# Science Is/As A Religion



## PoliticalChic

So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of &#8216;science,&#8217; and reason, compared to faith&#8230;

With respect to this &#8216;truth,&#8217; how is is possible to accept the theory of evolution&#8230;as so much is *based entirely on faith*?

1.	Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), *scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human.* They imagined that it was some sort of *beast-like primate*, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became *extinct,* without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum

a.	"The Neanderthal  is an *extinct *member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 7117&#8211;9. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.

2.	&#8220;According to *Darwinian thought,* millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.                                                        		
According to this theory, *Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off,* or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, *interbreeding would have been impossible*, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans. 

a.	 This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is *critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring. &#8220;                                                        *Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

3.	&#8220;We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development.* We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans* in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that *gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.&#8221;    *A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS

a.	&#8220;*Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals*.&#8230;*humans and Neanderthals are practically identical *at the protein level&#8230;.The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.&#8221;  Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com

4.	 &#8220;[M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings&#8230;.Here is the problem: *Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just can&#8217;t find the half-monkey, half-human bones. *This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet

a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an *advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.*"

Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!


Welcome, brethren of the religion of &#8216;science&#8217;!


----------



## Ropey

I see the two as entwined. Science seeks, by measurement and technical understanding, to explain that which is not known or well understood.  Religion does the same. Different paths, but the end result, (to my view) is the one power.

Science calls it a "Unified Field Theory. The three large religions call it G-d.  

I believe there is a nexus between the two. We will know one day.


----------



## JBeukema

PoliticalChic said:


> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith
> 
> With respect to this truth, how is is possible to accept the theory of evolutionas so much is *based entirely on faith*?





Google: pseudogene; single nucleotide polymorphism


> 2.    According to *Darwinian thought,* millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans.










> According to this theory, *Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off,* or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, *interbreeding would have been impossible*, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.



Your trolling's out of date

Also, two species can become one. It seems to have happened several times with a few more exotic oceanic species.

Then, of course, there are mitochondria...


> 4.     [M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings.Here is the problem: *Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just cant find the half-monkey, half-human bones. *



If they did, that would be evidence against the theory.





> This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet






> a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:
> 
> "The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an *advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.*"



You'd have to know something of Earth's history and the environment at the time to grasp the 'Cambrian Explosion'

Hint: it was shortly after Snowball Earth and before most environmental/evolutionary niches had been filled


Your trolling used to be better


----------



## PoliticalChic

Ropey said:


> I see the two as entwined. Science seeks, by measurement and technical understanding, to explain that which is not known or well understood.  Religion does the same. Different paths, but the end result, (to my view) is the one power.
> 
> Science calls it a "Unified Field Theory. The three large religions call it G-d.
> 
> I believe there is a nexus between the two. We will know one day.



I can accept that.


----------



## Big Fitz

Like Lutefisk... I choose not to partake of science as religion.  And you're right, that once death takes us, the truth will be known regardless of your faith.


----------



## Greenbeard

Big Fitz said:


> And you're right, that once death takes us, the truth will be known regardless of your faith.



    Death: When next we meet, the hour will strike for you and your friends.
    Antonius Block: And you will reveal your secrets?
    Death: I have no secrets.
    Block: So you know nothing?
    Death: I am unknowing.


----------



## Madeline

> Political Chic wrote in part:
> 
> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith



Dahlin', who has touted science as "superior to faith"?  Seems to me, all who've written that they accept science have said that *faith serves different needs*.

Can we see some quotes?


----------



## sangha

Another cut and paste job from PC, who can't make an argument using her own words.

It will be fun to watch her "refute" the science that other posters post with her childish one line insults devoid of any scientific facts.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JBeukema said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith
> 
> With respect to this truth, how is is possible to accept the theory of evolutionas so much is *based entirely on faith*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google: pseudogene; single nucleotide polymorphism
Click to expand...


You post this all the time like it proves something. What do you think it proves?


----------



## JBeukema

Big Fitz said:


> Like Lutefisk... I choose not to partake of science as religion.  And you're right, that once death takes us, the truth will be known regardless of your faith.


There are preachers of death: and the earth is full of those to whom desistance from life must be preached.
  Full is the earth of the superfluous; marred is life by the many-too-many. May they be decoyed out of this life by the "life eternal"!
  "The yellow ones": so are called the preachers of death, or "the black ones." But I will show them unto you in other colours besides.
  There are the terrible ones who carry about in themselves the beast of prey, and have no choice except lusts or self-laceration. And even their lusts are self-laceration.
  They have not yet become men, those terrible ones: may they preach desistance from life, and pass away themselves!
  There are the spiritually consumptive ones: hardly are they born when they begin to die, and long for doctrines of lassitude and renunciation.
  They would fain be dead, and we should approve of their wish! Let us beware of awakening those dead ones, and of damaging those living coffins!
  They meet an invalid, or an old man, or a corpseand immediately they say: "Life is refuted!"
  But they only are refuted, and their eye, which seeth only one aspect of existence.
  Shrouded in thick melancholy, and eager for the little casualties that bring death: thus do they wait, and clench their teeth.
  Or else, they grasp at sweetmeats, and mock at their childishness thereby: they cling to their straw of life, and mock at their still clinging to it.
  Their wisdom speaketh thus: "A fool, he who remaineth alive; but so far are we fools! And that is the foolishest thing in life!"
  "Life is only suffering": so say others, and lie not. Then see to it that ye cease! See to it that the life ceaseth which is only suffering!
  And let this be the teaching of your virtue: "Thou shalt slay thyself! Thou shalt steal away from thyself!"
  "Lust is sin,"so say some who preach death"let us go apart and beget no children!"
  "Giving birth is troublesome,"say others"why still give birth? One beareth only the unfortunate!" And they also are preachers of death.
  "Pity is necessary,"so saith a third party. "Take what I have! Take what I am! So much less doth life bind me!"
  Were they consistently pitiful, then would they make their neighbours sick of life. To be wickedthat would be their true goodness.
  But they want to be rid of life; what care they if they bind others still faster with their chains and gifts!
  And ye also, to whom life is rough labour and disquiet, are ye not very tired of life? Are ye not very ripe for the sermon of death?
  All ye to whom rough labour is dear, and the rapid, new, and strangeye put up with yourselves badly; your diligence is flight, and the will to self-forgetfulness.
  If ye believed more in life, then would ye devote yourselves less to the momentary. But for waiting, ye have not enough of capacity in you- nor even for idling!
  Everywhere resoundeth the voices of those who preach death; and the earth is full of those to whom death hath to be preached.
  Or "life eternal"; it is all the same to meif only they pass away quickly!
  Thus spake Zarathustra.


----------



## HUGGY

PoliticalChic said:


> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith
> 
> With respect to this truth, how is is possible to accept the theory of evolutionas so much is *based entirely on faith*?
> 
> 1.	Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), *scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human.* They imagined that it was some sort of *beast-like primate*, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became *extinct,* without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum
> 
> a.	"The Neanderthal  is an *extinct *member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 71179. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.
> 
> 2.	According to *Darwinian thought,* millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
> According to this theory, *Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off,* or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, *interbreeding would have been impossible*, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.
> 
> a.	 This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is *critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring.                                                         *Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
> 
> 3.	We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development.* We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans* in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that *gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.    *A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS
> 
> a.	*Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals*.*humans and Neanderthals are practically identical *at the protein level.The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.  Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 4.	 [M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings.Here is the problem: *Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just cant find the half-monkey, half-human bones. *This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet
> 
> a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:
> 
> "The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an *advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.*"
> 
> Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!
> 
> 
> Welcome, brethren of the religion of science!



It is good to see you making an attempt to understand this subject.  The Neanderthals had a different diet than the humans that are almost entirely our ancestors.  They had different ..more crude tools and weapons.  Their demise was more a function of their inability to feed themselves as conditions changed in their environment.  In short they were "dumber" and less able to adapt.


----------



## Madeline




----------



## daveman

JBeukema said:


> Thus spake Zarathustra.


----------



## daveman

What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.


----------



## HUGGY

daveman said:


> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. * It doesn't explain the origin of life itself*.



Don't have to.  The existence of life is self evident.  The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found.  It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate.  It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today.  For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started.  We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.


----------



## daveman

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. * It doesn't explain the origin of life itself*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  The existence of life is self evident.  The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found.  It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate.  It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today.  For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started.  We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

daveman said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. * It doesn't explain the origin of life itself*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  The existence of life is self evident.  The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found.  It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate.  It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today.  For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started.  We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is impressive!  That kind of stupid takes hard work!


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Daveman*
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.



Fair enough, Daveman. 

The origin of life remains to this day one of the biggest Achiles' heel in evolutionary theory. Any self-respecting biologist will readily admit that science does not have any solid explanation for abiogenesis (how life sprang from brute matter).

If the OP was worth a roll of toilet paper scientists would have already "filled this gap" with a pseudo-scientific/superstitious explanation instead of admitting the fact that their best attempts at explaining the issue amount to little more than scientific speculation.

Now that would be science mimicking religion!!


----------



## PoliticalChic

HUGGY said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith
> 
> With respect to this truth, how is is possible to accept the theory of evolutionas so much is *based entirely on faith*?
> 
> 1.	Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), *scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human.* They imagined that it was some sort of *beast-like primate*, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became *extinct,* without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum
> 
> a.	"The Neanderthal  is an *extinct *member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 71179. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.
> 
> 2.	According to *Darwinian thought,* millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
> According to this theory, *Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off,* or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, *interbreeding would have been impossible*, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.
> 
> a.	 This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is *critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring.                                                         *Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
> 
> 3.	We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development.* We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans* in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that *gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.    *A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS
> 
> a.	*Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals*.*humans and Neanderthals are practically identical *at the protein level.The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.  Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 4.	 [M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings.Here is the problem: *Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just cant find the half-monkey, half-human bones. *This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet
> 
> a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:
> 
> "The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an *advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.*"
> 
> Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!
> 
> 
> Welcome, brethren of the religion of science!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to see you making an attempt to understand this subject.  The Neanderthals had a different diet than the humans that are almost entirely our ancestors.  They had different ..more crude tools and weapons.  Their demise was more a function of their inability to feed themselves as conditions changed in their environment.  In short they were "dumber" and less able to adapt.
Click to expand...


Huggy, Huggy, Huggy...

the OP was aimed squarely at you...and designed to point out how similar religion and what you deem a rational belief based on evidence, science, are!

You accept the evolution concept, but scientists who cited the Neanderthal as a pre-human, a step in the evolution of mankind are proven wrong,  you carry on as 'well, yes, see- the genome evidence is now really, really right...'  

And the missing transitional forms that would have been real physical evidence of the theory don't exist...

did you see the quote from Dawkins?

How about one from Darwin himself:

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species: Chapter IX.-ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD - Free Online Library


"If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then *there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate formsNew forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. *If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
Dr. Nancy Pearcy, "Saving Leonardo"


Do you have an explanation?


No matter, Huggy, glad to see you embrace faith in this manner.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *PoliticalChic*
> And the missing transitional forms that would have been real physical evidence of the theory don't exist...



Of course they don't "exist".

Everytime clear, undisputed examples of transitional species like Archaeopteryx are unearthed they are immediately dismissed by creationists as not being really "transitional".


----------



## Quantum Windbag

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. * It doesn't explain the origin of life itself*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  The existence of life is self evident.  The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found.  It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate.  It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today.  For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started.  We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.
Click to expand...


No evidence of pre oxygen affected iron? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

There was very little, or no, oxygen in our atmosphere before plants were abundant because oxygen is so abundant that it was tied up in various compounds throughout the environment, like ferrous oxide.


----------



## uscitizen

Those of us who recognize science are always ready to accept that an old accepted "truth" is no longer correct when new discoveries/evidence is produced.

Unlike religion...


----------



## JBeukema

daveman said:


> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.











Guess what: thermodynamics can't explain gravity! Particle physics is refuted!


----------



## JBeukema

PoliticalChic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith
> 
> With respect to this truth, how is is possible to accept the theory of evolutionas so much is *based entirely on faith*?
> 
> 1.    Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), *scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human.* They imagined that it was some sort of *beast-like primate*, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became *extinct,* without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum
> 
> a.    "The Neanderthal  is an *extinct *member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 71179. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.
> 
> 2.    According to *Darwinian thought,* millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
> According to this theory, *Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off,* or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, *interbreeding would have been impossible*, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.
> 
> a.     This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is *critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring.                                                         *Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
> 
> 3.    We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development.* We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans* in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that *gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.    *A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS
> 
> a.    *Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals*.*humans and Neanderthals are practically identical *at the protein level.The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.  Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 4.     [M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings.Here is the problem: *Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just cant find the half-monkey, half-human bones. *This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet
> 
> a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:
> 
> "The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an *advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.*"
> 
> Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!
> 
> 
> Welcome, brethren of the religion of science!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to see you making an attempt to understand this subject.  The Neanderthals had a different diet than the humans that are almost entirely our ancestors.  They had different ..more crude tools and weapons.  Their demise was more a function of their inability to feed themselves as conditions changed in their environment.  In short they were "dumber" and less able to adapt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huggy, Huggy, Huggy...
> 
> the OP was aimed squarely at you...and designed to point out how similar religion and what you deem a rational belief based on evidence, science, are!
> 
> You accept the evolution concept, but scientists who cited the Neanderthal as a pre-human, a step in the evolution of mankind are proven wrong,  you carry on as 'well, yes, see- the genome evidence is now really, really right...'
> 
> And the missing transitional forms that would have been real physical evidence of the theory don't exist...
> 
> did you see the quote from Dawkins?
> 
> How about one from Darwin himself:
> 
> [Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
> Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species: Chapter IX.-ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD - Free Online Library
> 
> 
> "If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then *there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate formsNew forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. *If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
> Dr. Nancy Pearcy, "Saving Leonardo"
> 
> 
> Do you have an explanation?
> 
> 
> No matter, Huggy, glad to see you embrace faith in this manner.
Click to expand...

fossilization is a rare event


How many t-rexes lived? How many fossils do we have?

How many cats have lied in history? How many fossilized/petrified/naturally preserved cats do we stumble across?


----------



## JBeukema

José;3127940 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *PoliticalChic*
> And the missing transitional forms that would have been real physical evidence of the theory don't exist...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they don't "exist".
> 
> Everytime clear, undisputed examples of transitional species like Archaeopteryx are unearthed they are immediately dismissed by creationists as not being really "transitional".
Click to expand...

Each new fossil creates two new gaps in which God can hide


----------



## JBeukema

HUGGY said:


> the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen .


No, it doesn't.

Exposure to oxygen =/= oxidation

'tard


----------



## westwall

HUGGY said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith
> 
> With respect to this truth, how is is possible to accept the theory of evolutionas so much is *based entirely on faith*?
> 
> 1.	Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), *scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human.* They imagined that it was some sort of *beast-like primate*, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became *extinct,* without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum
> 
> a.	"The Neanderthal  is an *extinct *member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 71179. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.
> 
> 2.	According to *Darwinian thought,* millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
> According to this theory, *Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off,* or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, *interbreeding would have been impossible*, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.
> 
> a.	 This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is *critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring.                                                         *Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
> 
> 3.	We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development.* We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans* in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that *gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.    *A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS
> 
> a.	*Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals*.*humans and Neanderthals are practically identical *at the protein level.The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.  Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 4.	 [M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings.Here is the problem: *Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just cant find the half-monkey, half-human bones. *This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet
> 
> a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:
> 
> "The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an *advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.*"
> 
> Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!
> 
> 
> Welcome, brethren of the religion of science!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to see you making an attempt to understand this subject.  The Neanderthals had a different diet than the humans that are almost entirely our ancestors.  They had different ..more crude tools and weapons.  Their demise was more a function of their inability to feed themselves as conditions changed in their environment.  In short they were "dumber" and less able to adapt.
Click to expand...





The evidence points the other way.  Their brains were larger than ours, they were stronger and more able to deal with the cold environment of the era.  The single advantage that Homo Sapiens seems to have was we were able to breed faster due to a shorter gestation time, and even that is questionable.


----------



## westwall

Science is not a religion (at least it should not be as evidenced when it is perverted as in the cause of AGW) and is defined by it's objective which is to take empirical measurements of the physical world and deduce how it works from those observations.

Even Einstein (pretty much an atheist) though felt there was a place for religion in science when he stated 

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." in his  
"Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941


----------



## JBeukema

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. * It doesn't explain the origin of life itself*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  The existence of life is self evident.  The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found.  It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate.  It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today.  For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started.  We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.
Click to expand...




westwall said:


> Science is not a religion (at least it should not be as evidenced when it is perverted as in the cause of AGW) and is defined by it's objective which is to take empirical measurements of the physical world and deduce how it works from those observations.
> 
> Even Einstein (pretty much an atheist) though felt there was a place for religion in science when he stated
> 
> "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." in his
> "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941




You're really gonna quote a socialist? Why do you commutard demonrats hate America?


----------



## Big Fitz

One of the reasons that I respect Einstein.  He gets it.


----------



## HUGGY

westwall said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith
> 
> With respect to this truth, how is is possible to accept the theory of evolutionas so much is *based entirely on faith*?
> 
> 1.	Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), *scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human.* They imagined that it was some sort of *beast-like primate*, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became *extinct,* without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum
> 
> a.	"The Neanderthal  is an *extinct *member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 71179. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.
> 
> 2.	According to *Darwinian thought,* millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
> According to this theory, *Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off,* or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, *interbreeding would have been impossible*, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.
> 
> a.	 This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is *critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring.                                                         *Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
> 
> 3.	We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development.* We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans* in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that *gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.    *A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS
> 
> a.	*Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals*.*humans and Neanderthals are practically identical *at the protein level.The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.  Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 4.	 [M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings.Here is the problem: *Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just cant find the half-monkey, half-human bones. *This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet
> 
> a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:
> 
> "The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an *advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.*"
> 
> Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!
> 
> 
> Welcome, brethren of the religion of science!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to see you making an attempt to understand this subject.  The Neanderthals had a different diet than the humans that are almost entirely our ancestors.  They had different ..more crude tools and weapons.  Their demise was more a function of their inability to feed themselves as conditions changed in their environment.  In short they were "dumber" and less able to adapt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence points the other way.  Their brains were larger than ours, they were stronger and more able to deal with the cold environment of the era.  The single advantage that Homo Sapiens seems to have was we were able to breed faster due to a shorter gestation time, and even that is questionable.
Click to expand...


Their brains were not larger.  Below is an excerpt from the linked reference.  The main differences were how the brain develops not in it's size.

A comparison of Neanderthal and modern human genomes revealed several regions with strong evidence for positive selection within Homo sapiens, i.e. the selection occurred after the split between modern humans and Neanderthals. Three among these are likely to be critical for brain development, as they affect mental and cognitive development.

Brains of Neanderthals and modern humans developed differently


----------



## SmarterThanHick

PoliticalChic said:


> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of &#8216;science,&#8217; and reason, compared to faith&#8230;
> 
> With respect to this &#8216;truth,&#8217; how is is possible to accept the theory of evolution&#8230;as so much is *based entirely on faith*?


It's clear to me that you have no actual knowledge on evolution, but through the magic of using outdated copied and pasted information you also don't understand, you feel you are in a position to draw conclusions!  Fantastic.  

First off, if you want to discuss evolution, it's best to avoid material from the 1800s.  Just because you don't understand the topic doesn't mean others need faith.  It just means we're smarter than you in the subject.  

I find it interesting that it's always the religious nuts who try to force faith upon others, even if it's not their own.



Ropey said:


> I see the two as entwined. Science seeks, by measurement and technical understanding, to explain that which is not known or well understood.  Religion does the same. Different paths, but the end result, (to my view) is the one power.


Religion does the same?  Well yes, except one goes about it with evidence and fact, and the other goes about it with blind guessing and folk tales. 

Again, the only ones who compare religion and science are people who don't understand science.  



daveman said:


> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.


Sciencers?  Really?  You do realize how absolutely retarded that sounds, don't you?  And I don't use that word lightly ever. No, no "sciencer" fails to realize that evolution only explains differences between and within species.  That's because THAT'S ALL EVOLUTION DOES.  It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself.  Seems to me that "religioners" fail to realize that. Similarly, learning how to drive a car has nothing to do with learning how to manufacture a car from scratch.  They are two completely separate concepts in the same field.



daveman said:


>


I hope you realize that poor excuse for a rebuttal came from this:







			
				José;3127868 said:
			
		

> The origin of life remains to this day one of the biggest Achiles' heel in evolutionary theory.


See above regarding evolution to have nothing to do with the origin of life.

Who else would like to look like they have no clue what they're talking about?


----------



## JBeukema

Big Fitz said:


> One of the reasons that I respect Einstein.  He gets it.


commie


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *SmarterThanHick*
> See above regarding evolution to have nothing to do with the origin of life.
> 
> Who else would like to look like they have no clue what they're talking about?



By "evolutionary theory" I was reffering to the *general, all encompassing scientific paradigm* according to which the whole universe (including life) moves gradually from lower to higher levels of complexity.

And yes, the origin of life = abiogenesis is indeed one of the biggest Achiles' heel of the *MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM*.

But go ahead, DumberThanHick, nail me to a cross due to a poor choice of words...


----------



## theDoctorisIn

daveman said:


> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.



No, we realize that. It's the evolution-deniers who can't seem to accept that.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

José;3128352 said:
			
		

> By "evolutionary theory" I was reffering to the *general, all encompassing scientific paradigm* according to which the whole universe (including life) moves gradually from lower to higher levels of complexity.


So by "evolution theory" what you REALLY meant was something completely different from the scientific understanding of evolution, created by a combination of mad libs and pixie dust to fill in the gaping gaps of your lacking education.

There is no "general all encompassing scientific paradigm," let alone one which believes all things move from lower to higher levels of complexity. I repeat: there is NO general encompassing scientific paradigm except for the one you just pulled out of the air.  Evolution, "scientific evolution modern encompassing [adjective] paradigm", nor the easter bunny have anything to do with the origins of life.  



			
				José;3128352 said:
			
		

> But go ahead, DumberThanHick, nail me to a cross due to a poor choice of words...


You're doing a good job of that yourself.  I'm just pointing out that your hanging there.


----------



## westwall

JBeukema said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. * It doesn't explain the origin of life itself*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  The existence of life is self evident.  The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found.  It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate.  It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today.  For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started.  We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not a religion (at least it should not be as evidenced when it is perverted as in the cause of AGW) and is defined by it's objective which is to take empirical measurements of the physical world and deduce how it works from those observations.
> 
> Even Einstein (pretty much an atheist) though felt there was a place for religion in science when he stated
> 
> "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." in his
> "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're really gonna quote a socialist? Why do you commutard demonrats hate America?
Click to expand...





Actually, I quoted a genius and while his political views are very far from my own (you clearly have no idea where my political views are) , his comments are made more impactful because of who and what he was.


----------



## rdean

Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.


----------



## rdean

daveman said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. * It doesn't explain the origin of life itself*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  The existence of life is self evident.  The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found.  It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate.  It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today.  For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started.  We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Atheism is a "lack" of belief in mysticism, the supernatural and the occult.


----------



## José

> SmarterThanHick
> *There is no "general all encompassing scientific paradigm,"* let alone one which believes all things move from lower to higher levels of complexity. I repeat: *there is NO general encompassing scientific paradigm* except for the one you just pulled out of the air.



*Cosmic evolution*

Cosmic evolution is the scientific study of universal change. It is an *intellectual framework* (in other words, Smarter, a *PARADIGM*) that offers a grand synthesis of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe.

Only in the mid-20th century was the *cosmic-evolutionary scenario articulated as a research paradigm* to include empirical studies of galaxies, stars, planets, and lifein short, an expansive agenda that combines physical, biological, and cultural evolution.

The emergentist psychology which sees the human mind and societies as co-emerging into more complex levels, also fits well into the *cosmic evolution paradigm*.

The arrow of time captures the sequence of events based on a large body of post-Renaissance observational and experimental dataa continuous thread of change *from simplicity to complexity*, from inorganic to organic, from chaos in the early universe to order more recently.

Accordingly, *biological evolution* is a small, albeit important, subset of a *more extensive evolutionary scheme stretching across all of space and all of time*.

Cosmic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *SmarterThanHick*
> Who else would like to look like they have no clue what they're talking about?



Talk about being clueless...


----------



## SmarterThanHick

No.  It is not a scientific theory.  Nor does it describe, as you originally stated, that "whole universe (including life) moves gradually from lower to higher levels of complexity." 

Now scientific theories such as evolution and gravity are golden.  They are as close to being 100% factual as evidence allows.  Now as I just mentioned, "cosmic evolution" is not such a theory.  In fact, the wikipedia article you just cited, which at the top states the entire thing needs to be rewritten because it does not "comply with Wikipedia's quality standards" defines it as an "intellectual framework."  Are you aware of the value or meaning of an "intellectual framework" in science?  Worthless.  There isn't even a Wikipedia article to define what "intellectual framework" actually is, let alone one that meets basic Wikipedia standards.  

So it's just dandy that you managed to find a completely unsupported standard-lacking undefined concept that happens to have the word "evolution" in it, but that doesn't mean it's in any way related to the scientific theory of evolution.  Sure, it would certainly be nice if there were a single all encompassing formula that explained everything, which is why there is a name for that, but such a thing is NOT supported by scientific standards or evidence, and thus not accepted as equal to things like gravity or actual evolution by the scientific community.

Let me know if you'd like me to continue pointing out your mistakes, or if you'd like to stop there.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.



Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.
Click to expand...


and yet the entire reason we even have the concept of dark matter is because scientists are able to measure its effects on the physical universe.  We don't know exactly what it is or exactly how it works, but we do know THAT it works. There is evidence of it all over space.  

You can't say the same for religion.  There is a noticeable difference in magic tricks when exhibited to a child or an adult: adults know there's an explanation for it, even if they don't know the explanation themselves, whereas children think it's really magic.  Science may seem to have its fair share of tricks, but it's best to avoid acting like a child when referencing them.


----------



## Madeline

I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.

What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?


----------



## Douger

Madeline said:


> I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.
> 
> What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?


Years ago I asked a crackpot southern baptist preacher that very question.
His reply ?
The devil created dinosaur bones to deceive mankind.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

as a reborn, deeply god loving christian i have this thoughts about this issue:

Faith is faith and Science is science. The one fills my heart, gives me hope, let me believe, makes me happy, helps me to become a good man, helps me to see others suffering and shows my ways to help them. THe other gives me the tools and instruments for doing it. The one i believe, the other i know.

Science is alwasy provable. Faith never, anyelse it´s not faith but knowing. I don´t need to trust in science. If a scientific method works, then it works. THere´s no need of trusting anymore. But faith works only with trust. 

So i don´t have any problem to accept the evolutionary theories. It´s just how God made it, nothing more, nothing less. Anyway how it happened, the world is here. Don´t we have more urgent questions than this?


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.



What moron wingnuts fail to realize is that evolution is silent about the origen of life itself. For the benefit of the moron wingnuts I will post the definition of evolution because it's obvious that some wingnuts are too dumb to know that they don't know what they're talking about

Evolution is the study of how and why the distribution of genes changes over time within a population


----------



## sangha

SmarterThanHick said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith
> 
> With respect to this truth, how is is possible to accept the theory of evolutionas so much is *based entirely on faith*?
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear to me that you have no actual knowledge on evolution, but through the magic of using outdated copied and pasted information you also don't understand, you feel you are in a position to draw conclusions!  Fantastic.
> 
> First off, if you want to discuss evolution, it's best to avoid material from the 1800s.  Just because you don't understand the topic doesn't mean others need faith.  It just means we're smarter than you in the subject.
> 
> I find it interesting that it's always the religious nuts who try to force faith upon others, even if it's not their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the two as entwined. Science seeks, by measurement and technical understanding, to explain that which is not known or well understood.  Religion does the same. Different paths, but the end result, (to my view) is the one power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion does the same?  Well yes, except one goes about it with evidence and fact, and the other goes about it with blind guessing and folk tales.
> 
> Again, the only ones who compare religion and science are people who don't understand science.
> 
> 
> Sciencers?  Really?  You do realize how absolutely retarded that sounds, don't you?  And I don't use that word lightly ever. No, no "sciencer" fails to realize that evolution only explains differences between and within species.  That's because THAT'S ALL EVOLUTION DOES.  It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself.  Seems to me that "religioners" fail to realize that. Similarly, learning how to drive a car has nothing to do with learning how to manufacture a car from scratch.  They are two completely separate concepts in the same field.
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope you realize that poor excuse for a rebuttal came from this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José;3127868 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of life remains to this day one of the biggest Achiles' heel in evolutionary theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See above regarding evolution to have nothing to do with the origin of life.
> 
> Who else would like to look like they have no clue what they're talking about?
Click to expand...


Your post begins with a HUGE error.....PC has no desire to DISCUSS evolution as proven by the fact that she has not responded to any post which refutes her absurd claims. Instead of discussing anything, she is only responding to posters who agree with her

She doesn't want to discuss evolution because she knows she doesn't know what she's talking about. Thats why she always cuts and pastes her arguments; She's too ignorant to express an idea using her own words


----------



## daveman

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  The existence of life is self evident.  The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found.  It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate.  It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today.  For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started.  We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is impressive!  That kind of stupid takes hard work!
Click to expand...

I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.


----------



## daveman

José;3127868 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *Daveman*
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough, Daveman.
> 
> The origin of life remains to this day one of the biggest Achiles' heel in evolutionary theory. Any self-respecting biologist will readily admit that science does not have any solid explanation for abiogenesis (how life sprang from brute matter).
> 
> If the OP was worth a roll of toilet paper scientists would have already "filled this gap" with a pseudo-scientific/superstitious explanation instead of admitting the fact that their best attempts at explaining the issue amount to little more than scientific speculation.
> 
> Now that would be science mimicking religion!!
Click to expand...

Or there's the Huggy Approach:  "It doesn't have to!  Neener neener!"


----------



## daveman

JBeukema said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what: thermodynamics can't explain gravity! Particle physics is refuted!
Click to expand...

Spectacular fail on your part.  I didn't say that evolution's inability to explain the origin of life means that evolution has not taken place.  

So, in summary, it looks like I'm not stupid, but you are.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what: thermodynamics can't explain gravity! Particle physics is refuted!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spectacular fail on your part.  I didn't say that evolution's inability to explain the origin of life means that evolution has not taken place.
> 
> So, in summary, it looks like I'm not stupid, but you are.
Click to expand...


Actually, you're still a moron and your statement is still dumb



> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself



It is stupid becuase evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life itself. You are just too dumb to realize that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself, so you think you said something brilliant!!


----------



## daveman

SmarterThanHick said:


> Sciencers?  Really?  You do realize how absolutely retarded that sounds, don't you?


Of course I do.  I was mocking the left.


SmarterThanHick said:


> And I don't use that word lightly ever. No, no "sciencer" fails to realize that evolution only explains differences between and within species.  That's because THAT'S ALL EVOLUTION DOES.  It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself.  Seems to me that "religioners" fail to realize that. Similarly, learning how to drive a car has nothing to do with learning how to manufacture a car from scratch.  They are two completely separate concepts in the same field.


Odd, then, that I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.  


SmarterThanHick said:


> I hope you realize that poor excuse for a rebuttal came from this:


Yeah, and that one's wrong.


----------



## daveman

theDoctorisIn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we realize that. It's the evolution-deniers who can't seem to accept that.
Click to expand...

As I told Hick, I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution. 

So, no, it doesn't look like you all realize that.


----------



## Big Fitz

Daveman... don't both.  You're trying to part the Dumb Sea.


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  The existence of life is self evident.  The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found.  It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate.  It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today.  For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started.  We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is a "lack" of belief in mysticism, the supernatural and the occult.
Click to expand...

Then AGW and atheism are incompatible?


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What moron wingnuts fail to realize is that evolution is silent about the origen of life itself. For the benefit of the moron wingnuts I will post the definition of evolution because it's obvious that some wingnuts are too dumb to know that they don't know what they're talking about
> 
> Evolution is the study of how and why the distribution of genes changes over time within a population
Click to expand...

I know that.  YOU know that.  But there are some creation-deniers out there who don't.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> Actually, you're still a moron and your statement is still dumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is stupid becuase evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life itself. You are just too dumb to realize that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself, so you think you said something brilliant!!
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly aware of what evolution attempts to explain.  You can tell because I said: "... evolution explains only the differentiation of species."

So you're left with nothing but knee-jerk opposition.  Just another day at the office.


----------



## daveman

Big Fitz said:


> Daveman... don't both.  You're trying to part the Dumb Sea.



Oh, I know they'll never accept that some people on their side are dumb as rocks.  

That they're all intelligent is something they take on faith.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't use that word lightly ever. No, no "sciencer" fails to realize that evolution only explains differences between and within species.  That's because THAT'S ALL EVOLUTION DOES.  It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself.  Seems to me that "religioners" fail to realize that. Similarly, learning how to drive a car has nothing to do with learning how to manufacture a car from scratch.  They are two completely separate concepts in the same field.
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, then, that I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.
Click to expand...


Once again, you have demonstrated a stunning stupidity

Evolution refutes creationism because creationism says that humans were created by God "as is" and did not evolve. Evolution contradicts Creationism. Evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life itself in order to refute Creationism

But you are so dumb, you're still hung up on the idea that evolution does or should explain the origins of life itself. No matter how many times you are educated on this, you will continue to insist that the origins of life itself has something to do with evolution. You can't drop this idea because you are too dumb to realize how dumb you are. Here's a study that explains the phenomena of stupid people who are certain they are not stupid

Confident dumb people - Boing Boing


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we realize that. It's the evolution-deniers who can't seem to accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I told Hick, I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.
> 
> So, no, it doesn't look like you all realize that.
Click to expand...


Evolution does refute creationism and it refutes it without any reference to origins of life itself.

You're just too stupid to understand this because you're too stupid to realize that the origins of life itself has nothing to do with evolution


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't use that word lightly ever. No, no "sciencer" fails to realize that evolution only explains differences between and within species.  That's because THAT'S ALL EVOLUTION DOES.  It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself.  Seems to me that "religioners" fail to realize that. Similarly, learning how to drive a car has nothing to do with learning how to manufacture a car from scratch.  They are two completely separate concepts in the same field.
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, then, that I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you have demonstrated a stunning stupidity
> 
> Evolution refutes creationism because creationism says that humans were created by God "as is" and did not evolve. Evolution contradicts Creationism. Evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life itself in order to refute Creationism
> 
> But you are so dumb, you're still hung up on the idea that evolution does or should explain the origins of life itself. No matter how many times you are educated on this, you will continue to insist that the origins of life itself has something to do with evolution. You can't drop this idea because you are too dumb to realize how dumb you are. Here's a study that explains the phenomena of stupid people who are certain they are not stupid
> 
> Confident dumb people - Boing Boing
Click to expand...

Ahem:  
I'm perfectly aware of what evolution attempts to explain. You can tell because I said: "... evolution explains only the differentiation of species."​Now, are you going to try to keep telling me what I know, when in fact I've told you what I know, and it bears no resemblance to what you insist I know?

I'm betting "yes".


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What moron wingnuts fail to realize is that evolution is silent about the origen of life itself. For the benefit of the moron wingnuts I will post the definition of evolution because it's obvious that some wingnuts are too dumb to know that they don't know what they're talking about
> 
> Evolution is the study of how and why the distribution of genes changes over time within a population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that.  YOU know that.  But there are some creation-deniers out there who don't.
Click to expand...


You are lying.

You do not know that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself. You have even criticized evolution got not explaining the origins of life itself (see your quote above). If you're going to lie, you should tell better lies. Too bad you're too dumb to realize that the proof that you didn't know what evolution is contained in the quote you posted. 



daveman said:


> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.



You see, Dave? You criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself even though evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain that. Your lies are obvious

You also criticize "sciencers" for not knowing this, even though they do. There hasn't been one person posting in support of evolution who does not know this. Once again, you have told an obvious lie


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we realize that. It's the evolution-deniers who can't seem to accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> As I told Hick, I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.
> 
> So, no, it doesn't look like you all realize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution does refute creationism and it refutes it without any reference to origins of life itself.
> 
> You're just too stupid to understand this because you're too stupid to realize that the origins of life itself has nothing to do with evolution
Click to expand...

Yep.  I was right.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> What moron wingnuts fail to realize is that evolution is silent about the origen of life itself. For the benefit of the moron wingnuts I will post the definition of evolution because it's obvious that some wingnuts are too dumb to know that they don't know what they're talking about
> 
> Evolution is the study of how and why the distribution of genes changes over time within a population
> 
> 
> 
> I know that.  YOU know that.  But there are some creation-deniers out there who don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are lying.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.  


sangha said:


> You do not know that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself. You have even criticized evolution got not explaining the origins of life itself (see your quote above). If you're going to lie, you should tell better lies. Too bad you're too dumb to realize that the proof that you didn't know what evolution is contained in the quote you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, Dave? You criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself even though evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain that. Your lies are obvious
> 
> You also criticize "sciencers" for not knowing this, even though they do. There hasn't been one person posting in support of evolution who does not know this. Once again, you have told an obvious lie
Click to expand...

My goodness, you just lose your mind when your worldview is challenged, don't you?


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you're still a moron and your statement is still dumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is stupid becuase evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life itself. You are just too dumb to realize that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself, so you think you said something brilliant!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm perfectly aware of what evolution attempts to explain.  You can tell because I said: "... evolution explains only the differentiation of species."
> 
> So you're left with nothing but knee-jerk opposition.  Just another day at the office.
Click to expand...


No, I'm still left with the fact that your stupidity knows no bounds. No idea is too simple for you to get wrong

Evolution explains more than the differentiation of species. Everything you have said is wrong. You are so dumb, that you still dont even understand what evolution is, even though the definition of it has been posted more than once.

You are too stupid to know about evolution and too stupid to learn


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you're still a moron and your statement is still dumb
> 
> 
> 
> It is stupid becuase evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life itself. You are just too dumb to realize that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself, so you think you said something brilliant!!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly aware of what evolution attempts to explain.  You can tell because I said: "... evolution explains only the differentiation of species."
> 
> So you're left with nothing but knee-jerk opposition.  Just another day at the office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm still left with the fact that your stupidity knows no bounds. No idea is too simple for you to get wrong
> 
> Evolution explains more than the differentiation of species. Everything you have said is wrong. You are so dumb, that you still dont even understand what evolution is, even though the definition of it has been posted more than once.
> 
> You are too stupid to know about evolution and too stupid to learn
Click to expand...

Quick!  Tell me what's nonfactual about this statement:

Evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.​
Degree of difficulty:  You have to use what I've actually written, not what your bigotry against conservatives and Christians tells you I believe.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, then, that I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you have demonstrated a stunning stupidity
> 
> Evolution refutes creationism because creationism says that humans were created by God "as is" and did not evolve. Evolution contradicts Creationism. Evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life itself in order to refute Creationism
> 
> But you are so dumb, you're still hung up on the idea that evolution does or should explain the origins of life itself. No matter how many times you are educated on this, you will continue to insist that the origins of life itself has something to do with evolution. You can't drop this idea because you are too dumb to realize how dumb you are. Here's a study that explains the phenomena of stupid people who are certain they are not stupid
> 
> Confident dumb people - Boing Boing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahem:
> I'm perfectly aware of what evolution attempts to explain. You can tell because I said: "... evolution explains only the differentiation of species."​Now, are you going to try to keep telling me what I know, when in fact I've told you what I know, and it bears no resemblance to what you insist I know?
> 
> I'm betting "yes".
Click to expand...


If wingnuts didn't lie, they have nothing to say

Dave claims he knows that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself, but he still criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself 

Dave claims he what evolution explains, but he posts that evolution only explains the differentiation of species 

You know nothing about evolution, and everything you have said proves this to be true


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you have demonstrated a stunning stupidity
> 
> Evolution refutes creationism because creationism says that humans were created by God "as is" and did not evolve. Evolution contradicts Creationism. Evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life itself in order to refute Creationism
> 
> But you are so dumb, you're still hung up on the idea that evolution does or should explain the origins of life itself. No matter how many times you are educated on this, you will continue to insist that the origins of life itself has something to do with evolution. You can't drop this idea because you are too dumb to realize how dumb you are. Here's a study that explains the phenomena of stupid people who are certain they are not stupid
> 
> Confident dumb people - Boing Boing
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem:
> I'm perfectly aware of what evolution attempts to explain. You can tell because I said: "... evolution explains only the differentiation of species."​Now, are you going to try to keep telling me what I know, when in fact I've told you what I know, and it bears no resemblance to what you insist I know?
> 
> I'm betting "yes".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If wingnuts didn't lie, they have nothing to say
> 
> Dave claims he knows that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself, but he still criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself
> 
> Dave claims he what evolution explains, but he posts that evolution only explains the differentiation of species
> 
> You know nothing about evolution, and everything you have said proves this to be true
Click to expand...

You're really not very good at this, are you?


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that.  YOU know that.  But there are some creation-deniers out there who don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself. You have even criticized evolution got not explaining the origins of life itself (see your quote above). If you're going to lie, you should tell better lies. Too bad you're too dumb to realize that the proof that you didn't know what evolution is contained in the quote you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see, Dave? You criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself even though evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain that. Your lies are obvious
> 
> You also criticize "sciencers" for not knowing this, even though they do. There hasn't been one person posting in support of evolution who does not know this. Once again, you have told an obvious lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goodness, you just lose your mind when your worldview is challenged, don't you?
Click to expand...


Translation: Dave has nothing. WHen Dave has nothing, he claims that others are wrong and refuses to defend his own words.

Dave lied and claimed that he knew that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself. Dave will never explain why he brought up the origins of life itself when he knows it has nothing to do with evolution


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I told Hick, I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.
> 
> So, no, it doesn't look like you all realize that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution does refute creationism and it refutes it without any reference to origins of life itself.
> 
> You're just too stupid to understand this because you're too stupid to realize that the origins of life itself has nothing to do with evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  I was right.
Click to expand...


Your link doesn't work for me. Try the quote feature. That is, if you can figure out how to use it


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly aware of what evolution attempts to explain.  You can tell because I said: "... evolution explains only the differentiation of species."
> 
> So you're left with nothing but knee-jerk opposition.  Just another day at the office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm still left with the fact that your stupidity knows no bounds. No idea is too simple for you to get wrong
> 
> Evolution explains more than the differentiation of species. Everything you have said is wrong. You are so dumb, that you still dont even understand what evolution is, even though the definition of it has been posted more than once.
> 
> You are too stupid to know about evolution and too stupid to learn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quick!  Tell me what's nonfactual about this statement:
> 
> Evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.​
> Degree of difficulty:  You have to use what I've actually written, not what your bigotry against conservatives and Christians tells you I believe.
Click to expand...


You can't find the non-factual part of that statement (even though I have already explained why it's non-factual) and that just proves how stupid you are 

The statement "Evolution explains only the differentiation of species" is non-factual because evolution explains MORE than just the differentiation of species. 

Please note that, as you requested, my answer uses only what it written and makes no reference to any religion or political philosophy


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself. You have even criticized evolution got not explaining the origins of life itself (see your quote above). If you're going to lie, you should tell better lies. Too bad you're too dumb to realize that the proof that you didn't know what evolution is contained in the quote you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> You see, Dave? You criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself even though evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain that. Your lies are obvious
> 
> You also criticize "sciencers" for not knowing this, even though they do. There hasn't been one person posting in support of evolution who does not know this. Once again, you have told an obvious lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goodness, you just lose your mind when your worldview is challenged, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: Dave has nothing. WHen Dave has nothing, he claims that others are wrong and refuses to defend his own words.
> 
> Dave lied and claimed that he knew that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself. Dave will never explain why he brought up the origins of life itself when he knows it has nothing to do with evolution
Click to expand...

Despite all these posts back and forth, are you claiming I really _do_ believe evolution explains the origin of life?

Based on what?  Where I said it doesn't?


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem:
> I'm perfectly aware of what evolution attempts to explain. You can tell because I said: "... evolution explains only the differentiation of species."​Now, are you going to try to keep telling me what I know, when in fact I've told you what I know, and it bears no resemblance to what you insist I know?
> 
> I'm betting "yes".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If wingnuts didn't lie, they have nothing to say
> 
> Dave claims he knows that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself, but he still criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself
> 
> Dave claims he what evolution explains, but he posts that evolution only explains the differentiation of species
> 
> You know nothing about evolution, and everything you have said proves this to be true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're really not very good at this, are you?
Click to expand...


Translation - Once again, I've reduced dave to an emotional wreck. incapable of responding to my arguments.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution does refute creationism and it refutes it without any reference to origins of life itself.
> 
> You're just too stupid to understand this because you're too stupid to realize that the origins of life itself has nothing to do with evolution
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  I was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link doesn't work for me. Try the quote feature. That is, if you can figure out how to use it
Click to expand...

It's a link to Post #62.  And the link works for me.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm still left with the fact that your stupidity knows no bounds. No idea is too simple for you to get wrong
> 
> Evolution explains more than the differentiation of species. Everything you have said is wrong. You are so dumb, that you still dont even understand what evolution is, even though the definition of it has been posted more than once.
> 
> You are too stupid to know about evolution and too stupid to learn
> 
> 
> 
> Quick!  Tell me what's nonfactual about this statement:
> 
> Evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.​
> Degree of difficulty:  You have to use what I've actually written, not what your bigotry against conservatives and Christians tells you I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't find the non-factual part of that statement (even though I have already explained why it's non-factual) and that just proves how stupid you are
> 
> The statement "Evolution explains only the differentiation of species" is non-factual because evolution explains MORE than just the differentiation of species.
> 
> Please note that, as you requested, my answer uses only what it written and makes no reference to any religion or political philosophy
Click to expand...

Kinda stretching there, aren't you?


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> My goodness, you just lose your mind when your worldview is challenged, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: Dave has nothing. WHen Dave has nothing, he claims that others are wrong and refuses to defend his own words.
> 
> Dave lied and claimed that he knew that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself. Dave will never explain why he brought up the origins of life itself when he knows it has nothing to do with evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite all these posts back and forth, are you claiming I really _do_ believe evolution explains the origin of life?
> 
> Based on what?  Where I said it doesn't?
Click to expand...


Why did you criticize evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself? If you know the origins of life itself has nothing to do with evolution, then why did even mention the issue of the origins of life itself?

Here's where you respond with another one-liner and run away from explaining yourself because the explanation proves you didn't know that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> If wingnuts didn't lie, they have nothing to say
> 
> Dave claims he knows that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself, but he still criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself
> 
> Dave claims he what evolution explains, but he posts that evolution only explains the differentiation of species
> 
> You know nothing about evolution, and everything you have said proves this to be true
> 
> 
> 
> You're really not very good at this, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation - Once again, I've reduced dave to an emotional wreck. incapable of responding to my arguments.
Click to expand...

  Your argument:  "It's wrong because YOU said it!"


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  I was right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link doesn't work for me. Try the quote feature. That is, if you can figure out how to use it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a link to Post #62.  And the link works for me.
Click to expand...


That explains why you didn't post any text

Post #62 is the post where you stupidly claim that the differentiation of species is the only thing evolution explains.

How does your stupidity (contained in post #62) prove you're not stupid?


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: Dave has nothing. WHen Dave has nothing, he claims that others are wrong and refuses to defend his own words.
> 
> Dave lied and claimed that he knew that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself. Dave will never explain why he brought up the origins of life itself when he knows it has nothing to do with evolution
> 
> 
> 
> Despite all these posts back and forth, are you claiming I really _do_ believe evolution explains the origin of life?
> 
> Based on what?  Where I said it doesn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you criticize evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself? If you know the origins of life itself has nothing to do with evolution, then why did even mention the issue of the origins of life itself?
> 
> Here's where you respond with another one-liner and run away from explaining yourself because the explanation proves you didn't know that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
Click to expand...

See, you're not making a bit of sense.  

I've seen creation-deniers refute creation by pointing to evolution.  When I ask them were life came from originally, _they again pointed to evolution_.

Not everyone on your side of the aisle is intelligent.  You need to accept this fact and stop pretending otherwise.

I know that evolution does not explain the origin of life.  I've said it several times in this thread.  I can't make it any plainer:  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  

Now, do you want to keep insisting that I don't know that " evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life"?  Because you're going to look pretty stupid if you keep it up.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link doesn't work for me. Try the quote feature. That is, if you can figure out how to use it
> 
> 
> 
> It's a link to Post #62.  And the link works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That explains why you didn't post any text
> 
> Post #62 is the post where you stupidly claim that the differentiation of species is the only thing evolution explains.
> 
> How does your stupidity (contained in post #62) prove you're not stupid?
Click to expand...


You didn't read the entire post.

Now, are you going to try to keep telling me what I know, when in fact I've told you what I know, and it bears no resemblance to what you insist I know?

I'm betting "yes". ​And I was indeed right.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're really not very good at this, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation - Once again, I've reduced dave to an emotional wreck. incapable of responding to my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument:  "It's wrong because YOU said it!"
Click to expand...


My argument (which you are too scared to respond to) is

1) Dave claims he knows that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself, but he still criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself. Dave is now too scared to explain why he brought up the issue of the origins of life when he KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution

2) Dave claims he knows what evolution explains, but he posts that evolution only explains the differentiation of species . As far as I can tell, Dave still believes that evolution only explains the differentian of species

Dave, let me know when you work up the courage to defend the two claims of yours.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite all these posts back and forth, are you claiming I really _do_ believe evolution explains the origin of life?
> 
> Based on what?  Where I said it doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you criticize evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself? If you know the origins of life itself has nothing to do with evolution, then why did even mention the issue of the origins of life itself?
> 
> Here's where you respond with another one-liner and run away from explaining yourself because the explanation proves you didn't know that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, you're not making a bit of sense.
> 
> I've seen creation-deniers refute creation by pointing to evolution.  When I ask them were life came from originally, _they again pointed to evolution_.
Click to expand...


You are lying. That's why you won't post any links or name any of these mythical "sciencers"



> Not everyone on your side of the aisle is intelligent.  You need to accept this fact and stop pretending otherwise.
> 
> I know that evolution does not explain the origin of life.  I've said it several times in this thread.  I can't make it any plainer:  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.



You are so dumb that you still don't understand that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life. That's why you are too scared to explain why you brought up the origin of life when you KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution



> Now, do you want to keep insisting that I don't know that " evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life"?  Because you're going to look pretty stupid if you keep it up.



You still don't realize that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life itself. That's why, in spite of all this back and forth, you haven't posted three things

1) While you have stated that evolution does not explain the origin of life, you STILL DON"T KNOW that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life. That is why you still haven't admitted that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED TO explain the origins of life.

2) You still haven't explained why you even mentioned the issue of the origin of life when you KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution

3) You claim that (some? many? one?) "sciencers" think that evolution explains the origins of life itself. You still haven't posted anything to support your claim


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a link to Post #62.  And the link works for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That explains why you didn't post any text
> 
> Post #62 is the post where you stupidly claim that the differentiation of species is the only thing evolution explains.
> 
> How does your stupidity (contained in post #62) prove you're not stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the entire post.
> 
> Now, are you going to try to keep telling me what I know, when in fact I've told you what I know, and it bears no resemblance to what you insist I know?
> 
> I'm betting "yes". ​And I was indeed right.
Click to expand...


Once again, you are still operating under the inane idea that evolution is supposed to explain the origins of life. Nowhere in this thread have you admitted that evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life. Nowhere in this thread have you explained why you raised the issue of the origin of life when you knew it had nothing to do with evolution


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation - Once again, I've reduced dave to an emotional wreck. incapable of responding to my arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument:  "It's wrong because YOU said it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My argument (which you are too scared to respond to) is
> 
> 1) Dave claims he knows that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself, but he still criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself. Dave is now too scared to explain why he brought up the issue of the origins of life when he KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution
Click to expand...

Wrong.  I did not criticize evolution for not explaining the origin of species.  I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species.

So it looks like this half of your argument has failed.


sangha said:


> 2) Dave claims he knows what evolution explains, but he posts that evolution only explains the differentiation of species . As far as I can tell, Dave still believes that evolution only explains the differentian of species


When looking at the history of life on this planet (and I was, because I was talking about the origin of that life), the differentiation of species is evolution's purpose -- the macro view.

Do I believe that is the only thing evolution seeks to explain?  No.  It has effects in the micro view as well, as shown by recorded observations.

How many times will I have to explain that before you accept it?

So it looks like the second half of your argument has failed.


sangha said:


> Dave, let me know when you work up the courage to defend the two claims of yours.


Done.  And it took no courage, just patience to wade through your self-righteous bullshit.  

