science vs religion" argument to throw people who don't know better of.
You denied it happens at all, and then you do it yourself.
Evolution is not a scientific fact, it cannot be tested like real science in a lab. It is a fabrication of millions of little lies and speculations. Just like the big bang. You yourself admit that it is just one of many possible theories, yet in popular science and on TV it is also stated as "FACT", just like evolution. Get with the program man, many non Christians are already abandoning the Beagle, 20 years from now ID will be the theory of choise (not Creationism mind you). You will soon look the fool for being so rigid on something as flimsy as evolution.
the fact of the matter is that you and Barman have not really argued with me, and like always Dissol you very quickly resort to personal attack and bullying. This is not an argument, it is just a list of statements you make. You are welcome to have your opinion, but they are just that, not facts. So if you are going to try and convince somebody, at least engage in some arguments.
Finally, I hoped we could have a healthy debate here, but it seems your love for equivocating and half truths have gotten the better of you again.
-
- +0
-
-
written by OS GIKEN, August 27, 2010
DAMN I miss these posts! Well done guys for ressurecting it! Now...my 3c...
Evolution. homosapiens(forget spelling and gramar) and early humans etc. 1st started out as premature creatures...yes! But coming from Apes...No! You see the problem I have with science, is that it tries to explain simple things in a radical fashion, maybe dissol would agree with this...there is too many what if's wrt to that whole THEORY of evolution...and the sad part is that no one scientist came along and challenged that theory SUCCESSFULLY. Its shocking how so many people can accept something SO mind boggling as a SCIENTIFIC fact? Same as AIDS started coz someone had sex with a monkey...c'mon now.
Anyhoo...I have to run quickly, i'll be back to post some more subjective views...who made God? Good question. god made the world and the universe...yes, as a born again christian I believe this...since I was little, I had this idea that when I die, I want God to take me on a trip of the universe show me what's out there...then only we'll see, I believe humans are WAAAAY too primitive in 2010 to find out what and who God is and how he was created and what and how the universe works...most things found out about the universe like Black Holes and time dimensions exist in books and documentaries ONLY becuase someone thought of it and told to someone who doesn't have a better definition of it all...
If you can today, come up with a theory about why sex with a monkey is the probably cause for AIDS, and you back it up with facts whether true or untrue(there are facts...some are true, and some are untrue!) youll be hailed the new founder of the AIDS theory...its simple like that
Evolution. homosapiens(forget spelling and gramar) and early humans etc. 1st started out as premature creatures...yes! But coming from Apes...No! You see the problem I have with science, is that it tries to explain simple things in a radical fashion, maybe dissol would agree with this...there is too many what if's wrt to that whole THEORY of evolution...and the sad part is that no one scientist came along and challenged that theory SUCCESSFULLY. Its shocking how so many people can accept something SO mind boggling as a SCIENTIFIC fact? Same as AIDS started coz someone had sex with a monkey...c'mon now.
Anyhoo...I have to run quickly, i'll be back to post some more subjective views...who made God? Good question. god made the world and the universe...yes, as a born again christian I believe this...since I was little, I had this idea that when I die, I want God to take me on a trip of the universe show me what's out there...then only we'll see, I believe humans are WAAAAY too primitive in 2010 to find out what and who God is and how he was created and what and how the universe works...most things found out about the universe like Black Holes and time dimensions exist in books and documentaries ONLY becuase someone thought of it and told to someone who doesn't have a better definition of it all...
If you can today, come up with a theory about why sex with a monkey is the probably cause for AIDS, and you back it up with facts whether true or untrue(there are facts...some are true, and some are untrue!) youll be hailed the new founder of the AIDS theory...its simple like that
-
- -1
-
-
written by barrmar, August 27, 2010
thenack - Please refrain from throwing insults around - it certainly doesn't add to your arguments or credibility. I mentioned your spelling because it makes you look like a total ignoramus - take note, and people may take what you write slightly more seriously.
Other than that, I will not participate in a debate with a person that is obviously without any education but can nevertheless "out-science, out-math and out-think" me.