Meanwhile, we can continue this discussion if you like, but only if you respond to what I _actually_ say, not what you want me to have said and then declare yourself teh winnar.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you criticize evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself? If you know the origins of life itself has nothing to do with evolution, then why did even mention the issue of the origins of life itself?
> 
> Here's where you respond with another one-liner and run away from explaining yourself because the explanation proves you didn't know that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
> 
> 
> 
> See, you're not making a bit of sense.
> 
> I've seen creation-deniers refute creation by pointing to evolution.  When I ask them were life came from originally, _they again pointed to evolution_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are lying. That's why you won't post any links or name any of these mythical "sciencers"
Click to expand...

Your childish petulant foot-stamping aside, I am not lying.  And I can't very well post links to message board discussions when those boards no longer exist, can I?

Your inability to accept that reflects only on you.


sangha said:


> Not everyone on your side of the aisle is intelligent.  You need to accept this fact and stop pretending otherwise.
> 
> I know that evolution does not explain the origin of life.  I've said it several times in this thread.  I can't make it any plainer:  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so dumb that you still don't understand that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life. That's why you are too scared to explain why you brought up the origin of life when you KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution
Click to expand...

Wrong.  I never claimed evolution was supposed to explain the origin of life.


sangha said:


> Now, do you want to keep insisting that I don't know that " evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life"?  Because you're going to look pretty stupid if you keep it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't realize that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life itself.
Click to expand...

I know.  You can tell because I keep saying that.


sangha said:


> That's why, in spite of all this back and forth, you haven't posted three things
> 
> 1) While you have stated that evolution does not explain the origin of life, you STILL DON"T KNOW that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life. That is why you still haven't admitted that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED TO explain the origins of life.


I've admitted it several times.  It's really not my fault you'd rather listen to the voices in your head.


sangha said:


> 2) You still haven't explained why you even mentioned the issue of the origin of life when you KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution


I was illustrating that some creation-deniers are in fact not very bright.


sangha said:


> 3) You claim that (some? many? one?) "sciencers" think that evolution explains the origins of life itself. You still haven't posted anything to support your claim


You'll just have to get over it, looks like.


----------



## Muhammed

rdean said:


> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.


What if one has a religious belief that 2+2 = 4?


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick!  Tell me what's nonfactual about this statement:
> 
> Evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.​
> Degree of difficulty:  You have to use what I've actually written, not what your bigotry against conservatives and Christians tells you I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't find the non-factual part of that statement (even though I have already explained why it's non-factual) and that just proves how stupid you are
> 
> The statement "Evolution explains only the differentiation of species" is non-factual because evolution explains MORE than just the differentiation of species.
> 
> Please note that, as you requested, my answer uses only what it written and makes no reference to any religion or political philosophy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kinda stretching there, aren't you?
Click to expand...


Once again, Dave has been so pwned he can't respond with an argument. All he can do is claim I've made a mistake of some sort (ie "kinda stretching there") without actually stating what was mistaken

And once again, Dave has proven that he thinks evolution should explain the origin of life and falsely criticizes because it "only explains the differentiation of species" 

And in response, Dave will once again fail to explain why thinks that evolution only explains the differentiation of species. Once again, Dave will fail to explain why he raised the issue of the origin of life itself if he already knew that this had nothing to do with evolution.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> Once again, you are still operating under the inane idea that evolution is supposed to explain the origins of life. Nowhere in this thread have you admitted that evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life.


You're lying.
I can't make it any plainer: Evolution does not explain the origin of life.​


sangha said:


> Nowhere in this thread have you explained why you raised the issue of the origin of life when you knew it had nothing to do with evolution


You're lying.
I did not criticize evolution for not explaining the origin of species. I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species.​
If Sangha didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't find the non-factual part of that statement (even though I have already explained why it's non-factual) and that just proves how stupid you are
> 
> The statement "Evolution explains only the differentiation of species" is non-factual because evolution explains MORE than just the differentiation of species.
> 
> Please note that, as you requested, my answer uses only what it written and makes no reference to any religion or political philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda stretching there, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, Dave has been so pwned he can't respond with an argument. All he can do is claim I've made a mistake of some sort (ie "kinda stretching there") without actually stating what was mistaken
> 
> And once again, Dave has proven that he thinks evolution should explain the origin of life and falsely criticizes because it "only explains the differentiation of species"
> 
> And in response, Dave will once again fail to explain why thinks that evolution only explains the differentiation of species. Once again, Dave will fail to explain why he raised the issue of the origin of life itself if he already knew that this had nothing to do with evolution.
Click to expand...

You're lying.  
When looking at the history of life on this planet (and I was, because I was talking about the origin of that life), the differentiation of species is evolution's purpose -- the macro view.

Do I believe that is the only thing evolution seeks to explain? No. It has effects in the micro view as well, as shown by recorded observations.​If Sangha didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument:  "It's wrong because YOU said it!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My argument (which you are too scared to respond to) is
> 
> 1) Dave claims he knows that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself, but he still criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself. Dave is now too scared to explain why he brought up the issue of the origins of life when he KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  I did not criticize evolution for not explaining the origin of species.  I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species.
Click to expand...


You are lying again. Here is what you said


> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.



The problem is, you still haven't posted anything back up your lie. So far, there is no evidence that any "sciencer" has claimed that evolution explains the origin of life.


So it looks like your argument has failed.



daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Dave claims he knows what evolution explains, but he posts that evolution only explains the differentiation of species . As far as I can tell, Dave still believes that evolution only explains the differentian of species
> 
> 
> 
> When looking at the history of life on this planet (and I was, because I was talking about the origin of that life), the differentiation of species is evolution's purpose -- the macro view.
Click to expand...


And once again you prove you don't know what evolution is. The differntiation of species is not "evolutions' purpose". The purpose of evolution is to explain how the distribution of genes within a population changes over time. This is now the third time I have explained what evolution is, and I have no doubt that you still don't know what evolution is



daveman said:


> Do I believe that is the only thing evolution seeks to explain?  No.  It has effects in the micro view as well, as shown by recorded observations.
> 
> How many times will I have to explain that before you accept it?



I will never accept it because you are lying. You have said that the differentiation of species is the ONLY THING that evolution explains. 



> Evolution explains only the differentiation of species



You are not only wrong, but now you're lying about what you said previously

So it looks like the second half of your argument has failed also



daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dave, let me know when you work up the courage to defend the two claims of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Done.  And it took no courage, just patience to wade through your self-righteous bullshit.
Click to expand...


You haven't "explained" why you raised the issue of the origins of life. You lie and you are refuting people who claim evolution does explain the origin of life, but you can't prove that these mythical "sciencers" exist.

And you have explained why you said "Evolution explains only the differentiation of species"



daveman said:


> Meanwhile, we can continue this discussion if you like, but only if you respond to what I _actually_ say, not what you want me to have said and then declare yourself teh winnar.



We can continue this discussion if you like, but only if you stop denying that you said what you _actually_ said, not what you would like to have said 

You said that "evolution explains only the differentiation of species. You have also said the opposite - 



> Do I believe that is the only thing evolution seeks to explain?  No.  It has effects in the micro view as well



Let us know when you have the courage to explain how evolution "explains only the differentiation of species" *AND*  that evolution "has effects in the micro view as well"


----------



## HUGGY

Muhammed said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> What if one has a religious belief that 2+2 = 4?
Click to expand...


Your religious belief gives you a -2.  (-2)+(2)=0


----------



## Muhammed

HUGGY said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> What if one has a religious belief that 2+2 = 4?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your religious belief gives you a -2.  (-2)+(2)=0
Click to expand...

Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you are still operating under the inane idea that evolution is supposed to explain the origins of life. Nowhere in this thread have you admitted that evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life.
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> I can't make it any plainer: Evolution does not explain the origin of life.​
Click to expand...



Now I see what the problem is. You're too stupid to realize the difference between "Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life" and "Evolution is NOT SUPPOSED TO explain the origin of life"

You STILL have not admitted that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origin of life 



daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this thread have you explained why you raised the issue of the origin of life when you knew it had nothing to do with evolution
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> I did not criticize evolution for not explaining the origin of species. I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species.​
> If Sangha didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say.
Click to expand...


Once again, Dave can't support his lies, so he's going to insist that mythical "sciencers" believe that evolution explains the origins of life.

Let us know when you have the balls to identify any of these mythical "sciencers"


----------



## JBeukema

westwall said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  The existence of life is self evident.  The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found.  It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate.  It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today.  For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started.  We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not a religion (at least it should not be as evidenced when it is perverted as in the cause of AGW) and is defined by it's objective which is to take empirical measurements of the physical world and deduce how it works from those observations.
> 
> Even Einstein (pretty much an atheist) though felt there was a place for religion in science when he stated
> 
> "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." in his
> "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're really gonna quote a socialist? Why do you commutard demonrats hate America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I quoted a genius and while his political views are very far from my own (you clearly have no idea where my political views are) , his comments are made more impactful because of who and what he was.
Click to expand...



So because he was a socialist his words are 'more impactful'?



So if Marx had said cutting off your left arm would grant eternal life, you'd do it?


Einstein rejected the implications of his own theory, btw, because they challenged his faith.


----------



## JBeukema

daveman said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. * It doesn't explain the origin of life itself*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  The existence of life is self evident.  The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found.  It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate.  It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today.  For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started.  We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Fail. An atheist could accept the Solid State model and believe we were created by aliens.

Atheism is a-theism, nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda stretching there, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Dave has been so pwned he can't respond with an argument. All he can do is claim I've made a mistake of some sort (ie "kinda stretching there") without actually stating what was mistaken
> 
> And once again, Dave has proven that he thinks evolution should explain the origin of life and falsely criticizes because it "only explains the differentiation of species"
> 
> And in response, Dave will once again fail to explain why thinks that evolution only explains the differentiation of species. Once again, Dave will fail to explain why he raised the issue of the origin of life itself if he already knew that this had nothing to do with evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lying.
> When looking at the history of life on this planet (and I was, because I was talking about the origin of that life), the differentiation of species is evolution's purpose -- the macro view.
> 
> Do I believe that is the only thing evolution seeks to explain? No. It has effects in the micro view as well, as shown by recorded observations.​If Sangha didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say.
Click to expand...


Dave orginally said that "evolution explains only the differentiation of species". Dave is now pretending he never said that because he doesn't want to explain why he said that when he knows it is wrong and that evolution explains more than that. Evolution explains many more things than the differentiation of species. Dave knows he was wrong when he said (even he admits that evolution explains more) said, but he is not honest enough to admit it.

I wonder if Dave will ever have the courage to explain how evolution explains ONLY the differntitation of species when he knows that it explains more than that

on edit: And Dave repeats his stupid claim that explaining the differentiation of species is "evolutions' purpose". It jus proves that Dave doesn't know what evolution is


----------



## Muhammed

JBeukema said:


> Einstein rejected the implications of his own theory, btw, because they challenged his faith.


Howso?


----------



## JBeukema

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.
Click to expand...



You've evidence of this claim?


----------



## JBeukema

Douger said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.
> 
> What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> Years ago I asked a crackpot southern baptist preacher that very question.
> His reply ?
> The devil created dinosaur bones to deceive mankind.
Click to expand...

I was told God put them there to challenge our faith in him and see whether we'd use them as an excuse to reject him 

Then I was told that they all lived together but dinos were slower to escape the flood and ended up on bottom


----------



## JBeukema

sangha said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith
> 
> With respect to this truth, how is is possible to accept the theory of evolutionas so much is *based entirely on faith*?
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear to me that you have no actual knowledge on evolution, but through the magic of using outdated copied and pasted information you also don't understand, you feel you are in a position to draw conclusions!  Fantastic.
> 
> First off, if you want to discuss evolution, it's best to avoid material from the 1800s.  Just because you don't understand the topic doesn't mean others need faith.  It just means we're smarter than you in the subject.
> 
> I find it interesting that it's always the religious nuts who try to force faith upon others, even if it's not their own.
> 
> 
> Religion does the same?  Well yes, except one goes about it with evidence and fact, and the other goes about it with blind guessing and folk tales.
> 
> Again, the only ones who compare religion and science are people who don't understand science.
> 
> 
> Sciencers?  Really?  You do realize how absolutely retarded that sounds, don't you?  And I don't use that word lightly ever. No, no "sciencer" fails to realize that evolution only explains differences between and within species.  That's because THAT'S ALL EVOLUTION DOES.  It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself.  Seems to me that "religioners" fail to realize that. Similarly, learning how to drive a car has nothing to do with learning how to manufacture a car from scratch.  They are two completely separate concepts in the same field.
> 
> 
> I hope you realize that poor excuse for a rebuttal came from this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José;3127868 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of life remains to this day one of the biggest Achiles' heel in evolutionary theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See above regarding evolution to have nothing to do with the origin of life.
> 
> Who else would like to look like they have no clue what they're talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post begins with a HUGE error.....PC has no desire to DISCUSS evolution as proven by the fact that she has not responded to any post which refutes her absurd claims. Instead of discussing anything, she is only responding to posters who agree with her
> 
> She doesn't want to discuss evolution because she knows she doesn't know what she's talking about. Thats why she always cuts and pastes her arguments; She's too ignorant to express an idea using her own words
Click to expand...


PC's the best troll here


----------



## Intense

Evolution Theory Overview

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Theodosius Dobzhansky (geneticist)

The often seen quote above by famous geneticist Dobzhansky elegantly captures the paramount importance of evolution. Stated differently, evolution is the single organizing principle of all the biological sciences. The terms evolution and natural selection are often used synonymously, though natural selection itself is but one of the mechanisms by which evolution operates. The mechanisms of evolution are ubiquitous and not limited to biology, and as a theory, evolution is as validated as Newton's Laws of Motion, and clearly as important for the understanding of the physical world. Yet, and paradoxically, evolution is either misunderstood or even adamantly denied by a large proportion of the public. 

Darwin's Observations and Conceptualizations
Darwin's observations during his travels ultimately led him to four fundamental concepts that he elegantly put forth on his 1859 book, Origin of Species:

Adaptation: all organisms adapt to their environments. 
Variation (or diversity): organisms exhibit variability in their traits (in modern terms, genotype variability determines the phenotype variability). 
Over-reproduction: organism populations tend to reproduce beyond the environment's ability to support them ultimately encountering a limit on population size. 
Reproductive success: Organisms exhibit variability in adaptation to environment; hence some will survive and reproduce better than others, a process known as natural selection. This is often referred to as "survival of the fittest". In reality, such attributes as speed, size or strength is only more fit for survival if it endows the organism with a reproductive advantage in the existing enviroment. Those organisms best adapted to the environment will have a greater chance of surviving and passing their genes on to the next generation.

Darwin's conceptualization of natural selection was a remarkable accomplishment in the mid-19th century, and Darwin was right, within the limits of the science at the time. However, that Darwin's natural selection is perhaps too easy to understand led to misunderstandings such as "survival of the fittest", and its sad extrapolation to social Darwinism. Darwin's natural selection could not incorporate gene inheritance or random gene mutation because genes had not yet been discovered. Modern evolutionary theory describes decent with modification at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwin described evolution at the level of organisms, speciation and individuals.

"From the first dawn of life, all organic beings are found to resemble each other in descending degrees, so they can be classed in groups under groups." Charles Darwin

Evolution and the Tree of Life

The modern theory of evolution is based on two primary tenets:
All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors), have developed from other species, and all life forms have a single common ancestor.
The origin of a new species results from random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in an advantage to survive and reproduce are more likely to be retained and propagated than mutations that do not result in a survival to reproduce advantage.
Decent with modification, or evolution, is often described by the so-called tree of life. A tree is inherently hierarchical, as is the great "Tree of Life". Its boughs are analogous to the higher Linnean rankings, i.e., the domains, kingdoms, phyla, classes, etc. Smaller branches correspond to middle rankings, i.e., the orders, families and genera. At the end of the many branches are the twigs, the uncountable species, some 99% of which are extinct. The great Tree of Life is real. It is a phylogenetic tree representing the unique ancestral history of each and every creature. Darwin believed that all creatures on Earth might have originated from a single common ancestor so that each species through geological history fit somewhere in an overarching metaphorical tree; he elegantly wrote:

"The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species . . . The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups . . . From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off, and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state . . . As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications" (Charles Darwin, 1859).

The eye of the Trilobite was already highly sophisticated by Cambrian time - yet, it was hardly a perfect design - rather, it resulted from the tinkering of natural selection on the genomic ingredients that already existed. 
Misconceptions about evolution
Unfortunately, misconceptions about evolution are ubiquitous. One prominent misconception is that evolution proceeds in a specific direction leading to the improvement of organisms - this is often stated as climbing an evolutionary ladder. This is simply not the case. Rather, organisms either adapt to environments that are always undergoing change, or they risk extinction.
EVOLUTION


----------



## HUGGY

Muhammed said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if one has a religious belief that 2+2 = 4?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your religious belief gives you a -2.  (-2)+(2)=0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?
Click to expand...


Sure.  Based on the formula 2 + 2 = 4  2 is both the value of Faith and Reason.  Faith cancels out reason so it must have a value of -2.  Conversely Reason also cancels out Faith so the integers are interchangeable.  4 is an impossible outcome because it implies a whole value of the sum of two opposing directions.


----------



## sangha

HUGGY said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your religious belief gives you a -2.  (-2)+(2)=0
> 
> 
> 
> Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  Based on the formula 2 + 2 = 4  2 is both the value of Faith and Reason.  Faith cancels out reason so it must have a value of -2.  Conversely Reason also cancels out Faith so the integers are interchangeable.  4 is an impossible outcome because it implies a whole value of the sum of two opposing directions.
Click to expand...


That makes a certain kind a sense.....*non*sense


----------



## Sunni Man

Science is very much a religion.

The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.

Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.

And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.  

And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs. 

They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics. 

Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.

Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.


----------



## HUGGY

sangha said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  Based on the formula 2 + 2 = 4  2 is both the value of Faith and Reason.  Faith cancels out reason so it must have a value of -2.  Conversely Reason also cancels out Faith so the integers are interchangeable.  4 is an impossible outcome because it implies a whole value of the sum of two opposing directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes a certain kind a sense.....*non*sense
Click to expand...


I think the formula plays out well in real world.  Take the case of Galileo.  Faith was challenged ...faith canceled out Galileo..  Outcome = zero advancement in human understanding.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RiU2T4Psyc[/ame]


----------



## sangha

HUGGY said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  Based on the formula 2 + 2 = 4  2 is both the value of Faith and Reason.  Faith cancels out reason so it must have a value of -2.  Conversely Reason also cancels out Faith so the integers are interchangeable.  4 is an impossible outcome because it implies a whole value of the sum of two opposing directions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes a certain kind a sense.....*non*sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the formula plays out well in real world.  Take the case of Galileo.  Faith was challenged ...faith canceled out Galileo..  Outcome = zero advancement in human understanding.
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RiU2T4Psyc[/ame]
Click to expand...


At least you're consistent in your logic. That's more than I can say for the wingnuts


----------



## Greenbeard

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.
Click to expand...


Those phrases are shorthand for observational facts. "Dark matter," at its base, refers to virial theorem violations and unexpected galactic rotation curves; "dark energy" is  systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles (since corroborated through other observational means). These are facts, not magic. Now, fitting them into existing models and extrapolating from there may be considered some weak form of faith, but then there are folks looking to construct new models from these observational facts instead of reconciling them with the frameworks that already exist. Eventually someone is going to be vindicated empirically. Such is science.



Muhammed said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein rejected the implications of his own theory, btw, because they challenged his faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Howso?
Click to expand...


He very nearly made what would've been one of the greatest theoretical predictions of all time: an expanding (or contracting) universe. However, he didn't trust the equations of general relativity and believed they should allow for a static universe. So he altered them to satisfy the common wisdom of his day, shortly before Edwin Hubble toppled that common wisdom forever. However, now it seems those dark energy observations mentioned above might be a shadow of Einstein's _altered_ equation. Seems the guy can't lose.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Douger said:


> Years ago I asked a crackpot southern baptist preacher that very question.
> His reply ?
> The devil created dinosaur bones to deceive mankind.


When faced with overwhelming evidence that refutes unsupported faith, the answer always comes back to some celestial being trying to trick humanity.  Interesting how much effort heaven and hell put into keeping us fooled.



Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> as a reborn, deeply god loving christian i have this thoughts about this issue:
> 
> Faith is faith and Science is science. The one fills my heart, gives me hope, let me believe, makes me happy, helps me to become a good man, helps me to see others suffering and shows my ways to help them. THe other gives me the tools and instruments for doing it. The one i believe, the other i know.
> 
> Science is alwasy provable. Faith never, anyelse it´s not faith but knowing. I don´t need to trust in science. If a scientific method works, then it works. THere´s no need of trusting anymore. But faith works only with trust.
> 
> So i don´t have any problem to accept the evolutionary theories. It´s just how God made it, nothing more, nothing less. Anyway how it happened, the world is here. Don´t we have more urgent questions than this?


*well said*



daveman said:


> I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.


Actually that graphic is larger than it needs to be.  It can be distilled down to "Atheism: show me the proof"



daveman said:


> Meanwhile, we can continue this discussion if you like, but only if you respond to what I _actually_ say, not what you want me to have said and then declare yourself teh winnar.


Dave.  You're wrong.  You know you're wrong and so does everyone else.  Backpedaling now doesn't offer you the ability to squirm out of being wrong.  At best it just pushes off where you were wrong to a different statement.  

For example: "I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species."  This is still wrong.  You can't point out three such proponents, which goes to show that either you didn't know the boundaries of evolution and are now backpedaling to project your lack of knowledge onto a some phantom group you just made up, or made a horrible horrible mistype and don't want to admit that you just said something wrong.  Either way, you said something wrong. 

Do I need to make a ven diagram here?  Evolution contradicts the creationist model.  The creationist model does not contradict evolution because the overlap of these concepts are not congruent.



Intense said:


> Evolution Theory Overview
> 
> "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Theodosius Dobzhansky (geneticist)
> 
> The often seen quote above by famous geneticist Dobzhansky elegantly captures the paramount importance of evolution. Stated differently, evolution is the single organizing principle of all the biological sciences. The terms evolution and natural selection are often used synonymously, though natural selection itself is but one of the mechanisms by which evolution operates. The mechanisms of evolution are ubiquitous and not limited to biology, and as a theory, evolution is as validated as Newton's Laws of Motion, and clearly as important for the understanding of the physical world. Yet, and paradoxically, evolution is either misunderstood or even adamantly denied by a large proportion of the public.
> 
> Darwin's Observations and Conceptualizations
> Darwin's observations during his travels ultimately led him to four fundamental concepts that he elegantly put forth on his 1859 book, Origin of Species:
> 
> Adaptation: all organisms adapt to their environments.
> Variation (or diversity): organisms exhibit variability in their traits (in modern terms, genotype variability determines the phenotype variability).
> Over-reproduction: organism populations tend to reproduce beyond the environment's ability to support them ultimately encountering a limit on population size.
> Reproductive success: Organisms exhibit variability in adaptation to environment; hence some will survive and reproduce better than others, a process known as natural selection. This is often referred to as "survival of the fittest". In reality, such attributes as speed, size or strength is only more fit for survival if it endows the organism with a reproductive advantage in the existing enviroment. Those organisms best adapted to the environment will have a greater chance of surviving and passing their genes on to the next generation.
> 
> Darwin's conceptualization of natural selection was a remarkable accomplishment in the mid-19th century, and Darwin was right, within the limits of the science at the time. However, that Darwin's natural selection is perhaps too easy to understand led to misunderstandings such as "survival of the fittest", and its sad extrapolation to social Darwinism. Darwin's natural selection could not incorporate gene inheritance or random gene mutation because genes had not yet been discovered. Modern evolutionary theory describes decent with modification at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwin described evolution at the level of organisms, speciation and individuals.
> 
> "From the first dawn of life, all organic beings are found to resemble each other in descending degrees, so they can be classed in groups under groups." Charles Darwin
> 
> Evolution and the Tree of Life
> 
> The modern theory of evolution is based on two primary tenets:
> All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors), have developed from other species, and all life forms have a single common ancestor.
> The origin of a new species results from random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in an advantage to survive and reproduce are more likely to be retained and propagated than mutations that do not result in a survival to reproduce advantage.
> Decent with modification, or evolution, is often described by the so-called tree of life. A tree is inherently hierarchical, as is the great "Tree of Life". Its boughs are analogous to the higher Linnean rankings, i.e., the domains, kingdoms, phyla, classes, etc. Smaller branches correspond to middle rankings, i.e., the orders, families and genera. At the end of the many branches are the twigs, the uncountable species, some 99% of which are extinct. The great Tree of Life is real. It is a phylogenetic tree representing the unique ancestral history of each and every creature. Darwin believed that all creatures on Earth might have originated from a single common ancestor so that each species through geological history fit somewhere in an overarching metaphorical tree; he elegantly wrote:
> 
> "The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species . . . The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups . . . From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off, and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state . . . As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications" (Charles Darwin, 1859).
> 
> The eye of the Trilobite was already highly sophisticated by Cambrian time - yet, it was hardly a perfect design - rather, it resulted from the tinkering of natural selection on the genomic ingredients that already existed.
> Misconceptions about evolution
> Unfortunately, misconceptions about evolution are ubiquitous. One prominent misconception is that evolution proceeds in a specific direction leading to the improvement of organisms - this is often stated as climbing an evolutionary ladder. This is simply not the case. Rather, organisms either adapt to environments that are always undergoing change, or they risk extinction.
> EVOLUTION


*NO ONE READS THIS. * Not even the people who would probably agree with it.  Please don't copy and paste pages of other's work.


----------



## rdean

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.
Click to expand...


We know when something exists when we can "measure" it.  Only a very tiny percentage of the energy spectrum is made of "visible" light, yet we know it exists.  

The same with Dark Matter.  We know it exists because it creates a peculiar "lensing" effect.  The same effect that large planets create with their gravitational fields which "bend" light.

Scientists "live" for questions.  They admit they only possess a tiny bit of knowledge, but that knowledge is growing every day.  The religious want to "block" that knowledge growth, except for weapons.  They believe bigger and better "weapons" will "keep us safe".

Mapping Dark Matter with a Cosmic Lens : Discovery News


----------



## Intense

Sunni Man said:


> Science is very much a religion.
> 
> The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.
> 
> Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.
> 
> And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.
> 
> And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs.
> 
> They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics.
> 
> Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.
> 
> Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.



Very good Sunni. We act on what we think we know, which is part of our nature. As what we think we know changes, we resist that change, generally preferring preconceived notion to reality and truth. This also is part of out nature. Humbleness a good tool, in that it generally keeps the fall from the loft a shorter distance.  Truth, in the end, educates, generally our youth, more open to acceptance of new perspectives. I'm not saying new perspectives, or any perspective should be taken at face value, but tested and compared, which is where science serves the truth, yet only where integrity is maintained. Separating what we know from what we think we know, what we assume, be it in science or religion, or any other aspect of life, is where we tend to lose it, by nature, and design. When we stray, trouble awaits.


----------



## Intense

SmarterThanHick said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years ago I asked a crackpot southern baptist preacher that very question.
> His reply ?
> The devil created dinosaur bones to deceive mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> When faced with overwhelming evidence that refutes unsupported faith, the answer always comes back to some celestial being trying to trick humanity.  Interesting how much effort heaven and hell put into keeping us fooled.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Sauerkraut said:
> 
> 
> 
> as a reborn, deeply god loving christian i have this thoughts about this issue:
> 
> Faith is faith and Science is science. The one fills my heart, gives me hope, let me believe, makes me happy, helps me to become a good man, helps me to see others suffering and shows my ways to help them. THe other gives me the tools and instruments for doing it. The one i believe, the other i know.
> 
> Science is alwasy provable. Faith never, anyelse it´s not faith but knowing. I don´t need to trust in science. If a scientific method works, then it works. THere´s no need of trusting anymore. But faith works only with trust.
> 
> So i don´t have any problem to accept the evolutionary theories. It´s just how God made it, nothing more, nothing less. Anyway how it happened, the world is here. Don´t we have more urgent questions than this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *well said*
> 
> 
> Actually that graphic is larger than it needs to be.  It can be distilled down to "Atheism: show me the proof"
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, we can continue this discussion if you like, but only if you respond to what I _actually_ say, not what you want me to have said and then declare yourself teh winnar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dave.  You're wrong.  You know you're wrong and so does everyone else.  Backpedaling now doesn't offer you the ability to squirm out of being wrong.  At best it just pushes off where you were wrong to a different statement.
> 
> For example: "I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species."  This is still wrong.  You can't point out three such proponents, which goes to show that either you didn't know the boundaries of evolution and are now backpedaling to project your lack of knowledge onto a some phantom group you just made up, or made a horrible horrible mistype and don't want to admit that you just said something wrong.  Either way, you said something wrong.
> 
> Do I need to make a ven diagram here?  Evolution contradicts the creationist model.  The creationist model does not contradict evolution because the overlap of these concepts are not congruent.
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution Theory Overview
> 
> "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Theodosius Dobzhansky (geneticist)
> 
> The often seen quote above by famous geneticist Dobzhansky elegantly captures the paramount importance of evolution. Stated differently, evolution is the single organizing principle of all the biological sciences. The terms evolution and natural selection are often used synonymously, though natural selection itself is but one of the mechanisms by which evolution operates. The mechanisms of evolution are ubiquitous and not limited to biology, and as a theory, evolution is as validated as Newton's Laws of Motion, and clearly as important for the understanding of the physical world. Yet, and paradoxically, evolution is either misunderstood or even adamantly denied by a large proportion of the public.
> 
> Darwin's Observations and Conceptualizations
> Darwin's observations during his travels ultimately led him to four fundamental concepts that he elegantly put forth on his 1859 book, Origin of Species:
> 
> Adaptation: all organisms adapt to their environments.
> Variation (or diversity): organisms exhibit variability in their traits (in modern terms, genotype variability determines the phenotype variability).
> Over-reproduction: organism populations tend to reproduce beyond the environment's ability to support them ultimately encountering a limit on population size.
> Reproductive success: Organisms exhibit variability in adaptation to environment; hence some will survive and reproduce better than others, a process known as natural selection. This is often referred to as "survival of the fittest". In reality, such attributes as speed, size or strength is only more fit for survival if it endows the organism with a reproductive advantage in the existing enviroment. Those organisms best adapted to the environment will have a greater chance of surviving and passing their genes on to the next generation.
> 
> Darwin's conceptualization of natural selection was a remarkable accomplishment in the mid-19th century, and Darwin was right, within the limits of the science at the time. However, that Darwin's natural selection is perhaps too easy to understand led to misunderstandings such as "survival of the fittest", and its sad extrapolation to social Darwinism. Darwin's natural selection could not incorporate gene inheritance or random gene mutation because genes had not yet been discovered. Modern evolutionary theory describes decent with modification at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwin described evolution at the level of organisms, speciation and individuals.
> 
> "From the first dawn of life, all organic beings are found to resemble each other in descending degrees, so they can be classed in groups under groups." Charles Darwin
> 
> Evolution and the Tree of Life
> 
> The modern theory of evolution is based on two primary tenets:
> All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors), have developed from other species, and all life forms have a single common ancestor.
> The origin of a new species results from random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in an advantage to survive and reproduce are more likely to be retained and propagated than mutations that do not result in a survival to reproduce advantage.
> Decent with modification, or evolution, is often described by the so-called tree of life. A tree is inherently hierarchical, as is the great "Tree of Life". Its boughs are analogous to the higher Linnean rankings, i.e., the domains, kingdoms, phyla, classes, etc. Smaller branches correspond to middle rankings, i.e., the orders, families and genera. At the end of the many branches are the twigs, the uncountable species, some 99% of which are extinct. The great Tree of Life is real. It is a phylogenetic tree representing the unique ancestral history of each and every creature. Darwin believed that all creatures on Earth might have originated from a single common ancestor so that each species through geological history fit somewhere in an overarching metaphorical tree; he elegantly wrote:
> 
> "The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species . . . The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups . . . From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off, and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state . . . As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications" (Charles Darwin, 1859).
> 
> The eye of the Trilobite was already highly sophisticated by Cambrian time - yet, it was hardly a perfect design - rather, it resulted from the tinkering of natural selection on the genomic ingredients that already existed.
> Misconceptions about evolution
> Unfortunately, misconceptions about evolution are ubiquitous. One prominent misconception is that evolution proceeds in a specific direction leading to the improvement of organisms - this is often stated as climbing an evolutionary ladder. This is simply not the case. Rather, organisms either adapt to environments that are always undergoing change, or they risk extinction.
> EVOLUTION
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *NO ONE READS THIS. * Not even the people who would probably agree with it.  Please don't copy and paste pages of other's work.
Click to expand...


I think it best if you focus on your own argument, and not worry yourself with me or what you think my motives are.


----------



## rdean

Madeline said:


> I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.
> 
> What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?



God put bones in the ground to show us what animals on other planets look like.

Actually, many creationists believe that man and Tyrannosaurus Rex lived peacefully, side by side, until Noah's Great Flood and then the world changed so much, they couldn't live anymore and died out.  They believe that many of the dinosaur eggs collected didn't survive the voyage.


----------



## rdean

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> as a reborn, deeply god loving christian i have this thoughts about this issue:
> 
> Faith is faith and Science is science. The one fills my heart, gives me hope, let me believe, makes me happy, helps me to become a good man, helps me to see others suffering and shows my ways to help them. THe other gives me the tools and instruments for doing it. The one i believe, the other i know.
> 
> Science is alwasy provable. Faith never, anyelse it´s not faith but knowing. I don´t need to trust in science. If a scientific method works, then it works. THere´s no need of trusting anymore. But faith works only with trust.
> 
> So i don´t have any problem to accept the evolutionary theories. It´s just how God made it, nothing more, nothing less. Anyway how it happened, the world is here. Don´t we have more urgent questions than this?



Faith is the opposite of science.  Belief for the sake of belief is a short road to extinction.


----------



## Intense

rdean said:


> Mr. Sauerkraut said:
> 
> 
> 
> as a reborn, deeply god loving christian i have this thoughts about this issue:
> 
> Faith is faith and Science is science. The one fills my heart, gives me hope, let me believe, makes me happy, helps me to become a good man, helps me to see others suffering and shows my ways to help them. THe other gives me the tools and instruments for doing it. The one i believe, the other i know.
> 
> Science is alwasy provable. Faith never, anyelse it´s not faith but knowing. I don´t need to trust in science. If a scientific method works, then it works. THere´s no need of trusting anymore. But faith works only with trust.
> 
> So i don´t have any problem to accept the evolutionary theories. It´s just how God made it, nothing more, nothing less. Anyway how it happened, the world is here. Don´t we have more urgent questions than this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is the opposite of science.  Belief for the sake of belief is a short road to extinction.
Click to expand...


That truth applies to both Religion and Science.


----------



## rdean

daveman said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is impressive!  That kind of stupid takes hard work!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.
Click to expand...


Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".

Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.

Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.


----------



## Sunni Man

rdean said:


> Belief for the sake of belief is a short road to extinction.


So dinosaurs went extinct because they were true believers??


----------



## rdean

Sunni Man said:


> Science is very much a religion.
> 
> The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.
> 
> Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.
> 
> And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.
> 
> And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs.
> 
> They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics.
> 
> Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.
> 
> Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.



In one short post, I counted 14 outright lies.  Amazing.
You sir, belong in Afghanistan.  There, you can practice your ignorance, maybe even in peace.  Living in the top scientific country in the world is definitely the wrong place for you.  You can't possibly be happy.


----------



## rdean

Sunni Man said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief for the sake of belief is a short road to extinction.
> 
> 
> 
> So dinosaurs went extinct because they were true believers??
Click to expand...


Why do you believe they went "extinct"?  Or do you believe they ever existed?


----------



## sangha

SmarterThanHick said:


> For example: "I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species." This is still wrong. You can't point out three such proponents, which goes to show that either you didn't know the boundaries of evolution and are now backpedaling to project your lack of knowledge onto a some phantom group you just made up, or made a horrible horrible mistype and don't want to admit that you just said something wrong. Either way, you said something wrong.



It's obvious that Dave lied about "sciencers" beliefs. He made it up to hide his lack of knowledge.

That's why Dave will never post a list of these mythical sciencers who believe that evolution explains the origin of life.


----------



## Intense

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is impressive!  That kind of stupid takes hard work!
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
Click to expand...


That is a Conclusion based on a Theory, based on our ability to measure heat, not lack of it. This Theory is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. Because something remains a mystery to us we can just as easily presume that because we are limited, in our ability, something does not exist? We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist? Our science is limited, our perspective is limited. Does motion cause heat? What would lack of motion at a molecular level cause?


----------



## Sunni Man

rdean said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is very much a religion.
> 
> The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.
> 
> Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.
> 
> And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.
> 
> And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs.
> 
> They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics.
> 
> Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.
> 
> Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one short post, I counted 14 outright lies.
Click to expand...

Here is a challenge rdean:

"Please enumerate the supposed 14 lies without using the word Republican."

Think you can do it??


----------



## sangha

Intense said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NO ONE READS THIS. * Not even the people who would probably agree with it.  Please don't copy and paste pages of other's work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it best if you focus on your own argument, and not worry yourself with me or what you think my motives are.
Click to expand...


STAH didn't say anything about your motives. You're lying about what STAH to hide your inability to post an idea using your own words. If you had a brain, you'd make your point using your own words instead of letting someone else do your thinking for you


----------



## rdean

Intense said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is very much a religion.
> 
> The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.
> 
> Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.
> 
> And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.
> 
> And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs.
> 
> They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics.
> 
> Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.
> 
> Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good Sunni. We act on what we think we know, which is part of our nature. As what we think we know changes, we resist that change, generally preferring preconceived notion to reality and truth. This also is part of out nature. Humbleness a good tool, in that it generally keeps the fall from the loft a shorter distance.  Truth, in the end, educates, generally our youth, more open to acceptance of new perspectives. I'm not saying new perspectives, or any perspective should be taken at face value, but tested and compared, which is where science serves the truth, yet only where integrity is maintained. Separating what we know from what we think we know, what we assume, be it in science or religion, or any other aspect of life, is where we tend to lose it, by nature, and design. When we stray, trouble awaits.
Click to expand...


Nothing in science is ever really "known".  There are no "beliefs".  What there is, is "skepticism".  Science is all about "skepticism".

"Skepticism" is NOT allowed in religious beliefs.

Those who can't understand this basic difference between the supernatural and science, are probably identified as "religious".

The religious try to pigeonhole science into terms they can understand so their "choice" makes sense.  Turn science into a belief.  Then say, "See? Science doesn't have all the answers and sometimes it's wrong".  While religion has "ALL" the answers and it's never wrong.


----------



## sangha

Intense said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a Conclusion based on a Theory, based on our ability to measure heat, not lack of it. This Theory is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. Because something remains a mystery to us we can just as easily presume that because we are limited, in our ability, something does not exist? We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist? Our science is limited, our perspective is limited. Does motion cause heat? What would lack of motion at a molecular level cause?
Click to expand...


I just love the way Intense proves his ignorance is not limited to just one topic. All of science befuddles him

Conclusions are not based on Theories. Theories **ARE** conclusions. This proves that you don't even know what a Scientific Theory is 

And "cold" does not exist. "Cold" is a word we use to describe a lack of heat.


----------



## rdean

Sunni Man said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is very much a religion.
> 
> The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit(1).
> 
> Science has it's (2)venerated saints; (3)Einstein, (4)Madam Currie, (5)etc.
> 
> And is extremely (6)rigid in it's (7)dogma.
> 
> And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific(8) beliefs.
> 
> They will be(9) shunned or even(10) excommunicated from the scientific community as (11)heretics.
> 
> Plus being a scientist requires more(12) faith than(13) many religions.
> 
> Belief(14) in evolution would be an example of extreme(15) faith in the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one short post, I counted 14 outright lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a challenge rdean:
> 
> "Please enumerate the supposed 14 lies without using the word Republican."
> 
> Think you can do it??
Click to expand...


I never used the word Republican, but since you mention it, "6%" and "90%".


----------



## rdean

Intense said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a Conclusion based on a Theory, based on our ability to measure heat, not lack of it. This Theory is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. Because something remains a mystery to us we can just as easily presume that because we are limited, in our ability, something does not exist? We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist? Our science is limited, our perspective is limited. Does motion cause heat? What would lack of motion at a molecular level cause?
Click to expand...


Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.


----------



## Intense

sangha said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NO ONE READS THIS. * Not even the people who would probably agree with it.  Please don't copy and paste pages of other's work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it best if you focus on your own argument, and not worry yourself with me or what you think my motives are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STAH didn't say anything about your motives. You're lying about what STAH to hide your inability to post an idea using your own words. If you had a brain, you'd make your point using your own words instead of letting someone else do your thinking for you
Click to expand...


Sangha, Your bullshit and name calling is thread killing. The reason I posted the Link was to bring the thread back on track. It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory, unadulterated with your bullshit. I am giving you fair warning about you assumptions, with everyone you come in contact with. Knock it off. You want to add to a discussion learn to do it with courtesy, and stop repeating yourself 50 times over. Stop the Bitching, and contribute to the advancement of the conversation. Stop derailing threads with your bullshit. It is ugly, and not as popular as you imagine it to be.


----------



## Intense

rdean said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is very much a religion.
> 
> The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.
> 
> Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.
> 
> And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.
> 
> And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs.
> 
> They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics.
> 
> Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.
> 
> Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good Sunni. We act on what we think we know, which is part of our nature. As what we think we know changes, we resist that change, generally preferring preconceived notion to reality and truth. This also is part of out nature. Humbleness a good tool, in that it generally keeps the fall from the loft a shorter distance.  Truth, in the end, educates, generally our youth, more open to acceptance of new perspectives. I'm not saying new perspectives, or any perspective should be taken at face value, but tested and compared, which is where science serves the truth, yet only where integrity is maintained. Separating what we know from what we think we know, what we assume, be it in science or religion, or any other aspect of life, is where we tend to lose it, by nature, and design. When we stray, trouble awaits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in science is ever really "known".  There are no "beliefs".  What there is, is "skepticism".  Science is all about "skepticism".
> 
> "Skepticism" is NOT allowed in religious beliefs.
> 
> Those who can't understand this basic difference between the supernatural and science, are probably identified as "religious".
> 
> The religious try to pigeonhole science into terms they can understand so their "choice" makes sense.  Turn science into a belief.  Then say, "See? Science doesn't have all the answers and sometimes it's wrong".  While religion has "ALL" the answers and it's never wrong.
Click to expand...


There are those that tell you that skepticism is not permitted in Religious Belief's, there are those that would tell you it is required. Which have you come to know to be true in your time on Earth? You are arguing Ego, and what we think we know. I do believe in Absolutes. I just think they are not alway's what we think or limit them to. Why chain and lock everything in all the time so quickly, only to find we measured wrong after the fact? Our perspectives are limited, yet our perspectives change, grow, fill in. Life is wonder, no? Alway's new shit on the horizon. There are different parts to our nature. You need not deny one to advance another.


----------



## José

I'd like to have 10 minutes alone with SmarterThanHick and sangha. 

I promise the whole Board I wouldn't kill them, just mutilate them due to their stupidity


----------



## rdean

Intense said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good Sunni. We act on what we think we know, which is part of our nature. As what we think we know changes, we resist that change, generally preferring preconceived notion to reality and truth. This also is part of out nature. Humbleness a good tool, in that it generally keeps the fall from the loft a shorter distance.  Truth, in the end, educates, generally our youth, more open to acceptance of new perspectives. I'm not saying new perspectives, or any perspective should be taken at face value, but tested and compared, which is where science serves the truth, yet only where integrity is maintained. Separating what we know from what we think we know, what we assume, be it in science or religion, or any other aspect of life, is where we tend to lose it, by nature, and design. When we stray, trouble awaits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in science is ever really "known".  There are no "beliefs".  What there is, is "skepticism".  Science is all about "skepticism".
> 
> "Skepticism" is NOT allowed in religious beliefs.
> 
> Those who can't understand this basic difference between the supernatural and science, are probably identified as "religious".
> 
> The religious try to pigeonhole science into terms they can understand so their "choice" makes sense.  Turn science into a belief.  Then say, "See? Science doesn't have all the answers and sometimes it's wrong".  While religion has "ALL" the answers and it's never wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are those that tell you that skepticism is not permitted in Religious Belief's, there are those that would tell you it is required. Which have you come to know to be true in your time on Earth? You are arguing Ego, and what we think we know. I do believe in Absolutes. I just think they are not alway's what we think or limit them to. Why chain and lock everything in all the time so quickly, only to find we measured wrong after the fact? Our perspectives are limited, yet our perspectives change, grow, fill in. Life is wonder, no? Alway's new shit on the horizon. There are different parts to our nature. You need not deny one to advance another.
Click to expand...


*Our perspectives are limited, yet our perspectives change, grow, fill in.*

That's science, NOT religion.

*I do believe in Absolutes. I just think they are not alway's what we think or limit them to.*

Does this look a little confusing?  Because it does to me.  "I believe in absolutes unless they change"?


----------



## José

*THE MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM COMPRISES:*

*THE BIG BANG THEORY:*

(FIELD: COSMOLOGY) A SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT EXPLAINS THE UNIVERSE'S EARLY DEVELOPMENT, AKA, EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE BECAUSE IT WENT FROM EXTREME SIMPLICITY (HIGH ENERGY) TO COMPLEXITY (FUNDAMENTAL FORCES, ELEMENTARY PARTICLES, ETC...)

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*THE THEORY OF GALAXY FORMATION AND EVOLUTION:*

(FIELD: COSMOLOGY) A SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT EXPLAINS THE FORMATION OF GALAXIES, AKA, EVOLUTION OF GALAXIES BECAUSE IT WENT FROM MERE HYDROGEN AND HELIUM GAS AND DUST TO A COMPLEX GRAVITATIONAL STRUCTURE.

Galaxy formation and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*
THE THEORY OF SOLAR SYSTEM FORMATION AND EVOLUTION:*

(FIELD: COSMOLOGY) IDEM

Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*THE CREATION OF LIFE = ABIOGENESIS*

(FIELD: BIOLOGY)

*THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION* (See Shanga, Hick??: your beloved theory is a mere subset of the overarching evolutionany scientific paradigm)

(FIELD: BIOLOGY)  SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT EXPLAINS SPECIATION. IT EXPLAINS HOW COMPLEX SPECIES ON EARTH AROSE FROM SIMPLER ONES.

*THE EVOLUTION OF HOMO SAPIENS:*

(FIELD: ANTHROPOLOGY)

*THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN CIVILISATIONS, SOCIETIES:*

(FIELDS: ANTHROPOLOGY, HISTORY, SOCIOLOGY, ETC...)


----------



## José

The theory of evolution says nothing about abiogenesis (how matter became life) as Hick and sangha correctly stated.

*BUT THE LACK OF A SOLID ABIOGENESIS THEORY IS A MAJOR GAP IN THE EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM!!!!*


----------



## José

Sangha and Hick lie on the floor of the USMB, 10 teeth missing, bleeding profusely from mouth and nose, unable to pronounce coherent words let alone phrases and sentences.

And the whole USMB think to themselves:

*Holy crap!! What a beatdown!!*


----------



## asterism

uscitizen said:


> Those of us who recognize science are always ready to accept that an old accepted "truth" is no longer correct when new discoveries/evidence is produced.
> 
> Unlike religion...



True, and those who accept religion recognize it's not scientific.  Those of us who accept both science and religion don't think it's a valid conflict.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Science is an abstraction.  Science does not think.  Science does not talk.

You need to separate the SCIENTISTS from the SCIENCE.

So some scientists go off on an ego trip and become priests for the god of science.  That is just dumb human behavior and the abstraction of science is not responsible.  But science is about figuring out the unknown on the basis of obviously limited information.  And very good scientists will inevitably make mistakes.  That is why BELIEVING in science is an error.  The objective is not to believe it is to UNDERSTAND.  To an extent every individual must be his own scientists.  You have to admit what you understand and do not understand to yourself.  And admit what you just don't know.

It is just funny to me that so many people make such a big deal about evolution.  Some atheists act like the purpose of science is to beat on religion.  

psik


----------



## asterism

JBeukema said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what: thermodynamics can't explain gravity! Particle physics is refuted!
Click to expand...


You'll note that science has its own "God of the gaps" they just call it dark matter.


----------



## Intense

rdean said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a Conclusion based on a Theory, based on our ability to measure heat, not lack of it. This Theory is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. Because something remains a mystery to us we can just as easily presume that because we are limited, in our ability, something does not exist? We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist? Our science is limited, our perspective is limited. Does motion cause heat? What would lack of motion at a molecular level cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.
Click to expand...


The point is that our perspectives are limited. To presume something either doesn't exist or to prescribe limitations on what we know nothing about, is pretty short sighted and heading for a fall. 



> Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.



For example, I could argue here that if you could stop movement at the molecular level, without removing the object, it would still exist without motion, therefore it would theoretically still exist and be more than nothing. The original argument in the quote is that cold does not exist because we are not capable of measuring it. True or not true, it would seem that what is yet lacking is our ability, our knowledge of the study. I'm not trashing Science, but preconceived notion. Does Cold exist? Is Cold the absence of something? Is it more than that? If Cold does not exist, is it nothing? Does Nothing exist? See where this leads? Do we continue to stay derailed chasing our tails on presumption or continue in discovery?


----------



## asterism

JBeukema said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to see you making an attempt to understand this subject.  The Neanderthals had a different diet than the humans that are almost entirely our ancestors.  They had different ..more crude tools and weapons.  Their demise was more a function of their inability to feed themselves as conditions changed in their environment.  In short they were "dumber" and less able to adapt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy, Huggy, Huggy...
> 
> the OP was aimed squarely at you...and designed to point out how similar religion and what you deem a rational belief based on evidence, science, are!
> 
> You accept the evolution concept, but scientists who cited the Neanderthal as a pre-human, a step in the evolution of mankind are proven wrong,  you carry on as 'well, yes, see- the genome evidence is now really, really right...'
> 
> And the missing transitional forms that would have been real physical evidence of the theory don't exist...
> 
> did you see the quote from Dawkins?
> 
> How about one from Darwin himself:
> 
> [Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
> Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species: Chapter IX.-ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD - Free Online Library
> 
> 
> "If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then *there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate formsNew forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. *If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
> Dr. Nancy Pearcy, "Saving Leonardo"
> 
> 
> Do you have an explanation?
> 
> 
> No matter, Huggy, glad to see you embrace faith in this manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fossilization is a rare event
> 
> 
> How many t-rexes lived? How many fossils do we have?
> 
> How many cats have lied in history? How many fossilized/petrified/naturally preserved cats do we stumble across?
Click to expand...


An excellent point to refute those who say, "where is the evidence?"  However, it's not supportive to those who claim they work only on known evidence since you are saying lack of evidence doesn't disprove a theory.


----------



## sangha

Intense said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it best if you focus on your own argument, and not worry yourself with me or what you think my motives are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAH didn't say anything about your motives. You're lying about what STAH to hide your inability to post an idea using your own words. If you had a brain, you'd make your point using your own words instead of letting someone else do your thinking for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sangha, Your bullshit and name calling is thread killing. The reason I posted the Link was to bring the thread back on track. It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory, unadulterated with your bullshit. I am giving you fair warning about you assumptions, with everyone you come in contact with. Knock it off. You want to add to a discussion learn to do it with courtesy, and stop repeating yourself 50 times over. Stop the Bitching, and contribute to the advancement of the conversation. Stop derailing threads with your bullshit. It is ugly, and not as popular as you imagine it to be.
Click to expand...


Once again for the intense moron:

STAH said nothing about your intent. He merely pointed out that NO ONE WILL READ the info you posted. *I* was the one who mentioned you intent

You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"

That isn't even grammatically correct, nevermind scientifically accurate.


----------



## sangha

José;3129752 said:
			
		

> I'd like to have 10 minutes alone with SmarterThanHick and sangha.
> 
> I promise the whole Board I wouldn't kill them, just mutilate them due to their stupidity



If you've got teh guts, start a thread instead of whining about it in a thread, you blowhard


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.



Such a closed mind.

I can accept science as real, tangible, and true while at the same time also being religious.  But then I'm aware that lots of things we have today would certainly be "magical" for people 200 years ago.


----------



## sangha

rdean said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in science is ever really "known".  There are no "beliefs".  What there is, is "skepticism".  Science is all about "skepticism".
> 
> "Skepticism" is NOT allowed in religious beliefs.
> 
> Those who can't understand this basic difference between the supernatural and science, are probably identified as "religious".
> 
> The religious try to pigeonhole science into terms they can understand so their "choice" makes sense.  Turn science into a belief.  Then say, "See? Science doesn't have all the answers and sometimes it's wrong".  While religion has "ALL" the answers and it's never wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are those that tell you that skepticism is not permitted in Religious Belief's, there are those that would tell you it is required. Which have you come to know to be true in your time on Earth? You are arguing Ego, and what we think we know. I do believe in Absolutes. I just think they are not alway's what we think or limit them to. Why chain and lock everything in all the time so quickly, only to find we measured wrong after the fact? Our perspectives are limited, yet our perspectives change, grow, fill in. Life is wonder, no? Alway's new shit on the horizon. There are different parts to our nature. You need not deny one to advance another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Our perspectives are limited, yet our perspectives change, grow, fill in.*
> 
> That's science, NOT religion.
> 
> *I do believe in Absolutes. I just think they are not alway's what we think or limit them to.*
> 
> Does this look a little confusing?  Because it does to me.  "I believe in absolutes unless they change"?
Click to expand...


Your mistake is in think that Intense's words have any meaning. They are nothing more than grandiose pronouncements designed to sound profound while offering nothing of significance


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  The existence of life is self evident.  The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found.  It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate.  It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today.  For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started.  We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is a "lack" of belief in mysticism, the supernatural and the occult.
Click to expand...


Or perhaps an arrogant denial of our current limitations in collecting and evaluating evidence.  Such a small mind, so not conducive to actual discovery.


----------



## rdean

asterism said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what: thermodynamics can't explain gravity! Particle physics is refuted!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll note that science has its own "God of the gaps" they just call it dark matter.
Click to expand...


Dark Matter was questioned in a previous post and and that question was answered.  

When I was in the boy scouts, many years ago, we went on a 9 day camp out.  The scoutmaster's 7 year old son came along.  One morning, we woke up to the sound of that poor child beating a tin pan with a metal spoon in the middle of the camp.  Because all the older kids were spending their days earning merit badges, this child felt alone and unwanted.  So he was just trying to get a little attention.  

You have just been nominated for the "Tin Pan and Metal Spoon" award.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...8-science-is-as-a-religion-8.html#post3129613


----------



## asterism

Madeline said:


> I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.
> 
> What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?



Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?


----------



## sangha

José;3129770 said:
			
		

> *THE MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM COMPRISES:*
> 
> *THE BIG BANG THEORY:*
> 
> (FIELD: COSMOLOGY) A SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT EXPLAINS THE UNIVERSE'S EARLY DEVELOPMENT, AKA, EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE BECAUSE IT WENT FROM EXTREME SIMPLICITY (HIGH ENERGY) TO COMPLEXITY (FUNDAMENTAL FORCES, ELEMENTARY PARTICLES, ETC...)
> 
> Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *THE THEORY OF GALAXY FORMATION AND EVOLUTION:*
> 
> (FIELD: COSMOLOGY) A SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT EXPLAINS THE FORMATION OF GALAXIES, AKA, EVOLUTION OF GALAXIES BECAUSE IT WENT FROM MERE HYDROGEN AND HELIUM GAS AND DUST TO A COMPLEX GRAVITATIONAL STRUCTURE.
> 
> Galaxy formation and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> *
> THE THEORY OF SOLAR SYSTEM FORMATION AND EVOLUTION:*
> 
> (FIELD: COSMOLOGY) IDEM
> 
> Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION* (See Shanga, Hick??: your beloved theory is a mere subset of the overarching evolutionany scientific paradigm)
> 
> (FIELD: BIOLOGY)  SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT EXPLAINS SPECIATION. IT EXPLAINS HOW COMPLEX SPECIES ON EARTH AROSE FROM SIMPLER ONES.
> 
> *THE EVOLUTION OF HOMO SAPIENS:*
> 
> (FIELD: ANTHROPOLOGY)
> 
> *THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN CIVILISATIONS, SOCIETIES:*
> 
> (FIELDS: ANTHROPOLOGY, HISTORY, SOCIOLOGY, ETC...)



No you moron. Just because they contain the word "evolution" that doesn't mean that one is a subset of the other.

Many things "evolve". Cultures evolve. Art evolves. A persons thinking on a specific issue can evolve. That is how the word "evolution" is being used in all of the examples you gave, but one: "The Theory of Evolution"

"The Theory of Evolution" (TTE) has absolutely nothing to do with how a solar system "evolves". The "evolution" of solar systems has nothing to do with TTE. Similarly, the processes by which TTE works (ex natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, etc) have absolutely nothing to do with the "evolution" of solar systems.

Thanks for showing us that your ignorance is not limited to TTE. You also have a problem with the way the English language can give different meanings to the same word when used in different contexts.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Intense said:


> I think it best if you focus on your own argument, and not worry yourself with me or what you think my motives are.


You misunderstand.  I don't care what your motives are.  Honestly, I don't even know what they are because I didn't read that copied and pasted text.  No one did.  The point I'm trying to make is that you should take it upon yourself to state arguments in your own words.  Copying and pasting is an ineffective form of communication here as no one reads it.  Ever.  Doesn't matter whether you're arguing for or against the same things as me.  Using your own words will make your arguments stronger.



Intense said:


> We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist?


I'm fairly certain we have the ability to prove cold exists.  We can qualify, quantify, and alter temperature.  We know how it works, and that it works, and we use that information in practical ways.  You may want to rethink that.



			
				José;3129752 said:
			
		

> I'd like to have 10 minutes alone with SmarterThanHick and sangha.
> 
> I promise the whole Board I wouldn't kill them, just mutilate them due to their stupidity


Unfortunately for you, we live in a civilized world where things like facts and justice prevail. Your teenage physical impulsive nature is amusing to me, especially on the internet.  Maybe it will be an effective problem solving tool for you one day, but until then I recommend you attempt to best me with factual information.



			
				José;3129772 said:
			
		

> The theory of evolution says nothing about abiogenesis (how matter became life) as Hick and sangha correctly stated.
> 
> *BUT THE LACK OF A SOLID ABIOGENESIS THEORY IS A MAJOR GAP IN THE EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM!!!!*


Which you continue to fail to realize is not an actual scientific theory or accepted by the scientific community.  It is an unsupported concept. It is not proven to exist whatsoever, and it has nothing to do with why you were originally wrong. In short: it's not real.  I don't quite think you've realized or accepted that fact.  It was a nice distraction in your failed attempt to backpedal, but you're still wrong.

Did you even bother reading the wikipedia article you cited?  Did you overlook that it doesn't meet basic standards and even reiterates what I just said?  You proved yourself wrong.  Hilarious.


----------



## sangha

Intense said:


> The point is that our perspectives are limited. To presume something either doesn't exist or to prescribe limitations on what we know nothing about, is pretty short sighted and heading for a fall.



Only a wingnut would think it's logical to think something exists even if there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that it exists. 

In wingnut world, it's true if you can't prove it's wrong

You just find a bigger logic fail than that


----------



## rdean

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is a "lack" of belief in mysticism, the supernatural and the occult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps an arrogant denial of our current limitations in collecting and evaluating evidence.  Such a small mind, so not conducive to actual discovery.
Click to expand...


It takes a "small mind" to study and learn?

But it takes a "big mind with an expanded consciousness" to believe without a shred of evidence?

I have car you might like to buy.  It's "Lemon Yellow" and in superb condition.


----------



## Sunni Man

rdean said:


> When I was in the boy scouts, many years ago, we went on a 9 day camp out.  The scoutmaster's 7 year old son came along.  One morning, we woke up to the sound of that poor child beating a tin pan with a metal spoon in the middle of the camp.  Because all the older kids were spending their days earning merit badges, this child felt alone and unwanted.  So he was just trying to get a little attention.
> 
> You have just been nominated for the "Tin Pan and Metal Spoon" award.


Tell us the full truth rdean.

We all know that little boy was you.

Cause you are still craving attention just like you did as a little child.


----------



## rdean

asterism said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.
> 
> What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
Click to expand...


Different "sciencers" believe in different things.  






Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press


----------



## sangha

asterism said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy, Huggy, Huggy...
> 
> the OP was aimed squarely at you...and designed to point out how similar religion and what you deem a rational belief based on evidence, science, are!
> 
> You accept the evolution concept, but scientists who cited the Neanderthal as a pre-human, a step in the evolution of mankind are proven wrong,  you carry on as 'well, yes, see- the genome evidence is now really, really right...'
> 
> And the missing transitional forms that would have been real physical evidence of the theory don't exist...
> 
> did you see the quote from Dawkins?
> 
> How about one from Darwin himself:
> 
> [Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
> Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species: Chapter IX.-ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD - Free Online Library
> 
> 
> "If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then *there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate formsNew forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. *If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
> Dr. Nancy Pearcy, "Saving Leonardo"
> 
> 
> Do you have an explanation?
> 
> 
> No matter, Huggy, glad to see you embrace faith in this manner.
> 
> 
> 
> fossilization is a rare event
> 
> 
> How many t-rexes lived? How many fossils do we have?
> 
> How many cats have lied in history? How many fossilized/petrified/naturally preserved cats do we stumble across?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An excellent point to refute those who say, "where is the evidence?"  However, it's not supportive to those who claim they work only on known evidence since you are saying lack of evidence doesn't disprove a theory.
Click to expand...


You obviously missed the point. One wingnut claimed that fossilization was common. That post wasn't meant to prove anything about evolution. It was meant to prove that the claim "fossilization is common" was wrong.

IOW, he is not claiming that "lack of evidence disproves a theory". He is saying "the rarity of fossils disproves the claim that fossils are common"


----------



## rdean

Intense said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a Conclusion based on a Theory, based on our ability to measure heat, not lack of it. This Theory is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. Because something remains a mystery to us we can just as easily presume that because we are limited, in our ability, something does not exist? We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist? Our science is limited, our perspective is limited. Does motion cause heat? What would lack of motion at a molecular level cause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that our perspectives are limited. To presume something either doesn't exist or to prescribe limitations on what we know nothing about, is pretty short sighted and heading for a fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For example, I could argue here that if you could stop movement at the molecular level, without removing the object, it would still exist without motion, therefore it would theoretically still exist and be more than nothing. The original argument in the quote is that cold does not exist because we are not capable of measuring it. True or not true, it would seem that what is yet lacking is our ability, our knowledge of the study. I'm not trashing Science, but preconceived notion. Does Cold exist? Is Cold the absence of something? Is it more than that? If Cold does not exist, is it nothing? Does Nothing exist? See where this leads? Do we continue to stay derailed chasing our tails on presumption or continue in discovery?
Click to expand...


You could no more show someone a "piece of cold" than you could a "piece of heat".  Heat is energy.  Cold is "lack of energy".


----------



## HUGGY

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is impressive!  That kind of stupid takes hard work!
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
Click to expand...


I believe in human curiosity.  I believe in the scientific method.  I believe all the mysteries will eventually be solved if we look long and hard enough at the questions.  I believe that our very survival as a species depends upon it.


----------



## sangha

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a closed mind.
> 
> I can accept science as real, tangible, and true while at the same time also being religious.  But then I'm aware that lots of things we have today would certainly be "magical" for people 200 years ago.
Click to expand...


If you replace the word "magical" with "spiritual", rdean would be right. rdeans' mistake is his lack of belief in spirituality


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is very much a religion.
> 
> The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.
> 
> Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.
> 
> And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.
> 
> And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs.
> 
> They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics.
> 
> Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.
> 
> Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good Sunni. We act on what we think we know, which is part of our nature. As what we think we know changes, we resist that change, generally preferring preconceived notion to reality and truth. This also is part of out nature. Humbleness a good tool, in that it generally keeps the fall from the loft a shorter distance.  Truth, in the end, educates, generally our youth, more open to acceptance of new perspectives. I'm not saying new perspectives, or any perspective should be taken at face value, but tested and compared, which is where science serves the truth, yet only where integrity is maintained. Separating what we know from what we think we know, what we assume, be it in science or religion, or any other aspect of life, is where we tend to lose it, by nature, and design. When we stray, trouble awaits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in science is ever really "known".  There are no "beliefs".  What there is, is "skepticism".  Science is all about "skepticism".
> 
> "Skepticism" is NOT allowed in religious beliefs.
> 
> Those who can't understand this basic difference between the supernatural and science, are probably identified as "religious".
> 
> The religious try to pigeonhole science into terms they can understand so their "choice" makes sense.  Turn science into a belief.  Then say, "See? Science doesn't have all the answers and sometimes it's wrong".  While religion has "ALL" the answers and it's never wrong.
Click to expand...


I'll remember that when you speak fondly of AGW skeptics.  As for the notion that skepticism isn't allowed in religious beliefs, I use Jesus Christ and Mohammed as exhibits.  Neither of them thought the Jews were on the correct path and now they each have billions of followers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet the entire reason we even have the concept of dark matter is because scientists are able to measure its effects on the physical universe.  We don't know exactly what it is or exactly how it works, but we do know THAT it works. There is evidence of it all over space.
> 
> You can't say the same for religion.  There is a noticeable difference in magic tricks when exhibited to a child or an adult: adults know there's an explanation for it, even if they don't know the explanation themselves, whereas children think it's really magic.  Science may seem to have its fair share of tricks, but it's best to avoid acting like a child when referencing them.
Click to expand...


The reason we have dark matter is science cannot explain the universe as it exists. If we could measure the actual effects of dark matter we could prove it exists. Pointing to something we cannot explain as evidence of something we cannot see is either circular reasoning, or it is faith, is doing the depending on who talking. Dark energy and dark matter, it they exist, cannot be found because our assumptions about how the universe works make it impossible to do so. That means we will either always be reduced to pointing at things we cannot explain and claim that is evidence of something else we cannot explain, or we will eventually learn that our underlying assumptions about the universe is wrong. 

Since you are describing religion using the exact same terms I can definitely say the same thing. I am just well informed enough to understand that sometimes science cannot explain everything.


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a Conclusion based on a Theory, based on our ability to measure heat, not lack of it. This Theory is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. Because something remains a mystery to us we can just as easily presume that because we are limited, in our ability, something does not exist? We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist? Our science is limited, our perspective is limited. Does motion cause heat? What would lack of motion at a molecular level cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.
Click to expand...


Can your conclusion be proven?


----------



## rdean

HUGGY said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in human curiosity.  I believe in the scientific method.  I believe all the mysteries will eventually be solved if we look long and hard enough at the questions.  I believe that our very survival as a species depends upon it.
Click to expand...


I believe in some of those things.

I don't have any mystical beliefs so for me, there is no question on whether or not they will be "solved".  I "trust" the scientific method rather than see it as a "belief".  I think of "speed limits" as a "good thing", but I don't consider them "beliefs".  I don't give them that much thought, unless I get a ticket for going too fast.

I guess I don't really think too much about "beliefs", but rather, things I trust, some more and some less, but all with "reservations".


----------



## sangha

asterism said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.
> 
> What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
Click to expand...


You don't know what you're talking about

For one thing, there is no such thing as "sciencers". At the very least, try to avoid making up your own words with your own "daffynitions", ok?

And no one believes "there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe" Some people don't believe in God, but your explanation is nothing but bullshit


----------



## rdean

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a Conclusion based on a Theory, based on our ability to measure heat, not lack of it. This Theory is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. Because something remains a mystery to us we can just as easily presume that because we are limited, in our ability, something does not exist? We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist? Our science is limited, our perspective is limited. Does motion cause heat? What would lack of motion at a molecular level cause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can your conclusion be proven?
Click to expand...


Yes, we call it "outer space".


----------



## rdean

sangha said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.
> 
> What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about
> 
> For one thing, there is no such thing as "sciencers". At the very least, try to avoid making up your own words with your own "daffynitions", ok?
> 
> And no one believes "there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe" Some people don't believe in God, but your explanation is nothing but bullshit
Click to expand...


"Daffynitions".  I like that.  I won't "Refudiate" it.


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what: thermodynamics can't explain gravity! Particle physics is refuted!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll note that science has its own "God of the gaps" they just call it dark matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dark Matter was questioned in a previous post and and that question was answered.
Click to expand...


Quite poorly, too.

"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."

Um, the same can be said about Faith.  



rdean said:


> When I was in the boy scouts, many years ago, we went on a 9 day camp out.  The scoutmaster's 7 year old son came along.  One morning, we woke up to the sound of that poor child beating a tin pan with a metal spoon in the middle of the camp.  Because all the older kids were spending their days earning merit badges, this child felt alone and unwanted.  So he was just trying to get a little attention.
> 
> You have just been nominated for the "Tin Pan and Metal Spoon" award.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...8-science-is-as-a-religion-8.html#post3129613



Looks like I struck a nerve.


----------



## sangha

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.
> 
> What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Different "sciencers" believe in different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Click to expand...


The obvious question is "Why does asterism believe that "sciencers" there is no God when there's no evidence to support it?"

Answer - christians lie


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daveman said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we realize that. It's the evolution-deniers who can't seem to accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I told Hick, I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.
> 
> So, no, it doesn't look like you all realize that.
Click to expand...


I used to debate "evolutionists" on Orkut and most of my time there was spent in explaining to them how evolution actually works so that I could point out why it is not an all encompassing theory. Some of them are still running around claiming that evolution is absolute proof that God does not exist. Funny thing is they are right, the God they do not believe in does not exist, that is not proof that God does not exist though.


----------



## sangha

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a Conclusion based on a Theory, based on our ability to measure heat, not lack of it. This Theory is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. Because something remains a mystery to us we can just as easily presume that because we are limited, in our ability, something does not exist? We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist? Our science is limited, our perspective is limited. Does motion cause heat? What would lack of motion at a molecular level cause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can your conclusion be proven?
Click to expand...


Yes, it can be scientifically proven


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is a "lack" of belief in mysticism, the supernatural and the occult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or perhaps an arrogant denial of our current limitations in collecting and evaluating evidence.  Such a small mind, so not conducive to actual discovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes a "small mind" to study and learn?
> 
> But it takes a "big mind with an expanded consciousness" to believe without a shred of evidence?
> 
> I have car you might like to buy.  It's "Lemon Yellow" and in superb condition.
Click to expand...


I can take some things on Faith and I can take other things on evidence.  I can also be a skeptic to both.  I cannot prove conclusively that my wife truly loves me, but I still believe it.  I cannot prove my kids won't be serial killers, but I believe it.

Gravity?  Proven enough for me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't use that word lightly ever. No, no "sciencer" fails to realize that evolution only explains differences between and within species.  That's because THAT'S ALL EVOLUTION DOES.  It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself.  Seems to me that "religioners" fail to realize that. Similarly, learning how to drive a car has nothing to do with learning how to manufacture a car from scratch.  They are two completely separate concepts in the same field.
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, then, that I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you have demonstrated a stunning stupidity
> 
> Evolution refutes creationism because creationism says that humans were created by God "as is" and did not evolve. Evolution contradicts Creationism. Evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life itself in order to refute Creationism
> 
> But you are so dumb, you're still hung up on the idea that evolution does or should explain the origins of life itself. No matter how many times you are educated on this, you will continue to insist that the origins of life itself has something to do with evolution. You can't drop this idea because you are too dumb to realize how dumb you are. Here's a study that explains the phenomena of stupid people who are certain they are not stupid
> 
> Confident dumb people - Boing Boing
Click to expand...


Does it?


----------



## sangha

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll note that science has its own "God of the gaps" they just call it dark matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dark Matter was questioned in a previous post and and that question was answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite poorly, too.
> 
> "We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."
> 
> Um, the same can be said about Faith.
Click to expand...


Can you please stop making stuff up (ie lying)

We know what black matter is. We don't know everything abou it, but we know it exists.

Just like you exist even though we'll never know everything about you.


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.
> 
> What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Different "sciencers" believe in different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Click to expand...


I'm well aware of the disparate focuses on science and religion, as well as how some on either side pursue their chosen path exclusively.  That doesn't make either side correct.

That said, your own lack of collecting and analyzing evidence (like your belief in the conclusion of this poll without any actual study on your part) says a lot about you.  You have faith in something even you don't understand.  How funny is that?


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, then, that I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you have demonstrated a stunning stupidity
> 
> Evolution refutes creationism because creationism says that humans were created by God "as is" and did not evolve. Evolution contradicts Creationism. Evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life itself in order to refute Creationism
> 
> But you are so dumb, you're still hung up on the idea that evolution does or should explain the origins of life itself. No matter how many times you are educated on this, you will continue to insist that the origins of life itself has something to do with evolution. You can't drop this idea because you are too dumb to realize how dumb you are. Here's a study that explains the phenomena of stupid people who are certain they are not stupid
> 
> Confident dumb people - Boing Boing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it?
Click to expand...


Can you post in complete sentences? I have no idea what you are asking about.


----------



## sangha

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different "sciencers" believe in different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of the disparate focuses on science and religion, as well as how some on either side pursue their chosen path exclusively.  That doesn't make either side correct.
> 
> That said, your own lack of collecting and analyzing evidence (like your belief in the conclusion of this poll without any actual study on your part) says a lot about you.  You have faith in something even you don't understand.  How funny is that?
Click to expand...


Why did you say that "sciencers" (a made up term) believe that God doesn't exist when you know that is a lie?


----------



## Intense

SmarterThanHick said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it best if you focus on your own argument, and not worry yourself with me or what you think my motives are.
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand.  I don't care what your motives are.  Honestly, I don't even know what they are because I didn't read that copied and pasted text.  No one did.  The point I'm trying to make is that you should take it upon yourself to state arguments in your own words.  Copying and pasting is an ineffective form of communication here as no one reads it.  Ever.  Doesn't matter whether you're arguing for or against the same things as me.  Using your own words will make your arguments stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm fairly certain we have the ability to prove cold exists.  We can qualify, quantify, and alter temperature.  We know how it works, and that it works, and we use that information in practical ways.  You may want to rethink that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José;3129752 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to have 10 minutes alone with SmarterThanHick and sangha.
> 
> I promise the whole Board I wouldn't kill them, just mutilate them due to their stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, we live in a civilized world where things like facts and justice prevail. Your teenage physical impulsive nature is amusing to me, especially on the internet.  Maybe it will be an effective problem solving tool for you one day, but until then I recommend you attempt to best me with factual information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José;3129772 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution says nothing about abiogenesis (how matter became life) as Hick and sangha correctly stated.
> 
> *BUT THE LACK OF A SOLID ABIOGENESIS THEORY IS A MAJOR GAP IN THE EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which you continue to fail to realize is not an actual scientific theory or accepted by the scientific community.  It is an unsupported concept. It is not proven to exist whatsoever, and it has nothing to do with why you were originally wrong. In short: it's not real.  I don't quite think you've realized or accepted that fact.  It was a nice distraction in your failed attempt to backpedal, but you're still wrong.
> 
> Did you even bother reading the wikipedia article you cited?  Did you overlook that it doesn't meet basic standards and even reiterates what I just said?  You proved yourself wrong.  Hilarious.
Click to expand...




> You misunderstand.  I don't care what your motives are.  Honestly, I don't even know what they are because I didn't read that copied and pasted text.  No one did.  The point I'm trying to make is that you should take it upon yourself to state arguments in your own words.  Copying and pasting is an ineffective form of communication here as no one reads it.  Ever.  Doesn't matter whether you're arguing for or against the same things as me.  Using your own words will make your arguments stronger.



We are in disagreement here. I read Every Post I find interest in including Quotes and Links. I'm sure that I am not alone in that. Feel free to utilize your own style, it is wrong however to have expectations on anyone else. As for my intent, it was to put the Thread back on track. Nothing more and nothing less.




> I'm fairly certain we have the ability to prove cold exists.  We can qualify, quantify, and alter temperature.  We know how it works, and that it works, and we use that information in practical ways.  You may want to rethink that.



This is a carry over from another Thread involving JB. I too would believe that just because we cannot measurer cold, it would more suggest that it is more related to limited ability and perspective, than cold not existing. The message is about us getting caught up in absolutes, rather than accepting our limited knowledge.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know when something exists when we can "measure" it.  Only a very tiny percentage of the energy spectrum is made of "visible" light, yet we know it exists.
> 
> The same with Dark Matter.  We know it exists because it creates a peculiar "lensing" effect.  The same effect that large planets create with their gravitational fields which "bend" light.
> 
> Scientists "live" for questions.  They admit they only possess a tiny bit of knowledge, but that knowledge is growing every day.  The religious want to "block" that knowledge growth, except for weapons.  They believe bigger and better "weapons" will "keep us safe".
> 
> Mapping Dark Matter with a Cosmic Lens : Discovery News
Click to expand...


You just proved you know less about science than even I gave you credit for, which is not very much.

Scientists do not know that either dark energy, which is not electromagnetic energy we cannot see, or dark matter exists. They believe dark energy exists because the universe is expanding faster than it should be given the vast amount of energy, both visible and invisible, that we can detect. They believe dark matter exists because the mass of the universe is more than the mass of all the possible galaxies. 

Notice the words I used here. Scientists believe, they do not know. If we take your rather limited knowledge of science and your insistence that science and belief, faith, are completely incompatible, we are left with the demonstrated fact that we cannot explain the universe. The only way to explain the universe is hypothesize, or SWAG (scientific wild assed guess).

Explain to me again how that does not fit your definition of magical.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Intense said:


> We are in disagreement here. I read Every Post I find interest in including Quotes and Links. I'm sure that I am not alone in that. Feel free to utilize your own style, it is wrong however to have expectations on anyone else. As for my intent, it was to put the Thread back on track. Nothing more and nothing less.


And how effective was it at that goal.  I think I'm the only one who responded to it, and that was to say I didn't read it.  Again, I think you should rethink your tactic, because I know you have the ability to make stronger points, and that didn't accomplish it.



Intense said:


> This is a carry over from another Thread involving JB. I too would believe that just because we cannot measurer cold, it would more suggest that it is more related to limited ability and perspective, than cold not existing. The message is about us getting caught up in absolutes, rather than accepting our limited knowledge.


We can measure cold though. I don't quite understand your point.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know when something exists when we can "measure" it.  Only a very tiny percentage of the energy spectrum is made of "visible" light, yet we know it exists.
> 
> The same with Dark Matter.  We know it exists because it creates a peculiar "lensing" effect.  The same effect that large planets create with their gravitational fields which "bend" light.
> 
> Scientists "live" for questions.  They admit they only possess a tiny bit of knowledge, but that knowledge is growing every day.  The religious want to "block" that knowledge growth, except for weapons.  They believe bigger and better "weapons" will "keep us safe".
> 
> Mapping Dark Matter with a Cosmic Lens : Discovery News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved you know less about science than even I gave you credit for, which is not very much.
> 
> Scientists do not know that either dark energy, which is not electromagnetic energy we cannot see, or dark matter exists. They believe dark energy exists because the universe is expanding faster than it should be given the vast amount of energy, both visible and invisible, that we can detect. They believe dark matter exists because the mass of the universe is more than the mass of all the possible galaxies.
> 
> Notice the words I used here. Scientists believe, they do not know. If we take your rather limited knowledge of science and your insistence that science and belief, faith, are completely incompatible, we are left with the demonstrated fact that we cannot explain the universe. The only way to explain the universe is hypothesize, or SWAG (scientific wild assed guess).
> 
> Explain to me again how that does not fit your definition of magical.
Click to expand...


Because you had to lie in order to make your point

Scientists do not "believe" in dark matter; they suspect it exists and have offered HYPOTHESES about it


----------



## Intense

sangha said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> STAH didn't say anything about your motives. You're lying about what STAH to hide your inability to post an idea using your own words. If you had a brain, you'd make your point using your own words instead of letting someone else do your thinking for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sangha, Your bullshit and name calling is thread killing. The reason I posted the Link was to bring the thread back on track. It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory, unadulterated with your bullshit. I am giving you fair warning about you assumptions, with everyone you come in contact with. Knock it off. You want to add to a discussion learn to do it with courtesy, and stop repeating yourself 50 times over. Stop the Bitching, and contribute to the advancement of the conversation. Stop derailing threads with your bullshit. It is ugly, and not as popular as you imagine it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again for the intense moron:
> 
> STAH said nothing about your intent. He merely pointed out that NO ONE WILL READ the info you posted. *I* was the one who mentioned you intent
> 
> You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"
> 
> That isn't even grammatically correct, nevermind scientifically accurate.
Click to expand...




> Once again for the intense moron:


 Why is it exactly is it that you need to put people down? What good does it serve? Do you honestly think that it elevates you or your position?





> STAH said nothing about your intent. He merely pointed out that NO ONE WILL READ the info you posted. *I* was the one who mentioned you intent


What concern is it of yours? Further, You did not know my intent, and were not qualified to speak on it. You make many assumptions, mostly wrong.





> You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"



Prove that I am unable to express my own ideas. Prove that you know the limits of my brain power. Prove that my statements are meaningless. What Theory doesn't have questions? Limits? Conclusions? Show me the main stream view of Modern Evolution Theory, and where my Link contradicts it? I am warning you again about derailing Threads and insulting Posters.


----------



## sangha

SmarterThanHick said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in disagreement here. I read Every Post I find interest in including Quotes and Links. I'm sure that I am not alone in that. Feel free to utilize your own style, it is wrong however to have expectations on anyone else. As for my intent, it was to put the Thread back on track. Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> And how effective was it at that goal.  I think I'm the only one who responded to it, and that was to say I didn't read it.  Again, I think you should rethink your tactic, because I know you have the ability to make stronger points, and that didn't accomplish it.
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a carry over from another Thread involving JB. I too would believe that just because we cannot measurer cold, it would more suggest that it is more related to limited ability and perspective, than cold not existing. The message is about us getting caught up in absolutes, rather than accepting our limited knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can measure cold though. I don't quite understand your point.
Click to expand...


Actually, we can't measure cold. We measure temperature, which is a measure of heat.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Greenbeard said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is "magical" in nature.  Science is not.  They are mutually "exclusive".  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those phrases are shorthand for observational facts. "Dark matter," at its base, refers to virial theorem violations and unexpected galactic rotation curves; "dark energy" is  systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles (since corroborated through other observational means). These are facts, not magic. Now, fitting them into existing models and extrapolating from there may be considered some weak form of faith, but then there are folks looking to construct new models from these observational facts instead of reconciling them with the frameworks that already exist. Eventually someone is going to be vindicated empirically. Such is science.
Click to expand...


I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith. We see something we cannot explain, and take a guess at to why it is happening. Then we look around for evidence that refutes or supports the guess. Since the only thing we have to either refute or disprove either of these concepts is the stuff we cannot explain we cannot use that as evidence of the guesses.

BTW, where did you get the idea that dark matter explains anything we observe with candles? Did you Google it and read something about candlepower and jump to the wrong conclusion? The distortion of the light from a single candle due to the possible existence of dark matter would be indistinguishable from the effects of the gravity from the mass of the Earth. We can only see the distortion of dark matter when we can look at the universe as a whole and see that the gravitic distortion of light is measurably greater than can be accounted for by adding up all the matter in the universe. That results in scientists hypothesizing dark matter, matter that cannot be detected yet still creates gravity.

Since the LHC has recently shown that String Theoy's predictions of microscopic black holes may be wrong we are even further at a loss to explain the observational data.


----------



## Intense

sangha said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are those that tell you that skepticism is not permitted in Religious Belief's, there are those that would tell you it is required. Which have you come to know to be true in your time on Earth? You are arguing Ego, and what we think we know. I do believe in Absolutes. I just think they are not alway's what we think or limit them to. Why chain and lock everything in all the time so quickly, only to find we measured wrong after the fact? Our perspectives are limited, yet our perspectives change, grow, fill in. Life is wonder, no? Alway's new shit on the horizon. There are different parts to our nature. You need not deny one to advance another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Our perspectives are limited, yet our perspectives change, grow, fill in.*
> 
> That's science, NOT religion.
> 
> *I do believe in Absolutes. I just think they are not alway's what we think or limit them to.*
> 
> Does this look a little confusing?  Because it does to me.  "I believe in absolutes unless they change"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your mistake is in think that Intense's words have any meaning. They are nothing more than grandiose pronouncements designed to sound profound while offering nothing of significance
Click to expand...


What I find here is a definitiveness within you, a deficiency, that motivates you to strike out at others. You have issues, which are reflected in the majority of your posts, diminishing the value of them.


----------



## sangha

Intense said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sangha, Your bullshit and name calling is thread killing. The reason I posted the Link was to bring the thread back on track. It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory, unadulterated with your bullshit. I am giving you fair warning about you assumptions, with everyone you come in contact with. Knock it off. You want to add to a discussion learn to do it with courtesy, and stop repeating yourself 50 times over. Stop the Bitching, and contribute to the advancement of the conversation. Stop derailing threads with your bullshit. It is ugly, and not as popular as you imagine it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again for the intense moron:
> 
> STAH said nothing about your intent. He merely pointed out that NO ONE WILL READ the info you posted. *I* was the one who mentioned you intent
> 
> You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"
> 
> That isn't even grammatically correct, nevermind scientifically accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it exactly is it that you need to put people down? What good does it serve? Do you honestly think that it elevates you or your position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAH said nothing about your intent. He merely pointed out that NO ONE WILL READ the info you posted. *I* was the one who mentioned you intent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What concern is it of yours? Further, You did not know my intent, and were not qualified to speak on it. You make many assumptions, mostly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove that I am unable to express my own ideas. Prove that you know the limits of my brain power. Prove that my statements are meaningless. What Theory doesn't have questions? Limits? Conclusions? Show me the main stream view of Modern Evolution Theory, and where my Link contradicts it? I am warning you again about derailing Threads and insulting Posters.
Click to expand...


You are just as nasty as anyone else here, so stop pretending you're a prince. You dont fool anyone. That's why everyone IGNORED your post and your foolish attempts to direct the discussion.

And if you want proof that you are unable to express your own ideas, just read ahead in your own post. When you get to your question "What Theory doesn't have questions?" ask yourself "Do theories have questions, or do people have questions about theories?"


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith.



You also said that scientists believe in dark matter, which is a lie


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is impressive!  That kind of stupid takes hard work!
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
Click to expand...


Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *sangha*
> "The Theory of Evolution" (TTE) has absolutely nothing to do with how a solar system "evolves". The "evolution" of solar systems has nothing to do with TTE.



They *DO* have something in common. They all describe the arisal of more complex structures from simpler ones, aka, EVOLUTION.

That's why the Big Bang theory, Galaxy/Solar System formation and development, *THE THEORY OF ABIOGENESIS*, the theory of biological evolution, etc, etc... can all the grouped together into a single overarching scientific concept known as "*THE MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM*".

Contrary to what ignoramuses like Hick say the evolutionary paradigm is *UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BY MODERN SCIENCE*.

The lack of a consistent, solid abiogenesis theory is indeed a major gap in this paradigm.


----------



## Intense

rdean said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that our perspectives are limited. To presume something either doesn't exist or to prescribe limitations on what we know nothing about, is pretty short sighted and heading for a fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For example, I could argue here that if you could stop movement at the molecular level, without removing the object, it would still exist without motion, therefore it would theoretically still exist and be more than nothing. The original argument in the quote is that cold does not exist because we are not capable of measuring it. True or not true, it would seem that what is yet lacking is our ability, our knowledge of the study. I'm not trashing Science, but preconceived notion. Does Cold exist? Is Cold the absence of something? Is it more than that? If Cold does not exist, is it nothing? Does Nothing exist? See where this leads? Do we continue to stay derailed chasing our tails on presumption or continue in discovery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could no more show someone a "piece of cold" than you could a "piece of heat".  Heat is energy.  Cold is "lack of energy".
Click to expand...


The point is that just because you cannot prove something, it is not proof that something doesn't exist. The issue may be that something indeed does not exist, that is a given. The issue may also be in knowledge or capability. Maybe a day will come when the existence of cold can and will be proven.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *SmaterThanHick*
> It was a nice distraction in your failed attempt to backpedal, but you're still wrong.



Says the guy who's never made a poor choice of words in his whole life, let alone in the heat of a debate.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.
Click to expand...


Actually, atheism is a lack of belief. What you are thinking of is anti-theism. Many people who call themselve "atheists" are in fact "anti-theists", or as I like to refer to them...Hate-theists


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is very much a religion.
> 
> The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.
> 
> Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.
> 
> And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.
> 
> And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs.
> 
> They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics.
> 
> Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.
> 
> Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good Sunni. We act on what we think we know, which is part of our nature. As what we think we know changes, we resist that change, generally preferring preconceived notion to reality and truth. This also is part of out nature. Humbleness a good tool, in that it generally keeps the fall from the loft a shorter distance.  Truth, in the end, educates, generally our youth, more open to acceptance of new perspectives. I'm not saying new perspectives, or any perspective should be taken at face value, but tested and compared, which is where science serves the truth, yet only where integrity is maintained. Separating what we know from what we think we know, what we assume, be it in science or religion, or any other aspect of life, is where we tend to lose it, by nature, and design. When we stray, trouble awaits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in science is ever really "known".  There are no "beliefs".  What there is, is "skepticism".  Science is all about "skepticism".
> 
> "Skepticism" is NOT allowed in religious beliefs.
> 
> Those who can't understand this basic difference between the supernatural and science, are probably identified as "religious".
> 
> The religious try to pigeonhole science into terms they can understand so their "choice" makes sense.  Turn science into a belief.  Then say, "See? Science doesn't have all the answers and sometimes it's wrong".  While religion has "ALL" the answers and it's never wrong.
Click to expand...




> 24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, We have seen the Lord!    But  he said to them, Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my  finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not  believe.
> 26 A  week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with  them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and  said, Peace be with you! 27 Then he said to Thomas, Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.
> 28 Thomas said to him, My Lord and my God!
> 29 Then Jesus told him, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.



John 20:24-29 NIV


----------



## sangha

José;3130061 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *sangha*
> "The Theory of Evolution" (TTE) has absolutely nothing to do with how a solar system "evolves". The "evolution" of solar systems has nothing to do with TTE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They *DO* have something in common. They all describe the arisal of more complex structures from simpler ones.
Click to expand...


TTE is not the study of how complex structures arise from simpler ones. TTE says nothing about complexity.



			
				José;3130061 said:
			
		

> That's why the Big Bang theory, Galaxy/Solar System formation and development, *THE THEORY OF ABIOGENESIS*, the theory of biological evolution, etc, etc... can all the grouped together into a single overarching scientific concept known as "*THE MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM*".



There is no such scientific "paradigm" which is why you can't link to any credible scientific corroboration. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia refuses to support




			
				José;3130061 said:
			
		

> Contrary to what ignoramuses like Hick say the evolutionary paradigm is *UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BY MODERN SCIENCE*.



And yet, despite this *UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE*, you can't cite ONE SINGLE bit of credible evidence to support your claim. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia refuses to support



> The lack of a consistent, solid abiogenesis theory is indeed a major gap in this paradigm.



That would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that science does not consider your wingnut "paradigm" to be science.


----------



## Intense

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a Conclusion based on a Theory, based on our ability to measure heat, not lack of it. This Theory is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. Because something remains a mystery to us we can just as easily presume that because we are limited, in our ability, something does not exist? We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist? Our science is limited, our perspective is limited. Does motion cause heat? What would lack of motion at a molecular level cause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can your conclusion be proven?
Click to expand...


Can you stop the flow of protons, neutrons and electrons? Some one once had a Thread about proving that Time exists. Great Thread. There is alway's where we were, where we are and where we are going as opposed to where we think we are going. Perspectives and limitations change with knowledge. When speaking on Religion or Science, or Politics, there are common factors that seem to always trip us up. That is my whole point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

uscitizen said:


> Those of us who recognize science are always ready to accept that an old accepted "truth" is no longer correct when new discoveries/evidence is produced.
> 
> Unlike religion...



Please explain why scientists, when faced with incontrovertible evidence, rejected Copernicus and clung to the geocentric view of the universe. So much so that even a century later they rejected Galileo and his telescope. YOu seem to have an irrational belief in the rational nature of scientists despite overwhelming evidence that they are only human, and thus both fallible and petty.


----------



## rdean

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll note that science has its own "God of the gaps" they just call it dark matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dark Matter was questioned in a previous post and and that question was answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite poorly, too.
> 
> *"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."
> 
> Um, the same can be said about Faith.  *
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in the boy scouts, many years ago, we went on a 9 day camp out.  The scoutmaster's 7 year old son came along.  One morning, we woke up to the sound of that poor child beating a tin pan with a metal spoon in the middle of the camp.  Because all the older kids were spending their days earning merit badges, this child felt alone and unwanted.  So he was just trying to get a little attention.
> 
> You have just been nominated for the "Tin Pan and Metal Spoon" award.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...8-science-is-as-a-religion-8.html#post3129613
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like I struck a nerve.
Click to expand...


*"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."

Um, the same can be said about Faith.  *

Really?

Perhaps you could share a few "examples"?


----------



## rdean

sangha said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different "sciencers" believe in different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The obvious question is "Why does asterism believe that "sciencers" there is no God when there's no evidence to support it?"
> 
> Answer - christians lie
Click to expand...


It's a "belief".  Belief equals reality.  The medical profession calls that "delusion", but what do they know?  That's thread for another day.


----------



## sangha

Intense said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that our perspectives are limited. To presume something either doesn't exist or to prescribe limitations on what we know nothing about, is pretty short sighted and heading for a fall.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, I could argue here that if you could stop movement at the molecular level, without removing the object, it would still exist without motion, therefore it would theoretically still exist and be more than nothing. The original argument in the quote is that cold does not exist because we are not capable of measuring it. True or not true, it would seem that what is yet lacking is our ability, our knowledge of the study. I'm not trashing Science, but preconceived notion. Does Cold exist? Is Cold the absence of something? Is it more than that? If Cold does not exist, is it nothing? Does Nothing exist? See where this leads? Do we continue to stay derailed chasing our tails on presumption or continue in discovery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could no more show someone a "piece of cold" than you could a "piece of heat".  Heat is energy.  Cold is "lack of energy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that just because you cannot prove something, it is not proof that something doesn't exist. The issue may be that something indeed does not exist, that is a given. The issue may also be in knowledge or capability. Maybe a day will come when the existence of cold can and will be proven.
Click to expand...


Then your point is a straw man. No one here has argued that the lack of evidence proves non-existence. No One. Not One Person. You Made It Up.

And no, the existence of cold will never be proven because cold is defined (when used to describe temperature)  as the lack of heat. In fact, even when used in a non-scientific manner (such as describing a persons' personality as "cold") the word cold is usually used to note a lack of something.

Summary: You are consistently wrong about nearly everything you say


----------



## sangha

José;3130067 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *SmaterThanHick*
> It was a nice distraction in your failed attempt to backpedal, but you're still wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who's never made a poor choice of words in his whole life, let alone in the heat of a debate.
Click to expand...


If you had admitted that you had made a mistake (ie a poor choice of words) from the beginning, you wouldn't have needed to try and distract our attention away from your mistake by denying it and accusing STAH of making the mistake.

But at least you're finally admitting that you're the one who was wrong. Shame it took so much work just to get you to be honest


----------



## Intense

SmarterThanHick said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in disagreement here. I read Every Post I find interest in including Quotes and Links. I'm sure that I am not alone in that. Feel free to utilize your own style, it is wrong however to have expectations on anyone else. As for my intent, it was to put the Thread back on track. Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> And how effective was it at that goal.  I think I'm the only one who responded to it, and that was to say I didn't read it.  Again, I think you should rethink your tactic, because I know you have the ability to make stronger points, and that didn't accomplish it.
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a carry over from another Thread involving JB. I too would believe that just because we cannot measurer cold, it would more suggest that it is more related to limited ability and perspective, than cold not existing. The message is about us getting caught up in absolutes, rather than accepting our limited knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can measure cold though. I don't quite understand your point.
Click to expand...



It would have, if not for a few here. No Offense.  
How do you measure cold?


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those of us who recognize science are always ready to accept that an old accepted "truth" is no longer correct when new discoveries/evidence is produced.
> 
> Unlike religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain why scientists, when faced with incontrovertible evidence, rejected Copernicus and clung to the geocentric view of the universe. So much so that even a century later they rejected Galileo and his telescope. YOu seem to have an irrational belief in the rational nature of scientists despite overwhelming evidence that they are only human, and thus both fallible and petty.
Click to expand...


Ummm, maybe because they didn't want to be excommunicated and possibly tortured or killed by the violent christians?


----------



## Greenbeard

Quantum Windbag said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those phrases are shorthand for observational facts. "Dark matter," at its base, refers to virial theorem violations and unexpected galactic rotation curves; "dark energy" is  systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles (since corroborated through other observational means). These are facts, not magic. Now, fitting them into existing models and extrapolating from there may be considered some weak form of faith, but then there are folks looking to construct new models from these observational facts instead of reconciling them with the frameworks that already exist. Eventually someone is going to be vindicated empirically. Such is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith. We see something we cannot explain, and take a guess at to why it is happening. Then we look around for evidence that refutes or supports the guess. Since the only thing we have to either refute or disprove either of these concepts is the stuff we cannot explain we cannot use that as evidence of the guesses.
Click to expand...


These concepts sound like magic if you confuse the colorful phrases that have gained popularity to describe them with the actual science itself.



> BTW, where did you get the idea that dark matter explains anything we observe with candles? Did you Google it and read something about candlepower and jump to the wrong conclusion? The distortion of the light from a single candle due to the possible existence of dark matter would be indistinguishable from the effects of the gravity from the mass of the Earth.



Are you joking? I (wrongly, it appears) assumed you knew a bit about cosmology. You're mixing up not only the concepts of dark matter and dark energy here but their usage in my post (see my post: _"dark energy" is  systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles_). A standard candle is an astronomical object whose absolute magnitude is fairly well-known, meaning their apparent magnitude can be used to gauge distance. Type Ia supernovae are the standard candles I'm referring to here, as they're what was used to discover the first evidence of dark energy twelve years ago.

The fact that you thought a standard candle is an actual _wax candle_ is kind of mind-boggling.


----------



## José

> Origianlly posted by *sangha*
> TTE is not the study of how complex structures arise from simpler ones. TTE says nothing about complexity.



Partially true. Evolution does not necessarily leads to more complex species, but complexity happened on Earth as a kind of side effect of evolution.

Or do you deny that Earth's higher organisms like reptiles, birds and mammals DID evolve from simpler life forms?



> Originally posted by *sangha*
> There is no such scientific "paradigm" which is why you can't link to any credible scientific corroboration. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia refuses to support.
> 
> And yet, despite this UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE, you can't cite ONE SINGLE bit of credible evidence to support your claim. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia refuses to support
> 
> That would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that science does not consider your wingnut "paradigm" to be science.



tsk, tsk, tsk...

I'm done "debating" with Hick and sangha. 

If these two guys have the courage to deny the existence of one of the most fundamental scientific paradigms upon which the whole body of modern Cosmology, Astronomy, Anthropology, History and Sociology rests they are lost case that do not deserve my attention.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dark Matter was questioned in a previous post and and that question was answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite poorly, too.
> 
> "We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."
> 
> Um, the same can be said about Faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you please stop making stuff up (ie lying)
> 
> We know what black matter is. We don't know everything abou it, but we know it exists.
> 
> Just like you exist even though we'll never know everything about you.
Click to expand...


We do not. You will not find any educated person who says that dark matters is known to exist. Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain otherwise inexplicable observations. Some people point to the inexplicable and claims that it proves dark matters exists, but no scientist will do that because they know that amounts to circular logic, since dark matter is made up to explain those observations.


----------



## rdean

Quantum Windbag said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we realize that. It's the evolution-deniers who can't seem to accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> As I told Hick, I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.
> 
> So, no, it doesn't look like you all realize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to debate "evolutionists" on Orkut and *most of my time there was spent in explaining to them how evolution actually work*s so that I could point out why it is not an all encompassing theory. Some of them are still running around claiming that evolution is absolute proof that God does not exist. Funny thing is they are right, the God they do not believe in does not exist, that is not proof that God does not exist though.
Click to expand...


*FOFLOL!*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you have demonstrated a stunning stupidity
> 
> Evolution refutes creationism because creationism says that humans were created by God "as is" and did not evolve. Evolution contradicts Creationism. Evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life itself in order to refute Creationism
> 
> But you are so dumb, you're still hung up on the idea that evolution does or should explain the origins of life itself. No matter how many times you are educated on this, you will continue to insist that the origins of life itself has something to do with evolution. You can't drop this idea because you are too dumb to realize how dumb you are. Here's a study that explains the phenomena of stupid people who are certain they are not stupid
> 
> Confident dumb people - Boing Boing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you post in complete sentences? I have no idea what you are asking about.
Click to expand...


You claimed that evolution disproves creationism, I posted a complete interrogatory statement in reply. How long have you had this reading comprehension problem?


----------



## rdean

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different "sciencers" believe in different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of the disparate focuses on science and religion, as well as how some on either side pursue their chosen path exclusively.  That doesn't make either side correct.
> 
> That said, your own lack of collecting and analyzing evidence (like your belief in the conclusion of this poll without any actual study on your part) says a lot about you.  You have faith in something even you don't understand.  How funny is that?
Click to expand...


Methodology - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

At least they have a "methodology".  With them, I have more faith than religion, which has nothing but bizarre and unbelievable fables.  Do you really believe in "Noah's Ark" and "The Garden of Eden"?


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *sangha*
> If you had admitted that you had made a mistake (ie a poor choice of words) from the beginning...



I did. Check post number 34, page 3:

*By "evolutionary theory" I was reffering to the general, all encompassing scientific paradigm according to which the whole universe (including life) moves gradually from lower to higher levels of complexity.

And yes, the origin of life = abiogenesis is indeed one of the biggest Achiles' heel of the MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM.

But go ahead, DumberThanHick, nail me to a cross due to a poor choice of words...*


----------



## sangha

José;3130146 said:
			
		

> Origianlly posted by *sangha*
> TTE is not the study of how complex structures arise from simpler ones. TTE says nothing about complexity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially true. Evolution does not necessarily leads to more complex species, but complexity happened on Earth as a kind of side effect of evolution.
> 
> Or do you deny that Earth's higher organisms like reptiles, birds and mammals DID evolve from simpler life forms?
Click to expand...


Since evolution does not study "how complex systems arise from simpler ones", I will deny that you are honest enough to admit you were wrong when claimed that evolution does study how complex systems arise from simpler ones.

When you show that you can be honest and forthcoming about the false claims you have already made, then and only then will we move on to your latest bunch of bullshit




			
				José;3130146 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *sangha*
> There is no such scientific "paradigm" which is why you can't link to any credible scientific corroboration. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia refuses to support.
> 
> And yet, despite this UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE, you can't cite ONE SINGLE bit of credible evidence to support your claim. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia refuses to support
> 
> That would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that science does not consider your wingnut "paradigm" to be science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsk, tsk, tsk...
> 
> I'm done "debating" with Hick and sangha.
> 
> If these two guys have the courage to deny the existence of one of the most fundamental scientific paradigms upon which the whole body of modern Cosmology, Astronomy, Anthropology, History and Sociology rests they are lost case that do not deserve my attention.
Click to expand...


You continue to falsely claim that your wingnut "Paradigm" is somehow "scientific" and is "universally accepted", but for some unexplained reason, the only thing that backs you up is link to a page that even Wikipedia refuses to vouch for 

Let me know when you have the courage to admit you were wrong when you said that TTE is concerned with how complex systems arise from simpler ones


----------



## rdean

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know when something exists when we can "measure" it.  Only a very tiny percentage of the energy spectrum is made of "visible" light, yet we know it exists.
> 
> The same with Dark Matter.  We know it exists because it creates a peculiar "lensing" effect.  The same effect that large planets create with their gravitational fields which "bend" light.
> 
> Scientists "live" for questions.  They admit they only possess a tiny bit of knowledge, but that knowledge is growing every day.  The religious want to "block" that knowledge growth, except for weapons.  They believe bigger and better "weapons" will "keep us safe".
> 
> Mapping Dark Matter with a Cosmic Lens : Discovery News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved you know less about science than even I gave you credit for, which is not very much.
> 
> Scientists do not know that either dark energy, which is not electromagnetic energy we cannot see, or dark matter exists. They believe dark energy exists because the universe is expanding faster than it should be given the vast amount of energy, both visible and invisible, that we can detect. They believe dark matter exists because the mass of the universe is more than the mass of all the possible galaxies.
> 
> Notice the words I used here. Scientists believe, they do not know. If we take your rather limited knowledge of science and your insistence that science and belief, faith, are completely incompatible, we are left with the demonstrated fact that we cannot explain the universe. The only way to explain the universe is hypothesize, or SWAG (scientific wild assed guess).
> 
> Explain to me again how that does not fit your definition of magical.
Click to expand...


Because they can measure the effects of "Dark Matter".  Did you bother to visit the site?  If they can "map it", then something exists.