Other than that, I will not participate in a debate with a person that is obviously without any education but can nevertheless "out-science, out-math and out-think" me.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Dissol, August 27, 2010
As with Barrmar, I have to agree that there is simply no point trying to discuss these issues with a person like yourself, who puts out complete nonsense!
Please give some examples of your so called facts. I have never heard any scientist saying that evolution explains abiogenesis. Please try to understand the concept of a scientific theory. Evolution, like Gravity is a scientific theory. Therefore it is fact. It represents the best scientific explanation for biology. It is accepted as scientific fact by all the world's major scientific bodies. It can, and is testable, and must be probably the most tested scientific theory we have. It has never failed a single test. It makes predictions, and all the predictions have turned out to be correct. It also falls in line with all other related lines of science (biology, physics, geology, astronomy), and requires no refutation or changing of any other theory. But it does not even attempt to answer how life first started. It deals with how life has changed. Dawkins does not claim to know how life initially started, he may have some ideas, and probably some of those ideas will eventually turn out to be correct. Evolution is fact. It is fact that humans evolved from ape like creatures. This fact is corroborated by genes (which were unkown when the hypothesis was first put forward), but the ever increasing fossil record (we find the fossils that evolutuon predicts in the right age rocks. A single fossil in the wrong age would disprove the whole of evolution, and that has never happened). It ties in perfectly with our knowledge of physics, & carbon dating. ID is creationsim, just dressed up, it is not a scientific theory, it is a pathetic attempt to get a particular brand of religion to be taught inour schools. ID is thoroughly discredited. Its only use is to use it as an example of what science isn't, as it follows none of science's fundamental principles.
Evolution is critically important to our understanding of so many issues. Without that understanding we would not have been able to make the same advances in medicine.
You are merely demonstrating your own lack of knowledge and understanding. Quite clearly you have absolutely no understanding of the theory of evolutiuon. You suggest that it makes claims, that it certainly does not. You have no understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory, and the rigour of scientific testing. Evolution is only not accepted as a fact by religious fundamentals, who have a wish to prostylise their own beliefs onto others. Evolution is accepted even by most of the world's mainsteam religions, leaving only the extreme fringes who, like you, feel that the facts and implications of evolution have a negative impact on your own personal faith.
If you would like to discuss evolution, and science further, then I suggest you learn something about them first, rather than suggesting claims that they don't make and trying to disprove them! I can suggest some reading material if you wish.
Please give some examples of your so called facts. I have never heard any scientist saying that evolution explains abiogenesis. Please try to understand the concept of a scientific theory. Evolution, like Gravity is a scientific theory. Therefore it is fact. It represents the best scientific explanation for biology. It is accepted as scientific fact by all the world's major scientific bodies. It can, and is testable, and must be probably the most tested scientific theory we have. It has never failed a single test. It makes predictions, and all the predictions have turned out to be correct. It also falls in line with all other related lines of science (biology, physics, geology, astronomy), and requires no refutation or changing of any other theory. But it does not even attempt to answer how life first started. It deals with how life has changed. Dawkins does not claim to know how life initially started, he may have some ideas, and probably some of those ideas will eventually turn out to be correct. Evolution is fact. It is fact that humans evolved from ape like creatures. This fact is corroborated by genes (which were unkown when the hypothesis was first put forward), but the ever increasing fossil record (we find the fossils that evolutuon predicts in the right age rocks. A single fossil in the wrong age would disprove the whole of evolution, and that has never happened). It ties in perfectly with our knowledge of physics, & carbon dating. ID is creationsim, just dressed up, it is not a scientific theory, it is a pathetic attempt to get a particular brand of religion to be taught inour schools. ID is thoroughly discredited. Its only use is to use it as an example of what science isn't, as it follows none of science's fundamental principles.
Evolution is critically important to our understanding of so many issues. Without that understanding we would not have been able to make the same advances in medicine.