----------



## Intense

sangha said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again for the intense moron:
> 
> STAH said nothing about your intent. He merely pointed out that NO ONE WILL READ the info you posted. *I* was the one who mentioned you intent
> 
> You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"
> 
> That isn't even grammatically correct, nevermind scientifically accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it exactly is it that you need to put people down? What good does it serve? Do you honestly think that it elevates you or your position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What concern is it of yours? Further, You did not know my intent, and were not qualified to speak on it. You make many assumptions, mostly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove that I am unable to express my own ideas. Prove that you know the limits of my brain power. Prove that my statements are meaningless. What Theory doesn't have questions? Limits? Conclusions? Show me the main stream view of Modern Evolution Theory, and where my Link contradicts it? I am warning you again about derailing Threads and insulting Posters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just as nasty as anyone else here, so stop pretending you're a prince. You dont fool anyone. That's why everyone IGNORED your post and your foolish attempts to direct the discussion.
> 
> And if you want proof that you are unable to express your own ideas, just read ahead in your own post. When you get to your question "What Theory doesn't have questions?" ask yourself "Do theories have questions, or do people have questions about theories?"
Click to expand...




> You are just as nasty as anyone else here, so stop pretending you're a prince. You dont fool anyone. That's why everyone IGNORED your post and your foolish attempts to direct the discussion.



Actually I am trying to be real tolerant and patient with you. I'm curious as to what fuels you, not only the hate and bitterness, but the drive. Should you ever overcome your handicap, I you will actually have allot to contribute. Are you redeemable, that is the first question. I know, if you don't, and I'm patient, sometimes. Sometimes, I lose patience, but we're good for now. I'm human too, yet find myself in a position where I have to put the interest of the Site above my own personal interest, it would be wrong to see that as an act, it is an obligation. Further, what I have found personally here, is that when I strike out at someone, the unintended consequence is that it offends people I care about, on both sides of the aisle. For that reason, I hold back, as best as I can. You should give it some thought too. Your style corrupts your message.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know when something exists when we can "measure" it.  Only a very tiny percentage of the energy spectrum is made of "visible" light, yet we know it exists.
> 
> The same with Dark Matter.  We know it exists because it creates a peculiar "lensing" effect.  The same effect that large planets create with their gravitational fields which "bend" light.
> 
> Scientists "live" for questions.  They admit they only possess a tiny bit of knowledge, but that knowledge is growing every day.  The religious want to "block" that knowledge growth, except for weapons.  They believe bigger and better "weapons" will "keep us safe".
> 
> Mapping Dark Matter with a Cosmic Lens : Discovery News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved you know less about science than even I gave you credit for, which is not very much.
> 
> Scientists do not know that either dark energy, which is not electromagnetic energy we cannot see, or dark matter exists. They believe dark energy exists because the universe is expanding faster than it should be given the vast amount of energy, both visible and invisible, that we can detect. They believe dark matter exists because the mass of the universe is more than the mass of all the possible galaxies.
> 
> Notice the words I used here. Scientists believe, they do not know. If we take your rather limited knowledge of science and your insistence that science and belief, faith, are completely incompatible, we are left with the demonstrated fact that we cannot explain the universe. The only way to explain the universe is hypothesize, or SWAG (scientific wild assed guess).
> 
> Explain to me again how that does not fit your definition of magical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you had to lie in order to make your point
> 
> Scientists do not "believe" in dark matter; they suspect it exists and have offered HYPOTHESES about it
Click to expand...


Wrong.

They observed some data that did not fit their theories. They hypothesized an explanation, and have offered theories to explain the existence of Dark Matter. To date no theory has been corroborated by experiment or observation. Scientists do not point to something they cannot explain and claim it proves something they made up to explain it.

If you will check back through the various explanations of the scientific method you will see that I am the one that is right here, and that Dark Matter is only a belief. No one knows if it really exists, or if some other explanation will eventually be found to explain the observations.

Why don't you post this in your thread about lies told by wingnuts? It will give people who are not reading this thread a chance to see how ignorant you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also said that scientists believe in dark matter, which is a lie
Click to expand...


They don't believe in Dark Matter? What do they believe in then?


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite poorly, too.
> 
> "We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."
> 
> Um, the same can be said about Faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please stop making stuff up (ie lying)
> 
> We know what black matter is. We don't know everything abou it, but we know it exists.
> 
> Just like you exist even though we'll never know everything about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not. You will not find any educated person who says that dark matters is known to exist. Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain otherwise inexplicable observations. Some people point to the inexplicable and claims that it proves dark matters exists, but no scientist will do that because they know that amounts to circular logic, since dark matter is made up to explain those observations.
Click to expand...


You are a complete idiot!! Why cant you post in complete sentences?? Is something that simple too much for your little pea brain.

You say "We do not"...We do not "WHAT??"" We do not know that dark matter exists? That "no educated person" knows that dark matters exists??

Then why did you say that scientists (actually you said "sciencers" and I expect you to use that word to weasal out) DO BELIEVE that dark matter exists? Are you saying the scientists are not educated?

So now your argument is that "some people" say that it proves dark matter exists? Once again, you're relying on lies and fictional "sciencers"?


----------



## rdean

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.
Click to expand...


Fine, I have no mystical nor occult beliefs.

Angels and spirits are as likely to exit as leprechauns and water sprites.  In fact, the evidence for all supernatural beings existence is "equal".


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, atheism is a lack of belief. What you are thinking of is anti-theism. Many people who call themselve "atheists" are in fact "anti-theists", or as I like to refer to them...Hate-theists
Click to expand...


No I am not.



> 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.


Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

Just because you have a problem with the English language it does not mean everyone else does.


----------



## rdean

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good Sunni. We act on what we think we know, which is part of our nature. As what we think we know changes, we resist that change, generally preferring preconceived notion to reality and truth. This also is part of out nature. Humbleness a good tool, in that it generally keeps the fall from the loft a shorter distance.  Truth, in the end, educates, generally our youth, more open to acceptance of new perspectives. I'm not saying new perspectives, or any perspective should be taken at face value, but tested and compared, which is where science serves the truth, yet only where integrity is maintained. Separating what we know from what we think we know, what we assume, be it in science or religion, or any other aspect of life, is where we tend to lose it, by nature, and design. When we stray, trouble awaits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in science is ever really "known".  There are no "beliefs".  What there is, is "skepticism".  Science is all about "skepticism".
> 
> "Skepticism" is NOT allowed in religious beliefs.
> 
> Those who can't understand this basic difference between the supernatural and science, are probably identified as "religious".
> 
> The religious try to pigeonhole science into terms they can understand so their "choice" makes sense.  Turn science into a belief.  Then say, "See? Science doesn't have all the answers and sometimes it's wrong".  While religion has "ALL" the answers and it's never wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, We have seen the Lord!    But  he said to them, Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my  finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not  believe.
> 26 A  week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with  them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and  said, Peace be with you! 27 Then he said to Thomas, Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.
> 28 Thomas said to him, My Lord and my God!
> 29 Then Jesus told him, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John 20:24-29 NIV
Click to expand...


Oh no, Bible quotes!  I knew they had to come.


----------



## rdean

Quantum Windbag said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those of us who recognize science are always ready to accept that an old accepted "truth" is no longer correct when new discoveries/evidence is produced.
> 
> Unlike religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain why scientists, when faced with incontrovertible evidence, rejected Copernicus and clung to the geocentric view of the universe. So much so that even a century later they rejected Galileo and his telescope. YOu seem to have an irrational belief in the rational nature of scientists despite overwhelming evidence that they are only human, and thus both fallible and petty.
Click to expand...


That's your argument?  What people believed hundreds of years ago?


----------



## rdean

sangha said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could no more show someone a "piece of cold" than you could a "piece of heat".  Heat is energy.  Cold is "lack of energy".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that just because you cannot prove something, it is not proof that something doesn't exist. The issue may be that something indeed does not exist, that is a given. The issue may also be in knowledge or capability. Maybe a day will come when the existence of cold can and will be proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then your point is a straw man. No one here has argued that the lack of evidence proves non-existence. No One. Not One Person. You Made It Up.
> 
> And no, the existence of cold will never be proven because cold is defined (when used to describe temperature)  as the lack of heat. In fact, even when used in a non-scientific manner (such as describing a persons' personality as "cold") the word cold is usually used to note a lack of something.
> 
> Summary: You are consistently wrong about nearly everything you say
Click to expand...


Funny that someone who believes in invisible spirits and entities imagines that "cold" must be "something".  The can "feel" cold, so it's as real as a "rock".


----------



## Intense

sangha said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could no more show someone a "piece of cold" than you could a "piece of heat".  Heat is energy.  Cold is "lack of energy".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that just because you cannot prove something, it is not proof that something doesn't exist. The issue may be that something indeed does not exist, that is a given. The issue may also be in knowledge or capability. Maybe a day will come when the existence of cold can and will be proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then your point is a straw man. No one here has argued that the lack of evidence proves non-existence. No One. Not One Person. You Made It Up.
> 
> And no, the existence of cold will never be proven because cold is defined (when used to describe temperature)  as the lack of heat. In fact, even when used in a non-scientific manner (such as describing a persons' personality as "cold") the word cold is usually used to note a lack of something.
> 
> Summary: You are consistently wrong about nearly everything you say
Click to expand...


Again you fail to comprehend, and corrupt a principle in doing so. You again accuse and insult, but that's you being you. I have a thick skin, so I will tolerate it. What is heat? What is Cold? what is lack of heat? There are perspectives behind each question, each conclusion. Perspectives, definitions, change, as knowledge grows. Many conclusions get proven wrong, in part, in time. What you argue is the relationship between heat and cold, yet there is so much more to both.As our knowledge and ability grow, there will be breakthroughs. Again, just because you can't prove something, that by itself does not mean that it doesn't exist, it means that it is a Theory.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Greenbeard said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those phrases are shorthand for observational facts. "Dark matter," at its base, refers to virial theorem violations and unexpected galactic rotation curves; "dark energy" is  systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles (since corroborated through other observational means). These are facts, not magic. Now, fitting them into existing models and extrapolating from there may be considered some weak form of faith, but then there are folks looking to construct new models from these observational facts instead of reconciling them with the frameworks that already exist. Eventually someone is going to be vindicated empirically. Such is science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith. We see something we cannot explain, and take a guess at to why it is happening. Then we look around for evidence that refutes or supports the guess. Since the only thing we have to either refute or disprove either of these concepts is the stuff we cannot explain we cannot use that as evidence of the guesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These concepts sound like magic if you confuse the colorful phrases that have gained popularity to describe them with the actual science itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, where did you get the idea that dark matter explains anything we observe with candles? Did you Google it and read something about candlepower and jump to the wrong conclusion? The distortion of the light from a single candle due to the possible existence of dark matter would be indistinguishable from the effects of the gravity from the mass of the Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you joking? I (wrongly, it appears) assumed you knew a bit about cosmology. You're mixing up not only the concepts of dark matter and dark energy here but their usage in my post (see my post: _"dark energy" is  systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles_). A standard candle is an astronomical object whose absolute magnitude is fairly well-known, meaning their apparent magnitude can be used to gauge distance. Type Ia supernovae are the standard candles I'm referring to here, as they're what was used to discover the first evidence of dark energy twelve years ago.
> 
> The fact that you thought a standard candle is an actual _wax candle_ is kind of mind-boggling.
Click to expand...


I said something stupid, mock at will.

The concepts sound magical when people try to argue that the observational data proves the hypothesis. Scientists do not do that, but they are still at a loss to actually explain these concepts because our knowledge of the universe does not include an understanding of these concepts. I have said elsewhere that there are only a few physicists that begin to understand this, and the rest of us have to take it on faith. Since I am completely certain that you are not the one of the people who understand this, any attempt you make to claim that you are taking this on any basis other than faith is going to fall short.

That makes these concepts as magical to you as they are to me, even if you refuse to admit it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> Because they can measure the effects of "Dark Matter".  Did you bother to visit the site?  If they can "map it", then something exists.



We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?

Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists. If you understood basic logic you would understand that without me having to explain it to you.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post in complete sentences? I have no idea what you are asking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed that evolution disproves creationism, I posted a complete interrogatory statement in reply. How long have you had this reading comprehension problem?
Click to expand...


Next time, just ask the question in English? 

And I've already explained how evolution refutes creationism, so it would seem that you're the one with the reading comprehension issues. Try to keep up

But as long as I have your attention, can you explain why you said that scientists believe that dark matter exists, and then contradict yourself and say that scientists don't believe that dark matter exists?


----------



## sangha

José;3130175 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *sangha*
> If you had admitted that you had made a mistake (ie a poor choice of words) from the beginning...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. Check post number 34, page 3:
> 
> *By "evolutionary theory" I was reffering to the general, all encompassing scientific paradigm according to which the whole universe (including life) moves gradually from lower to higher levels of complexity.
> 
> And yes, the origin of life = abiogenesis is indeed one of the biggest Achiles' heel of the MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM.
> 
> But go ahead, DumberThanHick, nail me to a cross due to a poor choice of words...*
Click to expand...


Yes, you do use the phrase "poor choice of words", but you do not identify any mistakes that you have made. You dont actually take responsibility for any mistake you actually made. You just acknowledge that "mistakes were made"

Your failure to take responsibility is demontrated by your continued lie about the credibility of this "paradigm" you keep mentioning even though you can't back it up with anything credible. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia won't support.


----------



## Intense

rdean said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that just because you cannot prove something, it is not proof that something doesn't exist. The issue may be that something indeed does not exist, that is a given. The issue may also be in knowledge or capability. Maybe a day will come when the existence of cold can and will be proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then your point is a straw man. No one here has argued that the lack of evidence proves non-existence. No One. Not One Person. You Made It Up.
> 
> And no, the existence of cold will never be proven because cold is defined (when used to describe temperature)  as the lack of heat. In fact, even when used in a non-scientific manner (such as describing a persons' personality as "cold") the word cold is usually used to note a lack of something.
> 
> Summary: You are consistently wrong about nearly everything you say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that someone who believes in invisible spirits and entities imagines that "cold" must be "something".  The can "feel" cold, so it's as real as a "rock".
Click to expand...


Not sure who you are addressing here. I believe in God, I have faith in our reason for being and have high hopes for us, in spite of the tangents we create.


----------



## rdean

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved you know less about science than even I gave you credit for, which is not very much.
> 
> Scientists do not know that either dark energy, which is not electromagnetic energy we cannot see, or dark matter exists. They believe dark energy exists because the universe is expanding faster than it should be given the vast amount of energy, both visible and invisible, that we can detect. They believe dark matter exists because the mass of the universe is more than the mass of all the possible galaxies.
> 
> Notice the words I used here. Scientists believe, they do not know. If we take your rather limited knowledge of science and your insistence that science and belief, faith, are completely incompatible, we are left with the demonstrated fact that we cannot explain the universe. The only way to explain the universe is hypothesize, or SWAG (scientific wild assed guess).
> 
> Explain to me again how that does not fit your definition of magical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you had to lie in order to make your point
> 
> Scientists do not "believe" in dark matter; they suspect it exists and have offered HYPOTHESES about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They observed some data that did not fit their theories. They hypothesized an explanation, and have offered theories to explain the existence of Dark Matter. To date no theory has been corroborated by experiment or observation. Scientists do not point to something they cannot explain and claim it proves something they made up to explain it.
> 
> If you will check back through the various explanations of the scientific method you will see that I am the one that is right here, and that Dark Matter is only a belief. No one knows if it really exists, or if some other explanation will eventually be found to explain the observations.
> 
> Why don't you post this in your thread about lies told by wingnuts? It will give people who are not reading this thread a chance to see how ignorant you are.
Click to expand...


I never said it wasn't a hypothesis.  You said that I said that but I never did.  What I did say was that "SOMETHING" is causing a lensing effect and scientists refer to it as "Dark Matter".  Something exists.  Something is affecting the light.  

Not every hypothesis has a "corresponding experiment".  Why?  Because it may be impossible to preform such an experiment with our current level of technology.  

Go ahead.  Keep trying to beat up on me if it makes you feel better about yourself.  Personally, I think it's hilarious.  Gives me a good "chuckle".


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please stop making stuff up (ie lying)
> 
> We know what black matter is. We don't know everything abou it, but we know it exists.
> 
> Just like you exist even though we'll never know everything about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not. You will not find any educated person who says that dark matters is known to exist. Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain otherwise inexplicable observations. Some people point to the inexplicable and claims that it proves dark matters exists, but no scientist will do that because they know that amounts to circular logic, since dark matter is made up to explain those observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a complete idiot!! Why cant you post in complete sentences?? Is something that simple too much for your little pea brain.
> 
> You say "We do not"...We do not "WHAT??"" We do not know that dark matter exists? That "no educated person" knows that dark matters exists??
> 
> Then why did you say that scientists (actually you said "sciencers" and I expect you to use that word to weasal out) DO BELIEVE that dark matter exists? Are you saying the scientists are not educated?
> 
> So now your argument is that "some people" say that it proves dark matter exists? Once again, you're relying on lies and fictional "sciencers"?
Click to expand...


See, it was a complete sentence, you actually figured out what I was talking about by using context. 

I never used the word sciencers, so any attempt by you to discredit my posts by referring to it is a lie.

Scientists believe that dark matter exists, they do not know it exists. If you do not understand the difference between belief and knowledge it might explain why you think we know what black matter, whatever you think that is, exists and that we know everything about it.

Are you going to try to use more lies in an attempt to make me look stupid?


----------



## Madeline

asterism said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.
> 
> What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
Click to expand...


Who says that they do, asterism?  You speak as if teaching science will impair faith in God, but I dun see how.

The two -- faith and science -- serve different needs.  Why would meeting one satisfy the other?


----------



## rdean

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they can measure the effects of "Dark Matter".  Did you bother to visit the site?  If they can "map it", then something exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?*
> 
> Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists. If you understood basic logic you would understand that without me having to explain it to you.
Click to expand...


*We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?*

Measure the effects?  Examples?


----------



## sangha

Intense said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it exactly is it that you need to put people down? What good does it serve? Do you honestly think that it elevates you or your position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What concern is it of yours? Further, You did not know my intent, and were not qualified to speak on it. You make many assumptions, mostly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that I am unable to express my own ideas. Prove that you know the limits of my brain power. Prove that my statements are meaningless. What Theory doesn't have questions? Limits? Conclusions? Show me the main stream view of Modern Evolution Theory, and where my Link contradicts it? I am warning you again about derailing Threads and insulting Posters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just as nasty as anyone else here, so stop pretending you're a prince. You dont fool anyone. That's why everyone IGNORED your post and your foolish attempts to direct the discussion.
> 
> And if you want proof that you are unable to express your own ideas, just read ahead in your own post. When you get to your question "What Theory doesn't have questions?" ask yourself "Do theories have questions, or do people have questions about theories?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just as nasty as anyone else here, so stop pretending you're a prince. You dont fool anyone. That's why everyone IGNORED your post and your foolish attempts to direct the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I am trying to be real tolerant and patient with you. I'm curious as to what fuels you, not only the hate and bitterness, but the drive. Should you ever overcome your handicap, I you will actually have allot to contribute. Are you redeemable, that is the first question. I know, if you don't, and I'm patient, sometimes. Sometimes, I lose patience, but we're good for now. I'm human too, yet find myself in a position where I have to put the interest of the Site above my own personal interest, it would be wrong to see that as an act, it is an obligation. Further, what I have found personally here, is that when I strike out at someone, the unintended consequence is that it offends people I care about, on both sides of the aisle. For that reason, I hold back, as best as I can. You should give it some thought too. Your style corrupts your message.
Click to expand...


Your actions corrupts your soul.

You're not even honest enough to admit to the venom that you post. Like a typical christian, you want to falsely depict yourself as a victim. You are just SO BURDENED by your laughable "obligation"

If you can't hack it, give it up, you nancy-boy


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, I have no mystical nor occult beliefs.
> 
> Angels and spirits are as likely to exit as leprechauns and water sprites.  In fact, the evidence for all supernatural beings existence is "equal".
Click to expand...


I am amazed rdean, that was almost an admission that you were wrong. 

BTW, it might surprise you to know I agree with the entirety of your last paragraph.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved you know less about science than even I gave you credit for, which is not very much.
> 
> Scientists do not know that either dark energy, which is not electromagnetic energy we cannot see, or dark matter exists. They believe dark energy exists because the universe is expanding faster than it should be given the vast amount of energy, both visible and invisible, that we can detect. They believe dark matter exists because the mass of the universe is more than the mass of all the possible galaxies.
> 
> Notice the words I used here. Scientists believe, they do not know. If we take your rather limited knowledge of science and your insistence that science and belief, faith, are completely incompatible, we are left with the demonstrated fact that we cannot explain the universe. The only way to explain the universe is hypothesize, or SWAG (scientific wild assed guess).
> 
> Explain to me again how that does not fit your definition of magical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you had to lie in order to make your point
> 
> Scientists do not "believe" in dark matter; they suspect it exists and have offered HYPOTHESES about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They observed some data that did not fit their theories. They hypothesized an explanation, and have offered theories to explain the existence of Dark Matter. To date no theory has been corroborated by experiment or observation. Scientists do not point to something they cannot explain and claim it proves something they made up to explain it.
> 
> If you will check back through the various explanations of the scientific method you will see that I am the one that is right here, and that Dark Matter is only a belief. No one knows if it really exists, or if some other explanation will eventually be found to explain the observations.
> 
> Why don't you post this in your thread about lies told by wingnuts? It will give people who are not reading this thread a chance to see how ignorant you are.
Click to expand...


You are lying. You said 





> Scientists do not know that either dark energy, which is not electromagnetic energy we cannot see, or dark matter exists. They believe dark energy exists



Right there you say that scientists believe that dark energy exists. Too bad you have nothing to back up your lies with.

Scientists do not BELIEVE that dark matter exists. Some scientists SUSPECT that dark matter exists.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also said that scientists believe in dark matter, which is a lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't believe in Dark Matter? What do they believe in then?
Click to expand...


They believe that the existence of dark matter is unproven.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those of us who recognize science are always ready to accept that an old accepted "truth" is no longer correct when new discoveries/evidence is produced.
> 
> Unlike religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain why scientists, when faced with incontrovertible evidence, rejected Copernicus and clung to the geocentric view of the universe. So much so that even a century later they rejected Galileo and his telescope. YOu seem to have an irrational belief in the rational nature of scientists despite overwhelming evidence that they are only human, and thus both fallible and petty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your argument?  What people believed hundreds of years ago?
Click to expand...


No, my argument is that scientists are people, and just as likely to cling to a belief despite evidence as anyone else. I then provided evidence to back up that belief. If you want more modern evidence of it just read about the problems Pasteur had when he advocated the germ theory to his fellow doctors.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, atheism is a lack of belief. What you are thinking of is anti-theism. Many people who call themselve "atheists" are in fact "anti-theists", or as I like to refer to them...Hate-theists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com
> 
> Just because you have a problem with the English language it does not mean everyone else does.
Click to expand...


You dishonestly left out the other definition of atheism because it proves you wrong



> disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.



Just because you have a problem with honesty it doesn't mean everyone else is going to fall for your lies


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith. We see something we cannot explain, and take a guess at to why it is happening. Then we look around for evidence that refutes or supports the guess. Since the only thing we have to either refute or disprove either of these concepts is the stuff we cannot explain we cannot use that as evidence of the guesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These concepts sound like magic if you confuse the colorful phrases that have gained popularity to describe them with the actual science itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, where did you get the idea that dark matter explains anything we observe with candles? Did you Google it and read something about candlepower and jump to the wrong conclusion? The distortion of the light from a single candle due to the possible existence of dark matter would be indistinguishable from the effects of the gravity from the mass of the Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you joking? I (wrongly, it appears) assumed you knew a bit about cosmology. You're mixing up not only the concepts of dark matter and dark energy here but their usage in my post (see my post: _"dark energy" is  systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles_). A standard candle is an astronomical object whose absolute magnitude is fairly well-known, meaning their apparent magnitude can be used to gauge distance. Type Ia supernovae are the standard candles I'm referring to here, as they're what was used to discover the first evidence of dark energy twelve years ago.
> 
> The fact that you thought a standard candle is an actual _wax candle_ is kind of mind-boggling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said something stupid, mock at will.
> 
> The concepts sound magical when people try to argue that the observational data proves the hypothesis. Scientists do not do that, but they are still at a loss to actually explain these concepts because our knowledge of the universe does not include an understanding of these concepts. I have said elsewhere that there are only a few physicists that begin to understand this, and the rest of us have to take it on faith. Since I am completely certain that you are not the one of the people who understand this, any attempt you make to claim that you are taking this on any basis other than faith is going to fall short.
> 
> That makes these concepts as magical to you as they are to me, even if you refuse to admit it.
Click to expand...


Just because the facts seem magical to you, that doesn't mean the facts seem magical to anyone else.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they can measure the effects of "Dark Matter".  Did you bother to visit the site?  If they can "map it", then something exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?
> 
> Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists. If you understood basic logic you would understand that without me having to explain it to you.
Click to expand...


We can measure the "belief in God" because "belief in God" is something that exists. However, the only thing that is proven to exist is a "belief in God"

Gods' actual existence is unproven and unprovable.


----------



## sangha

Intense said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then your point is a straw man. No one here has argued that the lack of evidence proves non-existence. No One. Not One Person. You Made It Up.
> 
> And no, the existence of cold will never be proven because cold is defined (when used to describe temperature)  as the lack of heat. In fact, even when used in a non-scientific manner (such as describing a persons' personality as "cold") the word cold is usually used to note a lack of something.
> 
> Summary: You are consistently wrong about nearly everything you say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that someone who believes in invisible spirits and entities imagines that "cold" must be "something".  The can "feel" cold, so it's as real as a "rock".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure who you are addressing here. I believe in God, I have faith in our reason for being and have high hopes for us, in spite of the tangents we create.
Click to expand...


You left out the part about believing that cold exists the way heat does 

Like I said earlier, Intense is a master of profound and meaningless posts. He responds to a post about his dumb beliefs concerning cold, and he responds with "I believe in God" and other irrevelancies, which I'm sure he thinks are profound and meaningful


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post in complete sentences? I have no idea what you are asking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed that evolution disproves creationism, I posted a complete interrogatory statement in reply. How long have you had this reading comprehension problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Next time, just ask the question in English?
> 
> And I've already explained how evolution refutes creationism, so it would seem that you're the one with the reading comprehension issues. Try to keep up
> 
> But as long as I have your attention, can you explain why you said that scientists believe that dark matter exists, and then contradict yourself and say that scientists don't believe that dark matter exists?
Click to expand...


No, you proved that evolution disproves the statement that humans were created as is at some point in the past. Since I have to point out the obvious to you, that does not disprove creationism, which is the belief that the universe, and everything in it, was created. Why should a Hindu creationist believe in the biblical account of creation, even if they believe that the Earth is 5000 years old?

The problem here is that you are attempting to stake out a claim based on positions you are making up for other people, and that, in truth, all you are accomplishing is making yourself look ignorant. Different people believe different things, and it is possible that God, if He did create everything, set the universe up to evolve us in His image.


----------



## Intense

sangha said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just as nasty as anyone else here, so stop pretending you're a prince. You dont fool anyone. That's why everyone IGNORED your post and your foolish attempts to direct the discussion.
> 
> And if you want proof that you are unable to express your own ideas, just read ahead in your own post. When you get to your question "What Theory doesn't have questions?" ask yourself "Do theories have questions, or do people have questions about theories?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just as nasty as anyone else here, so stop pretending you're a prince. You dont fool anyone. That's why everyone IGNORED your post and your foolish attempts to direct the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I am trying to be real tolerant and patient with you. I'm curious as to what fuels you, not only the hate and bitterness, but the drive. Should you ever overcome your handicap, I you will actually have allot to contribute. Are you redeemable, that is the first question. I know, if you don't, and I'm patient, sometimes. Sometimes, I lose patience, but we're good for now. I'm human too, yet find myself in a position where I have to put the interest of the Site above my own personal interest, it would be wrong to see that as an act, it is an obligation. Further, what I have found personally here, is that when I strike out at someone, the unintended consequence is that it offends people I care about, on both sides of the aisle. For that reason, I hold back, as best as I can. You should give it some thought too. Your style corrupts your message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your actions corrupts your soul.
> 
> You're not even honest enough to admit to the venom that you post. Like a typical christian, you want to falsely depict yourself as a victim. You are just SO BURDENED by your laughable "obligation"
> 
> If you can't hack it, give it up, you nancy-boy
Click to expand...


What is this? The Paper Chase? You are deluding yourself, thinking that you impress by talking down to everyone, Sangha. You don't. Neither do you respect people, or the Site, or yourself, knowing the damage that you do at times. It would be wrong for you to over play your hand. You need to work on those social skills, bro. It's not about judging or condemning you, it's about learning from your mistakes, and being better for it. Something only you can do, it can't be done for you. My Soul, is not within your reach Sangha, nor would I seek to damage yours. I am not depicting myself as a Victim, either. A reference to a thick skin, in context, is a reference to me handling anything you choose to throw at me. I'm a Alpha Type, alway's have been. I respect boundaries too, how about you trying that.


----------



## Greenbeard

Quantum Windbag said:


> I said something stupid, mock at will.



You attempted to use your aggressively stupid post as a launching point to mock _me_. It's certainly not my fault you ended up looking like a dumbass in doing so.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> It's obvious that Dave lied about "sciencers" beliefs. He made it up to hide his lack of knowledge.


I'm not going to bother responding to your other posts before this one -- it's clear you're more than happy arguing your side AND my side.  My participation is not required.  

Nevertheless, I don't have to make stuff up.  


sangha said:


> That's why Dave will never post a list of these mythical sciencers who believe that evolution explains the origin of life.


I also explained that, but you're incapable of admitting that there are stupid people on your side, despite the overwhelming evidence.  

Meanwhile, I would like to point out (again) that the definition of "lie" is NOT "something a leftist disagrees with".


----------



## sangha

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you had to lie in order to make your point
> 
> Scientists do not "believe" in dark matter; they suspect it exists and have offered HYPOTHESES about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They observed some data that did not fit their theories. They hypothesized an explanation, and have offered theories to explain the existence of Dark Matter. To date no theory has been corroborated by experiment or observation. Scientists do not point to something they cannot explain and claim it proves something they made up to explain it.
> 
> If you will check back through the various explanations of the scientific method you will see that I am the one that is right here, and that Dark Matter is only a belief. No one knows if it really exists, or if some other explanation will eventually be found to explain the observations.
> 
> Why don't you post this in your thread about lies told by wingnuts? It will give people who are not reading this thread a chance to see how ignorant you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said it wasn't a hypothesis.  You said that I said that but I never did.  What I did say was that "SOMETHING" is causing a lensing effect and scientists refer to it as "Dark Matter".  Something exists.  Something is affecting the light.
> 
> Not every hypothesis has a "corresponding experiment".  Why?  Because it may be impossible to preform such an experiment with our current level of technology.
> 
> Go ahead.  Keep trying to beat up on me if it makes you feel better about yourself.  Personally, I think it's hilarious.  Gives me a good "chuckle".
Click to expand...


This is the lie I've been referring to. QW continually and habitually keeps referring to some mythical people who believe that dark matter exists. Now he's lying about you believing in it.

I wonder if QW will ever defend his own claims by identifying who these fictional believers in dark matter are?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you had to lie in order to make your point
> 
> Scientists do not "believe" in dark matter; they suspect it exists and have offered HYPOTHESES about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They observed some data that did not fit their theories. They hypothesized an explanation, and have offered theories to explain the existence of Dark Matter. To date no theory has been corroborated by experiment or observation. Scientists do not point to something they cannot explain and claim it proves something they made up to explain it.
> 
> If you will check back through the various explanations of the scientific method you will see that I am the one that is right here, and that Dark Matter is only a belief. No one knows if it really exists, or if some other explanation will eventually be found to explain the observations.
> 
> Why don't you post this in your thread about lies told by wingnuts? It will give people who are not reading this thread a chance to see how ignorant you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said it wasn't a hypothesis.  You said that I said that but I never did.  What I did say was that "SOMETHING" is causing a lensing effect and scientists refer to it as "Dark Matter".  Something exists.  Something is affecting the light.
> 
> Not every hypothesis has a "corresponding experiment".  Why?  Because it may be impossible to preform such an experiment with our current level of technology.
> 
> Go ahead.  Keep trying to beat up on me if it makes you feel better about yourself.  Personally, I think it's hilarious.  Gives me a good "chuckle".
Click to expand...


Are you being overly sensitive rdean? This post was not addressed to you, so anything you think I said to you was actually said to someone else. You say enough things I can beat you up over so that I do not have to put words in your mouth in order to do so. Am I free to actually beat up Sangha for his insistence that we know this stuff exists because we can see it does stuff we can't explain?


----------



## Intense

> You left out the part about believing that cold exists the way heat does




Here is where you are shown to be disingenuous again. I do not believe cold exists or does not exist solely on the basis of you not having the ability to measure it. It is you that are acting as if the world is flat here.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not. You will not find any educated person who says that dark matters is known to exist. Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain otherwise inexplicable observations. Some people point to the inexplicable and claims that it proves dark matters exists, but no scientist will do that because they know that amounts to circular logic, since dark matter is made up to explain those observations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a complete idiot!! Why cant you post in complete sentences?? Is something that simple too much for your little pea brain.
> 
> You say "We do not"...We do not "WHAT??"" We do not know that dark matter exists? That "no educated person" knows that dark matters exists??
> 
> Then why did you say that scientists (actually you said "sciencers" and I expect you to use that word to weasal out) DO BELIEVE that dark matter exists? Are you saying the scientists are not educated?
> 
> So now your argument is that "some people" say that it proves dark matter exists? Once again, you're relying on lies and fictional "sciencers"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, it was a complete sentence, you actually figured out what I was talking about by using context.
> 
> I never used the word sciencers, so any attempt by you to discredit my posts by referring to it is a lie.
> 
> Scientists believe that dark matter exists, they do not know it exists. If you do not understand the difference between belief and knowledge it might explain why you think we know what black matter, whatever you think that is, exists and that we know everything about it.
> 
> Are you going to try to use more lies in an attempt to make me look stupid?
Click to expand...


You see? When you post in complete English sentences, you are understood. When you try to be clever (which you arent) and use some of form of discourse, you fail.

And if you didn't use the term sciencers, I apologize for saying you did. However, I am going to go back and check because you can't be trusted. And speaking of trust, let's get to the central lie you've been repeating over and over while working hard to not post anything to support your disgusting lies

You say "Scientists believe that dark matter exists"

Please back up your lie by identifying these scientists. Please post links which prove that these scientists do believe that dark matter exists and why

Or just admit that you're so dishonest and that you just made it up so you could avoid admitting you were wrong?


----------



## daveman

Quantum Windbag said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we realize that. It's the evolution-deniers who can't seem to accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> As I told Hick, I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.
> 
> So, no, it doesn't look like you all realize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to debate "evolutionists" on Orkut and most of my time there was spent in explaining to them how evolution actually works so that I could point out why it is not an all encompassing theory. Some of them are still running around claiming that evolution is absolute proof that God does not exist. Funny thing is they are right, the God they do not believe in does not exist, that is not proof that God does not exist though.
Click to expand...

Sangha's going to say you made that up because he can't accept the fact that stupid people share his beliefs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they can measure the effects of "Dark Matter".  Did you bother to visit the site?  If they can "map it", then something exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?*
> 
> Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists. If you understood basic logic you would understand that without me having to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?*
> 
> Measure the effects?  Examples?
Click to expand...


There are a lot of science journals that discuss the effects of belief and brain activity, here is one to get you started.

'God spot' researchers see the light in MRI study | Science | The Guardian


----------



## sangha

Madeline said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.
> 
> What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says that they do, asterism?  You speak as if teaching science will impair faith in God, but I dun see how.
> 
> The two -- faith and science -- serve different needs.  Why would meeting one satisfy the other?
Click to expand...


No one says that they do. asterism, like many christians, lie when they don't have any facts to support them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you had to lie in order to make your point
> 
> Scientists do not "believe" in dark matter; they suspect it exists and have offered HYPOTHESES about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They observed some data that did not fit their theories. They hypothesized an explanation, and have offered theories to explain the existence of Dark Matter. To date no theory has been corroborated by experiment or observation. Scientists do not point to something they cannot explain and claim it proves something they made up to explain it.
> 
> If you will check back through the various explanations of the scientific method you will see that I am the one that is right here, and that Dark Matter is only a belief. No one knows if it really exists, or if some other explanation will eventually be found to explain the observations.
> 
> Why don't you post this in your thread about lies told by wingnuts? It will give people who are not reading this thread a chance to see how ignorant you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are lying. You said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists do not know that either dark energy, which is not electromagnetic energy we cannot see, or dark matter exists. They believe dark energy exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right there you say that scientists believe that dark energy exists. Too bad you have nothing to back up your lies with.
> 
> Scientists do not BELIEVE that dark matter exists. Some scientists SUSPECT that dark matter exists.
Click to expand...


Didn't you just claim that we know everything about it? Yet you think I am lying when I say scientists believe in it.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain why scientists, when faced with incontrovertible evidence, rejected Copernicus and clung to the geocentric view of the universe. So much so that even a century later they rejected Galileo and his telescope. YOu seem to have an irrational belief in the rational nature of scientists despite overwhelming evidence that they are only human, and thus both fallible and petty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your argument?  What people believed hundreds of years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my argument is that scientists are people, and just as likely to cling to a belief despite evidence as anyone else. I then provided evidence to back up that belief. If you want more modern evidence of it just read about the problems Pasteur had when he advocated the germ theory to his fellow doctors.
Click to expand...


THAT'S your point??!!!!

In that case, you've earned the Tshirt


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, atheism is a lack of belief. What you are thinking of is anti-theism. Many people who call themselve "atheists" are in fact "anti-theists", or as I like to refer to them...Hate-theists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I am not.
> 
> Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com
> 
> Just because you have a problem with the English language it does not mean everyone else does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dishonestly left out the other definition of atheism because it proves you wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because you have a problem with honesty it doesn't mean everyone else is going to fall for your lies
Click to expand...


No, I left it out in the hope that you would jump on it and prove yourself a fool. Thanks for cooperating.



> *:* the act of disbelieving *:* mental rejection of something as untrue



Disbelief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Disbelief is a belief, not the lack of one.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

sangha said:


> Actually, we can't measure cold. We measure temperature, which is a measure of heat.


Sorry you're right. Poor choice of words on my part. Allow me to clarify.  We can't measure "cold" any more than we can measure "warmth".  These are both man made relativistic ideas based on the amount of heat, which we CAN measure.  This thereby allows us to qualify "warm" and "cold" indirectly by measuring heat, so that you can look at a thermometer if asked "how cold is it outside" and give an answer. Indirect, but qualified and quantified.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.


Actually you have it exactly backwards.  Please go see wikipedia on both of those.



			
				José;3130061 said:
			
		

> They *DO* have something in common. They all describe the arisal of more complex structures from simpler ones, aka, EVOLUTION.


This is a common and foolish fallacy made by less intelligent people, being that if two things share anything in common, they are the same and connected.  An apple and a car can both be red, but that doesn't mean they have common structures.  Similarly, the theory of evolution, also know as evolution theory, a solid and evidence based predictable and accurate description of how life changes over time, may have the word "evolution" in common with "cosmic evolution", which itself is an unsupported non-evidence-based contrivance not supported by the scientific community, and therefore the two are NOT related, and are not the same.

One is essentially fact.  The other is guesswork.  If you want to reference one for an argument, I would recommend the former, but you keep going back to the latter as if it helps you in some way.  How naive.



sangha said:


> Contrary to what ignoramuses like Hick say the evolutionary paradigm is *UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BY MODERN SCIENCE*.
> 
> The lack of a consistent, solid abiogenesis theory is indeed a major gap in this paradigm.


It's funny because you prove yourself wrong in two sentences.  You say it's a solid concept "universally accepted by modern science" and then you point out a major gap in it.  Here's a little hint: the scientific community generally does not "universally accept" things with large gaps in them.   We don't have "half a theory of gravity".  

Here's an easy way to prove this point: can you reference a single peer-reviewed published scientific article that has reviewed or done research in the field of "cosmic evolution" that deals with abiogenesis?  A single paper?  This is the standard of ascertaining whether the scientific community accepts a concept: seeing what actual published scientists say about it. For example, I can produce hundreds of thousands on the theory of evolution.  Can you produce one regarding your "paradigm" even though you can't actually define what "scientific paradigm" means?

You see unlike you, science uses evidence to support things.  So, try not to hurt yourself supporting this claim of yours. 



			
				José;3130067 said:
			
		

> Says the guy who's never made a poor choice of words in his whole life, let alone in the heat of a debate.


Your insecurities are amusing.  Nonetheless I feel it's necessary to inform you that this is the internet, and as such, threats of mutilation or vague childish mockery only makes you look like a larger moron in the context of me obliterating every point you make.  But please continue, your inability to debate me with evidence and this need to resort to further stupidity amuses me.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Please explain why scientists, when faced with incontrovertible evidence, rejected Copernicus and clung to the geocentric view of the universe. So much so that even a century later they rejected Galileo and his telescope. YOu seem to have an irrational belief in the rational nature of scientists despite overwhelming evidence that they are only human, and thus both fallible and petty.


Do you really want to compare today's scientific methods and standards with a church ruled strong-arm of reason from half a millennium ago?  Here's a hint to help answer your question: because people who went against the church were IMPRISONED and TORTURED. 

Let me know if you have questions.



			
				José;3130146 said:
			
		

> If these two guys have the courage to deny the existence of one of the most fundamental scientific paradigms upon which the whole body of modern Cosmology, Astronomy, Anthropology, History and Sociology rests they are lost case that do not deserve my attention.


After failing to backpedal and squirm out of your stupidity, you decided it was high time to tuck your tail between your legs and run away.  Good job.  Next time you want to enter an argument with me, make sure you have that pesky thing called evidence.  Otherwise, I recommend you avoid hitting the reply button.



			
				José;3130175 said:
			
		

> *By "evolutionary theory" I was reffering to the general, all encompassing scientific paradigm according to which the whole universe (including life) moves gradually from lower to higher levels of complexity.*


*
Yes, you've said this before, and I will once again point out: "evolutionary theory" is a set concept referring to this article which meets Wikipedia's standards.  It does not refer to anything else, including other non-scientific concepts that have the same words mixed into their names.  The scientific community as a whole accepts the theory of evolution as accurate. 

Now let's see how that pertains to your original post in this thread, which states: "The origin of life remains to this day one of the biggest Achiles' heel in evolutionary theory."  It should be clear to everyone at this point that the reference to "evolutionary theory" there is that set theory I just linked, and not any other term.  You could similarly say the origin of life remains to this day one of the biggest Achiles' heels in abiogenesis ideation, or chili dog formation, or ANY OTHER NON-SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT, including but not limited to your "cosmic evolution" which was started by a philosopher, not a scientist, over a thousand years ago. 

Nonetheless the end result is as follows:
The THEORY OF EVOLUTION remains intact and accurate without such "Achiles' heels" whatsoever, and is not refuted by any evidence found to date. For creationists, this theory directly contradicts their belief system.  Nevertheless this topic has nothing to do with the opinion regarding "cosmic evolution", which remains unsupported and has no evidence.  Perhaps you need to better understand the differences between science and philosophy.

Would you like to continue making the same wrong point again?  I'm happy to keep shooting you down.*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> These concepts sound like magic if you confuse the colorful phrases that have gained popularity to describe them with the actual science itself.
> 
> Are you joking? I (wrongly, it appears) assumed you knew a bit about cosmology. You're mixing up not only the concepts of dark matter and dark energy here but their usage in my post (see my post: _"dark energy" is  systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles_). A standard candle is an astronomical object whose absolute magnitude is fairly well-known, meaning their apparent magnitude can be used to gauge distance. Type Ia supernovae are the standard candles I'm referring to here, as they're what was used to discover the first evidence of dark energy twelve years ago.
> 
> The fact that you thought a standard candle is an actual _wax candle_ is kind of mind-boggling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said something stupid, mock at will.
> 
> The concepts sound magical when people try to argue that the observational data proves the hypothesis. Scientists do not do that, but they are still at a loss to actually explain these concepts because our knowledge of the universe does not include an understanding of these concepts. I have said elsewhere that there are only a few physicists that begin to understand this, and the rest of us have to take it on faith. Since I am completely certain that you are not the one of the people who understand this, any attempt you make to claim that you are taking this on any basis other than faith is going to fall short.
> 
> That makes these concepts as magical to you as they are to me, even if you refuse to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the facts seem magical to you, that doesn't mean the facts seem magical to anyone else.
Click to expand...


They certainly seem magical to you, or you would not be trying to claim you said something the opposite of what you said.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also said that scientists believe in dark matter, which is a lie
Click to expand...


Ahem.

Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?
But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter, besides the obvious (and damn compelling, if you ask me) fact that galaxies would fly apart with out it. 

--

Dave Goldberg is the author, with Jeff Blomquist, of "A User's Guide to the Universe: Surviving the Perils of Black Holes, Time Paradoxes, and Quantum Uncertainty." (Wiley: 2010).  He is an associate professor of Physics at Drexel University.​
Looks like it's not a lie.  

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they can measure the effects of "Dark Matter".  Did you bother to visit the site?  If they can "map it", then something exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?
> 
> Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists. If you understood basic logic you would understand that without me having to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can measure the "belief in God" because "belief in God" is something that exists. However, the only thing that is proven to exist is a "belief in God"
> 
> Gods' actual existence is unproven and unprovable.
Click to expand...


You are almost right.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed that evolution disproves creationism, I posted a complete interrogatory statement in reply. How long have you had this reading comprehension problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next time, just ask the question in English?
> 
> And I've already explained how evolution refutes creationism, so it would seem that you're the one with the reading comprehension issues. Try to keep up
> 
> But as long as I have your attention, can you explain why you said that scientists believe that dark matter exists, and then contradict yourself and say that scientists don't believe that dark matter exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you proved that evolution disproves the statement that humans were created as is at some point in the past. Since I have to point out the obvious to you, that does not disprove creationism, which is the belief that the universe, and everything in it, was created. Why should a Hindu creationist believe in the biblical account of creation, even if they believe that the Earth is 5000 years old?
> 
> The problem here is that you are attempting to stake out a claim based on positions you are making up for other people, and that, in truth, all you are accomplishing is making yourself look ignorant. Different people believe different things, and it is possible that God, if He did create everything, set the universe up to evolve us in His image.
Click to expand...


For one thing, I do not believe in the existence of Hindu Creationists

Secondly, if creationism is the belief that the universe, and everything in it (which I assume includes humans) were created, then the evolution of humans directly contradicts the creationist claim that humans were created, and not evolved

Thirdly, as it is with many topics, you don't know what you're talking about. Creationism is a belief that the universe, and everything in it (including humans) were created by a supernatural being. Again, evolution refutes this inane claim


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Greenbeard said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said something stupid, mock at will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attempted to use your aggressively stupid post as a launching point to mock _me_. It's certainly not my fault you ended up looking like a dumbass in doing so.
Click to expand...


I said you could mock, so feel free. Being petty about just proves you are taking all this personally. I, on the other hand, was just wrong.


----------



## rdean

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?*
> 
> Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists. If you understood basic logic you would understand that without me having to explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?*
> 
> Measure the effects?  Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a lot of science journals that discuss the effects of belief and brain activity, here is one to get you started.
> 
> 'God spot' researchers see the light in MRI study | Science | The Guardian
Click to expand...


Apples and oranges.  What they are measuring is "belief".  That belief could be any belief.  If they believed "holding a four leaf clover" brought "good things", then why wouldn't they get the same results?

Proof of the existence of "God" has to be more than just a belief.  That leaves us back where we started.

I believe the FACT that Republicans believe government is bad and government fails at everything is a FACT because when they are in power, they make sure it fails.  That proves their belief.  The evidence is that every time Republicans are in power, the economy falters and the country falls apart.


----------



## sangha

Intense said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am trying to be real tolerant and patient with you. I'm curious as to what fuels you, not only the hate and bitterness, but the drive. Should you ever overcome your handicap, I you will actually have allot to contribute. Are you redeemable, that is the first question. I know, if you don't, and I'm patient, sometimes. Sometimes, I lose patience, but we're good for now. I'm human too, yet find myself in a position where I have to put the interest of the Site above my own personal interest, it would be wrong to see that as an act, it is an obligation. Further, what I have found personally here, is that when I strike out at someone, the unintended consequence is that it offends people I care about, on both sides of the aisle. For that reason, I hold back, as best as I can. You should give it some thought too. Your style corrupts your message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your actions corrupts your soul.
> 
> You're not even honest enough to admit to the venom that you post. Like a typical christian, you want to falsely depict yourself as a victim. You are just SO BURDENED by your laughable "obligation"
> 
> If you can't hack it, give it up, you nancy-boy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is this? The Paper Chase? You are deluding yourself, thinking that you impress by talking down to everyone, Sangha. You don't. Neither do you respect people, or the Site, or yourself, knowing the damage that you do at times. It would be wrong for you to over play your hand. You need to work on those social skills, bro. It's not about judging or condemning you, it's about learning from your mistakes, and being better for it. Something only you can do, it can't be done for you. My Soul, is not within your reach Sangha, nor would I seek to damage yours. I am not depicting myself as a Victim, either. A reference to a thick skin, in context, is a reference to me handling anything you choose to throw at me. I'm a Alpha Type, alway's have been. I respect boundaries too, how about you trying that.
Click to expand...


And here we have more of the meaningless drivel that Intense thinks is profound. He makes a reference to an irrelevant movie and then talks down to me for talking down to him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They observed some data that did not fit their theories. They hypothesized an explanation, and have offered theories to explain the existence of Dark Matter. To date no theory has been corroborated by experiment or observation. Scientists do not point to something they cannot explain and claim it proves something they made up to explain it.
> 
> If you will check back through the various explanations of the scientific method you will see that I am the one that is right here, and that Dark Matter is only a belief. No one knows if it really exists, or if some other explanation will eventually be found to explain the observations.
> 
> Why don't you post this in your thread about lies told by wingnuts? It will give people who are not reading this thread a chance to see how ignorant you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it wasn't a hypothesis.  You said that I said that but I never did.  What I did say was that "SOMETHING" is causing a lensing effect and scientists refer to it as "Dark Matter".  Something exists.  Something is affecting the light.
> 
> Not every hypothesis has a "corresponding experiment".  Why?  Because it may be impossible to preform such an experiment with our current level of technology.
> 
> Go ahead.  Keep trying to beat up on me if it makes you feel better about yourself.  Personally, I think it's hilarious.  Gives me a good "chuckle".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the lie I've been referring to. QW continually and habitually keeps referring to some mythical people who believe that dark matter exists. Now he's lying about you believing in it.
> 
> I wonder if QW will ever defend his own claims by identifying who these fictional believers in dark matter are?
Click to expand...


Funny.

Until I managed to get it through your had that I was right you were one of the mythical people that believed dark matter exists, and that we know all about it. Then you jump on rdean, who admitted the hypothetical nature from the start, and try to pretend you believed the same thing.

I think that qualifies as a lie.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that Dave lied about "sciencers" beliefs. He made it up to hide his lack of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to bother responding to your other posts before this one -- it's clear you're more than happy arguing your side AND my side.  My participation is not required.
> 
> Nevertheless, I don't have to make stuff up.
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why Dave will never post a list of these mythical sciencers who believe that evolution explains the origin of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also explained that, but you're incapable of admitting that there are stupid people on your side, despite the overwhelming evidence.
> 
> Meanwhile, I would like to point out (again) that the definition of "lie" is NOT "something a leftist disagrees with".
Click to expand...


So your point is that there are stupid people on both sides. You've definitely earned the costume


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a complete idiot!! Why cant you post in complete sentences?? Is something that simple too much for your little pea brain.
> 
> You say "We do not"...We do not "WHAT??"" We do not know that dark matter exists? That "no educated person" knows that dark matters exists??
> 
> Then why did you say that scientists (actually you said "sciencers" and I expect you to use that word to weasal out) DO BELIEVE that dark matter exists? Are you saying the scientists are not educated?
> 
> So now your argument is that "some people" say that it proves dark matter exists? Once again, you're relying on lies and fictional "sciencers"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, it was a complete sentence, you actually figured out what I was talking about by using context.
> 
> I never used the word sciencers, so any attempt by you to discredit my posts by referring to it is a lie.
> 
> Scientists believe that dark matter exists, they do not know it exists. If you do not understand the difference between belief and knowledge it might explain why you think we know what black matter, whatever you think that is, exists and that we know everything about it.
> 
> Are you going to try to use more lies in an attempt to make me look stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see? When you post in complete English sentences, you are understood. When you try to be clever (which you arent) and use some of form of discourse, you fail.
> 
> And if you didn't use the term sciencers, I apologize for saying you did. However, I am going to go back and check because you can't be trusted. And speaking of trust, let's get to the central lie you've been repeating over and over while working hard to not post anything to support your disgusting lies
> 
> You say "Scientists believe that dark matter exists"
> 
> Please back up your lie by identifying these scientists. Please post links which prove that these scientists do believe that dark matter exists and why
> 
> Or just admit that you're so dishonest and that you just made it up so you could avoid admitting you were wrong?
Click to expand...


Dark Matter Proof Found, Scientists Say

The guy is obviously wrong about the evidence, but he believes it.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They observed some data that did not fit their theories. They hypothesized an explanation, and have offered theories to explain the existence of Dark Matter. To date no theory has been corroborated by experiment or observation. Scientists do not point to something they cannot explain and claim it proves something they made up to explain it.
> 
> If you will check back through the various explanations of the scientific method you will see that I am the one that is right here, and that Dark Matter is only a belief. No one knows if it really exists, or if some other explanation will eventually be found to explain the observations.
> 
> Why don't you post this in your thread about lies told by wingnuts? It will give people who are not reading this thread a chance to see how ignorant you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it wasn't a hypothesis.  You said that I said that but I never did.  What I did say was that "SOMETHING" is causing a lensing effect and scientists refer to it as "Dark Matter".  Something exists.  Something is affecting the light.
> 
> Not every hypothesis has a "corresponding experiment".  Why?  Because it may be impossible to preform such an experiment with our current level of technology.
> 
> Go ahead.  Keep trying to beat up on me if it makes you feel better about yourself.  Personally, I think it's hilarious.  Gives me a good "chuckle".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being overly sensitive rdean? This post was not addressed to you, so anything you think I said to you was actually said to someone else. You say enough things I can beat you up over so that I do not have to put words in your mouth in order to do so. Am I free to actually beat up Sangha for his insistence that we know this stuff exists because we can see it does stuff we can't explain?
Click to expand...


QW can't help but lie. rdean has NEVER said that dark matter exists. All he has said is that SOMETHING EXISTS because something is having an effect that can be measured. rdead never said that it was dark matter that was causing the effect. rdean said that scientists have HYPOTHESIZED that dark matter is the cause of the effect.


----------



## sangha

Intense said:


> You left out the part about believing that cold exists the way heat does
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where you are shown to be disingenuous again. I do not believe cold exists or does not exist solely on the basis of you not having the ability to measure it. It is you that are acting as if the world is flat here.
Click to expand...


Nothing proves that your a liar as when you deny what you've said


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?*
> 
> Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists. If you understood basic logic you would understand that without me having to explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?*
> 
> Measure the effects?  Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a lot of science journals that discuss the effects of belief and brain activity, here is one to get you started.
> 
> 'God spot' researchers see the light in MRI study | Science | The Guardian
Click to expand...


That only proves that a "belief in God" exists. It does not prove that God exists, which is what was asked for


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next time, just ask the question in English?
> 
> And I've already explained how evolution refutes creationism, so it would seem that you're the one with the reading comprehension issues. Try to keep up
> 
> But as long as I have your attention, can you explain why you said that scientists believe that dark matter exists, and then contradict yourself and say that scientists don't believe that dark matter exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you proved that evolution disproves the statement that humans were created as is at some point in the past. Since I have to point out the obvious to you, that does not disprove creationism, which is the belief that the universe, and everything in it, was created. Why should a Hindu creationist believe in the biblical account of creation, even if they believe that the Earth is 5000 years old?
> 
> The problem here is that you are attempting to stake out a claim based on positions you are making up for other people, and that, in truth, all you are accomplishing is making yourself look ignorant. Different people believe different things, and it is possible that God, if He did create everything, set the universe up to evolve us in His image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one thing, I do not believe in the existence of Hindu Creationists
> 
> Secondly, if creationism is the belief that the universe, and everything in it (which I assume includes humans) were created, then the evolution of humans directly contradicts the creationist claim that humans were created, and not evolved
> 
> Thirdly, as it is with many topics, you don't know what you're talking about. Creationism is a belief that the universe, and everything in it (including humans) were created by a supernatural being. Again, evolution refutes this inane claim
Click to expand...


You do not believe in Hindu creationists? How do you explain this then?

Hindu Creation Myths

I think that shows how much your beliefs are worth.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They observed some data that did not fit their theories. They hypothesized an explanation, and have offered theories to explain the existence of Dark Matter. To date no theory has been corroborated by experiment or observation. Scientists do not point to something they cannot explain and claim it proves something they made up to explain it.
> 
> If you will check back through the various explanations of the scientific method you will see that I am the one that is right here, and that Dark Matter is only a belief. No one knows if it really exists, or if some other explanation will eventually be found to explain the observations.
> 
> Why don't you post this in your thread about lies told by wingnuts? It will give people who are not reading this thread a chance to see how ignorant you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying. You said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists do not know that either dark energy, which is not electromagnetic energy we cannot see, or dark matter exists. They believe dark energy exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right there you say that scientists believe that dark energy exists. Too bad you have nothing to back up your lies with.
> 
> Scientists do not BELIEVE that dark matter exists. Some scientists SUSPECT that dark matter exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you just claim that we know everything about it? Yet you think I am lying when I say scientists believe in it.
Click to expand...


Umm, no. I said that we do NOT know everything about it.

Can't you get anything right? This one was a real simple one, and you can't even understand that.

And yes, you are lying about scientists. That's why you won't back up your lie with any evidence


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?*
> 
> Measure the effects?  Examples?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of science journals that discuss the effects of belief and brain activity, here is one to get you started.
> 
> 'God spot' researchers see the light in MRI study | Science | The Guardian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.  What they are measuring is "belief".  That belief could be any belief.  If they believed "holding a four leaf clover" brought "good things", then why wouldn't they get the same results?
> 
> Proof of the existence of "God" has to be more than just a belief.  That leaves us back where we started.
Click to expand...


I never said that belief in God proved anything. I just pointed out that measuring something does not prove something else, and I am guessing you agree with me about that.



rdean said:


> I believe the FACT that Republicans believe government is bad and government fails at everything is a FACT because when they are in power, they make sure it fails.  That proves their belief.  The evidence is that every time Republicans are in power, the economy falters and the country falls apart.





This thread is now officially jumped the shark, rdean has ionvoked the dreaded Republicans to prove he is loosing.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that Dave lied about "sciencers" beliefs. He made it up to hide his lack of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to bother responding to your other posts before this one -- it's clear you're more than happy arguing your side AND my side.  My participation is not required.
> 
> Nevertheless, I don't have to make stuff up.
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why Dave will never post a list of these mythical sciencers who believe that evolution explains the origin of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also explained that, but you're incapable of admitting that there are stupid people on your side, despite the overwhelming evidence.
> 
> Meanwhile, I would like to point out (again) that the definition of "lie" is NOT "something a leftist disagrees with".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your point is that there are stupid people on both sides. You've definitely earned the costume
Click to expand...

Then why do you refuse to admit that stupid people share your beliefs?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it wasn't a hypothesis.  You said that I said that but I never did.  What I did say was that "SOMETHING" is causing a lensing effect and scientists refer to it as "Dark Matter".  Something exists.  Something is affecting the light.
> 
> Not every hypothesis has a "corresponding experiment".  Why?  Because it may be impossible to preform such an experiment with our current level of technology.
> 
> Go ahead.  Keep trying to beat up on me if it makes you feel better about yourself.  Personally, I think it's hilarious.  Gives me a good "chuckle".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being overly sensitive rdean? This post was not addressed to you, so anything you think I said to you was actually said to someone else. You say enough things I can beat you up over so that I do not have to put words in your mouth in order to do so. Am I free to actually beat up Sangha for his insistence that we know this stuff exists because we can see it does stuff we can't explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> QW can't help but lie. rdean has NEVER said that dark matter exists. All he has said is that SOMETHING EXISTS because something is having an effect that can be measured. rdead never said that it was dark matter that was causing the effect. rdean said that scientists have HYPOTHESIZED that dark matter is the cause of the effect.
Click to expand...


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I am not.
> 
> Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com
> 
> Just because you have a problem with the English language it does not mean everyone else does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dishonestly left out the other definition of atheism because it proves you wrong
> 
> Just because you have a problem with honesty it doesn't mean everyone else is going to fall for your lies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I left it out in the hope that you would jump on it and prove yourself a fool. Thanks for cooperating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *:* the act of disbelieving *:* mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disbelief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Disbelief is a belief, not the lack of one.
Click to expand...


Umm, no. Disbelief is not a belief

1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. 

Just because you don't accept something as true, that doesn't mean you believe it is false

Some people are honest enough to say "I don't know the answer". Lacking honesty, you can't imagine this.


----------



## daveman

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also said that scientists believe in dark matter, which is a lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?
> But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter, besides the obvious (and damn compelling, if you ask me) fact that galaxies would fly apart with out it.
> 
> --
> 
> Dave Goldberg is the author, with Jeff Blomquist, of "A User's Guide to the Universe: Surviving the Perils of Black Holes, Time Paradoxes, and Quantum Uncertainty." (Wiley: 2010).  He is an associate professor of Physics at Drexel University.​
> Looks like it's not a lie.
> 
> You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.
Click to expand...

Looks like Sangha believes this post doesn't exist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?*
> 
> Measure the effects?  Examples?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of science journals that discuss the effects of belief and brain activity, here is one to get you started.
> 
> 'God spot' researchers see the light in MRI study | Science | The Guardian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only proves that a "belief in God" exists. It does not prove that God exists, which is what was asked for
Click to expand...


Since you have a hard time with context, please point out where rdean asked for proof that God exists after I pointed out that the effects of belief in God are measurable.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said something stupid, mock at will.
> 
> The concepts sound magical when people try to argue that the observational data proves the hypothesis. Scientists do not do that, but they are still at a loss to actually explain these concepts because our knowledge of the universe does not include an understanding of these concepts. I have said elsewhere that there are only a few physicists that begin to understand this, and the rest of us have to take it on faith. Since I am completely certain that you are not the one of the people who understand this, any attempt you make to claim that you are taking this on any basis other than faith is going to fall short.
> 
> That makes these concepts as magical to you as they are to me, even if you refuse to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the facts seem magical to you, that doesn't mean the facts seem magical to anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They certainly seem magical to you, or you would not be trying to claim you said something the opposite of what you said.
Click to expand...


Jose is not the only wingnut who wants to hide his stunning ignorance and lack of evidence with childish taunts.

Meanwhile, I will continue to point out that QW is still to much of a wussy boy to post any evidence that scientists believe that dark matter exists, and why


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also said that scientists believe in dark matter, which is a lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?
> But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter, besides the obvious (and damn compelling, if you ask me) fact that galaxies would fly apart with out it.
> 
> --
> 
> Dave Goldberg is the author, with Jeff Blomquist, of "A User's Guide to the Universe: Surviving the Perils of Black Holes, Time Paradoxes, and Quantum Uncertainty." (Wiley: 2010).  He is an associate professor of Physics at Drexel University.​
> Looks like it's not a lie.
> 
> You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.
Click to expand...


The author does not say he believes that dark matter exists. He says there is "compelling evidence" that it does exist. He even admits that it could be wrong and goes on to say "* I'll put my money on Dark Matter and general relativity any day."* which makes it clear his position is not certain.

It is a lie. Try again


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said something stupid, mock at will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attempted to use your aggressively stupid post as a launching point to mock _me_. It's certainly not my fault you ended up looking like a dumbass in doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said you could mock, so feel free. Being petty about just proves you are taking all this personally. I, on the other hand, was just wrong.
Click to expand...


He is not being petty. He merely pointed out that your "permission" to mock is not the result of your having a thick skin; it's because you know you got pwned and you can't stop anyone from pointing out your idiocy

But at least you were honest about it when challenged. That puts you a bit above most wingnuts

But you were not "just wrong", You were stupendously wrong.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it wasn't a hypothesis.  You said that I said that but I never did.  What I did say was that "SOMETHING" is causing a lensing effect and scientists refer to it as "Dark Matter".  Something exists.  Something is affecting the light.
> 
> Not every hypothesis has a "corresponding experiment".  Why?  Because it may be impossible to preform such an experiment with our current level of technology.
> 
> Go ahead.  Keep trying to beat up on me if it makes you feel better about yourself.  Personally, I think it's hilarious.  Gives me a good "chuckle".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the lie I've been referring to. QW continually and habitually keeps referring to some mythical people who believe that dark matter exists. Now he's lying about you believing in it.
> 
> I wonder if QW will ever defend his own claims by identifying who these fictional believers in dark matter are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> Until I managed to get it through your had that I was right you were one of the mythical people that believed dark matter exists, and that we know all about it. Then you jump on rdean, who admitted the hypothetical nature from the start, and try to pretend you believed the same thing.
> 
> I think that qualifies as a lie.
Click to expand...


Once again, WQ fails to back up his claim that scientists believe that dark matter exists.

I wonder if QW will ever defend his own claims by identifying who these fictional believers in dark matter are?


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, it was a complete sentence, you actually figured out what I was talking about by using context.
> 
> I never used the word sciencers, so any attempt by you to discredit my posts by referring to it is a lie.
> 
> Scientists believe that dark matter exists, they do not know it exists. If you do not understand the difference between belief and knowledge it might explain why you think we know what black matter, whatever you think that is, exists and that we know everything about it.
> 
> Are you going to try to use more lies in an attempt to make me look stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see? When you post in complete English sentences, you are understood. When you try to be clever (which you arent) and use some of form of discourse, you fail.
> 
> And if you didn't use the term sciencers, I apologize for saying you did. However, I am going to go back and check because you can't be trusted. And speaking of trust, let's get to the central lie you've been repeating over and over while working hard to not post anything to support your disgusting lies
> 
> You say "Scientists believe that dark matter exists"
> 
> Please back up your lie by identifying these scientists. Please post links which prove that these scientists do believe that dark matter exists and why
> 
> Or just admit that you're so dishonest and that you just made it up so you could avoid admitting you were wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dark Matter Proof Found, Scientists Say
> 
> The guy is obviously wrong about the evidence, but he believes it.
Click to expand...


So scientists rejected this scientists "proof" and this rejection proves that scientists believe that dark matter exists?


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you proved that evolution disproves the statement that humans were created as is at some point in the past. Since I have to point out the obvious to you, that does not disprove creationism, which is the belief that the universe, and everything in it, was created. Why should a Hindu creationist believe in the biblical account of creation, even if they believe that the Earth is 5000 years old?
> 
> The problem here is that you are attempting to stake out a claim based on positions you are making up for other people, and that, in truth, all you are accomplishing is making yourself look ignorant. Different people believe different things, and it is possible that God, if He did create everything, set the universe up to evolve us in His image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing, I do not believe in the existence of Hindu Creationists
> 
> Secondly, if creationism is the belief that the universe, and everything in it (which I assume includes humans) were created, then the evolution of humans directly contradicts the creationist claim that humans were created, and not evolved
> 
> Thirdly, as it is with many topics, you don't know what you're talking about. Creationism is a belief that the universe, and everything in it (including humans) were created by a supernatural being. Again, evolution refutes this inane claim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not believe in Hindu creationists? How do you explain this then?
> 
> Hindu Creation Myths
> 
> I think that shows how much your beliefs are worth.
Click to expand...


Earlier, I posted that you do not understand what Creationism is. Now you prove by asserting that "Creation Myths" are the same as "Creationism"


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of science journals that discuss the effects of belief and brain activity, here is one to get you started.
> 
> 'God spot' researchers see the light in MRI study | Science | The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.  What they are measuring is "belief".  That belief could be any belief.  If they believed "holding a four leaf clover" brought "good things", then why wouldn't they get the same results?
> 
> Proof of the existence of "God" has to be more than just a belief.  That leaves us back where we started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that belief in God proved anything. I just pointed out that measuring something does not prove something else, and I am guessing you agree with me about that.
Click to expand...


I agree with what you just said, but you disagreed with what you just said when I said it in an earlier post. I said that measuring a belief in God only proves a belief in God exists. It doesn't prove that God exists. You responded that I was half right


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to bother responding to your other posts before this one -- it's clear you're more than happy arguing your side AND my side.  My participation is not required.
> 
> Nevertheless, I don't have to make stuff up.
> 
> I also explained that, but you're incapable of admitting that there are stupid people on your side, despite the overwhelming evidence.
> 
> Meanwhile, I would like to point out (again) that the definition of "lie" is NOT "something a leftist disagrees with".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your point is that there are stupid people on both sides. You've definitely earned the costume
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you refuse to admit that stupid people share your beliefs?
Click to expand...


I don't deny it. I only deny that it's in any way relevant to this discussion

Try a different lie


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being overly sensitive rdean? This post was not addressed to you, so anything you think I said to you was actually said to someone else. You say enough things I can beat you up over so that I do not have to put words in your mouth in order to do so. Am I free to actually beat up Sangha for his insistence that we know this stuff exists because we can see it does stuff we can't explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QW can't help but lie. rdean has NEVER said that dark matter exists. All he has said is that SOMETHING EXISTS because something is having an effect that can be measured. rdead never said that it was dark matter that was causing the effect. rdean said that scientists have HYPOTHESIZED that dark matter is the cause of the effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And once again QW proves his inability to respond substantively by posting a smilie, which is the most complex thought he can understand


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the facts seem magical to you, that doesn't mean the facts seem magical to anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They certainly seem magical to you, or you would not be trying to claim you said something the opposite of what you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jose is not the only wingnut who wants to hide his stunning ignorance and lack of evidence with childish taunts.
> 
> Meanwhile, I will continue to point out that QW is still to much of a wussy boy to post any evidence that scientists believe that dark matter exists, and why
Click to expand...


Point it out as often as you want.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attempted to use your aggressively stupid post as a launching point to mock _me_. It's certainly not my fault you ended up looking like a dumbass in doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said you could mock, so feel free. Being petty about just proves you are taking all this personally. I, on the other hand, was just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not being petty. He merely pointed out that your "permission" to mock is not the result of your having a thick skin; it's because you know you got pwned and you can't stop anyone from pointing out your idiocy
> 
> But at least you were honest about it when challenged. That puts you a bit above most wingnuts
> 
> But you were not "just wrong", You were stupendously wrong.
Click to expand...


Where did he say anything about anyone's skin?


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of science journals that discuss the effects of belief and brain activity, here is one to get you started.
> 
> 'God spot' researchers see the light in MRI study | Science | The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That only proves that a "belief in God" exists. It does not prove that God exists, which is what was asked for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you have a hard time with context, please point out where rdean asked for proof that God exists after I pointed out that the effects of belief in God are measurable.
Click to expand...


It was the post where rdean asked for you show the effects of Gods existence. Instead of responding with any evidence of this God Effect, you posted something about the effects of believing in God, which even you admit, is not the same thing.

rdean never asked you to show the effects of believing in god. You're just too dumb to understand the question


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.  What they are measuring is "belief".  That belief could be any belief.  If they believed "holding a four leaf clover" brought "good things", then why wouldn't they get the same results?
> 
> Proof of the existence of "God" has to be more than just a belief.  That leaves us back where we started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that belief in God proved anything. I just pointed out that measuring something does not prove something else, and I am guessing you agree with me about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with what you just said, but you disagreed with what you just said when I said it in an earlier post. I said that measuring a belief in God only proves a belief in God exists. It doesn't prove that God exists. You responded that I was half right
Click to expand...


I did not.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> They certainly seem magical to you, or you would not be trying to claim you said something the opposite of what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jose is not the only wingnut who wants to hide his stunning ignorance and lack of evidence with childish taunts.
> 
> Meanwhile, I will continue to point out that QW is still to much of a wussy boy to post any evidence that scientists believe that dark matter exists, and why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point it out as often as you want.
Click to expand...


OK

QW has still not posted anythiing to back up his lies. Instead, he tucks his tail and runs away from the subject.


----------



## rdean

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of science journals that discuss the effects of belief and brain activity, here is one to get you started.
> 
> 'God spot' researchers see the light in MRI study | Science | The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.  What they are measuring is "belief".  That belief could be any belief.  If they believed "holding a four leaf clover" brought "good things", then why wouldn't they get the same results?
> 
> Proof of the existence of "God" has to be more than just a belief.  That leaves us back where we started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that belief in God proved anything. I just pointed out that measuring something does not prove something else, and I am guessing you agree with me about that.
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the FACT that Republicans believe government is bad and government fails at everything is a FACT because when they are in power, they make sure it fails.  That proves their belief.  The evidence is that every time Republicans are in power, the economy falters and the country falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is now officially jumped the shark, rdean has ionvoked the dreaded Republicans to prove he is loosing.
Click to expand...


What you said:

*We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?  Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists.*

Then you posted a site where they measure belief and said:

*I never said that belief in God proved anything. I just pointed out that measuring something does not prove something else, and I am guessing you agree with me about that.*

Who even knows why you continue to write such nonsense.  Measuring "something" PROVES that there is "something" there to be measured.  Scientists have given that "something" a name.  Dark matter.  Perhaps you should write a paper and submit it to a couple of science journals and explain to them what it should be called.

You are desperately trying to manufacture an argument so you can have one of your "Ah Ha!" moments.  The problem is you are the only one going "Ah Ha!"  

Well, go ahead with that "Ah Ha!" belief and measure it.  Tell us what it proves.


----------



## sangha

I am reposting this post by QW to show that he was right. He did not say that I was "half right" He said that I was "almost right"

But he can't say what isn't right



Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?
> 
> Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists. If you understood basic logic you would understand that without me having to explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can measure the "belief in God" because "belief in God" is something that exists. However, the only thing that is proven to exist is a "belief in God"
> 
> Gods' actual existence is unproven and unprovable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are almost right.
Click to expand...


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also said that scientists believe in dark matter, which is a lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?
> But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter, besides the obvious (and damn compelling, if you ask me) fact that galaxies would fly apart with out it.
> 
> --
> 
> Dave Goldberg is the author, with Jeff Blomquist, of "A User's Guide to the Universe: Surviving the Perils of Black Holes, Time Paradoxes, and Quantum Uncertainty." (Wiley: 2010).  He is an associate professor of Physics at Drexel University.​
> Looks like it's not a lie.
> 
> You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author does not say he believes that dark matter exists. He says there is "compelling evidence" that it does exist. He even admits that it could be wrong and goes on to say "* I'll put my money on Dark Matter and general relativity any day."* which makes it clear his position is not certain.
> 
> It is a lie. Try again
Click to expand...

No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.

If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?
> But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter, besides the obvious (and damn compelling, if you ask me) fact that galaxies would fly apart with out it.
> 
> --
> 
> Dave Goldberg is the author, with Jeff Blomquist, of "A User's Guide to the Universe: Surviving the Perils of Black Holes, Time Paradoxes, and Quantum Uncertainty." (Wiley: 2010).  He is an associate professor of Physics at Drexel University.​
> Looks like it's not a lie.
> 
> You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The author does not say he believes that dark matter exists. He says there is "compelling evidence" that it does exist. He even admits that it could be wrong and goes on to say "* I'll put my money on Dark Matter and general relativity any day."* which makes it clear his position is not certain.
> 
> It is a lie. Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.
> 
> If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.
Click to expand...


Once again, a wingnut tries to hide his inability to respond substantively by posting childish insults.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your point is that there are stupid people on both sides. You've definitely earned the costume
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you refuse to admit that stupid people share your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't deny it. I only deny that it's in any way relevant to this discussion
> 
> Try a different lie
Click to expand...

You're denying the truth, then.  And you can stamp your feet and insist it's irrelevant, but that doesn't make it so.

But that's nothing new.  Really, dood, if your beliefs are so fragile they won't tolerate exposure to differing views, why are you here?  If you're expecting everyone to agree with you so you don't get scared, you're going to be disappointed.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you refuse to admit that stupid people share your beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't deny it. I only deny that it's in any way relevant to this discussion
> 
> Try a different lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're denying the truth, then.  And you can stamp your feet and insist it's irrelevant, but that doesn't make it so.
> 
> But that's nothing new.  Really, dood, if your beliefs are so fragile they won't tolerate exposure to differing views, why are you here?  If you're expecting everyone to agree with you so you don't get scared, you're going to be disappointed.
Click to expand...


So you think it is relevant? Care to share your logic on this one?

I'm sure we could all use the laughs


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author does not say he believes that dark matter exists. He says there is "compelling evidence" that it does exist. He even admits that it could be wrong and goes on to say "* I'll put my money on Dark Matter and general relativity any day."* which makes it clear his position is not certain.
> 
> It is a lie. Try again
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.
> 
> If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, a wingnut tries to hide his inability to respond substantively by posting childish insults.
Click to expand...

Funny...you make that same statement (or a variation) whenever you've been proven wrong.  

If Sangha didn't claim he won teh innternets, he'd have nothing to say.


----------



## Ropey

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.
> 
> If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, a wingnut tries to hide his inability to respond substantively by posting childish insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny...you make that same statement (or a variation) whenever you've been proven wrong.
> 
> If Sangha didn't claim he won teh innternets, he'd have nothing to say.
Click to expand...


 Sangha =


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't deny it. I only deny that it's in any way relevant to this discussion
> 
> Try a different lie
> 
> 
> 
> You're denying the truth, then.  And you can stamp your feet and insist it's irrelevant, but that doesn't make it so.
> 
> But that's nothing new.  Really, dood, if your beliefs are so fragile they won't tolerate exposure to differing views, why are you here?  If you're expecting everyone to agree with you so you don't get scared, you're going to be disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is relevant? Care to share your logic on this one?
> 
> I'm sure we could all use the laughs
Click to expand...

Do I have to explain it _again_?  Good Gaea, you're not very bright, are you?

I showed where stupid people claim that evolution explains the origin of life.  You pouted and refused to accept it, although that in no way changed the reality.  

Now, pout some more!  Stamp your feet!  Claim you're teh winnar!  

And call me a liar one more time.  That shit never gets old.  In fact, I'm considering registering Democrat now.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.
> 
> If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, a wingnut tries to hide his inability to respond substantively by posting childish insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny...you make that same statement (or a variation) whenever you've been proven wrong.
> 
> If Sangha didn't claim he won teh innternets, he'd have nothing to say.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

I only say that when a wingnut fails to post anything but childish insults and claims they're too afraid to back up

The way you won't defend your lie about how I denied that some dumb people share my opinion on this issue

So how about it, fairy boy? Are you going to defend your lie about me denying that, or are you going to run away like the fairy that you are?


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're denying the truth, then.  And you can stamp your feet and insist it's irrelevant, but that doesn't make it so.
> 
> But that's nothing new.  Really, dood, if your beliefs are so fragile they won't tolerate exposure to differing views, why are you here?  If you're expecting everyone to agree with you so you don't get scared, you're going to be disappointed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it is relevant? Care to share your logic on this one?
> 
> I'm sure we could all use the laughs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I have to explain it _again_?  Good Gaea, you're not very bright, are you?
> 
> I showed where stupid people claim that evolution explains the origin of life.  You pouted and refused to accept it, although that in no way changed the reality.
Click to expand...


Umm, no. You're lying again. You talked about non-existent "sciencers". If you had been honest, and merely stated what you meant (ie "some stupid people think dark matter exists") you would have been challenged. But because you're so dishonest, you had to overstate your case, and make up words like "sciencer"

It turns out that "sciencer" means "stupid people". If you had just been honest and forthcoming about this, you could have spared yourself embarrassment (I'm assuming you have a sense of shame; something I'm not certain about)

But I guess I was the one who made a mistake. How dumb was it for me to think that you would be honest?


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, a wingnut tries to hide his inability to respond substantively by posting childish insults.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny...you make that same statement (or a variation) whenever you've been proven wrong.
> 
> If Sangha didn't claim he won teh innternets, he'd have nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> I only say that when a wingnut fails to post anything but childish insults and claims they're too afraid to back up
> 
> The way you won't defend your lie about how I denied that some dumb people share my opinion on this issue
> 
> So how about it, fairy boy? Are you going to defend your lie about me denying that, or are you going to run away like the fairy that you are?
Click to expand...

Here, for one, you childish little git.

You'd rather call me a liar than accept that stupid people share your views.  

Now, quick!  Pretend I didn't just prove my point!


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it is relevant? Care to share your logic on this one?
> 
> I'm sure we could all use the laughs
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to explain it _again_?  Good Gaea, you're not very bright, are you?
> 
> I showed where stupid people claim that evolution explains the origin of life.  You pouted and refused to accept it, although that in no way changed the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, no. You're lying again. You talked about non-existent "sciencers". If you had been honest, and merely stated what you meant (ie "some stupid people think dark matter exists") you would have been challenged. But because you're so dishonest, you had to overstate your case, and make up words like "sciencer"
> 
> It turns out that "sciencer" means "stupid people". If you had just been honest and forthcoming about this, you could have spared yourself embarrassment (I'm assuming you have a sense of shame; something I'm not certain about)
> 
> But I guess I was the one who made a mistake. How dumb was it for me to think that you would be honest?
Click to expand...

Good grief, if you put half as much energy into real thought as you do in twisting words to "prove" you're right and deliberately skewing reality, you might be interesting to talk with.

However...you don't.  So you're not.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *SmarterThanHick*
> This is a common and foolish fallacy made by less intelligent people, being that if two things share anything in common, they are the same and connected.
> Similarly, the theory of evolution, also know as evolution theory, a solid and evidence based predictable and accurate description of how life changes over time, may have the word "evolution" in common with "cosmic evolution", which itself is an unsupported non-evidence-based contrivance not supported by the scientific community, and therefore the two are NOT related, and are not the same.
> 
> One is essentially fact. The other is guesswork.



OH, I see... the Big Bang theory (*grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution*), the theory of galaxy formation and development (*grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution*), solar system formation and development (*grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution*) are not the best theories we have to explain the Universe they are just "unsupported guesswork".

Learn something new everyday... (preferably not from mentally retarded people).



> Originally posted by *SmarterThanHick*
> This is a common and foolish fallacy made by less intelligent people, being that if two things share anything in common, they are the same and connected.



Well, it's a common trait of scientific illiterate people to not have the slightest idea about what a scientific paradigm is (even though they are not scientific theories in and of themselves).

You and sangha fit this aspect of scientific illiteracy to a T.



> Originally posted by *SmarterThanHick*
> Here's an easy way to prove this point: can you reference a single peer-reviewed published scientific article that has reviewed or done research in the field of "cosmic evolution" that deals with abiogenesis? A single paper? This is the standard of ascertaining whether the scientific community accepts a concept: seeing what actual published scientists say about it. For example, I can produce hundreds of thousands on the theory of evolution. Can you produce one regarding your "paradigm" even though you can't actually define what "scientific paradigm" means?



The scientific paradigms that *GUIDE *the scientific endeavor are not the subject of study of scientists, Einstein!! They are the underlying structures, the "background" upon which scientific theories are "built".

They are the subject of a branch of philosophy named "*Philosophy of Science*". 

When I say the evolutionary paradigm is universally accepted by science is because all the major theories of cosmology (*Big Bang*, *formation of galaxies*\*solar systems*), biology (*Evolution*), history (*development of human civilisations*) accept the fact that during the course of the history of the Universe part of its constituent matter, energy and life have gradually moved from lower to higher complexity.



> Originally posted by *SmarterThanHick*
> It's funny because you prove yourself wrong in two sentences. You say it's a solid concept "universally accepted by modern science" and then you point out a major gap in it. Here's a little hint: the scientific community generally does not "universally accept" things with large gaps in them. We don't have "half a theory of gravity".



Tell this to the scientific community of cosmologists who accept the Big Bang as the most likely explanation for the arisal of primordial complexity in the cosmos *DESPITE THE MAJOR GAP* regarding the first phase of the phenomenon.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny...you make that same statement (or a variation) whenever you've been proven wrong.
> 
> If Sangha didn't claim he won teh innternets, he'd have nothing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> I only say that when a wingnut fails to post anything but childish insults and claims they're too afraid to back up
> 
> The way you won't defend your lie about how I denied that some dumb people share my opinion on this issue
> 
> So how about it, fairy boy? Are you going to defend your lie about me denying that, or are you going to run away like the fairy that you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, for one, you childish little git.
> 
> You'd rather call me a liar than accept that stupid people share your views.
> 
> Now, quick!  Pretend I didn't just prove my point!
Click to expand...


Here is all the text from the post you linked to. Please note that everyone can see that there is no mention of stupid people who think dark matter exists. In fact, there's no mention of dark matter. The post refers to the origins of life, evolution and sciencers, but no mention of "stupid people" and no mention of dark matter

Once again, the Daveman has lied, and lied badly



sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you are still operating under the inane idea that evolution is supposed to explain the origins of life. Nowhere in this thread have you admitted that evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life.
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> I can't make it any plainer: Evolution does not explain the origin of life.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now I see what the problem is. You're too stupid to realize the difference between "Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life" and "Evolution is NOT SUPPOSED TO explain the origin of life"
> 
> You STILL have not admitted that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origin of life
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this thread have you explained why you raised the issue of the origin of life when you knew it had nothing to do with evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lying.
> I did not criticize evolution for not explaining the origin of species. I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species.​
> If Sangha didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, Dave can't support his lies, so he's going to insist that mythical "sciencers" believe that evolution explains the origins of life.
> 
> Let us know when you have the balls to identify any of these mythical "sciencers"
Click to expand...


----------



## José

And the massacre continues unabated.

Watching from a distance, Intense and daveman think to themselves:

"*SmarterThanHick and sangha did their best but they're simply no match for José's paroxistic violence*".


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to explain it _again_?  Good Gaea, you're not very bright, are you?
> 
> I showed where stupid people claim that evolution explains the origin of life.  You pouted and refused to accept it, although that in no way changed the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no. You're lying again. You talked about non-existent "sciencers". If you had been honest, and merely stated what you meant (ie "some stupid people think dark matter exists") you would have been challenged. But because you're so dishonest, you had to overstate your case, and make up words like "sciencer"
> 
> It turns out that "sciencer" means "stupid people". If you had just been honest and forthcoming about this, you could have spared yourself embarrassment (I'm assuming you have a sense of shame; something I'm not certain about)
> 
> But I guess I was the one who made a mistake. How dumb was it for me to think that you would be honest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good grief, if you put half as much energy into real thought as you do in twisting words to "prove" you're right and deliberately skewing reality, you might be interesting to talk with.
> 
> However...you don't.  So you're not.
Click to expand...


You're the one who put all the effort into making up lies about people who don't exist (ie "sciencers")

Once again, you've made false claims, and have failed to back them up. All you have is your childish taunts. You have no facts


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> Here is all the text from the post you linked to. Please note that everyone can see that there is no mention of stupid people who think dark matter exists. In fact, there's no mention of dark matter. The post refers to the origins of life, evolution and sciencers, but no mention of "stupid people" and no mention of dark matter
> 
> Once again, the Daveman has lied, and lied badly


WTF?!  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".

You're just making shit up, now, Skippy.   If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.  But that's a common leftist failing.  You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.


----------



## sangha

José;3130593 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *SmarterThanHick*
> This is a common and foolish fallacy made by less intelligent people, being that if two things share anything in common, they are the same and connected.
> Similarly, the theory of evolution, also know as evolution theory, a solid and evidence based predictable and accurate description of how life changes over time, may have the word "evolution" in common with "cosmic evolution", which itself is an unsupported non-evidence-based contrivance not supported by the scientific community, and therefore the two are NOT related, and are not the same.
> 
> One is essentially fact. The other is guesswork.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH, I see... the Big Bang theory (*grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution*), the theory of galaxy formation and development (*grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution*), solar system formation and development (*grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution*) are not the best theories we have to explain the Universe they are just "unsupported guesswork".
> 
> Learn something new everyday... (preferably not from mentally retarded people).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *SmarterThanHick*
> This is a common and foolish fallacy made by less intelligent people, being that if two things share anything in common, they are the same and connected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's a common trait of scientific illiterate people to not have the slightest idea about what a scientific paradigm is (even though they are not scientific theories in and of themselves).
> 
> You and sangha fit this aspect of scientific illiteracy to a T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *SmarterThanHick*
> Here's an easy way to prove this point: can you reference a single peer-reviewed published scientific article that has reviewed or done research in the field of "cosmic evolution" that deals with abiogenesis? A single paper? This is the standard of ascertaining whether the scientific community accepts a concept: seeing what actual published scientists say about it. For example, I can produce hundreds of thousands on the theory of evolution. Can you produce one regarding your "paradigm" even though you can't actually define what "scientific paradigm" means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scientific paradigms that *GUIDE *the scientific endeavor are not the subject of study of scientists, Einstein!! They are the underlying structures, the "background" upon which scientific theories are "built".
> 
> They are the subject of a branch of philosophy named "*Philosophy of Science*".
> 
> When I say the evolutionary paradigm is universally accepted by science is because all the major theories of cosmology (*Big Bang*, *formation of galaxies*\*solar systems*), biology (*Evolution*), history (*development of human civilisations*) accept the fact that during the course of the history of the Universe part of its constituent matter, energy and life have gradually moved from lower to higher complexity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *SmarterThanHick*
> It's funny because you prove yourself wrong in two sentences. You say it's a solid concept "universally accepted by modern science" and then you point out a major gap in it. Here's a little hint: the scientific community generally does not "universally accept" things with large gaps in them. We don't have "half a theory of gravity".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell this to the scientific community of cosmologists who accept the Big Bang as the most likely explanation for the arisal of primordial complexity in the cosmos *DESPITE THE MAJOR GAP* regarding the first phase of the phenomenon.
Click to expand...


Oh. My. God!!!

He admits that his whole "paradigm" isn't science (he says it only guides science) but then goes on to claim that this paradigm is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED by science, even though science does not "accept" or "approve" of philosophies.

He also claims that scientists "accept the fact  that during the course of the history of the Universe part of its constituent matter, energy and life have gradually moved from lower to higher complexity."

This moron thinks that the decaying body of a dead animal is more complex and has more energy than the animal had when it was alive. But then I remember this is the same guy who said that The Theory of Evolution was related to the way solar systems form. At least, until he admitted that they were unrelated

At least, until he started trying to claim that they were related again (by way of the non-scientific paradigm that scientists haven't even studied, but have UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED)


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no. You're lying again. You talked about non-existent "sciencers". If you had been honest, and merely stated what you meant (ie "some stupid people think dark matter exists") you would have been challenged. But because you're so dishonest, you had to overstate your case, and make up words like "sciencer"
> 
> It turns out that "sciencer" means "stupid people". If you had just been honest and forthcoming about this, you could have spared yourself embarrassment (I'm assuming you have a sense of shame; something I'm not certain about)
> 
> But I guess I was the one who made a mistake. How dumb was it for me to think that you would be honest?
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, if you put half as much energy into real thought as you do in twisting words to "prove" you're right and deliberately skewing reality, you might be interesting to talk with.
> 
> However...you don't.  So you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who put all the effort into making up lies about people who don't exist (ie "sciencers")
> 
> Once again, you've made false claims, and have failed to back them up. All you have is your childish taunts. You have no facts
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.  You'd rather claim I lied than accept the fact that there are stupid people on your side.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is all the text from the post you linked to. Please note that everyone can see that there is no mention of stupid people who think dark matter exists. In fact, there's no mention of dark matter. The post refers to the origins of life, evolution and sciencers, but no mention of "stupid people" and no mention of dark matter
> 
> Once again, the Daveman has lied, and lied badly
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?!  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".
Click to expand...


Right. You spoke about sciencers that don't exist, and you spoke about stupid people who agree with me about something (but you don't mention what we agree on)



> You're just making shit up, now, Skippy.   If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.  But that's a common leftist failing.  You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.



So now you want to deny that you made up some nonsense about sciencers?

Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?

Or you can continue to post your childish taunts


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, if you put half as much energy into real thought as you do in twisting words to "prove" you're right and deliberately skewing reality, you might be interesting to talk with.
> 
> However...you don't.  So you're not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who put all the effort into making up lies about people who don't exist (ie "sciencers")
> 
> Once again, you've made false claims, and have failed to back them up. All you have is your childish taunts. You have no facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  You'd rather claim I lied than accept the fact that there are stupid people on your side.
Click to expand...


Once again, you said I denied something that was true. You have yet to post any evidence. All you've done is post, without any explanation, a link to a post where I deny your lie about "sciencers" which do not exist. You made it up. It was a lie.

Once again, the post you link to says nothing about stupid people on my side. When will you post something to back up your claim that I denied "the fact that there are stupid people on my side"?


----------



## Intense

José;3130597 said:
			
		

> And the massacre continues unabated.
> 
> Watching from a distance, Intense and daveman think to themselves:
> 
> "*SmarterThanHick and sangha did their best but they're simply no match for José's paroxistic violence*".



What is up with that? I was out shoveling blowing snow, cut me a break Jose.


----------



## sangha

Intense said:


> José;3130597 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the massacre continues unabated.
> 
> Watching from a distance, Intense and daveman think to themselves:
> 
> "*SmarterThanHick and sangha did their best but they're simply no match for José's paroxistic violence*".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is up with that? I was out shoveling blowing snow, cut me a break Jose.
Click to expand...


Some people lack confidence in their position so to buck up their confidence, they imagine that strangers on the internet are agreeing with them when the truth is, they're out shoveling snow


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is all the text from the post you linked to. Please note that everyone can see that there is no mention of stupid people who think dark matter exists. In fact, there's no mention of dark matter. The post refers to the origins of life, evolution and sciencers, but no mention of "stupid people" and no mention of dark matter
> 
> Once again, the Daveman has lied, and lied badly
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?!  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. You spoke about sciencers that don't exist, and you spoke about stupid people who agree with me about something (but you don't mention what we agree on)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just making shit up, now, Skippy.   If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.  But that's a common leftist failing.  You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you want to deny that you made up some nonsense about sciencers?
> 
> Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?
> 
> Or you can continue to post your childish taunts
Click to expand...

You're being irrational.  Once again,  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists" as you claim I have.  If you think I have, you'd best be linking it.  I'm getting tired of your nonsense.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who put all the effort into making up lies about people who don't exist (ie "sciencers")
> 
> Once again, you've made false claims, and have failed to back them up. All you have is your childish taunts. You have no facts
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  You'd rather claim I lied than accept the fact that there are stupid people on your side.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you said I denied something that was true. You have yet to post any evidence. All you've done is post, without any explanation, a link to a post where I deny your lie about "sciencers" which do not exist. You made it up. It was a lie.
> 
> Once again, the post you link to says nothing about stupid people on my side. When will you post something to back up your claim that I denied "the fact that there are stupid people on my side"?
Click to expand...

Yawn.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?!  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You spoke about sciencers that don't exist, and you spoke about stupid people who agree with me about something (but you don't mention what we agree on)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just making shit up, now, Skippy.   If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.  But that's a common leftist failing.  You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you want to deny that you made up some nonsense about sciencers?
> 
> Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?
> 
> Or you can continue to post your childish taunts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're being irrational.  Once again,  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists" as you claim I have.  If you think I have, you'd best be linking it.  I'm getting tired of your nonsense.
Click to expand...


OK. So you didn't say anything about "stupid people who think dark matter exists". I was wrong about that

So what are you claiming I denied? In the post you linked to (without any explanation) the only thing I deny is the beliefs of "sciencers" because "sciencers" don't exist. You just made the term up. IOW, you lied

So, are you going to tell us what true fact I have denied, and support your claim with a quote (and an explanation) or will you do what you usually do, and run away from your own words?


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  You'd rather claim I lied than accept the fact that there are stupid people on your side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you said I denied something that was true. You have yet to post any evidence. All you've done is post, without any explanation, a link to a post where I deny your lie about "sciencers" which do not exist. You made it up. It was a lie.
> 
> Once again, the post you link to says nothing about stupid people on my side. When will you post something to back up your claim that I denied "the fact that there are stupid people on my side"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn.
Click to expand...


Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish one-liner.

Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest


----------



## Intense

sangha said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your actions corrupts your soul.
> 
> You're not even honest enough to admit to the venom that you post. Like a typical christian, you want to falsely depict yourself as a victim. You are just SO BURDENED by your laughable "obligation"
> 
> If you can't hack it, give it up, you nancy-boy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this? The Paper Chase? You are deluding yourself, thinking that you impress by talking down to everyone, Sangha. You don't. Neither do you respect people, or the Site, or yourself, knowing the damage that you do at times. It would be wrong for you to over play your hand. You need to work on those social skills, bro. It's not about judging or condemning you, it's about learning from your mistakes, and being better for it. Something only you can do, it can't be done for you. My Soul, is not within your reach Sangha, nor would I seek to damage yours. I am not depicting myself as a Victim, either. A reference to a thick skin, in context, is a reference to me handling anything you choose to throw at me. I'm a Alpha Type, alway's have been. I respect boundaries too, how about you trying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here we have more of the meaningless drivel that Intense thinks is profound. He makes a reference to an irrelevant movie and then talks down to me for talking down to him.
Click to expand...


Sangha, The meaningless drivel is coming from you. What it translates to, for me, is a bastardized application of the Socratic Method, compounded by your distortions, false assumptions, lack of character,  and misleading rants. Again, your position is a fail, and your only recourse to insult and divert the Thread.



> The Socratic method (or Method of Elenchus or Socratic Debate), named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas.[1] It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defence of one point of view is pitted against the defence of another; one participant may lead another to contradict him in some way, strengthening the inquirer's own point. (Think about the question before you speak.)
> 
> The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. The extent to which this method is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding, is called the method of maieutics. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method. Perhaps oddly, however, Aristotle also claimed that this method is not suitable for ethics. Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *sangha*
> Oh. My. God!!!
> 
> He admits that his whole "paradigm" isn't science (he says it only guides science) but then goes on to claim that this paradigm is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED by science, even though science does not "accept" or "approve" of philosophies.
> 
> He also claims that scientists "accept the fact that during the course of the history of the Universe part of its constituent matter, energy and life have gradually moved from lower to higher complexity."
> 
> This moron thinks that the decaying body of a dead animal is more complex and has more energy than the animal had when it was alive. But then I remember this is the same guy who said that The Theory of Evolution was related to the way solar systems form. At least, until he admitted that they were unrelated
> 
> At least, until he started trying to claim that they were related again (by way of the non-scientific paradigm that scientists haven't even studied, but have UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED)



Sangha, 

The notion of cosmic evolution, aka, evolutionary paradigm (*some of the energy, matter and life in the Universe evolve from lower to higher levels of complexity*) is *OBVIOUSLY* embedded into the Big Bang theory, galaxy, star and solar system formation and biological evolution.

I would say it's so *SCANDALOUSLY* present in them that embedded is probably a "poor choice of words" (here we go again lol)

Whether or not a particular scientist chooses to deny what's in front of his eyes is his problem and does not change this fact a bit.

Edit: And trust me no scientist in his right mind denies it.


----------



## sangha

José;3130903 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *sangha*
> Oh. My. God!!!
> 
> He admits that his whole "paradigm" isn't science (he says it only guides science) but then goes on to claim that this paradigm is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED by science, even though science does not "accept" or "approve" of philosophies.
> 
> He also claims that scientists "accept the fact that during the course of the history of the Universe part of its constituent matter, energy and life have gradually moved from lower to higher complexity."
> 
> This moron thinks that the decaying body of a dead animal is more complex and has more energy than the animal had when it was alive. But then I remember this is the same guy who said that The Theory of Evolution was related to the way solar systems form. At least, until he admitted that they were unrelated
> 
> At least, until he started trying to claim that they were related again (by way of the non-scientific paradigm that scientists haven't even studied, but have UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sangha,
> 
> The notion of cosmic evolution, aka, evolutionary paradigm (*some of the energy, matter and life in the Universe evolve from lower to higher levels of complexity*) is *OBVIOUSLY* embedded into the Big Bang theory, galaxy, star and solar system formation and biological evolution.
> 
> I would say it's so *SCANDALOUSLY* present in them that embedded is probably a "poor choice of words" (here we go again lol)
> 
> Whether or not a particular scientist chooses to deny what's in front of his eyes is his problem and does not change this fact a bit.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Now the wingnut wants us to think that his unsicientific paradigm is so obvious that no has even mentioned it. 

The universe is filled with complex things that are degrading into something less complex.



> Edit: And trust me no scientist in his right mind denies it



You know that every scientist agrees with you even though you say no scientist has ever studied your paradigm


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *sangha*
> The universe is filled with complex things that are degrading into something less complex.



The evolutionary paradigm refers to the *BIG PICTURE*, sangha, not the individual galaxy, solar system or human being!!!!

*Examples*:

When the theory of galaxy formation states that in the Universe's distant past there were only clouds of hydrogen and helium and now there are billions of galaxies they are implicitly saying that part of the matter evolved from simpler to more complex levels of organisation.

When evolutionists state that the Cambrian animal "Pikaia" or Haikouichthys are the oldest known ancestors of modern vertebrates, the probable ancestors of modern primates and the human species they are obviously stating that part of the planet's biomass increased exponentially in complexity in the last 500 million years *regardless of individual "Pikaias" and humans being born and dying during this period of time*!!


----------



## sangha

José;3130966 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *sangha*
> The universe is filled with complex things that are degrading into something less complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolutionary paradigm refers to the *BIG PICTURE*, sangha, not the individual galaxy, solar system or human being!!!!
> 
> *Examples*:
> 
> When the theory of galaxy formation states that in the Universe's distant past there were only clouds of hydrogen and helium and now there are billions of galaxies they are implicitly saying that part of the matter evolved from simpler to more complex levels of organisation.
> 
> When evolutionists state that the Cambrian animal "Pikaia" or Haikouichthys are the oldest known ancestors of modern vertebrates, the probable ancestors of modern primates and the human species they are obviously stating that part of the planet's biomass increased exponentially in complexity in the last 500 million years *regardless of individual "Pikaias" and humans being born and dying during this period of time*!!
Click to expand...


In the wingnut world of Jose, galaxies never fall apart and are never destroyed. I would know that if I knew about the wingnut worlds *BIG PICTURE*


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You spoke about sciencers that don't exist, and you spoke about stupid people who agree with me about something (but you don't mention what we agree on)
> 
> 
> 
> So now you want to deny that you made up some nonsense about sciencers?
> 
> Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?
> 
> Or you can continue to post your childish taunts
> 
> 
> 
> You're being irrational.  Once again,  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists" as you claim I have.  If you think I have, you'd best be linking it.  I'm getting tired of your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. So you didn't say anything about "stupid people who think dark matter exists". I was wrong about that
> 
> So what are you claiming I denied? In the post you linked to (without any explanation) the only thing I deny is the beliefs of "sciencers" because "sciencers" don't exist. You just made the term up. IOW, you lied
> 
> So, are you going to tell us what true fact I have denied, and support your claim with a quote (and an explanation) or will you do what you usually do, and run away from your own words?
Click to expand...

I give up.  You win teh internets.  You didn't say what you said.  Congratulations.

It's my own fault, really.  I've read the quote "Never argue with a fool; he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience", but I didn't apply it.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're being irrational.  Once again,  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists" as you claim I have.  If you think I have, you'd best be linking it.  I'm getting tired of your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. So you didn't say anything about "stupid people who think dark matter exists". I was wrong about that
> 
> So what are you claiming I denied? In the post you linked to (without any explanation) the only thing I deny is the beliefs of "sciencers" because "sciencers" don't exist. You just made the term up. IOW, you lied
> 
> So, are you going to tell us what true fact I have denied, and support your claim with a quote (and an explanation) or will you do what you usually do, and run away from your own words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I give up.  You win teh internets.  You didn't say what you said.  Congratulations.
> 
> It's my own fault, really.  I've read the quote "Never argue with a fool; he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience", but I didn't apply it.
Click to expand...


Dave, you falsely claimed that I denied that there were stupid people on my side. Now why don't you back up your words?

If you're going to passive-aggresively continue to claim that I said that, the least you could do is post the quote of mine where I deny that there are stupid people on my side. So far, all you posted was a link to a post where I deny the beliefs of "sciencers"

And while we're at it, will you ever admit that your use of the word "sciencers" was dishonest?

Or will you run away from your words as you are trying to do now?


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you said I denied something that was true. You have yet to post any evidence. All you've done is post, without any explanation, a link to a post where I deny your lie about "sciencers" which do not exist. You made it up. It was a lie.
> 
> Once again, the post you link to says nothing about stupid people on my side. When will you post something to back up your claim that I denied "the fact that there are stupid people on my side"?
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish one-liner.
> 
> Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest
Click to expand...