You are merely demonstrating your own lack of knowledge and understanding. Quite clearly you have absolutely no understanding of the theory of evolutiuon. You suggest that it makes claims, that it certainly does not. You have no understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory, and the rigour of scientific testing. Evolution is only not accepted as a fact by religious fundamentals, who have a wish to prostylise their own beliefs onto others. Evolution is accepted even by most of the world's mainsteam religions, leaving only the extreme fringes who, like you, feel that the facts and implications of evolution have a negative impact on your own personal faith.
If you would like to discuss evolution, and science further, then I suggest you learn something about them first, rather than suggesting claims that they don't make and trying to disprove them! I can suggest some reading material if you wish.
-
- +2
-
-
written by barrmar, August 27, 2010
Os - a fact can only be true. There is no such anumal as an untrue fact. Anything that is untrue is not a fact, and that is a fact.
FACT (noun):
1. A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred
2. A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened
3. An event known to have happened or something known to have existed
4. A concept whose truth can be proved
FACT (noun):
1. A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred
2. A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened
3. An event known to have happened or something known to have existed
4. A concept whose truth can be proved
-
- +1
-
-
written by thenack, August 27, 2010
"obviously without any education" "it will make you seem less illiterate" Seriously Barman, you complaining about insults?
Dissol, I have more knowledge on this topic than you may think, I didn't think it necessary to go through all these little steps with you. The things you think I don't know are the things I thought we didn't have to repeat to each other, every single time.
So let us cut to the chase, why do you not give me the falsification premise and the failed attempts to disprove evolution? Or would you rather be unscientific and give me a proof for evolution? Just one is all that is needed. Now let’s see how the grey areas and nonsense pop out under a facade of big talk. Just name the proof, you don't even have to explain it.
Furthermore, the age of the earth and abiogenists are paramount in this argument as they are two of the most obvious flaws in the evolutionary theory. A. Evolution could not happen if the earth is not gazillions of years old. B. Natural selection can only operate on existing gene combinations, it cannot produce new genetic information. So for evolution to work would require a mechanism that would be able to "create" information required for life from chemicals. Evolution is not the same as natural selection, so evolution requires additional life giving genetic information to be added to the existing, the same as would be required for the first life form. I was being generous, as "creating" a single celled life form is much easier than simultaneously adding the new genetic information to change scales to feathers, or trees into people. Are you with me now Dissol?
But you just sit comfy in your paradigm.
Here comes the next long rhetoric
Dissol, I have more knowledge on this topic than you may think, I didn't think it necessary to go through all these little steps with you. The things you think I don't know are the things I thought we didn't have to repeat to each other, every single time.
So let us cut to the chase, why do you not give me the falsification premise and the failed attempts to disprove evolution? Or would you rather be unscientific and give me a proof for evolution? Just one is all that is needed. Now let’s see how the grey areas and nonsense pop out under a facade of big talk. Just name the proof, you don't even have to explain it.
Furthermore, the age of the earth and abiogenists are paramount in this argument as they are two of the most obvious flaws in the evolutionary theory. A. Evolution could not happen if the earth is not gazillions of years old. B. Natural selection can only operate on existing gene combinations, it cannot produce new genetic information. So for evolution to work would require a mechanism that would be able to "create" information required for life from chemicals. Evolution is not the same as natural selection, so evolution requires additional life giving genetic information to be added to the existing, the same as would be required for the first life form. I was being generous, as "creating" a single celled life form is much easier than simultaneously adding the new genetic information to change scales to feathers, or trees into people. Are you with me now Dissol?
But you just sit comfy in your paradigm.
Here comes the next long rhetoric
-
- +0
-
-
written by OS GIKEN, August 27, 2010
LOL Barmar I know lol...was just adding some spice to this AGE old MyDL argument ebing flaunted around like a debate!
-
- +0
-
-
written by thenack, August 27, 2010
PS, HAte to leave you chaps hanging but I have to work so I can leave early for the weekend. thanks for the comments and for what it's worth I enjoy these little mental wreteling matches, geez, I should look at my spelling, how do you spel stoei?