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. So you didn't say anything about "stupid people who think dark matter exists". I was wrong about that
> 
> So what are you claiming I denied? In the post you linked to (without any explanation) the only thing I deny is the beliefs of "sciencers" because "sciencers" don't exist. You just made the term up. IOW, you lied
> 
> So, are you going to tell us what true fact I have denied, and support your claim with a quote (and an explanation) or will you do what you usually do, and run away from your own words?
> 
> 
> 
> I give up.  You win teh internets.  You didn't say what you said.  Congratulations.
> 
> It's my own fault, really.  I've read the quote "Never argue with a fool; he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience", but I didn't apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dave, you falsely claimed that I denied that there were stupid people on my side. Now why don't you back up your words?
> 
> If you're going to passive-aggresively continue to claim that I said that, the least you could do is post the quote of mine where I deny that there are stupid people on my side. So far, all you posted was a link to a post where I deny the beliefs of "sciencers"
> 
> And while we're at it, will you ever admit that your use of the word "sciencers" was dishonest?
> 
> Or will you run away from your words as you are trying to do now?
Click to expand...


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish one-liner.
> 
> Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish taunt.

Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give up.  You win teh internets.  You didn't say what you said.  Congratulations.
> 
> It's my own fault, really.  I've read the quote "Never argue with a fool; he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience", but I didn't apply it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dave, you falsely claimed that I denied that there were stupid people on my side. Now why don't you back up your words?
> 
> If you're going to passive-aggresively continue to claim that I said that, the least you could do is post the quote of mine where I deny that there are stupid people on my side. So far, all you posted was a link to a post where I deny the beliefs of "sciencers"
> 
> And while we're at it, will you ever admit that your use of the word "sciencers" was dishonest?
> 
> Or will you run away from your words as you are trying to do now?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish taunt.

Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest


----------



## daveman

I've backed up my claims.  You keep saying you said something different.  

Meanwhile:


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> I've backed up my claims.  You keep saying you said something different.



Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish taunt.

Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest


----------



## HUGGY

daveman said:


> I've backed up my claims.  You keep saying you said something different.
> 
> Meanwhile:



You two have destroyed this thread..Thanks!.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've backed up my claims.  You keep saying you said something different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish taunt.
> 
> Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest
Click to expand...

If sanga didn't declare that everything he disagreed with was a lie, he'd have nothing to say.


----------



## daveman

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've backed up my claims.  You keep saying you said something different.
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You two have destroyed this thread..Thanks!.
Click to expand...

Oh, I admit it's no pinnacle of human thought like The List, but it's okay.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Would everyone please stop calling others liars or dishonest already.  If you need help on this subject, click here.

I have not been following the dark matter debate at all, but this appears correct:


rdean said:


> Measuring "something" PROVES that there is "something" there to be measured.  Scientists have given that "something" a name.





			
				José;3130593 said:
			
		

> OH, I see... the Big Bang theory (*grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution*), the theory of galaxy formation and development (*grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution*), solar system formation and development (*grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution*) are not the best theories we have to explain the Universe they are just "unsupported guesswork".


Following your usual trend of getting easily confused if things share any aspect in common, this time you decided to ignore which came first.  Let's review, once again.  Things like the big bang and evolution are science.  They were determined based on observing the physical universe, acquiring reproducible data, and drawing logical conclusions from it.  Your "paradigm" is philosophy, which uses scientific concepts to propose an idea that is not actually supported by scientific methods. 

With that in mind, it should be obvious to you at this point that the big bang theory is not grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution, having not been influenced by it in any way during the formation of the theory.  It came about in an independent manner, and was later included in the "paradigm" by philosophers who wanted to include it.  Nonetheless, the paradigm is still philosophy.  I could similarly create a religion that states God made the Big Bang and Evolution. Just because the philosophy uses scientific knowledge does not make it scientific. 



			
				José;3130593 said:
			
		

> Well, it's a common trait of scientific illiterate people to not have the slightest idea about what a scientific paradigm is (even though they are not scientific theories in and of themselves).


While this pathetic insult is laughable, I can't help but notice you yourself, "expert" in all things paradigm, still haven't been able to define it for us.  

Well?  What is a "scientific paradigm?"  You continue claiming you understand it and insinuating you are scientifically literate, yet you continue to fail to provide evidence to ANYTHING you're saying.  

I'll give you a hint though: wikipedia has a portion of an article on what that means, and it too shows you to be clueless. We can similarly use a scientific dictionary to find it means "a pattern that may serve as a model or example."  Model, example, pattern.  Not truth.  Not fact.  Not supported understanding.  It's a pattern.  

Returning to your original point and ignoring the fact that you used the term evolutionary theory completely wrong, it's easy to show how abiogenesis can be the "achiles' heel" of ANY pattern or model. In short: your point is worthless. 

And yet there's STILL an easy way for you to prove me wrong: simply show me what published research has been done in the "paradigm" of cosmic evolution.  Show me a scientist who has provided evidence that shows THAT model is correct.  Show me a single research article whose focus is guided by cosmic evolution. 

But you haven't done that.  

And you won't.

Because scientists don't publish scientific articles and do scientific experimentation on philosophy.  



			
				José;3130593 said:
			
		

> They are the subject of a branch of philosophy named "*Philosophy of Science*".


It's like you're almost starting to catch on now by acknowledging it is philosophy of a non-philosophical field. The famous quote regarding the philosophy of science is "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." Nevertheless, philosophy is not scientific, nor are its conclusions deemed as scientifically valid by the scientific community.  And when I reference the scientific community, I want it to be clear I'm talking about the academic institution which you are clearly of no part.



			
				José;3130597 said:
			
		

> And the massacre continues unabated.
> 
> Watching from a distance, Intense and daveman think to themselves:
> 
> "*SmarterThanHick and sangha did their best but they're simply no match for José's paroxistic violence*".


I'm pretty sure your'e the only one thinking that, based on the massive insecurities you continue to exhibit in this thread.



So let's recap what we have so far:

First you egregiously misused the term evolutionary theory, meaning you either had no clue what you were talking about and back-pedaled, or make it a regular habit to use completely inaccurate terms
In context, your original post stated that evolutionary theory was somehow broken because it couldn't account for abiogenesis, even though it has nothing to do with abiogenesis
You then backpedaled to recenter your focus on a philosophy known as Cosmic Evolution, which is not scientific
All the while, you didn't realize that the philosophy of cosmic evolution DOES account for abiogenesis, meaning your original claim was STILL wrong even after the backpedaling
You then go on a rather long and insecure rant trying to save face, failing at every opportunity
This included claiming that known scientific theories came from your philosophy, when the exact opposite was true
Meanwhile, I am capable of supporting every single thing I say, and you have yet to present a single primary literature article on the research behind cosmic evolution
Wow, that's more fail than I've seen in a long time.


----------



## HUGGY

daveman said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've backed up my claims.  You keep saying you said something different.
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You two have destroyed this thread..Thanks!.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I admit it's no pinnacle of human thought like The List, but it's okay.
Click to expand...


"The List" is not supposed to be an intelligent discussion thread.  This one started out with some hope of sharing views with some respect.


----------



## daveman

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two have destroyed this thread..Thanks!.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I admit it's no pinnacle of human thought like The List, but it's okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The List" is not supposed to be an intelligent discussion thread.  This one started out with some hope of sharing views with some respect.
Click to expand...

I shared an experience I had.  Somebody got all butthurt about it.  Shit happens.


----------



## HUGGY

daveman said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I admit it's no pinnacle of human thought like The List, but it's okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The List" is not supposed to be an intelligent discussion thread.  This one started out with some hope of sharing views with some respect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shared an experience I had.  Somebody got all butthurt about it.  Shit happens.
Click to expand...


Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?

Shit doesn't "just happen".  You deposit it intentionally.  Thanks.  Grow up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.  What they are measuring is "belief".  That belief could be any belief.  If they believed "holding a four leaf clover" brought "good things", then why wouldn't they get the same results?
> 
> Proof of the existence of "God" has to be more than just a belief.  That leaves us back where we started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that belief in God proved anything. I just pointed out that measuring something does not prove something else, and I am guessing you agree with me about that.
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the FACT that Republicans believe government is bad and government fails at everything is a FACT because when they are in power, they make sure it fails.  That proves their belief.  The evidence is that every time Republicans are in power, the economy falters and the country falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is now officially jumped the shark, rdean has ionvoked the dreaded Republicans to prove he is loosing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you said:
> 
> *We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?  Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists.*
> 
> Then you posted a site where they measure belief and said:
> 
> *I never said that belief in God proved anything. I just pointed out that measuring something does not prove something else, and I am guessing you agree with me about that.*
> 
> Who even knows why you continue to write such nonsense.  Measuring "something" PROVES that there is "something" there to be measured.  Scientists have given that "something" a name.  Dark matter.  Perhaps you should write a paper and submit it to a couple of science journals and explain to them what it should be called.
> 
> You are desperately trying to manufacture an argument so you can have one of your "Ah Ha!" moments.  The problem is you are the only one going "Ah Ha!"
> 
> Well, go ahead with that "Ah Ha!" belief and measure it.  Tell us what it proves.
Click to expand...


No.

Scientists look around and see something that does not make sense. They make a hypothesis to explain what they see. They call that hypothesis dark matter, and then see other things that they also cannot explain. While all of these things they cannot explain prove that something is out there it does not prove that that something is dark matter.

I do not have to manufacture an argument when you keep trying to say things that make you look foolish.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> I am reposting this post by QW to show that he was right. He did not say that I was "half right" He said that I was "almost right"
> 
> But he can't say what isn't right
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can measure the "belief in God" because "belief in God" is something that exists. However, the only thing that is proven to exist is a "belief in God"
> 
> Gods' actual existence is unproven and unprovable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are almost right.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sure I can, I just didn't, it is more fun watching you twist in the wind. 

The part you got where you are wrong is where you say God's existence is unprovable.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is all the text from the post you linked to. Please note that everyone can see that there is no mention of stupid people who think dark matter exists. In fact, there's no mention of dark matter. The post refers to the origins of life, evolution and sciencers, but no mention of "stupid people" and no mention of dark matter
> 
> Once again, the Daveman has lied, and lied badly
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?!  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".
> 
> You're just making shit up, now, Skippy.   If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.  But that's a common leftist failing.  You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.
Click to expand...


He thinks you and I are the same person, probably because he is incapable of ever admitting he is wrong.


----------



## daveman

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The List" is not supposed to be an intelligent discussion thread.  This one started out with some hope of sharing views with some respect.
> 
> 
> 
> I shared an experience I had.  Somebody got all butthurt about it.  Shit happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?
> 
> Shit doesn't "just happen".  You deposit it intentionally.  Thanks.  Grow up.
Click to expand...

Y'know, I hear the Ignore function works just dandy for situations like that.


----------



## daveman

Quantum Windbag said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is all the text from the post you linked to. Please note that everyone can see that there is no mention of stupid people who think dark matter exists. In fact, there's no mention of dark matter. The post refers to the origins of life, evolution and sciencers, but no mention of "stupid people" and no mention of dark matter
> 
> Once again, the Daveman has lied, and lied badly
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?!  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".
> 
> You're just making shit up, now, Skippy.   If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.  But that's a common leftist failing.  You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thinks you and I are the same person, probably because he is incapable of ever admitting he is wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, that and he's just not very bright.


----------



## geauxtohell

As I don't have the time/patience to read through a gajillion posts (most of which will be the same, lame talking points), I'll just jump in here.  

It's pretty simple, really:

Science is a man-made venture to describe the natural world.  As such, like the law, it is governed by man-made rules like the "Scientific Method".

The rules of science do not permit the idea of a supernatural power to be entertained.  Science is mute (neither for nor against) the concept of God.

Therefore, there doesn't really need to be a conflict.  However, there still is.  While the evolutionists have a few bomb-throwers like Richard Dawkins.  Most of the bad actors come from the Creationism/Intelligent Design side of the house.

If anybody truly wants to see how desperate the modern creationists are (and how desperate), read the opinion of the judge at Dover.

If anyone really wants to see an enlightening discussion of evolution, science, and religion; take the time to watch Dr. Ken Miller discuss it here:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg[/ame]

Every times these threads pop up, I post Dr. Miller's lecture at Case Western.  Few take the time to watch it and continue to spout off their silly talking points.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daveman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?!  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".
> 
> You're just making shit up, now, Skippy.   If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.  But that's a common leftist failing.  You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks you and I are the same person, probably because he is incapable of ever admitting he is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that and he's just not very bright.
Click to expand...


True


----------



## rdean

geauxtohell said:


> As I don't have the time/patience to read through a gajillion posts (most of which will be the same, lame talking points), I'll just jump in here.
> 
> It's pretty simple, really:
> 
> Science is a man-made venture to describe the natural world.  As such, like the law, it is governed by man-made rules like the "Scientific Method".
> 
> The rules of science do not permit the idea of a supernatural power to be entertained.  Science is mute (neither for nor against) the concept of God.
> 
> Therefore, there doesn't really need to be a conflict.  However, there still is.  While the evolutionists have a few bomb-throwers like Richard Dawkins.  Most of the bad actors come from the Creationism/Intelligent Design side of the house.
> 
> If anybody truly wants to see how desperate the modern creationists are (and how desperate), read the opinion of the judge at Dover.
> 
> If anyone really wants to see an enlightening discussion of evolution, science, and religion; take the time to watch Dr. Ken Miller discuss it here:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
> 
> Every times these threads pop up, I post Dr. Miller's lecture at Case Western.  Few take the time to watch it and continue to spout off their silly talking points.



This is a great lecture.  Nice that he goes after "transitional forms" and "irreducible complexity".  Take both of those away from "magical creation" and the entire proposition falls completely apart.


----------



## Old Rocks

daveman said:


> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.



evolution and abiogenisis are two differant subjects.


----------



## Madeline

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evolution and abiogenisis are two differant subjects.
Click to expand...


Are there "non-sciencers"?  How do they account for such things as the common cold?  The evil eye?


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can your conclusion be proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we call it "outer space".
Click to expand...


Wow.  So it has been proven that taking away every bit of energy and matter (is that a scientific concept from some peer-reviewed study?) results in "nothing?"

I'd like to read the study that proves it.  Can you find it?


----------



## asterism

sangha said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different "sciencers" believe in different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The obvious question is "Why does asterism believe that "sciencers" there is no God when there's no evidence to support it?"
> 
> Answer - christians lie
Click to expand...


You wanna try that again?  You made no sense there.


----------



## asterism

sangha said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different "sciencers" believe in different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of the disparate focuses on science and religion, as well as how some on either side pursue their chosen path exclusively.  That doesn't make either side correct.
> 
> That said, your own lack of collecting and analyzing evidence (like your belief in the conclusion of this poll without any actual study on your part) says a lot about you.  You have faith in something even you don't understand.  How funny is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you say that "sciencers" (a made up term) believe that God doesn't exist when you know that is a lie?
Click to expand...


I guess I've been criticized too much for having Faith while at the same time believing the evidence supports evolution and quantum mechanics.  It's not a lie, my college astronomy professor challenged me to a formal debate on evolution and used it to disprove creationism as what he called, "the first domino of faith to fall."  It was his belief that if Heaven existed we'd have seen evidence of it by now since we can measure energy from the outer reaches of the known universe.  When I said that I thought creationism and evolution were completely compatible he read from a Baptist leaflet telling me what I believe.  I then read from the Book of Genesis and explained how there was nothing "false" about it.  He, like you, would not accept my stated beliefs and went back to his cherry-picked sources to again assert that I was lying.

The panel declared me the winner because he couldn't make his point without impugning me his opponent.  I was annoyed because I won on a technicality and not the merits of my argument.  But a win is a win.  Perhaps you've not experienced such "sciencers" (I like that term and I'm glad the English language is flexible enough to allow the creation of new terms) and therefore can't accept that they exist.  They do despite your opinion.


----------



## daveman

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evolution and abiogenisis are two differant subjects.
Click to expand...

I know, as I've made quite plain throughout this entire thread.

However...not everyone knows they're different...including some who don't believe in creation.


----------



## asterism

Intense said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter.  What you have left is "nothing".  Nothing:  The most extreme form of "cold".  We do not measure "cold".  What we measure is how much or how little heat there is.  It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can your conclusion be proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you stop the flow of protons, neutrons and electrons? Some one once had a Thread about proving that Time exists. Great Thread. There is alway's where we were, where we are and where we are going as opposed to where we think we are going. Perspectives and limitations change with knowledge. When speaking on Religion or Science, or Politics, there are common factors that seem to always trip us up. That is my whole point.
Click to expand...


Yep.  Although I am heartened by the fact that the scientists I'm debating in this thread are actually not very competent.  This is like doing the long jump at the Special Olympics.  Even if I win....


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dark Matter was questioned in a previous post and and that question was answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite poorly, too.
> 
> *"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."
> 
> Um, the same can be said about Faith.  *
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in the boy scouts, many years ago, we went on a 9 day camp out.  The scoutmaster's 7 year old son came along.  One morning, we woke up to the sound of that poor child beating a tin pan with a metal spoon in the middle of the camp.  Because all the older kids were spending their days earning merit badges, this child felt alone and unwanted.  So he was just trying to get a little attention.
> 
> You have just been nominated for the "Tin Pan and Metal Spoon" award.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...8-science-is-as-a-religion-8.html#post3129613
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like I struck a nerve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."
> 
> Um, the same can be said about Faith.  *
> 
> Really?
> 
> Perhaps you could share a few "examples"?
Click to expand...




> Scientific validation of the efficacy of prayer in relation to health remains in its infancy. Many of the early studies reflect a positive bias in research design in which the efficacy of prayer was often judged only on the basis of predefined positive outcomes, with no provision made for negative ones.



eMJA: Prayer as medicine: how much have we learned?

Certainly not a proven fact, but there is evidence.


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different "sciencers" believe in different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of the disparate focuses on science and religion, as well as how some on either side pursue their chosen path exclusively.  That doesn't make either side correct.
> 
> That said, your own lack of collecting and analyzing evidence (like your belief in the conclusion of this poll without any actual study on your part) says a lot about you.  You have faith in something even you don't understand.  How funny is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methodology - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> At least they have a "methodology".  With them, I have more faith than religion, which has nothing but bizarre and unbelievable fables.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics.  That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.

So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.  



rdean said:


> Do you really believe in "Noah's Ark" and "The Garden of Eden"?



I do.  As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary.  I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites.  I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood.


----------



## Madeline

Why can't people separate their faith in God from their confidence in science?  I feel as if we're debating whether musicans can also read.  I still don't get the connection.


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It's a "lack of belief".
> 
> Think of "heat and cold".  Heat is energy.  Cold is a lack of heat.  Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
> 
> Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence.  Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, I have no mystical nor occult beliefs.
> 
> Angels and spirits are as likely to exit as leprechauns and water sprites.  In fact, the evidence for all supernatural beings existence is "equal".
Click to expand...


Even a blind squirrel finds a nut.  I've long advocated for more tolerance in religious circles especially towards those who believe in the supernatural like ghosts, aliens, and psychic powers.  "Hey, we believe a virgin got pregnant without any sex.  You want kooky?  THAT is kooky."


----------



## asterism

Madeline said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I am simple-minded.  What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.
> 
> What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says that they do, asterism?  You speak as if teaching science will impair faith in God, but I dun see how.
> 
> The two -- faith and science -- serve different needs.  Why would meeting one satisfy the other?
Click to expand...


I don't speak that way and I don't hold that view.  I think MORE information and knowledge is beneficial, never less.  I argued (successfully) to expand the teaching of evolution at one of the religious schools my kids went to despite the opposition who said it would just lead to questions of Faith by the kids.

Science and Faith are completely different and not mutually exclusive.



----


The special blue font?  Really?


----------



## asterism

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The List" is not supposed to be an intelligent discussion thread.  This one started out with some hope of sharing views with some respect.
> 
> 
> 
> I shared an experience I had.  Somebody got all butthurt about it.  Shit happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?
> 
> Shit doesn't "just happen".  You deposit it intentionally.  Thanks.  Grow up.
Click to expand...


Get back to us when you admonish the other party in that pissing match.  Of course he'll call you a liar, but at least then you'll have some credibility in playing threadmother.


----------



## Madeline

LOL @ "threadmother".


----------



## asterism

Madeline said:


> Why can't people separate their faith in God from their confidence in science?  I feel as if we're debating whether musicans can also read.  I still don't get the connection.



I can, Daveman can, Intense can.  You haven't been paying attention?


----------



## Madeline

asterism said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't people separate their faith in God from their confidence in science?  I feel as if we're debating whether musicans can also read.  I still don't get the connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can, Daveman can, Intense can.  You haven't been paying attention?
Click to expand...


I wasn't really addressing you, asterism.  I know most people can; I should not have left the impression I didn't think anyone of faith was comfy with science.  

I guess I'm confused as to why PC feels science is in any way antagonistic to anyone's faith.  Seems so irrational....as if "believing" in astrophysics diminishes anyone's need for God?


----------



## westwall

Madeline said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't people separate their faith in God from their confidence in science?  I feel as if we're debating whether musicans can also read.  I still don't get the connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can, Daveman can, Intense can.  You haven't been paying attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't really addressing you, asterism.  I know most people can; I should not have left the impression I didn't think anyone of faith was comfy with science.
> 
> I guess I'm confused as to why PC feels science is in any way antagonistic to anyone's faith.  Seems so irrational....as if "believing" in astrophysics diminishes anyone's need for God?
Click to expand...





Actually most atheists can't seperate it out.  In their view if a person is religious by definition they must also be irrational and mentally unbalanced, thus incapable of the _ability_ to engage in a rigorous scientific discussion.   This will extend accross many lines of thought as well.  rdean, for instance will _assume_ that if you are a "denier" of AGW theory you *must* be a religious fanatic.


----------



## HUGGY

asterism said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I shared an experience I had.  Somebody got all butthurt about it.  Shit happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?
> 
> Shit doesn't "just happen".  You deposit it intentionally.  Thanks.  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get back to us when you admonish the other party in that pissing match.  Of course he'll call you a liar, but at least then you'll have some credibility in playing threadmother.
Click to expand...


THREADMOTHER!!!!!?????      

I was not taking sides in the mindless argument.  The DaveBoy has taken over the CumHogs roll of threadkiller.  It isn't about his pussy flap slapfest with anyone in particular..It is more about me enjoying the few threads that caught my interest over the weekend and finding them cluttered with shit.  OK...so I singled out BoyDave..Big Whoop!  I thought he could handle it.  I wasn't concerned about his fan club.


----------



## Madeline

Rdean can be a little pedantic.  I'm not an atheist but I doubt he's typical.

And just what is "AGW theory"?  Global warming?


----------



## Madeline

HUGGY said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?
> 
> Shit doesn't "just happen".  You deposit it intentionally.  Thanks.  Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to us when you admonish the other party in that pissing match.  Of course he'll call you a liar, but at least then you'll have some credibility in playing threadmother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THREADMOTHER!!!!!?????
> 
> I was not taking sides in the mindless argument.  The DaveBoy has taken over the CumHogs roll of threadkiller.  It isn't about his pussy flap slapfest with anyone in particular..It is more about me enjoying the few threads that caught my interest over the weekend and finding them cluttered with shit.  OK...so I singled out BoyDave..Big Whoop!  I thought he could handle it.  I wasn't concerned about his fan club.
Click to expand...


O c'mon.  "Threadmother" is a fabulous new word.  You know you like it.

Dun be a new word denier, now, Huggy.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Madeline said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to us when you admonish the other party in that pissing match.  Of course he'll call you a liar, but at least then you'll have some credibility in playing threadmother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THREADMOTHER!!!!!?????
> 
> I was not taking sides in the mindless argument.  The DaveBoy has taken over the CumHogs roll of threadkiller.  It isn't about his pussy flap slapfest with anyone in particular..It is more about me enjoying the few threads that caught my interest over the weekend and finding them cluttered with shit.  OK...so I singled out BoyDave..Big Whoop!  I thought he could handle it.  I wasn't concerned about his fan club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O c'mon.  "Threadmother" is a fabulous new word.  You know you like it.
> 
> Dun be a new word denier, now, Huggy.
Click to expand...


it is not new, madeline.

i however am extremely appalled. all the name-calling distracts from the serious discussion about sciencers and how they suck.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

asterism said:


> I guess I've been criticized too much for having Faith while at the same time believing the evidence supports evolution and quantum mechanics.  It's not a lie, my college astronomy professor challenged me to a formal debate on evolution and used it to disprove creationism as what he called, "the first domino of faith to fall."  It was his belief that if Heaven existed we'd have seen evidence of it by now since we can measure energy from the outer reaches of the known universe.  When I said that I thought creationism and evolution were completely compatible he read from a Baptist leaflet telling me what I believe.  I then read from the Book of Genesis and explained how there was nothing "false" about it.  He, like you, would not accept my stated beliefs and went back to his cherry-picked sources to again assert that I was lying.


I'd be happy to knock over the second domino for you. Creationism and evolution are not compatible. The idea of religion proposing how life began and evolution taking it from there works, but generally creationism is the idea that all organisms were created unchanged and unchanging, while evolution says they can change.  People like to make weird mashups where the two can somehow exist, but you'll find these people basically mutiliate evolution into some convoluted shape that goes against evidence to have it match up.

You know you lost that debate, and with that knowledge comes the idea that your beliefs are wrong.  Not a fun place to be in.  I recommend you reconcile to either jettison your scientific knowledge, or change your faith to acknowledge the facts.



asterism said:


> Even a blind squirrel finds a nut.  I've long advocated for more tolerance in religious circles especially towards those who believe in the supernatural like ghosts, aliens, and psychic powers.


The problem with that is that the leaders of religious groups invariably want to control the information and religion.  Acceptance of new ideas is generally not tolerated too well.  Imagine if someone came forth and claimed in a virgin birth today.  How would the church respond and why?



westwall said:


> Actually most atheists can't seperate it out.  In their view if a person is religious by definition they must also be irrational and mentally unbalanced, thus incapable of the _ability_ to engage in a rigorous scientific discussion.   This will extend accross many lines of thought as well.  rdean, for instance will _assume_ that if you are a "denier" of AGW theory you *must* be a religious fanatic.


This right here is better known as a generalization.  I recommend you steer clear of them.


----------



## HUGGY

Madeline said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to us when you admonish the other party in that pissing match.  Of course he'll call you a liar, but at least then you'll have some credibility in playing threadmother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THREADMOTHER!!!!!?????
> 
> I was not taking sides in the mindless argument.  The DaveBoy has taken over the CumHogs roll of threadkiller.  It isn't about his pussy flap slapfest with anyone in particular..It is more about me enjoying the few threads that caught my interest over the weekend and finding them cluttered with shit.  OK...so I singled out BoyDave..Big Whoop!  I thought he could handle it.  I wasn't concerned about his fan club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O c'mon.  "Threadmother" is a fabulous new word.  You know you like it.
> 
> Dun be a new word denier, now, Huggy.
Click to expand...


Your attempt to get every red blooded man on this MB to explore his so called feminine side has not gone un noticed.  

But enough about you...

The OP suggested that there can be a legitimate parallel path of faith and science.  This has been supported by many others drifting back to the old arguments.  I guess in a sense that is what is called progress.  Not enough.  The Christian filter has no place in science other than the study of mental disorders.


----------



## Madeline

L.K.Eder said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> THREADMOTHER!!!!!?????
> 
> I was not taking sides in the mindless argument.  The DaveBoy has taken over the CumHogs roll of threadkiller.  It isn't about his pussy flap slapfest with anyone in particular..It is more about me enjoying the few threads that caught my interest over the weekend and finding them cluttered with shit.  OK...so I singled out BoyDave..Big Whoop!  I thought he could handle it.  I wasn't concerned about his fan club.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O c'mon.  "Threadmother" is a fabulous new word.  You know you like it.
> 
> Dun be a new word denier, now, Huggy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is not new, madeline.
> 
> i however am extremely appalled. all the name-calling distracts from the serious discussion about sciencers and how they suck.
Click to expand...


Tis new!  Tis!  Tis, tis tis.  I checked the urban dictionary and when it did not appear there, I promptly contributed it, stealing asterism's fabulousity for myself.

LOL @ "sciencers".  I may have to go back and contribute that, too.  If I knew what it meant!


----------



## Madeline

HUGGY said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> THREADMOTHER!!!!!?????
> 
> I was not taking sides in the mindless argument.  The DaveBoy has taken over the CumHogs roll of threadkiller.  It isn't about his pussy flap slapfest with anyone in particular..It is more about me enjoying the few threads that caught my interest over the weekend and finding them cluttered with shit.  OK...so I singled out BoyDave..Big Whoop!  I thought he could handle it.  I wasn't concerned about his fan club.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O c'mon.  "Threadmother" is a fabulous new word.  You know you like it.
> 
> Dun be a new word denier, now, Huggy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your attempt to get every red blooded man on this MB to explore his so called feminine side has not gone un noticed.
> 
> But enough about you...
> 
> The OP suggested that there can be a legitimate parallel path of faith and science.  This has been supported by many others drifting back to the old arguments.  I guess in a sense that is what is called progress.  Not enough.  The Christian filter has no place in science other than the study of mental disorders.
Click to expand...


I disagree.  While some christian sects are not well-adjusted, most are.  Faith explores ethics, one's relationship to God and other imponderables.  It is a distinct appetite from science.


----------



## westwall

Madeline said:


> Rdean can be a little pedantic.  I'm not an atheist but I doubt he's typical.
> 
> And just what is "AGW theory"?  Global warming?






Yes it is, and in my experience, which I grant you is anecdotal, it is a common "belief" of the atheists.


----------



## dilloduck

Big Fitz said:


> Like Lutefisk... I choose not to partake of science as religion.  And you're right, that once death takes us, the truth will be known regardless of your faith.



How can dead people know anything and what could they do with the information if they found anything out ?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

I would agree except faith generally explores morals, not ethics.  Small but significant distinction.  Ethics is usually evidence based and logically supported, whereas morals are generally blindly followed because someone told you it's how you ought to act.


----------



## Madeline

westwall said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rdean can be a little pedantic.  I'm not an atheist but I doubt he's typical.
> 
> And just what is "AGW theory"?  Global warming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, and in my experience, which I grant you is anecdotal, it is a common "belief" of the atheists.
Click to expand...


How odd.  Many people question AGW, including scientists....that's why it is still known as a "theory".   I'd expect them to be more anxious to accuse you of rejecting science if you couldn't accept evolution.

O well, I suppose everything has a fashion.


----------



## Madeline

SmarterThanHick said:


> I would agree except faith generally explores morals, not ethics.  Small but significant distinction.  Ethics is usually evidence based and logically supported, whereas morals are generally blindly followed because someone told you it's how you ought to act.



I don't know that I agree....but anyway, I suppose all humans wrestle with just such questions, regardless.


----------



## daveman

asterism said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't people separate their faith in God from their confidence in science?  I feel as if we're debating whether musicans can also read.  I still don't get the connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can, Daveman can, Intense can.  You haven't been paying attention?
Click to expand...


Indeed.  However, some people have a need to buttress their beliefs by denigrating those of others.


----------



## daveman

HUGGY said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?
> 
> Shit doesn't "just happen".  You deposit it intentionally.  Thanks.  Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to us when you admonish the other party in that pissing match.  Of course he'll call you a liar, but at least then you'll have some credibility in playing threadmother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THREADMOTHER!!!!!?????
> 
> I was not taking sides in the mindless argument.  The DaveBoy has taken over the CumHogs roll of threadkiller.  It isn't about his pussy flap slapfest with anyone in particular..It is more about me enjoying the few threads that caught my interest over the weekend and finding them cluttered with shit.  OK...so I singled out BoyDave..Big Whoop!  I thought he could handle it.  I wasn't concerned about his fan club.
Click to expand...

I can handle anything.  Looks like you can't, though.


----------



## HUGGY

Madeline said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> O c'mon.  "Threadmother" is a fabulous new word.  You know you like it.
> 
> Dun be a new word denier, now, Huggy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to get every red blooded man on this MB to explore his so called feminine side has not gone un noticed.
> 
> But enough about you...
> 
> The OP suggested that there can be a legitimate parallel path of faith and science.  This has been supported by many others drifting back to the old arguments.  I guess in a sense that is what is called progress.  Not enough.  The Christian filter has no place in science other than the study of mental disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  While some christian sects are not well-adjusted, most are.  Faith explores ethics, one's relationship to God and other imponderables.  It is a distinct appetite from science.
Click to expand...


It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.     

I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such.  I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE!  He "sounds" like a real scientist.  Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!!  Yet he still stands there with the funny collar.  If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.


----------



## asterism

HUGGY said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?
> 
> Shit doesn't "just happen".  You deposit it intentionally.  Thanks.  Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to us when you admonish the other party in that pissing match.  Of course he'll call you a liar, but at least then you'll have some credibility in playing threadmother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THREADMOTHER!!!!!?????
> 
> I was not taking sides in the mindless argument.  The DaveBoy has taken over the CumHogs roll of threadkiller.  It isn't about his pussy flap slapfest with anyone in particular..It is more about me enjoying the few threads that caught my interest over the weekend and finding them cluttered with shit.  OK...so I singled out BoyDave..Big Whoop!  I thought he could handle it.  I wasn't concerned about his fan club.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the answer.

Can I have a juice box now?


----------



## Madeline

HUGGY said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to get every red blooded man on this MB to explore his so called feminine side has not gone un noticed.
> 
> But enough about you...
> 
> The OP suggested that there can be a legitimate parallel path of faith and science.  This has been supported by many others drifting back to the old arguments.  I guess in a sense that is what is called progress.  Not enough.  The Christian filter has no place in science other than the study of mental disorders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  While some christian sects are not well-adjusted, most are.  Faith explores ethics, one's relationship to God and other imponderables.  It is a distinct appetite from science.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.
> 
> I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such.  I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE!  He "sounds" like a real scientist.  Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!!  Yet he still stands there with the funny collar.  If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.
Click to expand...


The RCC has a terrible history of opposing science.  Just awful.  I think they got around to apologizing to Gallieleo like last year.

I guess they are trying to rehab themselves on that account.


----------



## dilloduck

Madeline said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  While some christian sects are not well-adjusted, most are.  Faith explores ethics, one's relationship to God and other imponderables.  It is a distinct appetite from science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.
> 
> I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such.  I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE!  He "sounds" like a real scientist.  Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!!  Yet he still stands there with the funny collar.  If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The RCC has a terrible history of opposing science.  Just awful.  I think they got around to apologizing to Gallieleo like last year.
> 
> I guess they are trying to rehab themselves on that account.
Click to expand...


It makes for some great drama tho.


----------



## asterism

Madeline said:


> Rdean can be a little pedantic.  I'm not an atheist but I doubt he's typical.
> 
> And just what is "AGW theory"?  Global warming?



AGW is "Anthropogenic Global Warming," a theory that humans are causing the planet to heat.  I disagree with the point that rdean is pedantic.  He is absolutely unconcerned with details of statistics.  The irony is that his own ignorance proves his faith in something that can be proven right or wrong, while he attacks those for having faith in concepts that so far cannot be proven right or wrong.

I mean belief in some sort of God is one thing, but belief that the AAAS is a representative sample of all scientists is something entirely different.


----------



## westwall

Madeline said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rdean can be a little pedantic.  I'm not an atheist but I doubt he's typical.
> 
> And just what is "AGW theory"?  Global warming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, and in my experience, which I grant you is anecdotal, it is a common "belief" of the atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How odd.  Many people question AGW, including scientists....that's why it is still known as a "theory".   I'd expect them to be more anxious to accuse you of rejecting science if you couldn't accept evolution.
> 
> O well, I suppose everything has a fashion.
Click to expand...





All of science is "theory".   The Laws of Gravity are still only theoretical.


----------



## westwall

Madeline said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rdean can be a little pedantic.  I'm not an atheist but I doubt he's typical.
> 
> And just what is "AGW theory"?  Global warming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, and in my experience, which I grant you is anecdotal, it is a common "belief" of the atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How odd.  Many people question AGW, including scientists....that's why it is still known as a "theory".   I'd expect them to be more anxious to accuse you of rejecting science if you couldn't accept evolution.
> 
> O well, I suppose everything has a fashion.
Click to expand...





That;s true.  I think I shocked poor deanies worldview when asked about evolution and I came down firmly in favour of evolutionary theory and was actually able to defend the theory better than deanie could.


----------



## westwall

HUGGY said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to get every red blooded man on this MB to explore his so called feminine side has not gone un noticed.
> 
> But enough about you...
> 
> The OP suggested that there can be a legitimate parallel path of faith and science.  This has been supported by many others drifting back to the old arguments.  I guess in a sense that is what is called progress.  Not enough.  The Christian filter has no place in science other than the study of mental disorders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  While some christian sects are not well-adjusted, most are.  Faith explores ethics, one's relationship to God and other imponderables.  It is a distinct appetite from science.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.
> 
> I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such.  I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE!  He "sounds" like a real scientist.  Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!!  Yet he still stands there with the funny collar.  If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.
Click to expand...




The Catholic Church has employed actual real scientists for over a century Huggy.  Better catch up!


----------



## Madeline

We all have our pet biases, I suppose.  Me, for instance, I always imagine the men of USMB writing in their underwear -- and all of them are cute.


----------



## westwall

Madeline said:


> We all have our pet biases, I suppose.  Me, for instance, I always imagine the men of USMB writing in their underwear -- and all of them are cute.






  Jeez, are you dreaming!


----------



## Intense

SmarterThanHick said:


> I would agree except faith generally explores morals, not ethics.  Small but significant distinction.  Ethics is usually evidence based and logically supported, whereas morals are generally blindly followed because someone told you it's how you ought to act.



I do respect your input, especially related to science, yet I find you doing to religion, exactly what you point out people here are doing to science. Consider that some of what you claim is more related to human nature, rather than being rooted in someones foundation being in science or religion. Fundamentalism, or the abuses of it, even growth patterns, effect both fields. From a practical perspective, I can sight the changes in understanding in Magnetism, Electricity, the value of Ethanol V.S. the damage and cost. Life is a working model where stuff gets passed on, some good, some bad. Theories sometimes get turned on their heads, in Science, in Religion, in life experience. It is in part human Nature to resist change. It's in all of us, but there is more to us than that. There are alway's others that see what we don't, and can make something of it. Ethics and Morals both have a place in Religion.


----------



## Intense

Madeline said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  While some christian sects are not well-adjusted, most are.  Faith explores ethics, one's relationship to God and other imponderables.  It is a distinct appetite from science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.
> 
> I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such.  I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE!  He "sounds" like a real scientist.  Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!!  Yet he still stands there with the funny collar.  If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The RCC has a terrible history of opposing science.  Just awful.  I think they got around to apologizing to Gallieleo like last year.
> 
> I guess they are trying to rehab themselves on that account.
Click to expand...


Sort of like watching snow melt, huh....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, I have no mystical nor occult beliefs.
> 
> Angels and spirits are as likely to exit as leprechauns and water sprites.  In fact, the evidence for all supernatural beings existence is "equal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even a blind squirrel finds a nut.  I've long advocated for more tolerance in religious circles especially towards those who believe in the supernatural like ghosts, aliens, and psychic powers.  "Hey, we believe a virgin got pregnant without any sex.  You want kooky?  THAT is kooky."
Click to expand...


I am guilty of that myself. I openly scoff anytime anyone mentions ghosts, probably because everyone who claims expertise in them talks about stuff I know is bogus as proof that ghosts exist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> I'd be happy to knock over the second domino for you. Creationism and evolution are not compatible. The idea of religion proposing how life began and evolution taking it from there works, but generally creationism is the idea that all organisms were created unchanged and unchanging, while evolution says they can change.  People like to make weird mashups where the two can somehow exist, but you'll find these people basically mutiliate evolution into some convoluted shape that goes against evidence to have it match up.
> 
> You know you lost that debate, and with that knowledge comes the idea that your beliefs are wrong.  Not a fun place to be in.  I recommend you reconcile to either jettison your scientific knowledge, or change your faith to acknowledge the facts.


[/quote]

Why do people have the need to restrict the opposition to narrow definitions that make it impossible to argue a position rationally? Even Wikipedia doesna't agree with your definition, even if it acknowledges it.



> *Creationism* is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural  being. However, the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously  motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular much  of evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.[2] As science developed from the 18th century onwards, various views developed which aimed to reconcile science with the Genesis creation narrative.[3] At this time those holding that species  had been separately created were generally called "advocates of  creation" but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private  correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creationevolution controversy developed, the term "anti-evolutionists" became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term "creationism" first became specifically associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth, though its usage was contested by other groups who believed in various concepts of creation.[4]





asterism said:


> Even a blind squirrel finds a nut.  I've long advocated for more tolerance in religious circles especially towards those who believe in the supernatural like ghosts, aliens, and psychic powers.


The problem with that is that the leaders of religious groups invariably want to control the information and religion.  Acceptance of new ideas is generally not tolerated too well.  Imagine if someone came forth and claimed in a virgin birth today.  How would the church respond and why?



SmarterThanHick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually most atheists can't seperate it out.  In their view if a person is religious by definition they must also be irrational and mentally unbalanced, thus incapable of the _ability_ to engage in a rigorous scientific discussion.   This will extend accross many lines of thought as well.  rdean, for instance will _assume_ that if you are a "denier" of AGW theory you *must* be a religious fanatic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAH: This right here is better known as a generalization.  I recommend you steer clear of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Edited, Credited Quote. *
> 
> How ironic that you counsel against using generalizations when you insist on doing so yourself.
Click to expand...


----------



## asterism

SmarterThanHick said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I've been criticized too much for having Faith while at the same time believing the evidence supports evolution and quantum mechanics.  It's not a lie, my college astronomy professor challenged me to a formal debate on evolution and used it to disprove creationism as what he called, "the first domino of faith to fall."  It was his belief that if Heaven existed we'd have seen evidence of it by now since we can measure energy from the outer reaches of the known universe.  When I said that I thought creationism and evolution were completely compatible he read from a Baptist leaflet telling me what I believe.  I then read from the Book of Genesis and explained how there was nothing "false" about it.  He, like you, would not accept my stated beliefs and went back to his cherry-picked sources to again assert that I was lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to knock over the second domino for you. Creationism and evolution are not compatible. The idea of religion proposing how life began and evolution taking it from there works, but generally creationism is the idea that all organisms were created unchanged and unchanging, while evolution says they can change.  People like to make weird mashups where the two can somehow exist, but you'll find these people basically mutiliate evolution into some convoluted shape that goes against evidence to have it match up.
Click to expand...


While you are free to define your version of creationism, you are not free to define my beliefs.  Creationism as I have been taught is simply that God created the universe as described in the Book of Genesis.



SmarterThanHick said:


> You know you lost that debate, and with that knowledge comes the idea that your beliefs are wrong.  Not a fun place to be in.  I recommend you reconcile to either jettison your scientific knowledge, or change your faith to acknowledge the facts.



I know I lost?  I was declared the winner.  The prof. made a poor assumption and ignored further information.  My religious beliefs do not stem from the Baptist leaflet he cited and he stated I was lying when I said the first chapter of the Book of Genesis could be a colorful way of describing the origin of the universe in terms that a person could understand 3000 years ago.



SmarterThanHick said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even a blind squirrel finds a nut.  I've long advocated for more tolerance in religious circles especially towards those who believe in the supernatural like ghosts, aliens, and psychic powers.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that the leaders of religious groups invariably want to control the information and religion.  Acceptance of new ideas is generally not tolerated too well.  Imagine if someone came forth and claimed in a virgin birth today.  How would the church respond and why?
Click to expand...


I suppose Christians would resist because the Bible describes the uniqueness of it and the second coming of Christ.  However, the Roman Catholic Church investigates miracles all the time.  Your assumption is wrong and cannot be applied to me.


----------



## asterism

Madeline said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> O c'mon.  "Threadmother" is a fabulous new word.  You know you like it.
> 
> Dun be a new word denier, now, Huggy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is not new, madeline.
> 
> i however am extremely appalled. all the name-calling distracts from the serious discussion about sciencers and how they suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tis new!  Tis!  Tis, tis tis.  I checked the urban dictionary and when it did not appear there, I promptly contributed it, stealing asterism's fabulousity for myself.
> 
> LOL @ "sciencers".  I may have to go back and contribute that, too.  If I knew what it meant!
Click to expand...


Awesome!  I stole the word from someone else here and you documented it.  Now I can cite it for credibility.  I WIN!!!!


----------



## daveman

asterism said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is not new, madeline.
> 
> i however am extremely appalled. all the name-calling distracts from the serious discussion about sciencers and how they suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tis new!  Tis!  Tis, tis tis.  I checked the urban dictionary and when it did not appear there, I promptly contributed it, stealing asterism's fabulousity for myself.
> 
> LOL @ "sciencers".  I may have to go back and contribute that, too.  If I knew what it meant!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome!  I stole the word from someone else here and you documented it.  Now I can cite it for credibility.  I WIN!!!!
Click to expand...

You know you lost that debate, and with that knowledge comes the idea that your beliefs are wrong. Not a fun place to be in. I recommend you reconcile to either jettison your vocabulary knowledge, or change your faith to acknowledge the facts.


----------



## rdean

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of the disparate focuses on science and religion, as well as how some on either side pursue their chosen path exclusively.  That doesn't make either side correct.
> 
> That said, your own lack of collecting and analyzing evidence (like your belief in the conclusion of this poll without any actual study on your part) says a lot about you.  You have faith in something even you don't understand.  How funny is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methodology - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> At least they have a "methodology".  With them, I have more faith than religion, which has nothing but bizarre and unbelievable fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics.  That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.
> 
> So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe in "Noah's Ark" and "The Garden of Eden"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.  As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary.  I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites.  *I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood*.
Click to expand...


Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.


----------



## rdean

Madeline said:


> Why can't people separate their faith in God from their confidence in science?  I feel as if we're debating whether musicans can also read.  I still don't get the connection.



It's the right wing that keeps trying to force mysticism down out throats.  As soon as they are confronted head on and shown the ignorance, they whine, "Why can't people separate their....".   You get the message.

Scientists don't care about mysticism.  But they do care about protecting the integrity of science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methodology - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> At least they have a "methodology".  With them, I have more faith than religion, which has nothing but bizarre and unbelievable fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics.  That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.
> 
> So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe in "Noah's Ark" and "The Garden of Eden"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.  As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary.  I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites.  *I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name some.
> 
> Second,
> 
> If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.
Click to expand...


Gilgamesh? The Aztecs? I could probably at least another 10 but what difference would it make since none of them were Democrats.


----------



## Intense

CrusaderFrank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics.  That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.
> 
> So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.
> 
> 
> 
> I do.  As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary.  I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites.  *I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name some.
> 
> Second,
> 
> If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gilgamesh? The Aztecs? I could probably at least another 10 but what difference would it make since none of them were Democrats.
Click to expand...


Navajo, Hopi. Something Cataclysmic happened. Ever been to Sunset Crater outside of Flagstaff? You all realize that Genesis has more than one Creation Story. Right?


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methodology - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> At least they have a "methodology".  With them, I have more faith than religion, which has nothing but bizarre and unbelievable fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics.  That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.
> 
> So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe in "Noah's Ark" and "The Garden of Eden"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.  As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary.  I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites.  *I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name some.
> 
> Second,
> 
> If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.
Click to expand...

Here are over 200 flood myths from all over the world.  

For someone who considers himself intelligent, you are remarkably ignorant.


----------



## JBeukema

So I see this thread is still going

something about the flood?


Yeah, at the end of the last ice age, near the fertile crescent, the retreating ice opened a path to the sea that flooded a rather large valley. They've found settlements and satellite imagery reveals what used to be rather fertile lands where the rivers used to still run prior to the flood.

There've been several specials about it on the tele.


There've been numerous localized floods throughout history.


When all you've known your whole life is a single valley or plain, and its flooded, and you can't travel beyond the flood zone, it's easy to believe the whole world has flooded.

It's no great mystery, really.


----------



## rdean

westwall said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can, Daveman can, Intense can.  You haven't been paying attention?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't really addressing you, asterism.  I know most people can; I should not have left the impression I didn't think anyone of faith was comfy with science.
> 
> I guess I'm confused as to why PC feels science is in any way antagonistic to anyone's faith.  Seems so irrational....as if "believing" in astrophysics diminishes anyone's need for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually most atheists can't seperate it out.  In their view if a person is religious by definition they must also be irrational and mentally unbalanced, thus incapable of the _ability_ to engage in a rigorous scientific discussion.   This will extend accross many lines of thought as well.  rdean, for instance will _assume_ that if you are a "denier" of AGW theory you *must* be a religious fanatic.
Click to expand...


That's the problem with those such as yourself.  For some reason, your kind thinks the world revolves around your mystical beliefs.  Until someone throws mysticism in my face, I don't even think about it.  I write here to defend rational thought.  Mysticism and the supernatural are "rational"?  Belief in, in, "what"?  Bogeymen?  I don't get it at all.


----------



## geauxtohell

JBeukema said:


> So I see this thread is still going
> 
> something about the flood?
> 
> 
> Yeah, at the end of the last ice age, near the fertile crescent, the retreating ice opened a path to the sea that flooded a rather large valley. They've found settlements and satellite imagery reveals what used to be rather fertile lands where the rivers used to still run prior to the flood.
> 
> There've been several specials about it on the tele.
> 
> 
> There've been numerous localized floods throughout history.
> 
> 
> When all you've known your whole life is a single valley or plain, and its flooded, and you can't travel beyond the flood zone, it's easy to believe the whole world has flooded.
> 
> It's no great mystery, really.



I agree.  I mean, as floods are a natural disaster that have been around since Rain, it's no mystery that every culture would have a story relating to some sort of cataclysmic flood event.  

It's not terribly conclusive proof to support the biblical account of the matter.


----------



## geauxtohell

I find it funny that, in failing in it's original intent to try and cast science as a "religion" this thread has basically digressed to a theological debate over actual religion.


----------



## rikules

PoliticalChic said:


> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith
> 
> With respect to this truth, how is is possible to accept the theory of evolutionas so much is *based entirely on faith*?
> 
> 1.	Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), *scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human.* They imagined that it was some sort of *beast-like primate*, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became *extinct,* without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum
> 
> a.	"The Neanderthal  is an *extinct *member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 71179. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.
> 
> 2.	According to *Darwinian thought,* millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
> According to this theory, *Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off,* or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, *interbreeding would have been impossible*, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.
> 
> a.	 This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is *critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring.                                                         *Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
> 
> 3.	We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development.* We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans* in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that *gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.    *A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS
> 
> a.	*Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals*.*humans and Neanderthals are practically identical *at the protein level.The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.  Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 4.	 [M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings.Here is the problem: *Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just cant find the half-monkey, half-human bones. *This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet
> 
> a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:
> 
> "The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an *advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.*"
> 
> Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!
> 
> 
> Welcome, brethren of the religion of science!



religion is 100% faith based.

science is MOSTLY based on studies, investigations, research, analysis.


----------



## Intense

rikules said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith
> 
> With respect to this truth, how is is possible to accept the theory of evolutionas so much is *based entirely on faith*?
> 
> 1.	Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), *scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human.* They imagined that it was some sort of *beast-like primate*, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became *extinct,* without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum
> 
> a.	"The Neanderthal  is an *extinct *member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 71179. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.
> 
> 2.	According to *Darwinian thought,* millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
> According to this theory, *Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off,* or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, *interbreeding would have been impossible*, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.
> 
> a.	 This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is *critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring.                                                         *Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
> 
> 3.	We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development.* We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans* in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that *gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.    *A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS
> 
> a.	*Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals*.*humans and Neanderthals are practically identical *at the protein level.The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.  Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 4.	 [M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings.Here is the problem: *Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just cant find the half-monkey, half-human bones. *This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet
> 
> a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:
> 
> "The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an *advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.*"
> 
> Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!
> 
> 
> Welcome, brethren of the religion of science!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> religion is 100% faith based.
> 
> science is MOSTLY based on studies, investigations, research, analysis.
Click to expand...



There is allot of Research and Analysis in Religion too. Both involve Humans, and along with Humans, our Natures, Limitations, Prejudices, bias's, preferences. What Study is not effected in some way by our very presence?


----------



## rdean

daveman said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics.  That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.
> 
> So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.
> 
> 
> 
> I do.  As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary.  I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites.  *I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name some.
> 
> Second,
> 
> If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are over 200 flood myths from all over the world.
> 
> For someone who considers himself intelligent, you are remarkably ignorant.
Click to expand...


Oh no.  Now you went and did it.  Did you read those stories?

This one I like best: One day a feast was made for a *circumcision*banned, during which all manner of beasts were pitted to fight one another. The last fight was between dogs and cats. During this fight, a great flood came down from the mountains, drowning everyone except two or three menials who had been sent to the hills to gather firewood. Then the sun, moon, and stars were extinguished. When light returned, there was no land, and all the abodes of men had been overwhelmed.

Believe me, I compare "Noah's Ark" to these stories.  THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.  I'm sorry I was a skeptic.  Thanks for the link.  These are truly hilarious.  I'm going to read some more.

Check this one out: Water covered the whole earth, and all the Atás drowned except two men and a woman who were carried far to sea. They would have perished, but a great eagle offered to carry them on its back to their homes. One man refused, but the other two people accepted and returned to Mapula.

Thus marks the beginning of "polygamy"?


----------



## HUGGY

Madeline said:


> We all have our pet biases, I suppose.  Me, for instance, I always imagine the men of USMB writing in their underwear -- and all of them are cute.



Who wears underwear?  I haven't worn any since I was 14.


----------



## Intense

geauxtohell said:


> I find it funny that, in failing in it's original intent to try and cast science as a "religion" this thread has basically digressed to a theological debate over actual religion.



We can each speak for ourselves. It is an individual choice, what one makes a Religion out of. To think Scientifically, one would seek to refrain from projecting, generalizing, without qualification. Correct?


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name some.
> 
> Second,
> 
> If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are over 200 flood myths from all over the world.
> 
> For someone who considers himself intelligent, you are remarkably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no.  Now you went and did it.  Did you read those stories?
> 
> This one I like best: One day a feast was made for a *circumcision*banned, during which all manner of beasts were pitted to fight one another. The last fight was between dogs and cats. During this fight, a great flood came down from the mountains, drowning everyone except two or three menials who had been sent to the hills to gather firewood. Then the sun, moon, and stars were extinguished. When light returned, there was no land, and all the abodes of men had been overwhelmed.
> 
> Believe me, I compare "Noah's Ark" to these stories.  THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.  I'm sorry I was a skeptic.  Thanks for the link.  These are truly hilarious.  I'm going to read some more.
> 
> Check this one out: Water covered the whole earth, and all the Atás drowned except two men and a woman who were carried far to sea. They would have perished, but a great eagle offered to carry them on its back to their homes. One man refused, but the other two people accepted and returned to Mapula.
> 
> Thus marks the beginning of "polygamy"?
Click to expand...

An AGW cultist has no business mocking anyone else's faith.  

You asked for flood stories.  You got them.  You didn't specify they had to mirror the Noah's Ark story, so don't move the goalposts now, Skippy.


----------



## HUGGY

westwall said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  While some christian sects are not well-adjusted, most are.  Faith explores ethics, one's relationship to God and other imponderables.  It is a distinct appetite from science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.
> 
> I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such.  I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE!  He "sounds" like a real scientist.  Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!!  Yet he still stands there with the funny collar.  If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church has employed actual real scientists for over a century Huggy.  Better catch up!
Click to expand...


"Catch up with the Catholic Church?"  That's pretty funny.  I don't follow any organized religion closely.  I was just amused they have an observatory and actual astronomers in the Vatican.  I bet it's a hoot when that guy has to explain his observations to the Pope.  If they have had astronomers for 100 years why did it take em this long to apologize about Galilio?  I think maybe it's them that needs "catching up".


----------



## Marc39

HUGGY said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.
> 
> I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such.  I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE!  He "sounds" like a real scientist.  Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!!  Yet he still stands there with the funny collar.  If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church has employed actual real scientists for over a century Huggy.  Better catch up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Catch up with the Catholic Church?"  That's pretty funny.  I don't follow any organized religion closely.  I was just amused they have an observatory and actual astronomers in the Vatican.  I bet it's a hoot when that guy has to explain his observations to the Pope.  If they have had astronomers for 100 years why did it take em this long to apologize about Galilio?  I think maybe it's them that needs "catching up".
Click to expand...


The Catholic Church has caught up.  For example, you don't see Catholics beheading their wives because allah says it's ok to do so and flying airplanes into buildings to get laid by 72 virgins in paradise like the religion of peace'ers


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methodology - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> At least they have a "methodology".  With them, I have more faith than religion, which has nothing but bizarre and unbelievable fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics.  That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.
> 
> So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe in "Noah's Ark" and "The Garden of Eden"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.  As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary.  I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites.  *I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name some.
> 
> Second,
> 
> If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.
Click to expand...


Are you serious?

Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't really addressing you, asterism.  I know most people can; I should not have left the impression I didn't think anyone of faith was comfy with science.
> 
> I guess I'm confused as to why PC feels science is in any way antagonistic to anyone's faith.  Seems so irrational....as if "believing" in astrophysics diminishes anyone's need for God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually most atheists can't seperate it out.  In their view if a person is religious by definition they must also be irrational and mentally unbalanced, thus incapable of the _ability_ to engage in a rigorous scientific discussion.   This will extend accross many lines of thought as well.  rdean, for instance will _assume_ that if you are a "denier" of AGW theory you *must* be a religious fanatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the problem with those such as yourself.  For some reason, your kind thinks the world revolves around your mystical beliefs.  Until someone throws mysticism in my face, I don't even think about it.  I write here to defend rational thought.  Mysticism and the supernatural are "rational"?  Belief in, in, "what"?  Bogeymen?  I don't get it at all.
Click to expand...


How can you defend rational thought unless you can think rationally?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rikules said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of science, and reason, compared to faith
> 
> With respect to this truth, how is is possible to accept the theory of evolutionas so much is *based entirely on faith*?
> 
> 1.    Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), *scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human.* They imagined that it was some sort of *beast-like primate*, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became *extinct,* without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum
> 
> a.    "The Neanderthal  is an *extinct *member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 71179. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.
> 
> 2.    According to *Darwinian thought,* millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
> According to this theory, *Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off,* or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, *interbreeding would have been impossible*, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.
> 
> a.     This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is *critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring.                                                         *Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
> 
> 3.    We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development.* We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans* in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that *gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.    *A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS
> 
> a.    *Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals*.*humans and Neanderthals are practically identical *at the protein level.The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.  Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 4.     [M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings.Here is the problem: *Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just cant find the half-monkey, half-human bones. *This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet
> 
> a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:
> 
> "The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an *advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.*"
> 
> Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!
> 
> 
> Welcome, brethren of the religion of science!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> religion is 100% faith based.
> 
> science is MOSTLY based on studies, investigations, research, analysis.
Click to expand...


How is religion based 100% on faith?


----------



## HUGGY

Marc39 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church has employed actual real scientists for over a century Huggy.  Better catch up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Catch up with the Catholic Church?"  That's pretty funny.  I don't follow any organized religion closely.  I was just amused they have an observatory and actual astronomers in the Vatican.  I bet it's a hoot when that guy has to explain his observations to the Pope.  If they have had astronomers for 100 years why did it take em this long to apologize about Galilio?  I think maybe it's them that needs "catching up".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church has caught up.  For example, you don't see Catholics beheading their wives and flying airplanes into buildings to get laid by 72 virgins in paradise like our Muzzie friends.
Click to expand...


This response is off topic.  I apologize to the thread for reacting to a stupid Christian.

Suicide in the name of religion is unscientific as there is no proof of an afterlife.  Even living your life assuming you you will get "some reward " later is foolish and not scientific.  Just being able to focus a telescope does not a scientist make.  I suggest you morons stop wasting valuable telescope time and keep looking in your bibles for miracles and leave the science to those with open minds and the intelligence to understand what they are looking at.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name some.
> 
> Second,
> 
> If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are over 200 flood myths from all over the world.
> 
> For someone who considers himself intelligent, you are remarkably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no.  Now you went and did it.  Did you read those stories?
> 
> This one I like best: One day a feast was made for a *circumcision*banned, during which all manner of beasts were pitted to fight one another. The last fight was between dogs and cats. During this fight, a great flood came down from the mountains, drowning everyone except two or three menials who had been sent to the hills to gather firewood. Then the sun, moon, and stars were extinguished. When light returned, there was no land, and all the abodes of men had been overwhelmed.
> 
> Believe me, I compare "Noah's Ark" to these stories.  THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.  I'm sorry I was a skeptic.  Thanks for the link.  These are truly hilarious.  I'm going to read some more.
> 
> Check this one out: Water covered the whole earth, and all the Atás drowned except two men and a woman who were carried far to sea. They would have perished, but a great eagle offered to carry them on its back to their homes. One man refused, but the other two people accepted and returned to Mapula.
> 
> Thus marks the beginning of "polygamy"?
Click to expand...


First you demand that we show proof that the flood legend is actually a world wide phenomenon, then you choose to mock the bleifs of indigenous peoples. The best part of this is you do not have to wait centureis for a more enlightened individual to come along to mock your ridiculous beliefs, there are billions of people who are more enlightened than you already walking the planet.


----------



## Intense

*How about We Try Keeping The Thread on Topic. Huggy Feel Free to Start Your own Catholic Bashing Thread in The Religion Forum or The Romper Room. Let's not derail the Thread again so soon.*


----------



## westwall

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methodology - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> At least they have a "methodology".  With them, I have more faith than religion, which has nothing but bizarre and unbelievable fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics.  That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.
> 
> So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe in "Noah's Ark" and "The Garden of Eden"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.  As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary.  I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites.  *I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name some.
> 
> Second,
> 
> If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.
Click to expand...





The Epic of Gilgamesh for one that springs immediately to mind.  There are a couple of oher traditions fom the Far East as well that mention a great flood.


----------



## westwall

rdean said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't really addressing you, asterism.  I know most people can; I should not have left the impression I didn't think anyone of faith was comfy with science.
> 
> I guess I'm confused as to why PC feels science is in any way antagonistic to anyone's faith.  Seems so irrational....as if "believing" in astrophysics diminishes anyone's need for God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually most atheists can't seperate it out.  In their view if a person is religious by definition they must also be irrational and mentally unbalanced, thus incapable of the _ability_ to engage in a rigorous scientific discussion.   This will extend accross many lines of thought as well.  rdean, for instance will _assume_ that if you are a "denier" of AGW theory you *must* be a religious fanatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the problem with those such as yourself.  For some reason, your kind thinks the world revolves around your mystical beliefs.  Until someone throws mysticism in my face, I don't even think about it.  I write here to defend rational thought.  Mysticism and the supernatural are "rational"?  Belief in, in, "what"?  Bogeymen?  I don't get it at all.
Click to expand...





You "believe" in anthropogenic global warming.  There is just as much empirical data for that theory as there is for the existence of God.  And you defend rational thought?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> Why do people have the need to restrict the opposition to narrow definitions that make it impossible to argue a position rationally? Even Wikipedia doesna't agree with your definition, even if it acknowledges it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Creationism* is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural  being. However, the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously  motivated rejection of certain biological processes,
Click to expand...

That seems rather close to my definition, the point being that creationism states all things were made as they currently are, which is in direct opposition to evolution.  What part do you feel overlaps there?



Quantum Windbag said:


> How ironic that you counsel against using generalizations when you insist on doing so yourself.


What do you feel I generalized?



asterism said:


> I suppose Christians would resist because the Bible describes the uniqueness of it and the second coming of Christ.  However, the Roman Catholic Church investigates miracles all the time.  Your assumption is wrong and cannot be applied to me.


Oh?  Where does the bible say a virgin birth can never happen again?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Intense said:


> There is allot of Research and Analysis in Religion too. Both involve Humans, and along with Humans, our Natures, Limitations, Prejudices, bias's, preferences.


No, not really.  Scientific research is drastically different and held to much higher standards than religious "research," which itself is usually code-word for "studying."  Scientific research uses the scientific method to produce an experiment that analyzes the world, and collects data from that experiment to draw logical conclusions.  Religious "research" involves reading other people's "research," which itself is circular reasoning, to support previously conceived notions.  It's essentially a book report under the name of "analysis."


----------



## Madeline

SmarterThanHick said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is allot of Research and Analysis in Religion too. Both involve Humans, and along with Humans, our Natures, Limitations, Prejudices, bias's, preferences.
> 
> 
> 
> No, not really.  Scientific research is drastically different and held to much higher standards than religious "research," which itself is usually code-word for "studying."  Scientific research uses the scientific method to produce an experiment that analyzes the world, and collects data from that experiment to draw logical conclusions.  Religious "research" involves reading other people's "research," which itself is circular reasoning, to support previously conceived notions.  It's essentially a book report under the name of "analysis."
Click to expand...


This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick?  A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have.  The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.

It is still knowledge, gained by studying.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Madeline said:


> This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick?  A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have.  The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.
> 
> It is still knowledge, gained by studying.


Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying.  That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.


----------



## Madeline

SmarterThanHick said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick?  A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have.  The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.
> 
> It is still knowledge, gained by studying.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying.  That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.
Click to expand...


Well, I can agree that studying is not "research".  I'm not too sure how anyone would go about "researching" religion, apart from using an anthropologic approach.


----------



## HUGGY

Madeline said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick?  A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have.  The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.
> 
> It is still knowledge, gained by studying.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying.  That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Well, I can agree that studying is not "research".  I'm not too sure how anyone would go about "researching" religion*, apart from using an anthropologic approach.
Click to expand...


Bingo!


----------



## Madeline

Why thankies, Huggy.


----------



## Intense

SmarterThanHick said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is allot of Research and Analysis in Religion too. Both involve Humans, and along with Humans, our Natures, Limitations, Prejudices, bias's, preferences.
> 
> 
> 
> No, not really.  Scientific research is drastically different and held to much higher standards than religious "research," which itself is usually code-word for "studying."  Scientific research uses the scientific method to produce an experiment that analyzes the world, and collects data from that experiment to draw logical conclusions.  Religious "research" involves reading other people's "research," which itself is circular reasoning, to support previously conceived notions.  It's essentially a book report under the name of "analysis."
Click to expand...


You are generalizing and mis-categorizing. How many religions around the world do you believe you speak for? Probably none. How many have you studied in detail? You may know science, you may know medicine. What you are showing by your statement is the flip side of the coin, of how people in the name of religion mis-characterize science, by mis-characterizing religion. Being human, we all wrestle with boundaries.


----------



## Intense

Bad direction is bad direction, be it science, religion, life.

For example, what brought us to this point?


Jon Markman at MSN Money doesn't hold back when he says "Corn-based ethanol production is sure to go down as one of the greatest mistakes ever in U.S. energy policy." It's even more provoking when he writes "replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol would double greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades. The studies show that switchgrass, an alternative to ethanol that's more weed than plant, would boost emissions by 50%."

The problem isn't with the cars, the problem is with what it takes to grow the biofuel in the first place. Clearing the land, harvesting, and refining the crops, plus the loss of forest and wild lands and habitats, amounts to creating a carbon footprint worse than fossil fuels. According to the Science article which, admittedly, posits an extreme scenario, it would take 423 years to even out the carbon debt if Indonesia's peat lands were converted to palm oil fields.
Science magazine declares ethanol worse for the Earth than fossil fuels &mdash; Autoblog


----------



## Intense

Several more companies are expected to begin producing biofuels next year, but an energy research associate says the public should not expect any energy breakthroughs anytime soon.



Five companies will begin producing cellulosic ethanol in 2011, which is different from regular ethanol in that it comes from woodchips and grass instead of sugar or corn. The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act already calls for 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol to be on the market next year and for 16 billion gallons to be produced per year by 2022.

But Brian McGraw, a research associate with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), has worked closely with the alternate ethanol and says this type of production is not commercially viable.
&#39;New&#39; ethanol not commercially viable (OneNewsNow.com)


----------



## Intense

*Original Preface. The Catholic Encyclopedia, as its name implies, proposes to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine. What the Church teaches and has taught; what she has done and is still doing for the highest welfare of mankind; her methods, past and present; her struggles, her triumphs, and the achievements of her members, not only for her own immediate benefit, but for the broadening and deepening of all true science, literature and art &#8212; all come within the scope of the Catholic Encyclopedia.* It differs from the general encyclopedia in omitting facts and information which have no relation to the Church. On the other hand, it is not exclusively a church encyclopedia, nor is it limited to the ecclesiastical sciences and the doings of churchmen. It records all that Catholics have done, not only in behalf of charity and morals, but also for the intellectual and artistic development of mankind. It chronicles what Catholic artists, educators, poets, scientists and men of action have achieved in their several provinces. In this respect it differs from most other Catholic encyclopedias. *The Editors are fully aware that there is no specifically Catholic science, that mathematics, physiology and other branches of human knowledge are neither Catholic, Jewish, nor Protestant; but when it is commonly asserted that Catholic principles are an obstacle to scientific research, it seems not only proper but needful to register what and how much Catholics have contributed to every department of knowledge. *

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home


----------



## asterism

SmarterThanHick said:


> I would agree except faith generally explores morals, not ethics.  Small but significant distinction.  Ethics is usually evidence based and logically supported, whereas morals are generally blindly followed because someone told you it's how you ought to act.



That's not what I was taught at all.


----------



## asterism

HUGGY said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to get every red blooded man on this MB to explore his so called feminine side has not gone un noticed.
> 
> But enough about you...
> 
> The OP suggested that there can be a legitimate parallel path of faith and science.  This has been supported by many others drifting back to the old arguments.  I guess in a sense that is what is called progress.  Not enough.  The Christian filter has no place in science other than the study of mental disorders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  While some christian sects are not well-adjusted, most are.  Faith explores ethics, one's relationship to God and other imponderables.  It is a distinct appetite from science.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.
> 
> I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such.  I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE!  He "sounds" like a real scientist.  Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!!  Yet he still stands there with the funny collar.  If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.
Click to expand...


While it may scream "no God" to you, it tells me that science are religion are compatible enough for the Church to dedicate some resources to the study of science.


----------



## editec

Science is a technique.

Religion is a conclusion.


----------



## asterism

JBeukema said:


> So I see this thread is still going
> 
> something about the flood?
> 
> 
> Yeah, at the end of the last ice age, near the fertile crescent, the retreating ice opened a path to the sea that flooded a rather large valley. They've found settlements and satellite imagery reveals what used to be rather fertile lands where the rivers used to still run prior to the flood.
> 
> There've been several specials about it on the tele.
> 
> 
> There've been numerous localized floods throughout history.
> 
> 
> When all you've known your whole life is a single valley or plain, and its flooded, and you can't travel beyond the flood zone, it's easy to believe the whole world has flooded.
> 
> It's no great mystery, really.



Yup.


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methodology - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
> 
> At least they have a "methodology".  With them, I have more faith than religion, which has nothing but bizarre and unbelievable fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics.  That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.
> 
> So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe in "Noah's Ark" and "The Garden of Eden"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.  As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary.  I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites.  *I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name some.
> 
> Second,
> 
> If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.
Click to expand...


1.  The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature  totally non-biblical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_(Hinduism)  and lots of others that have already been referenced in this thread.

2.  It doesn't have to encompass the whole planet as we know now, it just has to encompass the whole world as known to a person who lived in Israel 3000 years ago, this has already been mentioned in this thread.


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name some.
> 
> Second,
> 
> If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are over 200 flood myths from all over the world.
> 
> For someone who considers himself intelligent, you are remarkably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no.  Now you went and did it.  Did you read those stories?
> 
> This one I like best: One day a feast was made for a *circumcision*banned, during which all manner of beasts were pitted to fight one another. The last fight was between dogs and cats. During this fight, a great flood came down from the mountains, drowning everyone except two or three menials who had been sent to the hills to gather firewood. Then the sun, moon, and stars were extinguished. When light returned, there was no land, and all the abodes of men had been overwhelmed.
> 
> Believe me, I compare "Noah's Ark" to these stories.  THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.  I'm sorry I was a skeptic.  Thanks for the link.  These are truly hilarious.  I'm going to read some more.
> 
> Check this one out: Water covered the whole earth, and all the Atás drowned except two men and a woman who were carried far to sea. They would have perished, but a great eagle offered to carry them on its back to their homes. One man refused, but the other two people accepted and returned to Mapula.
> 
> Thus marks the beginning of "polygamy"?
Click to expand...


Definitely a sticky situation.  Notice how the Bible has no account of things going on in China, Japan, or South America.  Do I suggest that those places were uninhabited?  No.  Do I suggest that to a person living in what is now Lebanon would have no concept of those other "worlds" and therefore wouldn't reference them?  Yep.


----------



## asterism

SmarterThanHick said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick?  A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have.  The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.
> 
> It is still knowledge, gained by studying.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying.  That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.
Click to expand...


You mean like the IPCC report that contains fiction written by an activist?  That sort of higher standard?


----------



## editec

The great flood?

Here's a very interesting theory that might explain why much of mankind has such a hazy memory of such a deluge

Black Sea deluge theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Madeline

asterism said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick?  A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have.  The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.
> 
> It is still knowledge, gained by studying.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying.  That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like the IPCC report that contains fiction written by an activist?  That sort of higher standard?
Click to expand...


Asterism, are you annoyed that some people do not think religion can be researched?  If so, why?


----------



## geauxtohell

Intense said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it funny that, in failing in it's original intent to try and cast science as a "religion" this thread has basically digressed to a theological debate over actual religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can each speak for ourselves. It is an individual choice, what one makes a Religion out of. To think Scientifically, one would seek to refrain from projecting, generalizing, without qualification. Correct?
Click to expand...


Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions.  They are not entitled to their own facts.

Calling science (or various theories (i.e. evolution)) a "religion" is often done on here by certain people to try and denigrate the field or imply that the people to adhere to scientific thought approach it in the same manner of a religion.  Ann Coulter even wrote a book about this; "Godless".  

Not so ironically, the people who makes these claims have little, if any, background in scientific study.  If they did, perhaps they would realize how silly that statement is.

The central tenant of religion is faith.  That's not a pejorative statement.  In Christianity; Christ demands that his followers have the blind faith of a child.  Religion also deals with the supernatural.  

Science is a man-made construct to try and explain the natural world through observation, logic, and testing.  Faith and the supernatural are in no way involved and, if inserted into a scientific process, automatically invalidate it.  

That doesn't mean that the two have to be in conflict (though, the people who don't understand the difference and claim science is a religion obviously think otherwise).  However, they are not the same thing.  They are not even close.   

As for "thinking scientifically", this is a message board.  Not a case conference.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Intense said:


> You are generalizing and mis-categorizing. How many religions around the world do you believe you speak for? Probably none. How many have you studied in detail? You may know science, you may know medicine. What you are showing by your statement is the flip side of the coin, of how people in the name of religion mis-characterize science, by mis-characterizing religion. Being human, we all wrestle with boundaries.


How many religions I "speak for" is irrelevant.  How many religions I speak of is the topic here.  If you find my statement wrong and believe that there is any religion that performs research on that religion in an equal capacity and standard as science, by all means provide the example. 

But let me just jump ahead in time and tell you what you will find available to you as presentation points:

A religious group using the scientific method to research non-religious topics and draw legitimate conclusions
A religious group failing to use the scientific method properly but claiming to do so, drawing illegitimate coerced conclusions from cherry picked data
The book report studying I mentioned above
The point still being: religious research does not exist to the goal and caliber of scientific research.  It either doesn't analyze the physical world, propagates fabrication, or at best isn't actually researching religion.  But again, if you'd like to show me to be incorrect, provide a counter example.



Intense said:


> Bad direction is bad direction, be it science, religion, life.
> 
> For example, what brought us to this point?
> 
> 
> Jon Markman at MSN Money doesn't hold back when he says "Corn-based ethanol production is sure to go down as one of the greatest mistakes ever in U.S. energy policy." It's even more provoking when he writes "replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol would double greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades. The studies show that switchgrass, an alternative to ethanol that's more weed than plant, would boost emissions by 50%."
> 
> The problem isn't with the cars, the problem is with what it takes to grow the biofuel in the first place. Clearing the land, harvesting, and refining the crops, plus the loss of forest and wild lands and habitats, amounts to creating a carbon footprint worse than fossil fuels. According to the Science article which, admittedly, posits an extreme scenario, it would take 423 years to even out the carbon debt if Indonesia's peat lands were converted to palm oil fields.
> Science magazine declares ethanol worse for the Earth than fossil fuels &mdash; Autoblog





Intense said:


> Several more companies are expected to begin producing biofuels next year, but an energy research associate says the public should not expect any energy breakthroughs anytime soon.
> 
> 
> 
> Five companies will begin producing cellulosic ethanol in 2011, which is different from regular ethanol in that it comes from woodchips and grass instead of sugar or corn. The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act already calls for 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol to be on the market next year and for 16 billion gallons to be produced per year by 2022.
> 
> But Brian McGraw, a research associate with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), has worked closely with the alternate ethanol and says this type of production is not commercially viable.
> 'New' ethanol not commercially viable (OneNewsNow.com)





Intense said:


> *Original Preface. The Catholic Encyclopedia, as its name implies, proposes to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine. What the Church teaches and has taught; what she has done and is still doing for the highest welfare of mankind; her methods, past and present; her struggles, her triumphs, and the achievements of her members, not only for her own immediate benefit, but for the broadening and deepening of all true science, literature and art  all come within the scope of the Catholic Encyclopedia.* It differs from the general encyclopedia in omitting facts and information which have no relation to the Church. On the other hand, it is not exclusively a church encyclopedia, nor is it limited to the ecclesiastical sciences and the doings of churchmen. It records all that Catholics have done, not only in behalf of charity and morals, but also for the intellectual and artistic development of mankind. It chronicles what Catholic artists, educators, poets, scientists and men of action have achieved in their several provinces. In this respect it differs from most other Catholic encyclopedias. *The Editors are fully aware that there is no specifically Catholic science, that mathematics, physiology and other branches of human knowledge are neither Catholic, Jewish, nor Protestant; but when it is commonly asserted that Catholic principles are an obstacle to scientific research, it seems not only proper but needful to register what and how much Catholics have contributed to every department of knowledge. *
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home


Didn't read any of the three posts above.  Let me know when you'd like to make a point.



asterism said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree except faith generally explores morals, not ethics.  Small but significant distinction.  Ethics is usually evidence based and logically supported, whereas morals are generally blindly followed because someone told you it's how you ought to act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I was taught at all.
Click to expand...

Oh?  What were you taught?  What ethical or moral rules do you follow and why?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people have the need to restrict the opposition to narrow definitions that make it impossible to argue a position rationally? Even Wikipedia doesna't agree with your definition, even if it acknowledges it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Creationism* is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural  being. *However, the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously  motivated rejection of certain biological processes,*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That seems rather close to my definition, the point being that creationism states all things were made as they currently are, which is in direct opposition to evolution.  What part do you feel overlaps there?
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How ironic that you counsel against using generalizations when you insist on doing so yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you feel I generalized?
Click to expand...


The part where you assume that everyone who believes in creation believes that the universe was created as is. I posted the whole definition from Wikipedia to point out the part where it says that the general usage, which I bolded above, has deviated from the proper definition and usage.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick?  A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have.  The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.
> 
> It is still knowledge, gained by studying.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying.  That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.
Click to expand...


Really? I thought the goal was always the same in dissertations for doctorates, to find new knowledge and make it available to others. A few years ago science had reached the point where it was believed that all possible knowledge had already been discovered, and that any further research would simply be rewriting old stuff, and of no intrinsic worth. I don't know about you, but I am pretty happy no one payed attention to the pundits back then. Why should I believe that everything it is possible to learn about God is already known? Where in the Bible does it say that God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

geauxtohell said:


> Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions.  They are not entitled to their own facts.
> 
> Calling science (or various theories (i.e. evolution)) a "religion" is often done on here by certain people to try and denigrate the field or imply that the people to adhere to scientific thought approach it in the same manner of a religion.  Ann Coulter even wrote a book about this; "Godless".
> 
> Not so ironically, the people who makes these claims have little, if any, background in scientific study.  If they did, perhaps they would realize how silly that statement is.
> 
> The central tenant of religion is faith.  That's not a pejorative statement.  In Christianity; Christ demands that his followers have the blind faith of a child.  Religion also deals with the supernatural.
> 
> Science is a man-made construct to try and explain the natural world through observation, logic, and testing.  Faith and the supernatural are in no way involved and, if inserted into a scientific process, automatically invalidate it.
> 
> That doesn't mean that the two have to be in conflict (though, the people who don't understand the difference and claim science is a religion obviously think otherwise).  However, they are not the same thing.  They are not even close.
> 
> As for "thinking scientifically", this is a message board.  Not a case conference.



The way I look at it is that some people look at science the way others look at religion, as the guiding light and source of wisdom. Neither can offer all the answers to life's questions, and the only place they conflict is in the monds of people, on both sides, who are too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything. Some people have used their belief in God to bash science because they believe that their belief system trumps the facts.

Some people (Richard Dawkins to name one) have used their belief in science to trump religion. All Dawkins has really succeeded at is misrepresenting evolution, and science, in an attempt to prove something that is beyond his ability to comprehend. He is a prime example of how science is used as a religion, and he is a preacher of that religion. That does not make the science behind his faith wrong, anymore than the Crusades make Christianity wrong. It just means that people can corrupt anything.

Evolution is not a religion, but some people treat it like it is. If you refuse to see this that makes you just as blind as those who refuse to see that science is seeking truth.


----------



## geauxtohell

Quantum Windbag said:


> The way I look at it is that some people look at science the way others look at religion, as the guiding light and source of wisdom. Neither can offer all the answers to life's questions, and the only place they conflict is in the monds of people, on both sides, who are too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything. Some people have used their belief in God to bash science because they believe that their belief system trumps the facts.
> 
> Some people (Richard Dawkins to name one) have used their belief in science to trump religion. All Dawkins has really succeeded at is misrepresenting evolution, and science, in an attempt to prove something that is beyond his ability to comprehend. He is a prime example of how science is used as a religion, and he is a preacher of that religion. That does not make the science behind his faith wrong, anymore than the Crusades make Christianity wrong. It just means that people can corrupt anything.
> 
> Evolution is not a religion, but some people treat it like it is. If you refuse to see this that makes you just as blind as those who refuse to see that science is seeking truth.



Most people in the the scientific field are more than happy to admit they don't have all the answers.  The second we have "all the answers" then scientists are out of work.

I agree on Dawkins, and if you care to do a search with my name and "Dawkins" you will find that I find him to be a pompous asshole..  He is the exception and not the rule.  His OPED works (not exactly peer-reviewed material) that make larger inferences about the existence of God (or non-existence) step outside the scope of science as well.

I am not terribly concerned with people who want to "treat evolution like a religion".  Their presence is over-stated by over-reactive minds.  Again, I would use Ken Miller as my model on the matter.  Either way, most people in science are concerned with terribly nuanced issues that are far removed from the larger philosophical questions.  Things like examining how certain proteins facilitate cell function.  These are the "grunts" of the scientific field and the people that really make the venture work.  The prima donnas and talking heads on the matter, people like Dawkins, Ben Stein, or Ann Coulter are really just selling books.

Good post.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you feel I generalized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you assume that everyone who believes in creation believes that the universe was created as is. I posted the whole definition from Wikipedia to point out the part where it says that the general usage, which I bolded above, has deviated from the proper definition and usage.
Click to expand...

Except I've never assumed that.  People have a variety of beliefs regarding creation.  HOWEVER, the term CREATIONISM, as the Wikipedia article that you yourself cited states, specifically refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth." Did you not read your own source which you copied and pasted?  Creationists, being people who subscribe to creationism, by the very meaning of those terms refute evolution.  That is not to say that it is impossible to hold a differing idea of creation that allows for evolution, but the Christian version deemed creationism does not.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Really? I thought the goal was always the same in dissertations for doctorates, to find new knowledge and make it available to others.


Really?  And what new knowledge is gained from a doctorate in English literature?  Don't confuse personal interpretation with novel findings.  Even if you were to point to writers creating new material, I'm sure you see how it is not actually new factual knowledge about the world.  That's not to devalue studies in non-scientific fields.  They can be exceptionally valuable.  But they are not of the standards, caliber, and goals of science. Apples and oranges.  And should not be compared as congruent. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> A few years ago science had reached the point where it was believed that all possible knowledge had already been discovered, and that any further research would simply be rewriting old stuff, and of no intrinsic worth.


OR, you just made that up and it's completely false.  

I'm wondering from where you could have possibly heard that idea, let alone believed it to be true.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Why should I believe that everything it is possible to learn about God is already known? Where in the Bible does it say that God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation?


Why don't you design some experiment to figure that one out.  You know, investigate the world to discover evidence that God is still interacting with things.  We can gather data on particles which barely exist, and the effects of energies millions of miles away in space, so surely you'd find some new evidence in this world to support what you say, right?



Quantum Windbag said:


> The way I look at it is that some people look at science the way others look at religion, as the guiding light and source of wisdom. Neither can offer all the answers to life's questions, and the only place they conflict is in the monds of people, on both sides, who are too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything.


Well, no.  The standards of science DEMAND that lack of information is acknowledged.  Anyone who is "too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything" is not a scientist.  Only religion claims to have all the answers, regardless of how inane they may sound at times.  Science has no problem with "I don't know."


----------



## rdean

daveman said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are over 200 flood myths from all over the world.
> 
> For someone who considers himself intelligent, you are remarkably ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no.  Now you went and did it.  Did you read those stories?
> 
> This one I like best: One day a feast was made for a *circumcision*banned, during which all manner of beasts were pitted to fight one another. The last fight was between dogs and cats. During this fight, a great flood came down from the mountains, drowning everyone except two or three menials who had been sent to the hills to gather firewood. Then the sun, moon, and stars were extinguished. When light returned, there was no land, and all the abodes of men had been overwhelmed.
> 
> Believe me, I compare "Noah's Ark" to these stories.  THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.  I'm sorry I was a skeptic.  Thanks for the link.  These are truly hilarious.  I'm going to read some more.
> 
> Check this one out: Water covered the whole earth, and all the Atás drowned except two men and a woman who were carried far to sea. They would have perished, but a great eagle offered to carry them on its back to their homes. One man refused, but the other two people accepted and returned to Mapula.
> 
> Thus marks the beginning of "polygamy"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An AGW cultist has no business mocking anyone else's faith.
> 
> You asked for flood stories.  You got them.  You didn't specify they had to mirror the Noah's Ark story, so don't move the goalposts now, Skippy.
Click to expand...


I'm not.  I appreciate them.  Believe me I do.  They're hilarious and I respect them exactly the same as I respect the magical story of "Noah's Ark".


----------



## rdean

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics.  That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.
> 
> So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.
> 
> 
> 
> I do.  As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary.  I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites.  *I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name some.
> 
> Second,
> 
> If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life
Click to expand...


Oh please, at least the site from Daveman seemed real.  Aztecs had a "Noah's Ark" legend?  How convenient.  

Then you go to a non right wing site and the story is much different.

Aztec Mythology - Myth Encyclopedia - god, story, legend, names, ancient, animal, snake, war, world, creation, life, king, people, children, culture, fire, Origins and Influences, Major Themes and Deities, Major Myths

Tezcatlipoca created the first sun, known as Nahui-Ocelotl, or Four-Jaguar. It came to an end when Quetzalcoatl struck down Tezcatlipoca, who became a jaguar and destroyed all the people. Quetzalcoatl was the ruler of the second sun, Nahui-Ehécatl, or Four-Wind. However, Tezcatlipoca threw Quetzalcoatl off his throne, and together the fallen god and the sun were carried off by a hurricane of wind. People turned into monkeys and fled into the forest.

The third sun, Nahuiquiahuitl or Four-Rain, belonged to the rain god Tlaloc. Quetzalcoatl destroyed it with fire that fell from the heavens. The water goddess Chalchiuhtlicue ruled the fourth sun, called Nahui-Atl or Four-Water. A 52-year flood destroyed that sun, and the people turned into fish.

--------------------------------------

Hey, maybe you're right.  But maybe it's the Aztec's who have it right and everyone else in the West was wrong.  Maybe people did turn into "fish" and "monkeys".  Maybe it's another way of saying "evolution".  We could call it, "Intelligent transmorphiguarion".  I dare anyone to "reFudiate" that!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Except I've never assumed that.  People have a variety of beliefs regarding creation.  HOWEVER, the term CREATIONISM, as the Wikipedia article that you yourself cited states, specifically refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth." Did you not read your own source which you copied and pasted?  Creationists, being people who subscribe to creationism, by the very meaning of those terms refute evolution.  That is not to say that it is impossible to hold a differing idea of creation that allows for evolution, but the Christian version deemed creationism does not.



What "Christian fundamentalist" version of creationism? The intelligent Design version, the Old Earth Creationism, or the Young Earth group. Even among fundamentalist Christians there are various versions of creationism, including those who believe that God used evolution to get what he planned. You are still making assumptions and trying to fit everyone into the same box simply because it is easier.



SmarterThanHick said:


> Really?  And what new knowledge is gained from a doctorate in English literature?  Don't confuse personal interpretation with novel findings.  Even if you were to point to writers creating new material, I'm sure you see how it is not actually new factual knowledge about the world.  That's not to devalue studies in non-scientific fields.  They can be exceptionally valuable.  But they are not of the standards, caliber, and goals of science. Apples and oranges.  And should not be compared as congruent.



Beats the fuck out of me, but that does not change the fact that the goal of doctoral dissertations. Not being an expert in English literature I am not going to claim that it is impossible that it can happen though. I think that proves something about you here.



SmarterThanHick said:


> OR, you just made that up and it's completely false.
> 
> I'm wondering from where you could have possibly heard that idea, let alone believed it to be true.



I didn't though. Can't find it on Google, but some of the old books I read spoke of how some scientists actually believed it. I will keep looking around to see if I can find a reference for you.



SmarterThanHick said:


> Why don't you design some experiment to figure that one out.  You know, investigate the world to discover evidence that God is still interacting with things.  We can gather data on particles which barely exist, and the effects of energies millions of miles away in space, so surely you'd find some new evidence in this world to support what you say, right?



I don't have to, somebody is already doing it.

Large Hadron Collider to search for God Particle using 7 TeV proton collisions, via live webcast (update: first collisions, video!) -- Engadget



SmarterThanHick said:


> Well, no.  The standards of science DEMAND that lack of information is acknowledged.  Anyone who is "too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything" is not a scientist.  Only religion claims to have all the answers, regardless of how inane they may sound at times.  Science has no problem with "I don't know."



What religion claims to have all the answers? Some people who are religious do, just as some people who believe in science do, like, for example, Richard Dawkins.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name some.
> 
> Second,
> 
> If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe.  Either way, you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please, at least the site from Daveman seemed real.  Aztecs had a "Noah's Ark" legend?  How convenient.
> 
> Then you go to a non right wing site and the story is much different.
> 
> Aztec Mythology - Myth Encyclopedia - god, story, legend, names, ancient, animal, snake, war, world, creation, life, king, people, children, culture, fire, Origins and Influences, Major Themes and Deities, Major Myths
> 
> Tezcatlipoca created the first sun, known as Nahui-Ocelotl, or Four-Jaguar. It came to an end when Quetzalcoatl struck down Tezcatlipoca, who became a jaguar and destroyed all the people. Quetzalcoatl was the ruler of the second sun, Nahui-Ehécatl, or Four-Wind. However, Tezcatlipoca threw Quetzalcoatl off his throne, and together the fallen god and the sun were carried off by a hurricane of wind. People turned into monkeys and fled into the forest.
> 
> The third sun, Nahuiquiahuitl or Four-Rain, belonged to the rain god Tlaloc. Quetzalcoatl destroyed it with fire that fell from the heavens. The water goddess Chalchiuhtlicue ruled the fourth sun, called Nahui-Atl or Four-Water. A 52-year flood destroyed that sun, and the people turned into fish.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> 
> Hey, maybe you're right.  But maybe it's the Aztec's who have it right and everyone else in the West was wrong.  Maybe people did turn into "fish" and "monkeys".  Maybe it's another way of saying "evolution".  We could call it, "Intelligent transmorphiguarion".  I dare anyone to "reFudiate" that!
Click to expand...


Don't come whining to me if the world ends in 2012.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except I've never assumed that.  People have a variety of beliefs regarding creation.  HOWEVER, the term CREATIONISM, as the Wikipedia article that you yourself cited states, specifically refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth." Did you not read your own source which you copied and pasted?  Creationists, being people who subscribe to creationism, by the very meaning of those terms refute evolution.  That is not to say that it is impossible to hold a differing idea of creation that allows for evolution, but the Christian version deemed creationism does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "Christian fundamentalist" version of creationism? The intelligent Design version, the Old Earth Creationism, or the Young Earth group. Even among fundamentalist Christians there are various versions of creationism, including those who believe that God used evolution to get what he planned. You are still making assumptions and trying to fit everyone into the same box simply because it is easier.
Click to expand...

Which version of "Christian fundamentalist?"  The "opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth" version.  Or did you not read the whole sentence of your own source still?  Now one could make the argument that since there are many beliefs in creation, each person believing such is a "creationist."  However you and I both know that it is NOT what is being referenced in topics like this that refer to creationism.  There's another thread in this forum entitled "What if evolution was part of creationism?"  Note how this author used the word "creationISM" and not "creation."  

If you'd really like to split hairs regarding the rare and otherwise unused meaning of a word instead of the common vernacular use and meaning, I have no interest in arguing semantics.  The point remains that the term creationISM, as your own source points out, refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth."  It is not a minority being generalized and projected onto a majority.  It IS the majority.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Beats the fuck out of me, but that does not change the fact that the goal of doctoral dissertations. Not being an expert in English literature I am not going to claim that it is impossible that it can happen though. I think that proves something about you here.


Yes.  It proves that I know more about higher education that you do.  If you'd like to make a point, be sure to back it.  No, your claim that non-scientific fields such as literature review can produce new information is not well supported by "beats the fuck out of me."



Quantum Windbag said:


> I didn't though. Can't find it on Google, but some of the old books I read spoke of how some scientists actually believed it. I will keep looking around to see if I can find a reference for you.


"some of the old books I read" which you can't find anywhere on the entire internet.  ok.  This seems like a good place to reference my idea of being able to support what you say or don't bother saying it.



Quantum Windbag said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you design some experiment to figure that one out.  You know, investigate the world to discover evidence that God is still interacting with things.  We can gather data on particles which barely exist, and the effects of energies millions of miles away in space, so surely you'd find some new evidence in this world to support what you say, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to, somebody is already doing it.
> 
> Large Hadron Collider to search for God Particle using 7 TeV proton collisions, via live webcast (update: first collisions, video!) -- Engadget
Click to expand...

No.  Somebody is NOT already doing it.  You have a bad habit of blindly copying and pasting things without actually understanding them, and then looking rather foolish later.  Perhaps you should read up on the actual goals of the research instead of being so easily confused by the shiny name: Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Quantum Windbag said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no.  The standards of science DEMAND that lack of information is acknowledged.  Anyone who is "too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything" is not a scientist.  Only religion claims to have all the answers, regardless of how inane they may sound at times.  Science has no problem with "I don't know."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What religion claims to have all the answers?
Click to expand...

Name for me a single religion which does not have an answer for the following questions regardless of verifiable evidence:

Where did life come from?
Why do we exist?
Where did the universe come from?
What happens when we die?
Do souls exist?
How does one lead a good life?
What if we are wicked in life?
What is wicked anyway?
Is there a God?
For most of these questions, there is ZERO evidence in this universe, and yet religions tend to find the answers anyway.  Interesting.  Btw, there are actually a few religions out there that don't address some of those questions.  I'll be impressed if you can name them.


----------



## Old Rocks

Quantum Windbag said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick?  A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have.  The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.
> 
> It is still knowledge, gained by studying.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying.  That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? I thought the goal was always the same in dissertations for doctorates, to find new knowledge and make it available to others. A few years ago science had reached the point where it was believed that all possible knowledge had already been discovered, and that any further research would simply be rewriting old stuff, and of no intrinsic worth. I don't know about you, but I am pretty happy no one payed attention to the pundits back then. Why should I believe that everything it is possible to learn about God is already known? Where in the Bible does it say that God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation?
Click to expand...


What senile old hack stated that? Link? 

And why the implied denigration of scientists linked to your concept of a Diety?


----------



## Old Rocks

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way I look at it is that some people look at science the way others look at religion, as the guiding light and source of wisdom. Neither can offer all the answers to life's questions, and the only place they conflict is in the monds of people, on both sides, who are too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything. Some people have used their belief in God to bash science because they believe that their belief system trumps the facts.
> 
> Some people (Richard Dawkins to name one) have used their belief in science to trump religion. All Dawkins has really succeeded at is misrepresenting evolution, and science, in an attempt to prove something that is beyond his ability to comprehend. He is a prime example of how science is used as a religion, and he is a preacher of that religion. That does not make the science behind his faith wrong, anymore than the Crusades make Christianity wrong. It just means that people can corrupt anything.
> 
> Evolution is not a religion, but some people treat it like it is. If you refuse to see this that makes you just as blind as those who refuse to see that science is seeking truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people in the the scientific field are more than happy to admit they don't have all the answers.  The second we have "all the answers" then scientists are out of work.
> 
> I agree on Dawkins, and if you care to do a search with my name and "Dawkins" you will find that I find him to be a pompous asshole..  He is the exception and not the rule.  His OPED works (not exactly peer-reviewed material) that make larger inferences about the existence of God (or non-existence) step outside the scope of science as well.
> 
> I am not terribly concerned with people who want to "treat evolution like a religion".  Their presence is over-stated by over-reactive minds.  Again, I would use Ken Miller as my model on the matter.  Either way, most people in science are concerned with terribly nuanced issues that are far removed from the larger philosophical questions.  Things like examining how certain proteins facilitate cell function.  These are the "grunts" of the scientific field and the people that really make the venture work.  The prima donnas and talking heads on the matter, people like Dawkins, Ben Stein, or Ann Coulter are really just selling books.
> 
> Good post.
Click to expand...


The grand old man of evolutionary biology is Earnst Mayr. Another excellant read is the many books of Stephen Jay Gould. Dawkins biology is good, but he percieves the fight with the creationists as more important that the research that is ongoing into paths of evolution.


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no.  Now you went and did it.  Did you read those stories?
> 
> This one I like best: One day a feast was made for a *circumcision*banned, during which all manner of beasts were pitted to fight one another. The last fight was between dogs and cats. During this fight, a great flood came down from the mountains, drowning everyone except two or three menials who had been sent to the hills to gather firewood. Then the sun, moon, and stars were extinguished. When light returned, there was no land, and all the abodes of men had been overwhelmed.
> 
> Believe me, I compare "Noah's Ark" to these stories.  THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.  I'm sorry I was a skeptic.  Thanks for the link.  These are truly hilarious.  I'm going to read some more.
> 
> Check this one out: Water covered the whole earth, and all the Atás drowned except two men and a woman who were carried far to sea. They would have perished, but a great eagle offered to carry them on its back to their homes. One man refused, but the other two people accepted and returned to Mapula.
> 
> Thus marks the beginning of "polygamy"?
> 
> 
> 
> An AGW cultist has no business mocking anyone else's faith.
> 
> You asked for flood stories.  You got them.  You didn't specify they had to mirror the Noah's Ark story, so don't move the goalposts now, Skippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not.  I appreciate them.  Believe me I do.  They're hilarious and I respect them exactly the same as I respect the magical story of "Noah's Ark".
Click to expand...


Like I said:  An AGW cultist has no business mocking anyone else's faith.


----------



## geauxtohell

Old Rocks said:


> The grand old man of evolutionary biology is Earnst Mayr. Another excellant read is the many books of Stephen Jay Gould. Dawkins biology is good, but he percieves the fight with the creationists as more important that the research that is ongoing into paths of evolution.



And that is where I part ways with Dawkins.  I liked him a lot more when he was just a biologist and not a zealot preoccupied with trying to convince people that their issues of faith are wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Which version of "Christian fundamentalist?"  The "opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth" version.  Or did you not read the whole sentence of your own source still?  Now one could make the argument that since there are many beliefs in creation, each person believing such is a "creationist."  However you and I both know that it is NOT what is being referenced in topics like this that refer to creationism.  There's another thread in this forum entitled "What if evolution was part of creationism?"  Note how this author used the word "creationISM" and not "creation."
> 
> If you'd really like to split hairs regarding the rare and otherwise unused meaning of a word instead of the common vernacular use and meaning, I have no interest in arguing semantics.  The point remains that the term creationISM, as your own source points out, refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth."  It is not a minority being generalized and projected onto a majority.  It IS the majority.



I am not the one splitting hairs, you are the one insisting that the only possible valid definition is the one that allows you to make your point. The fact is that creationists are a very diverse group encompassing many beliefs, and that only a very small percent fit into the definition you insist on using. Your bias and lack of research skills is showing. Fundamentalism is not  the problem here, it is the people who treat science as a religion.

CSC - Don't Blame Fundamentalists for Evolution Controversies



SmarterThanHick said:


> Yes.  It proves that I know more about higher education that you do.  If you'd like to make a point, be sure to back it.  No, your claim that non-scientific fields such as literature review can produce new information is not well supported by "beats the fuck out of me."



No, it proves your bias against soft subjects and for hard science. I happen to share it myself, I am also smart enough to remember that I am often wrong, especially when it comes to something I have little, or no, personal knowledge of. Just because I do not know what new knowledge a person who writes a doctoral dissertation on Chaucer has managed to contributed to the world does not mean it does not exist.

I do not have to back any claim because I did not make one, I simply asked a question. I am not going to go back and look to make sure I word it exactly, but it was asking if the idea behind any doctoral dissertation and award being a requirement that it advance human knowledge. That actually places the burden of proof on you if you want to claim that English Literature doctorals do not meet that standard.



SmarterThanHick said:


> "some of the old books I read" which you can't find anywhere on the entire internet.  ok.  This seems like a good place to reference my idea of being able to support what you say or don't bother saying it.



Can you find a copy of every single book ever written on the internet? I seriosly doubt you can, even though Google is currently striving to make it possible. The fact that they are still actively scanning proves that they still have work to do. Believe it or not there are a lot of things that exist in the real world that cannot be found on the internet.



SmarterThanHick said:


> No.  Somebody is NOT already doing it.  You have a bad habit of blindly copying and pasting things without actually understanding them, and then looking rather foolish later.  Perhaps you should read up on the actual goals of the research instead of being so easily confused by the shiny name: Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Can you provide evidence that God is not revealing Himself through science? Your challenge was not for me to prove God exists, just that He is still revealing Himself. Perhaps you should take your own advice about looking foolish.




SmarterThanHick said:


> Name for me a single religion which does not have an answer for the following questions regardless of verifiable evidence:
> 
> Where did life come from?
> Why do we exist?
> Where did the universe come from?
> What happens when we die?
> Do souls exist?
> How does one lead a good life?
> What if we are wicked in life?
> What is wicked anyway?
> Is there a God?
> For most of these questions, there is ZERO evidence in this universe, and yet religions tend to find the answers anyway.  Interesting.  Btw, there are actually a few religions out there that don't address some of those questions.  I'll be impressed if you can name them.



Scientology

See, that wasn't even hard. If you really want to discuss theology in depth I could explain to you how Christianity, being a collections of sects and beliefs, doesn't even have an answer to all of those questions. Judaism doesn't even have all the answers to the questions you asked, and they have been working on them longer than any Christian sect. Theology is not so much about having the answers as asking the questions. It is not unusual for people who don't understand it to think that it assumes things just because the basic belief is outside their comprehension.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying.  That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I thought the goal was always the same in dissertations for doctorates, to find new knowledge and make it available to others. A few years ago science had reached the point where it was believed that all possible knowledge had already been discovered, and that any further research would simply be rewriting old stuff, and of no intrinsic worth. I don't know about you, but I am pretty happy no one payed attention to the pundits back then. Why should I believe that everything it is possible to learn about God is already known? Where in the Bible does it say that God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What senile old hack stated that? Link?
> 
> And why the implied denigration of scientists linked to your concept of a Diety?
Click to expand...


Where did I denigrate anyone? Is the problem here not my concept of God, but yours, and your refusal to admit you have no idea what I believe?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Old Rocks said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way I look at it is that some people look at science the way others look at religion, as the guiding light and source of wisdom. Neither can offer all the answers to life's questions, and the only place they conflict is in the monds of people, on both sides, who are too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything. Some people have used their belief in God to bash science because they believe that their belief system trumps the facts.
> 
> Some people (Richard Dawkins to name one) have used their belief in science to trump religion. All Dawkins has really succeeded at is misrepresenting evolution, and science, in an attempt to prove something that is beyond his ability to comprehend. He is a prime example of how science is used as a religion, and he is a preacher of that religion. That does not make the science behind his faith wrong, anymore than the Crusades make Christianity wrong. It just means that people can corrupt anything.
> 
> Evolution is not a religion, but some people treat it like it is. If you refuse to see this that makes you just as blind as those who refuse to see that science is seeking truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people in the the scientific field are more than happy to admit they don't have all the answers.  The second we have "all the answers" then scientists are out of work.
> 
> I agree on Dawkins, and if you care to do a search with my name and "Dawkins" you will find that I find him to be a pompous asshole..  He is the exception and not the rule.  His OPED works (not exactly peer-reviewed material) that make larger inferences about the existence of God (or non-existence) step outside the scope of science as well.
> 
> I am not terribly concerned with people who want to "treat evolution like a religion".  Their presence is over-stated by over-reactive minds.  Again, I would use Ken Miller as my model on the matter.  Either way, most people in science are concerned with terribly nuanced issues that are far removed from the larger philosophical questions.  Things like examining how certain proteins facilitate cell function.  These are the "grunts" of the scientific field and the people that really make the venture work.  The prima donnas and talking heads on the matter, people like Dawkins, Ben Stein, or Ann Coulter are really just selling books.
> 
> Good post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The grand old man of evolutionary biology is Earnst Mayr. Another excellant read is the many books of Stephen Jay Gould. Dawkins biology is good, but he percieves the fight with the creationists as more important that the research that is ongoing into paths of evolution.
Click to expand...