-
- +0
-
-
written by OS GIKEN, August 27, 2010
I like to talk about Evolution from my 1 minute understanding. I did not read up on it, nor am I in anyway interested in people trying to explain the origins of humans or the origins of the universe. But I love these abck and forth bickerings...when does the real debates start? The Nack, you're last comment actually started the debate...Dissol we await your response!
-
- +0
-
-
written by thenack, August 27, 2010
Sugested reading http://creation.com/the-greate...h/main.php
The greatest Hoax on earth is a point by point refutal of the latest and greatest "proofs" of evolution as put together in his book, "The greatest show on earth" by richard Dawkins.
http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php
The greatest Hoax on earth is a point by point refutal of the latest and greatest "proofs" of evolution as put together in his book, "The greatest show on earth" by richard Dawkins.
http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php
-
- +0
-
-
written by thenack, August 27, 2010
PS, Os you can borrow mine once I finished, waar bly jy nou wee? Jhb, Pty?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dissol, August 27, 2010
I have no interest to waste my time explaining simple school biology to a religious fundamentalist, who clearly has no interest in the truth, or the common decency to debate properly. Happily, I know that evolution is contained within the South African school curriculum, and all attempts by religious fundamentalists to remove it have failed. ID/Creationism is clearly not a scientific approach in any way, and has been thoroughly discredited.
Suggested reading (aside from any basic school biology book!) - try Evolution - the Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins. I think it is one of his best works, as he sticks to the science that he is a well respected professor of. The ridiculous attempts by the christian fundamentalists, who have no proper academic training in the field are worse than laughable; they are clinging on to a literal translation of their special scripts in the face of literally mountains of evidence to the contrary. If I want to find out about science, then I will look at scientific literature, and websites. If I want to find out about religion then I would look at religious websites. If you wish to base your life on the line goddidit, in the face of all evidence to the contrary then I have no problem. But try to post actual facts, not lies, and ridiculous unfounded statements. You keep claiming to know a lot, but everything you write appears to point to the contrary.
Suggested reading (aside from any basic school biology book!) - try Evolution - the Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins. I think it is one of his best works, as he sticks to the science that he is a well respected professor of. The ridiculous attempts by the christian fundamentalists, who have no proper academic training in the field are worse than laughable; they are clinging on to a literal translation of their special scripts in the face of literally mountains of evidence to the contrary. If I want to find out about science, then I will look at scientific literature, and websites. If I want to find out about religion then I would look at religious websites. If you wish to base your life on the line goddidit, in the face of all evidence to the contrary then I have no problem. But try to post actual facts, not lies, and ridiculous unfounded statements. You keep claiming to know a lot, but everything you write appears to point to the contrary.
-
- +0
-
-
written by the new james rond, August 27, 2010
Theneck - You are one smart cookie! I agree with you 100% and I also can't spell.
OS - Please leave the monkeys alone...
OS - Please leave the monkeys alone...
-
- +1
-
-
written by DevilTrigger, August 28, 2010
Does how we got here actually matter? As Dissol said in the first comment, I don't know is the best answer. Chances are we will never understand the origins of everything, so how about we just live while we're alive and see what happens when we die. All this, We came from here, we came from there, is equivalent to skipping to the end of a novel to see how it ended. Just be patient! Live your life how you want, and when they throw you six feet under you'll discover the answers. 
-
- +1
-
-
written by L Power, August 30, 2010
I like your argument the nack. All creation speaks clearly about a creator behind it. by denying there is GOD one denies their very reason for living.
-
- +1
-
-
written by thenack, August 30, 2010
Dissol, well done, I believe you just discredited yourself. I never asked for explanations and have studies evolution quite in depth. As Sun Tzu said, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer".
I only asked you to name, one signle falsification principle that would place evolution alongside science such as lazer physics or quantum mechanincs. These are examples of real world usefull sciences. Very unlike evolution which is much more a religion than science. Again, I never asked for an explanation, but only one instance where it was practised like real science. I ask this question knowing you could not give an black and white answer. Becuase evolution is NOT science, you would have to explain to me.
I asked for one example of evolution that is clear and simple and straight forward. There are none.
Please read Dawkins's book, and then read Johanathan Sarfatis book to see how weak the best in evolution as to offer. If I'm not mistaken real scientists have very recently discredited Dakins's "inverted retina" argument totally. Oh, and Dr. Sarfati is a scientists himself. Go and read the greatest hoax on earth or are you too scared that you may be convinced?
James and L Power, thanks guys.
Devil Trigger, it does matter exactly in the field of morality and ethics, if we are purely the smartests chimps on earth, why try and act human? Survival of the fittest means exactly what Hitler did. Kill all the mentally sick people, kill all people with deformaties, steralize Down syndrome, kill of unwanted babies, abortion. Why not if it is for the greater good? Who decides the greater good? The strongest and the rest have to conform. Why not firht wars and win? If you are the striongest, force the rest to work for you.
Why is rape wrong? Why get maried at all. Why? God instituted marrige, so if there is no God, why bother?
I only asked you to name, one signle falsification principle that would place evolution alongside science such as lazer physics or quantum mechanincs. These are examples of real world usefull sciences. Very unlike evolution which is much more a religion than science. Again, I never asked for an explanation, but only one instance where it was practised like real science. I ask this question knowing you could not give an black and white answer. Becuase evolution is NOT science, you would have to explain to me.
I asked for one example of evolution that is clear and simple and straight forward. There are none.
Please read Dawkins's book, and then read Johanathan Sarfatis book to see how weak the best in evolution as to offer. If I'm not mistaken real scientists have very recently discredited Dakins's "inverted retina" argument totally. Oh, and Dr. Sarfati is a scientists himself. Go and read the greatest hoax on earth or are you too scared that you may be convinced?
James and L Power, thanks guys.
Devil Trigger, it does matter exactly in the field of morality and ethics, if we are purely the smartests chimps on earth, why try and act human? Survival of the fittest means exactly what Hitler did. Kill all the mentally sick people, kill all people with deformaties, steralize Down syndrome, kill of unwanted babies, abortion. Why not if it is for the greater good? Who decides the greater good? The strongest and the rest have to conform. Why not firht wars and win? If you are the striongest, force the rest to work for you.
Why is rape wrong? Why get maried at all. Why? God instituted marrige, so if there is no God, why bother?
-
- +0
-
-
written by ShackledMuse, September 01, 2010
Lmao, Dissol and Barrmar, Why do you even bother? :-P
-
- +0
-
-
written by mandibleclaw, September 01, 2010
2 Years later and this 'debate' is still going on? WTF people?!
-
- +0
-
-
Add your 2Cents
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
Where did the universe come from? The most honest anwer ANYONE can give is "I don't know". There are all sorts of conflicting theories. But I am hopeful that science may be able to answer that one day soon. You see science puts forwards various hypotheses and then tests them, tries to duplicate them, see what the results are. Then they try again, and again, and again, until they have an answer that seems to make sense. Then they release their idea, and many other scientists come alongand try to prove the idea wrong...
Personally, I think the LHC will go a long way to providing some light on this issue, but probably in the process open up a whole lot more questions.
As for abiogenesis, again, I think we will be seeing some answers soon. But at least any decent scientist is going to say "we don't know, but we have some ideas". Dawkins doesn't know, and I have never heard or read him saying that he knows. He has some ideas, and many of them make a lot of sense, but we do not have that knowledge yet. It is important that you understand a person's view before criticising that view!!
Of course, we don't need to bother doing all this work, and spending all this time in labs, or down in the ground in Switzerland; we could just listen to the nearest fundamental religionist, and hear him state "goddidit" OK...where is the evidence? What are your tests? How to you go about proving this position? At least have the honest answer and agree, we don't know. You may think that your god did it, but you have no proof, and can prove absolutely nothing, so, all you can say is - I believe my special friend did it...