Funny, most biologists I know think Dawkins biology is atrocious. Something about him being a zoologists and not a real scientist.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> I am not the one splitting hairs, you are the one insisting that the only possible valid definition is the one that allows you to make your point.


Is that so?  Could you be a dear and quote me saying it is the only possible valid definition, or better yet how it being the only valid definition would allow me to make my point?  Do you even know my point?  Here I'll make it really simple for you: my point is that when people commonly refer to creationism, it is the common meaning of the word, and THAT meaning is not compatible with evolution.  Notice how the point is still preserved regardless of other meanings that aren't commonly used.  Notice how you were the one who is harping on minority uses of the word that didn't originally apply in this thread.  Notice how YOU were the one who brought up a source that directly contradicted you and supported me.  Notice how you are sidetracking the actual point, being that the common meaning of the word that was being referenced at the time is still not compatible with evolution. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> No, it proves your bias against soft subjects and for hard science. I happen to share it myself, I am also smart enough to remember that I am often wrong, especially when it comes to something I have little, or no, personal knowledge of. Just because I do not know what new knowledge a person who writes a doctoral dissertation on Chaucer has managed to contributed to the world does not mean it does not exist.


You seem to let your emotions twist the points being made instead of reading what's actually being said. I have no bias again the subjects that YOU reference as "soft."  They are simply not comparable to science or it's standards in seeking new information regarding the universe. If you disagree with that point, simply show where English literature accomplishes that as well. I won't eagerly await your great rebuttal seeing as you haven't provided one yet and at best supported your point with "beats the fuck out of me."  

Doctoral dissertations in non-scientific fields can be insightful contributions to their respective fields, but do not produce NEW information about the universe by examining it. They either rehash old information, or produce new interpretations of old information.  If you are still interpreting that as if I'm saying they're less valuable, I suggest you read it again.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I do not have to back any claim because I did not make one, I simply asked a question. I am not going to go back and look to make sure I word it exactly


No, you didn't ask a question.  But you're right in that you didn't make a point either.  What you said was "Not being an expert in English literature I am not going to claim that it is impossible that it can happen though." NOT being an expert you're NOT going to claim it's NOT possible.  Triple negative?  Well, when you've figured out what you're NOT going to be claiming, and decide to make a point, let me know.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Can you find a copy of every single book ever written on the internet? I seriosly doubt you can, even though Google is currently striving to make it possible. The fact that they are still actively scanning proves that they still have work to do. Believe it or not there are a lot of things that exist in the real world that cannot be found on the internet.


You can't even name the book you read it in.  So let's drop the facade.  You fabricated some garbage you were silly enough to believe was true, and can't find a source anywhere on the ENTIRE INTERNET that supports it.  Remember what I said about not typing if you can't back it?  It applies here.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Can you provide evidence that God is not revealing Himself through science? Your challenge was not for me to prove God exists, just that He is still revealing Himself. Perhaps you should take your own advice about looking foolish.


I love this argument.  "You can't prove God DOESN'T exist!"  This argument is like a bulls-eye for ignorance.  I can't believe you actually just used it.  Fact is, you can't prove ANYTHING doesn't exist.  You can't prove unicorns and the tooth fairy don't reveal themselves through science.  In fact, you can't prove a negative.  See the following if you need help with this concept:
You can't prove God doesn't exist - Iron Chariots Wiki

Meanwhile, my "challenge" was based on your assertion that the bible does not state "God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation" so therefore it's possible. My "challenge" was for you to show how that is still happening, which you can't, because there's ZERO evidence.  In response, you posted an unrelated physics experiment that had nothing to do with it because you were easily distracted by the shiny name, in your usual fashion of not actually reading the sources you cite.  

Cute!

Want to try again?  Your struggling is amusing me.



Quantum Windbag said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name for me a single religion which does not have an answer for the following questions regardless of verifiable evidence:
> 
> Where did life come from?
> Why do we exist?
> Where did the universe come from?
> What happens when we die?
> Do souls exist?
> How does one lead a good life?
> What if we are wicked in life?
> What is wicked anyway?
> Is there a God?
> For most of these questions, there is ZERO evidence in this universe, and yet religions tend to find the answers anyway.  Interesting.  Btw, there are actually a few religions out there that don't address some of those questions.  I'll be impressed if you can name them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientology
Click to expand...

Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?


----------



## geauxtohell

SmarterThanHick said:


> Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?



I am curious too.  Scientology definitely has their own "answers" to the fundamental questions. 

I find them to be absurd, but who knows what people will think of them in 2000 years.  

I just got off of psych and found it ironic that the psych hospital library had virtually all of Hubbards works.  

Someone had donated them.


----------



## asterism

Madeline said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying.  That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the IPCC report that contains fiction written by an activist?  That sort of higher standard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asterism, are you annoyed that some people do not think religion can be researched?  If so, why?
Click to expand...


No I am not annoyed at all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Is that so?  Could you be a dear and quote me saying it is the only possible valid definition, or better yet how it being the only valid definition would allow me to make my point?  Do you even know my point?  Here I'll make it really simple for you: my point is that when people commonly refer to creationism, it is the common meaning of the word, and THAT meaning is not compatible with evolution.  Notice how the point is still preserved regardless of other meanings that aren't commonly used.  Notice how you were the one who is harping on minority uses of the word that didn't originally apply in this thread.  Notice how YOU were the one who brought up a source that directly contradicted you and supported me.  Notice how you are sidetracking the actual point, being that the common meaning of the word that was being referenced at the time is still not compatible with evolution.



Are you willing to admit that creationism is not the belief that life was created as is? If not you are still trying to parse the definition in order to make your point that creationism is that belief.



SmarterThanHick said:


> You seem to let your emotions twist the points being made instead of reading what's actually being said. I have no bias again the subjects that YOU reference as "soft."  They are simply not comparable to science or it's standards in seeking new information regarding the universe. If you disagree with that point, simply show where English literature accomplishes that as well. I won't eagerly await your great rebuttal seeing as you haven't provided one yet and at best supported your point with "beats the fuck out of me."



I already told you I agree with it, I just understand that doctorates are about proving to a committee that you have contributed something to wealth of knowledge in some field. I asked you if that was the case, and you retorted by asking me what knowledge a English literature major could contribute.

Believe it or not, it still beats the fuck out of me. Since I am not defending that position, I don't have to prove it. You can throw up that strawman as much as you want and claim it proves something, and I do not care, because you are not scroing points off of me.

My point still stands unchallenged. What proof have you even attempted to provide that shows that the standards for doctorates in English Literature are looser than those of, say, transdimensional physics? Other than your personal bias that is?



SmarterThanHick said:


> Doctoral dissertations in non-scientific fields can be insightful contributions to their respective fields, but do not produce NEW information about the universe by examining it. They either rehash old information, or produce new interpretations of old information.  If you are still interpreting that as if I'm saying they're less valuable, I suggest you read it again.



I am gald you are an expert on that and can insure me that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to provide new information about an old field of study. Can you also tell me what the lottery numbers are for this weekend?



SmarterThanHick said:


> No, you didn't ask a question.  But you're right in that you didn't make a point either.  What you said was "Not being an expert in English literature I am not going to claim that it is impossible that it can happen though." NOT being an expert you're NOT going to claim it's NOT possible.  Triple negative?  Well, when you've figured out what you're NOT going to be claiming, and decide to make a point, let me know.



I didn't ask a question, or make a point. Hmmm



Quantum Windbag said:


> Really? I thought the goal was always the  same in dissertations for doctorates, to find new knowledge and make it  available to others.



Like I said earlier, I did not want to make a direct quote because I do not remember what I said, but if this interrogatory statement was incorrect all you had to do was inform me that doctorates are about something other than contributing new knowledge to the field or to the world. Instead you challenged me to show what English Literature doctoral candidates are contributing in the way of knowledge.

I might not have made any point, but you sure are making one for me.



SmarterThanHick said:


> You can't even name the book you read it in.  So let's drop the facade.  You fabricated some garbage you were silly enough to believe was true, and can't find a source anywhere on the ENTIRE INTERNET that supports it.  Remember what I said about not typing if you can't back it?  It applies here.



I am sorry I do not have an eidetic memory. I realize that puts me at a disadvantage in debating experts who know, and remember, everything, but I will make do. I kind of prefer being human and forgetful myself.



SmarterThanHick said:


> I love this argument.  "You can't prove God DOESN'T exist!"  This argument is like a bulls-eye for ignorance.  I can't believe you actually just used it.  Fact is, you can't prove ANYTHING doesn't exist.  You can't prove unicorns and the tooth fairy don't reveal themselves through science.  In fact, you can't prove a negative.  See the following if you need help with this concept:
> You can't prove God doesn't exist - Iron Chariots Wiki



Another strawman. I did not claim you cannot prove God does not exist. I would also like to point out that it is quite easy to prove many things are impossible. I asked if you provide evidence that God is not revealing Himself through science. That is not a demand for proof, but for evidence. The fact that you had to resort to a strawman tells me that the answer is no.



SmarterThanHick said:


> Meanwhile, my "challenge" was based on your assertion that the bible does not state "God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation" so therefore it's possible. My "challenge" was for you to show how that is still happening, which you can't, because there's ZERO evidence.  In response, you posted an unrelated physics experiment that had nothing to do with it because you were easily distracted by the shiny name, in your usual fashion of not actually reading the sources you cite.



No, your challenge was to design an experiment to prove it. 



SmarterThanHick said:


> Cute!



I deliberately choose the Higgs Boson because it actually proves how little we actually know about the universe, which is why it has earned the nickname of the God Particle. Everything we know tells us that no particle has any mass, yet we can clearly demonstrate that they do. The Higgs Boson, if it exists, would explain this problem and help us to have a more fundamental understanding of the universe in more ways than one. It could possibly lead to developing the Unified Field Theory and even the Theory of Everything.

Yet you dismiss it because it has a shiny name.




SmarterThanHick said:


> Want to try again?  Your struggling is amusing me.



Not nearly as much as yours is amusing me.



SmarterThanHick said:


> Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?



Good and evil for one.

What Scientologists Believe- Beliefnet.com


----------



## Quantum Windbag

geauxtohell said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious too.  Scientology definitely has their own "answers" to the fundamental questions.
> 
> I find them to be absurd, but who knows what people will think of them in 2000 years.
> 
> I just got off of psych and found it ironic that the psych hospital library had virtually all of Hubbards works.
> 
> Someone had donated them.
Click to expand...


Scientology was made up by a hack SF author from the Golden Age and really doesn't answer anything, but the most singular lack is its addressing good v evil dichotomy. It is a bit like Buddhism, except you have to achieve enlightenment through self awareness instead of giving up self.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> Are you willing to admit that creationism is not the belief that life was created as is? If not you are still trying to parse the definition in order to make your point that creationism is that belief.


Are you really that dense?  See that first sentence there?  It's a generalization.  You're trying to pin a concept which is most largely consistent and used in the definition I have provided, but has other minor meanings generally not used in language and DEFINITELY not used here, and claim it is definitely not the most frequently used definition.  It's absurd.  

Creationism is, for the large majority of uses, including the one used here, the definition I provided, being "opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth."  This is also the definition you provided, which you seem to be arguing against now.  

Nonetheless the point still remains: the term creationISM, as your own source points out, refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth," that this was the exact meaning it was used here, and is therefore incompatible with evolution.  What part of that do you feel is incorrect?  That's the point you continue to bicker about to save face.  You can't even say what part of that is wrong.  You just go off on semantic garbage again and again, which only makes your failed efforts more absurd.  Quit while you're behind.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I already told you I agree with it, I just understand that doctorates are about proving to a committee that you have contributed something to wealth of knowledge in some field. I asked you if that was the case, and you retorted by asking me what knowledge a English literature major could contribute.


Did I now?  Where did I say that?  Perhaps you should quote me saying that.  Then reference the part where I say your emotional outbursts tend to misinterpret things people say, including your own sources.



Quantum Windbag said:


> My point still stands unchallenged. What proof have you even attempted to provide that shows that the standards for doctorates in English Literature are looser than those of, say, transdimensional physics?


Here's another thing which I never said but you managed to read somewhere anyway.  But I'll entertain the idea anyway, if you first just tell me what standard of evaluation English literature has that is congruent to the scientific method.  I'll look forward to your answer. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> I am gald you are an expert on that and can insure me that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to provide new information about an old field of study. Can you also tell me what the lottery numbers are for this weekend?


Instead of a dumb passive aggressive retort, perhaps you'd like to point out what non-scientific field provides truly new information about the universe. Even a rigorous historical study is still just uncovering and compiling previously established knowledge. Again, that is quite valuable, but it's still not a novel discovery in the world. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> I didn't ask a question, or make a point. Hmmm





			
				Quantum said:
			
		

> I do not have to back any claim because I did not make one


Glad you were able to support the fact that you made no claim. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> I am sorry I do not have an eidetic memory. I realize that puts me at a disadvantage in debating experts who know, and remember, everything, but I will make do. I kind of prefer being human and forgetful myself.


It seems you don't have any memory at all.  Making claims that are completely false and supported no where while referencing some book you conveniently can't remember and can't find online.  If you can't remember it, why did you first say you couldn't find it online?  How would you have even been able to search for it and conclude it wasn't on the internet if you couldn't even remember the name?

Again, just drop the facade: you made crap up, and someone called you on it.  Quit while you're behind.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Another strawman. I did not claim you cannot prove God does not exist. I would also like to point out that it is quite easy to prove many things are impossible. I asked if you provide evidence that God is not revealing Himself through science. That is not a demand for proof, but for evidence. The fact that you had to resort to a strawman tells me that the answer is no.


It's actually not a straw man.  You made the claim that I could not prove something doesn't exist, which is ridiculous for the reasons I pointed out.  In your example, that something was God still revealing itself within creation.  Doesn't matter WHAT that something is, you still fell for that "you can't prove something doesn't exist" ignorance.  You try to distinguish this by saying one is proof and one is evidence.  With regard to the point being made: what's the difference?  Do you think proof does not consist of evidence?  Doesn't matter whether it's "You can't prove God DOESN'T exist!" or "You can't prove God DOESN'T reveal himself!" or "You can't show evidence that God doesn't reveal himself."  All of these are the exact same ridiculous lack of logic.

No one has made any mention of proving things are impossible.  I don't know why you bring that up here.  



Quantum Windbag said:


> Meanwhile, my "challenge" was based on your assertion that the bible does not state "God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation" so therefore it's possible. My "challenge" was for you to show how that is still happening, which you can't, because there's ZERO evidence. In response, you posted an unrelated physics experiment that had nothing to do with it because you were easily distracted by the shiny name, in your usual fashion of not actually reading the sources you cite.
> 
> 
> 
> No, your challenge was to design an experiment to prove it.
Click to expand...

Again you split hairs to save face.  OK.  Have you designed such an experiment?  Shall I rewrite the exact idea in that above paragraph to get at the exact same point in your new hair-splitting remarks?  Here you go: Have you designed such an experiment to prove it?  No, of course not.  Because you can't.  In response you posted an unrelated physics experiment that had nothing to do with it because you were easily distracted by the shiny name, in your usual fashion of not actually reading the sources you cite.  Then you went on to make some useless semantic game which still shows you to be wrong.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I deliberately choose the Higgs Boson because it actually proves how little we actually know about the universe, which is why it has earned the nickname of the God Particle. Everything we know tells us that no particle has any mass, yet we can clearly demonstrate that they do. The Higgs Boson, if it exists, would explain this problem and help us to have a more fundamental understanding of the universe in more ways than one. It could possibly lead to developing the Unified Field Theory and even the Theory of Everything.
> 
> Yet you dismiss it because it has a shiny name.


No, you chose the Higgs Boson particle because you didn't know better.  The article you cited didn't even have the words Higgs Boson in it, nor did the video.  Nor did the page you cited have ANYTHING to do with what we know about the universe.  Nor did you state the reason you selected that page had anything to do with Higgs Boson OR how little we knew about the universe.  You posted it in direct response to one of my posts asking you to show an experiment that attempts to provide evidence that God is still interacting with the universe.  It was wrong in response to that post, and now you're just backpedaling, which is just getting pathetic. 

Going on a long rant about its implications for physics still has nothing to do with showing evidence of God interacting with the universe, not ANYTHING in this thread for that matter. It wasn't even a decent attempt at back-pedaling.  Seriously, quit while you're behind.



Quantum Windbag said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good and evil for one.
> 
> What Scientologists Believe- Beliefnet.com
Click to expand...

Do you really not read your own sources ever?  This is getting laughable and ridiculous.  It's like you set yourself up to have me shoot you down.  Perhaps before asserting that scientology doesn't address good and evil, you should have read the paragraphs of your own source under the large headers "WHY EVIL" and "SALVATION."


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you willing to admit that creationism is not the belief that life was created as is? If not you are still trying to parse the definition in order to make your point that creationism is that belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that dense?  See that first sentence there?  It's a generalization.  You're trying to pin a concept which is most largely consistent and used in the definition I have provided, but has other minor meanings generally not used in language and DEFINITELY not used here, and claim it is definitely not the most frequently used definition.  It's absurd.
> 
> Creationism is, for the large majority of uses, including the one used here, the definition I provided, being "opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth."  This is also the definition you provided, which you seem to be arguing against now.
> 
> Nonetheless the point still remains: the term creationISM, as your own source points out, refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth," that this was the exact meaning it was used here, and is therefore incompatible with evolution.  What part of that do you feel is incorrect?  That's the point you continue to bicker about to save face.  You can't even say what part of that is wrong.  You just go off on semantic garbage again and again, which only makes your failed efforts more absurd.  Quit while you're behind.
Click to expand...


In other words, the only opinion data that matters to you is your opinion.

I will take your advice and quit while I am behind because you are obviously incapable of admitting that you are insisting that you are the only authority in this matter, and only see the data that supports your position.

Congratulations, you have won the internet.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> In other words, the only opinion data that matters to you is your opinion.


No.  And "opinion data" is a made up term. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> I will take your advice and quit while I am behind because you are obviously incapable of admitting that you are insisting that you are the only authority in this matter, and only see the data that supports your position.


No, I am not the only authority on this matter.  However, the bullshit you have provided does not have relevant credibility.  In this thread, the things you have used to support the ridiculous things you've been saying have included:


Wikipedia, which directly proved you wrong
The laughable idea that scientists believe there was nothing left to discover in the world, with no support whatsoever
The God particle in response to an experiment designed to identify how god interacts with the world, because you didn't understand what it was or even read your own source
The wrong idea that scientology does not address good and evil, when it is highlighted in the source that you provided.
The unsupported idea that some people treat evolution like a religion.
"beats the fuck out of me"

If you're going to take my advice to quit while you're ahead, just duck out of the thread.  Throwing up one last immature ad hominem attack because you are completely incapable of supporting the things you say, and have run out of sources to share that directly contradict your own points, only allows me to retort with all the dumb things you've done in this thread. Seriously, quit while you're behind.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the only opinion data that matters to you is your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  And "opinion data" is a made up term.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will take your advice and quit while I am behind because you are obviously incapable of admitting that you are insisting that you are the only authority in this matter, and only see the data that supports your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am not the only authority on this matter.  However, the bullshit you have provided does not have relevant credibility.  In this thread, the things you have used to support the ridiculous things you've been saying have included:
> 
> 
> Wikipedia, which directly proved you wrong
> The laughable idea that scientists believe there was nothing left to discover in the world, with no support whatsoever
> The God particle in response to an experiment designed to identify how god interacts with the world, because you didn't understand what it was or even read your own source
> The wrong idea that scientology does not address good and evil, when it is highlighted in the source that you provided.
> The unsupported idea that some people treat evolution like a religion.
> "beats the fuck out of me"
> 
> If you're going to take my advice to quit while you're ahead, just duck out of the thread.  Throwing up one last immature ad hominem attack because you are completely incapable of supporting the things you say, and have run out of sources to share that directly contradict your own points, only allows me to retort with all the dumb things you've done in this thread. Seriously, quit while you're behind.
Click to expand...


I like offending people. If me sticking around the thread offends you, upsets you, or just aggravates you, I actually feel better. 

How about you?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Well no not really.  I stick around because listening to ignorant, prejudiced, or unsupported remarks and then exposing them as such amuses me.


----------



## geauxtohell

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious too.  Scientology definitely has their own "answers" to the fundamental questions.
> 
> I find them to be absurd, but who knows what people will think of them in 2000 years.
> 
> I just got off of psych and found it ironic that the psych hospital library had virtually all of Hubbards works.
> 
> Someone had donated them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientology was made up by a hack SF author from the Golden Age and really doesn't answer anything, but the most singular lack is its addressing good v evil dichotomy. It is a bit like Buddhism, except you have to achieve enlightenment through self awareness instead of giving up self.
Click to expand...


I am no fan of Scientology.  I find their assault on Psychiatry to be an offensive insult to the collective intelligence of the world.  

That being said, like all religions they have their own set of mythos to explain the crucial questions. To include good and bad (Xenu).  

If there was a starter kit for a religion, it would have instructions on addressing all the questions that STH referenced.  People are attracted to religion because it answers those questions.  

I am not knocking religion (other than scientology which I don't consider to be an actual religion), I am just pointing out that the fear of the unknown is what drives people to adhere to adopt a "faith" that their beliefs are right.


----------



## HUGGY

The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years.  That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.

Science will eventually lead to the possibility of cloning for body parts if not for all vital organs or complete body replacements.  This is the biggest no-no for religions and the one thing they fear the most.  When we can truly choose between our own destiny or one only offered as a theory hidden in faith and mysticism religion will have to prove it's worth or dry up as a very stupid choice.

Faith is the sugar pill.  Cloning will be the cure.


----------



## Marc39

HUGGY said:


> The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years.  That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.
> 
> Science will eventually lead to the possibility of cloning for body parts if not for all vital organs or complete body replacements.  This is the biggest no-no for religions and the one thing they fear the most.  When we can truly choose between our own destiny or one only offered as a theory hidden in faith and mysticism religion will have to prove it's worth or dry up as a very stupid choice.
> 
> Faith is the sugar pill.  Cloning will be the cure.



Einstein believed in God.

What are your scientific credentials, genius?

Watching the Sci-Fi Channel doesn't count


----------



## SmarterThanHick

People have a bad habit of citing Einstein as the end-all of information.  He was certainly a genius in physics, but he's no more comparable to modern knowledge and culture than citing Alexander the Great.  Now if you want to use him as a source for PHYSICS then you'd have a strong point.  But that's not the topic we're talking about, and he's unfortunately not been alive for over half a century.  To say he never saw the coming of genetics is an understatement.


----------



## Marc39

SmarterThanHick said:


> People have a bad habit of citing Einstein as the end-all of information.  He was certainly a genius in physics, but he's no more comparable to modern knowledge and culture than citing Alexander the Great.  Now if you want to use him as a source for PHYSICS then you'd have a strong point.  But that's not the topic we're talking about, and he's unfortunately not been alive for over half a century.  To say he never saw the coming of genetics is an understatement.



I'll go with Einstein.

You, not so much.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

You want to go with someone who has not been alive in over half a century as your source for modern scientific information?  Ignoring the fact that he literally grew up with a horse and buggy, and never saw computers let alone the internet, I really don't think you should be using Einstein as your source for religion or non-physics modern science.

Also, you may want to read a few of these:
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Was-Einstein-an-Atheist-.htm


----------



## geauxtohell

Marc39 said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have a bad habit of citing Einstein as the end-all of information.  He was certainly a genius in physics, but he's no more comparable to modern knowledge and culture than citing Alexander the Great.  Now if you want to use him as a source for PHYSICS then you'd have a strong point.  But that's not the topic we're talking about, and he's unfortunately not been alive for over half a century.  To say he never saw the coming of genetics is an understatement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll go with Einstein.
> 
> You, not so much.
Click to expand...


Go for it.  I am sure Einstein will publish that paper disproving evolution any day now.  

Furthermore, people who reference Einstein's views on religion in regards to this issue probably haven't really read what the man said.


----------



## geauxtohell

HUGGY said:


> The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years.  That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.
> 
> Science will eventually lead to the possibility of cloning for body parts if not for all vital organs or complete body replacements.  This is the biggest no-no for religions and the one thing they fear the most.  When we can truly choose between our own destiny or one only offered as a theory hidden in faith and mysticism religion will have to prove it's worth or dry up as a very stupid choice.
> 
> Faith is the sugar pill.  Cloning will be the cure.



An interesting perspective.  Thanks.


----------



## Greenbeard

HUGGY said:


> The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years.  That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.



I'd argue that the quest to continually tack on life-years is misguided (and, perhaps, tragic). The immortality fantasy is exactly why religions exist. And that's a shame because I have no doubt that for many people spirituality can provide a much richer life, as can many forms of philosophy. Yet people persist in preferring quantity to quality, opting for cheap promises and empty reassurances over the pursuit of deeper insights. Everyone will die; every lifespan is finite. I'd much prefer to see the quality of that lifespan improved (materially, intellectually, emotionally, philosophically, etc) than seeing it artificially lengthened.


----------



## HUGGY

Marc39 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years.  That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.
> 
> Science will eventually lead to the possibility of cloning for body parts if not for all vital organs or complete body replacements.  This is the biggest no-no for religions and the one thing they fear the most.  When we can truly choose between our own destiny or one only offered as a theory hidden in faith and mysticism religion will have to prove it's worth or dry up as a very stupid choice.
> 
> Faith is the sugar pill.  Cloning will be the cure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein believed in God.
> 
> What are your scientific credentials, genius?
> 
> Watching the Sci-Fi Channel doesn't count
Click to expand...


I think for myself.  You AND Einstein can mind YOUR OWN fucking business.


----------



## HUGGY

Greenbeard said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years.  That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd argue that the quest to continually tack on life-years is misguided (and, perhaps, tragic). The immortality fantasy is exactly why religions exist. And that's a shame because I have no doubt that for many people spirituality can provide a much richer life, as can many forms of philosophy. Yet people persist in preferring quantity to quality, opting for cheap promises and empty reassurances over the pursuit of deeper insights. Everyone will die; every lifespan is finite. I'd much prefer to see the quality of that lifespan improved (materially, intellectually, emotionally, philosophically, etc) than seeing it artificially lengthened.
Click to expand...


I don't see living a lie as quality control.  Silly me.


----------



## Muhammed

Sometimes religions are falsely presented as science. For instance Al Gore's Global Warming Cult and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology.


----------



## Greenbeard

HUGGY said:


> I don't see living a lie as quality control.  Silly me.



I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm no more arguing in favor of the promises and  reassurances of religious authorities or sacred texts than I am the wishful thinking of those who foresee technology gradually taking away those things that make us human. The empty quest for immortality from _both_ camps tends to have the unpleasant effect of crowding out the more important quest for a life well-lived _and_ well-ended.


----------



## HUGGY

Greenbeard said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see living a lie as quality control.  Silly me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm no more arguing in favor of the promises and  reassurances of religious authorities or sacred texts than I am the wishful thinking of those who foresee technology gradually taking away those things that make us human. The empty quest for immortality from _both_ camps tends to have the unpleasant effect of crowding out the more important quest for a life well-lived _and_ well-ended.
Click to expand...


You misunderstand ME.  Why do you assume the desire for more longevity is an "empty request"?  Is a desirable "human" quality frailty?  What makes you think quality diminishes with quantity?  Those are general assumptions with no basis in fact.  Some things take time.  I predict some of the best ideas in our species future will come from those that have had a very long time to follow through with their thoughts and investigations of the tougher questions and problems we have yet to solve.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Muhammed said:


> Sometimes religions are falsely presented as science. For instance Al Gore's Global Warming Cult and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology.



how is the concept of global warming a religion?


----------



## Old Rocks

Because the 'sceptics' cannot argue the science that it is based on. Therefore, the red herring used is to claim it is a religion to be accepted on faith. Of course, sites like this show the science that the fact of AGW is based on;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Old Rocks

Greenbeard said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see living a lie as quality control.  Silly me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm no more arguing in favor of the promises and  reassurances of religious authorities or sacred texts than I am the wishful thinking of those who foresee technology gradually taking away those things that make us human. The empty quest for immortality from _both_ camps tends to have the unpleasant effect of crowding out the more important quest for a life well-lived _and_ well-ended.
Click to expand...


I would have to disagree with you here. At 67, I realize just how little I know. If one had a indefinate lifespan, one in which you did not die of old age, but of some accident, then the amount of knowledge, and ability to put that knowledge together in a new way, would be vastly increased.

As far as immortality is concerned, ain't gonna happen. The universe will eventually terminate each and every one of us in some manner.

Disruptions caused by a large portion of the population gaining a much longer life span would be very great. Interesting ideas for Sci-Fi stories there.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious too.  Scientology definitely has their own "answers" to the fundamental questions.
> 
> I find them to be absurd, but who knows what people will think of them in 2000 years.
> 
> I just got off of psych and found it ironic that the psych hospital library had virtually all of Hubbards works.
> 
> Someone had donated them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientology was made up by a hack SF author from the Golden Age and really doesn't answer anything, but the most singular lack is its addressing good v evil dichotomy. It is a bit like Buddhism, except you have to achieve enlightenment through self awareness instead of giving up self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am no fan of Scientology.  I find their assault on Psychiatry to be an offensive insult to the collective intelligence of the world.
> 
> That being said, like all religions they have their own set of mythos to explain the crucial questions. To include good and bad (Xenu).
> 
> If there was a starter kit for a religion, it would have instructions on addressing all the questions that STH referenced.  People are attracted to religion because it answers those questions.
> 
> I am not knocking religion (other than scientology which I don't consider to be an actual religion), I am just pointing out that the fear of the unknown is what drives people to adhere to adopt a "faith" that their beliefs are right.
Click to expand...


Feel free to mock Scientology as much as you want. If you ever need more ammo just read Hubbard's other books, or even watch the movie Battlefied Earth if you can stomach it. Scientology does not really address the concept of evil, or even good and bad. Actions are either positive or negative depending on how they align with the 8 dynamics. Some people suffer, but that is because the universe has them trapped, and they can overcome suffering by understanding themselves and paying buckoo bucks to erase their engrams.

There is great debate in Christianity about suffering and why it exists. Some people pretend to have an answer, and they all end up looking like fools when people look at the real world. The intelligent believers understand this, and admit that the answers are not their. No religion has the answers, and anyone that claims they do is lying.

Trust in a religion is not about knowing the answers as much as it is about knowing that there is more to life than what we can perceive. Most people who believe in whatever they believe in do so because they obtain a sense of hope and peace, not because they are afraid of the unknown. It is actually pretty easy to dismiss belief as fear of the unknown, but that sells its real value short. 

There are a lot of things I am afraid of, but the unknown is not really one of them. I have way to many real dangers to worry about, including crossing the street every day, to worry about things I do not know about. I did not turn to God because I was afraid, I turned to Him because He loves me, and everyone else on the planet.

No one is going to hell for not believing in God. As far as I know no one is actually going to hell. God is not vindictive, and does not need worship. Believing in God is a bit like being married, no matter how bad life gets there is always someone there to talk to. It may not make life better, but it does make me better.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

HUGGY said:


> The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years.  That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.
> 
> Science will eventually lead to the possibility of cloning for body parts if not for all vital organs or complete body replacements.  This is the biggest no-no for religions and the one thing they fear the most.  When we can truly choose between our own destiny or one only offered as a theory hidden in faith and mysticism religion will have to prove it's worth or dry up as a very stupid choice.
> 
> Faith is the sugar pill.  Cloning will be the cure.



What evidence do you have that we could live a couple of hundred years? I have been looking around for a quarter of that time and I have never seen anyone survive more than 130 years, and most people don't get anywhere near that. Maybe if you weren't so afraid of the unknown yourself you would not be making absurd claims for science and treating it like it has, or can get, all the answers. It is impossible for us to know everything, even if we live forever. Science will never have all the answers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Greenbeard said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years.  That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd argue that the quest to continually tack on life-years is misguided (and, perhaps, tragic). The immortality fantasy is exactly why religions exist. And that's a shame because I have no doubt that for many people spirituality can provide a much richer life, as can many forms of philosophy. Yet people persist in preferring quantity to quality, opting for cheap promises and empty reassurances over the pursuit of deeper insights. Everyone will die; every lifespan is finite. I'd much prefer to see the quality of that lifespan improved (materially, intellectually, emotionally, philosophically, etc) than seeing it artificially lengthened.
Click to expand...


I don't see why we cannot have both myself, but I essentially agree with what you are saying. It is better to have a short, rich life than to have a long one stuck in a life support capsule never interacting with the real world.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> Scientology does not really address the concept of evil


You mean, aside from the source you yourself just cited with a large bolded section heading of "Why Evil?"  Right.  



Quantum Windbag said:


> Most people who believe in whatever they believe in do so because they obtain a sense of hope and peace, not because they are afraid of the unknown.


These things are not mutually exclusive.  Most people find hope and peace when fears of the unknown are removed. One of the largest fears, for example, fear of permanently dying, is one of the largest concepts addressed by most religions.  Claiming people don't really permanently die gives people hope and peace.  So it's not that people fear the unknown, because the unknown is "removed" by the religion.  The alternative of not believing in the religion re-introduces that unknown, which is why it's avoided.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Old Rocks said:


> Because the 'sceptics' cannot argue the science that it is based on. Therefore, the red herring used is to claim it is a religion to be accepted on faith. Of course, sites like this show the science that the fact of AGW is based on;
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



It is a religion because the High Priest of AGW (aka Al Gore) uses it to line his own pockets and tells lies, and his disciples call for the death of disbelievers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

[quote=SmarterThanHick;3146539]You mean, aside from the source you yourself just cited with a large bolded section heading of "Why Evil?"  Right.  [/quote]

You mean this?



> Painful experiences and harmful acts in one's prebirth, current, and  past lives become imprinted in the reactive mind and lead to irrational  behavior. Departures from rational thought and untrue ideas  ("aberrations") can result in wrongdoing.


Here is what the official Scientology site says about good and evil.



> Yes, in Scientology, a very clear distinction is made between good and  evil. Those actions which enhance survival on the majority of the eight  aspects of life are good, and those which destroy or deny these aspects of life are  evil. Scientologists strive to make decisions that will enhance the  majority of these dynamics of life.
> 
> Good may be defined as constructive. Evil may be defined as destructive.


Does Scientology recognize good and evil?

Good and evil are concepts that lie outside of us, they are not the results of us trying to get better, or of refusing to do so. All Scientology talks about is self improvement and the positive and negative in relation to the 8 dynamics. If you insist on defending a hack SF writer at least understand exactly what it is he is saying and defend him on terms that relate to his concepts, do not apply your own definitions to his words 

[quote=SmarterThanHick;3146539]These things are not mutually exclusive.  Most people find hope and peace when fears of the unknown are removed. One of the largest fears, for example, fear of permanently dying, is one of the largest concepts addressed by most religions.  Claiming people don't really permanently die gives people hope and peace.  So it's not that people fear the unknown, because the unknown is "removed" by the religion.  The alternative of not believing in the religion re-introduces that unknown, which is why it's avoided.[/quote]

Where did I say they were exclusive? I just said that fear of the unknown is not the driving force. Also, where did I say people do not die? Are you again attempting to confine me in your definitions of what I believe? If so, I will again concede the debate to you as you are incapable of admitting you are not doing exactly that, and always insist that you are the one that is right. Must be nice to be right all the time, I always get upset when I find out I was wrong and it would be wonderful never to feel that way again.

Maybe you should join Scientology, your thought processes make as much sense as theirs.


----------



## Muhammed

SmarterThanHick said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes religions are falsely presented as science. For instance Al Gore's Global Warming Cult and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how is the concept of global warming a religion?
Click to expand...

It's not the concept that the Earth warms and cools. It's man-made global warming alarmism such as that preached by Al Gore and the like that I'm talking about. I've been studying religious cults and how they operate for decades. And in my expert opinion the global warming alarmist movement has all the trappings of a cult. To be more specific, it is what is known to experts as a 'doomsday cult'.   

The Manson family is another famous doomsday cult you may be familiar with. And interestingly enough, it's leader Charles Manson was one of the first Global Warming gurus to gain fame in the US. He was preaching that global warming alarmism BS long before Al Gore got famous. 

There have been several recent violent incidents committed by the global warming fanatics. For example, the couple in Agentina that made a suicide pact because of their fear of global warming. In that incident the father shot the two children and his wife, then shot himself. Only the baby survived. Then there is the guy who took hostages at the Discovery Channel Building before committing suicide by cop. 

Doomsday cults are generally classified as being either benign or dangerous. The Global Warming Cult is an example of a dangerous doomsday cult because of the violence, threats of violence and corruption associated with it.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> It is a religion because the High Priest of AGW (aka Al Gore) uses it to line his own pockets and tells lies, and his disciples call for the death of disbelievers.


Except, he doesn't actually call for people to die, and it has nothing to do with spiritual beliefs.  So again I ask: how is it a religion?

Perhaps you don't actually understand what a religion entails.  This may help: Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Quantum Windbag said:


> Yes, in Scientology, a very clear distinction is made between good and  evil. Those actions which enhance survival on the majority of the eight  aspects of life are good, and those which destroy or deny these aspects of life are  evil. Scientologists strive to make decisions that will enhance the  majority of these dynamics of life.
> 
> Good may be defined as constructive. Evil may be defined as destructive.
Click to expand...

Again you claim scientology doesn't address good and evil and then quote where it does exactly that.  You seem very confused on the matter, as you just proved my point again: scientology, like many other religions, address matters of good and evil in some way.  Or are you now trying to claim that the manner in which they address good and evil doesn't count per your made up definition?  



Quantum Windbag said:


> Also, where did I say people do not die? Are you again attempting to confine me in your definitions of what I believe?


You didn't say such a thing.  If you think I insinuated such, perhaps you should go reread.  If you are still unconvinced, please copy and paste so I can laugh at your misinterpretation.



Quantum Windbag said:


> If so, I will again concede the debate to you as you are incapable of admitting you are not doing exactly that, and always insist that you are the one that is right. Must be nice to be right all the time, I always get upset when I find out I was wrong and it would be wonderful never to feel that way again.


Oh too late, I'm already laughing at this grumpy whining stemming from you trying to victimize yourself so hard you misinterpret things other people say.



Muhammed said:


> It's not the concept that the Earth warms and cools. It's man-made global warming alarmism such as that preached by Al Gore and the like that I'm talking about. I've been studying religious cults and how they operate for decades. And in my expert opinion the global warming alarmist movement has all the trappings of a cult.


Fanatics and crazies do not a religion make.  People can be fanatical about a number of things, including but not limited to politics, sports, and movie star stalking. That does not make it religious. Your "expert opinion" is laughable.  But please, elaborate as to which specific aspects of this have anything to do with religion.  Perhaps you are unfamiliar what religion is as well?  See the link above.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a religion because the High Priest of AGW (aka Al Gore) uses it to line his own pockets and tells lies, and his disciples call for the death of disbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> Except, he doesn't actually call for people to die, and it has nothing to do with spiritual beliefs.  So again I ask: how is it a religion?
> 
> Perhaps you don't actually understand what a religion entails.  This may help: Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Again you claim scientology doesn't address good and evil and then quote where it does exactly that.  You seem very confused on the matter, as you just proved my point again: scientology, like many other religions, address matters of good and evil in some way.  Or are you now trying to claim that the manner in which they address good and evil doesn't count per your made up definition?
> 
> 
> You didn't say such a thing.  If you think I insinuated such, perhaps you should go reread.  If you are still unconvinced, please copy and paste so I can laugh at your misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If so, I will again concede the debate to you as you are incapable of admitting you are not doing exactly that, and always insist that you are the one that is right. Must be nice to be right all the time, I always get upset when I find out I was wrong and it would be wonderful never to feel that way again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh too late, I'm already laughing at this grumpy whining stemming from you trying to victimize yourself so hard you misinterpret things other people say.
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the concept that the Earth warms and cools. It's man-made global warming alarmism such as that preached by Al Gore and the like that I'm talking about. I've been studying religious cults and how they operate for decades. And in my expert opinion the global warming alarmist movement has all the trappings of a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fanatics and crazies do not a religion make.  People can be fanatical about a number of things, including but not limited to politics, sports, and movie star stalking. That does not make it religious. Your "expert opinion" is laughable.  But please, elaborate as to which specific aspects of this have anything to do with religion.  Perhaps you are unfamiliar what religion is as well?  See the link above.
Click to expand...


I'll make it really simple for you.

If Scientology actually meets whatever definition you have for religion, than I can easily fit AGW into the same definition. There is no way you can define Scientology as a religion that would exclude AGW unless you require that a religion define itself by applying to the US Government for tax exempt status. I am not even sure that would apply since Al Gore routinely applies for subsidies for his "business" interests. 

Bet feel free to continue to apply your own interpretation of English, since you will anyway.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> I'll make it really simple for you.
> 
> If Scientology actually meets whatever definition you have for religion, than I can easily fit AGW into the same definition. There is no way you can define Scientology as a religion that would exclude AGW unless you require that a religion define itself by applying to the US Government for tax exempt status. I am not even sure that would apply since Al Gore routinely applies for subsidies for his "business" interests.
> 
> Bet feel free to continue to apply your own interpretation of English, since you will anyway.


That's not quite how it works.  You don't get to call global warming a religion just because I call scientology a religion.  You're wrong, regardless of what correct points I make.  This has nothing to do with my personal interpretation of English. I just gave you a Wikipedia article to read which you clearly didn't.  If you don't like that source, you can select any standard dictionary in the country.  It will still show me to be correct, and you to be making things up.  

You seem incapable of distinguishing between religious beliefs and political beliefs.  EVEN IF they have something in common, it does not make them equal.  

But here, instead of relying on your avoidance of the actual issue, I'll just provide the definitions for you:


			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine.


Applies to scientology, and not global warming.



			
				dictionary.com said:
			
		

> re·li·gion
> /r&#618;&#712;l&#618;d&#658;&#601;n/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn]
> noun a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Applies to scientology, and not global warming.



			
				oxford dictionary said:
			
		

> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power


Applies to scientology, and not global warming.

Are you starting to catch the trend now?  Yes, if you do continue to make your ridiculous point, I will continue to shoot you down with those pesky things called facts and reason.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?
> But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter, besides the obvious (and damn compelling, if you ask me) fact that galaxies would fly apart with out it.
> 
> --
> 
> Dave Goldberg is the author, with Jeff Blomquist, of "A User's Guide to the Universe: Surviving the Perils of Black Holes, Time Paradoxes, and Quantum Uncertainty." (Wiley: 2010).  He is an associate professor of Physics at Drexel University.​
> Looks like it's not a lie.
> 
> You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The author does not say he believes that dark matter exists. He says there is "compelling evidence" that it does exist. He even admits that it could be wrong and goes on to say "* I'll put my money on Dark Matter and general relativity any day."* which makes it clear his position is not certain.
> 
> It is a lie. Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.
> 
> If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.
Click to expand...


Once again, after destroying this wingnuts lies, the only response he can muster is "You're wrong!!"  

davey boy claimed that scientists believe that dark matter exists, but he can't post any evidence to support his lie


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny...you make that same statement (or a variation) whenever you've been proven wrong.
> 
> If Sangha didn't claim he won teh innternets, he'd have nothing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> I only say that when a wingnut fails to post anything but childish insults and claims they're too afraid to back up
> 
> The way you won't defend your lie about how I denied that some dumb people share my opinion on this issue
> 
> So how about it, fairy boy? Are you going to defend your lie about me denying that, or are you going to run away like the fairy that you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, for one, you childish little git.
> 
> You'd rather call me a liar than accept that stupid people share your views.
> 
> Now, quick!  Pretend I didn't just prove my point!
Click to expand...


dave lie #1 - scientists believe in dark matter

dave lie #2 - I denied that there are stupid people on either side

That's why dave won't post the quote. He knows the post doesn't say what he claims it says. Dave thinks his newest lie will cover up his earlier lies. Here's what my post says:



> Once again, Dave can't support his lies, so he's going to insist that mythical "sciencers" believe that evolution explains the origins of life.
> 
> Let us know when you have the balls to identify any of these mythical "sciencers


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?!  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You spoke about sciencers that don't exist, and you spoke about stupid people who agree with me about something (but you don't mention what we agree on)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just making shit up, now, Skippy.   If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.  But that's a common leftist failing.  You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you want to deny that you made up some nonsense about sciencers?
> 
> Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?
> 
> Or you can continue to post your childish taunts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're being irrational.  Once again,  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists" as you claim I have.  If you think I have, you'd best be linking it.  I'm getting tired of your nonsense.
Click to expand...


Translation - dave won't repeat and clarify his accusation because he knows it's a lie

For the record - fave accused me of denying that there are stupid people on both sides of this issue, but he's too scared to post a quote of mine to prove his point. All he has is his childish insults. I'll repeat



> *Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?
> 
> Or you can continue to post your childish taunts*


----------



## sangha

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The List" is not supposed to be an intelligent discussion thread.  This one started out with some hope of sharing views with some respect.
> 
> 
> 
> I shared an experience I had.  Somebody got all butthurt about it.  Shit happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?
> 
> Shit doesn't "just happen".  You deposit it intentionally.  Thanks.  Grow up.
Click to expand...


It is impossible for a wingnut to take responsibility for his actions


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am reposting this post by QW to show that he was right. He did not say that I was "half right" He said that I was "almost right"
> 
> But he can't say what isn't right
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are almost right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I can, I just didn't, it is more fun watching you twist in the wind.
> 
> The part you got where you are wrong is where you say God's existence is unprovable.
Click to expand...


How is Gods' existence provable?


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species.  It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evolution and abiogenisis are two differant subjects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, as I've made quite plain throughout this entire thread.
> 
> However...not everyone knows they're different...including some who don't believe in creation.
Click to expand...


----------



## IanC

unfortunately science has been distorted by the influence of outsiders who supply the money. climate science is a stark example but there are many others. the trend is to have political scientists that excel at raising funds for project that they are lead authors but do little of the actual research. this has been at the expense of small groups doing independent work in different directions. zombie science is when an area should naturally whither and die off but the constant influx of funds keeps it going.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

I thought zombie science is when we experiment on zombies trying to find the fountain of youth and one gets out, causing zombie apocalypse?  well you're probably right.

nonetheless, none of it is religion.


----------



## IanC

SmarterThanHick said:


> I thought zombie science is when we experiment on zombies trying to find the fountain of youth and one gets out, causing zombie apocalypse?  well you're probably right.
> 
> nonetheless, none of it is religion.



I think most people are saying that science is a religion because so many are deferring to science to give them the answers to things they dont understand rather than organized religion. they would rather just believe than think or be unsure.


----------



## sangha

IanC said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought zombie science is when we experiment on zombies trying to find the fountain of youth and one gets out, causing zombie apocalypse?  well you're probably right.
> 
> nonetheless, none of it is religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people are saying that science is a religion because so many are deferring to science to give them the answers to things they dont understand rather than organized religion. they would rather just believe than think or be unsure.
Click to expand...


It must be those dreaded "sciencers"


----------



## IanC

sangha said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought zombie science is when we experiment on zombies trying to find the fountain of youth and one gets out, causing zombie apocalypse?  well you're probably right.
> 
> nonetheless, none of it is religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people are saying that science is a religion because so many are deferring to science to give them the answers to things they dont understand rather than organized religion. they would rather just believe than think or be unsure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must be those dreaded "sciencers"
Click to expand...


yup. everyone wants to be in a group that they can believe in. it used to be 'God is on my side' but now it is 'the scientists say...'


----------



## sangha




----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> That's not quite how it works.  You don't get to call global warming a religion just because I call scientology a religion.  You're wrong, regardless of what correct points I make.  This has nothing to do with my personal interpretation of English. I just gave you a Wikipedia article to read which you clearly didn't.  If you don't like that source, you can select any standard dictionary in the country.  It will still show me to be correct, and you to be making things up.
> 
> You seem incapable of distinguishing between religious beliefs and political beliefs.  EVEN IF they have something in common, it does not make them equal.



I am issuing a challenge, and you still attempt to define the rules. Why am I not surprised?

BTW, I not only understand the differences, and similarities, between religious and political beliefs, I know they are not mutually exclusive. This video was produced by people who are religious fanatics, not BY people with simple political beliefs.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM&[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am reposting this post by QW to show that he was right. He did not say that I was "half right" He said that I was "almost right"
> 
> But he can't say what isn't right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can, I just didn't, it is more fun watching you twist in the wind.
> 
> The part you got where you are wrong is where you say God's existence is unprovable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is Gods' existence provable?
Click to expand...


How is it not?


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author does not say he believes that dark matter exists. He says there is "compelling evidence" that it does exist. He even admits that it could be wrong and goes on to say "* I'll put my money on Dark Matter and general relativity any day."* which makes it clear his position is not certain.
> 
> It is a lie. Try again
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.
> 
> If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, after destroying this wingnuts lies, the only response he can muster is "You're wrong!!"
> 
> davey boy claimed that scientists believe that dark matter exists, but he can't post any evidence to support his lie
Click to expand...


Soooo...the scientist who said "...But there are LOTS of reasons to *believe* in Dark Matter..." doesn't count?

You're a retard.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> I only say that when a wingnut fails to post anything but childish insults and claims they're too afraid to back up
> 
> The way you won't defend your lie about how I denied that some dumb people share my opinion on this issue
> 
> So how about it, fairy boy? Are you going to defend your lie about me denying that, or are you going to run away like the fairy that you are?
> 
> 
> 
> Here, for one, you childish little git.
> 
> You'd rather call me a liar than accept that stupid people share your views.
> 
> Now, quick!  Pretend I didn't just prove my point!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dave lie #1 - scientists believe in dark matter
> 
> dave lie #2 - I denied that there are stupid people on either side
> 
> That's why dave won't post the quote. He knows the post doesn't say what he claims it says. Dave thinks his newest lie will cover up his earlier lies. Here's what my post says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Dave can't support his lies, so he's going to insist that mythical "sciencers" believe that evolution explains the origins of life.
> 
> Let us know when you have the balls to identify any of these mythical "sciencers
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Retard.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You spoke about sciencers that don't exist, and you spoke about stupid people who agree with me about something (but you don't mention what we agree on)
> 
> 
> 
> So now you want to deny that you made up some nonsense about sciencers?
> 
> Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?
> 
> Or you can continue to post your childish taunts
> 
> 
> 
> You're being irrational.  Once again,  I've _never_ talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists" as you claim I have.  If you think I have, you'd best be linking it.  I'm getting tired of your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation - dave won't repeat and clarify his accusation because he knows it's a lie
> 
> For the record - fave accused me of denying that there are stupid people on both sides of this issue, but he's too scared to post a quote of mine to prove his point. All he has is his childish insults. I'll repeat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?
> 
> Or you can continue to post your childish taunts*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Retard.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolution and abiogenisis are two differant subjects.
> 
> 
> 
> I know, as I've made quite plain throughout this entire thread.
> 
> However...not everyone knows they're different...including some who don't believe in creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Retard.


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can, I just didn't, it is more fun watching you twist in the wind.
> 
> The part you got where you are wrong is where you say God's existence is unprovable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is Gods' existence provable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it not?
Click to expand...


I don't think god is well-enough defined to have anyone's version proven to exist.  It's also possible the very definition some give for god may make it impossible to prove.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is Gods' existence provable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think god is well-enough defined to have anyone's version proven to exist.  It's also possible the very definition some give for god may make it impossible to prove.
Click to expand...


I think I agree with you.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can, I just didn't, it is more fun watching you twist in the wind.
> 
> The part you got where you are wrong is where you say God's existence is unprovable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is Gods' existence provable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it not?
Click to expand...


The lack of proof

But since you continue to insist that Gods existence is provable, maybe you could post the proof

Or maybe not. Bullshitters make claims, but never back them up


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.
> 
> If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, after destroying this wingnuts lies, the only response he can muster is "You're wrong!!"
> 
> davey boy claimed that scientists believe that dark matter exists, but he can't post any evidence to support his lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooo...the scientist who said "...But there are LOTS of reasons to *believe* in Dark Matter..." doesn't count?
> 
> You're a retard.
Click to expand...


No because the same scientist said that dark matter is unproven


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is Gods' existence provable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lack of proof
> 
> But since you continue to insist that Gods existence is provable, maybe you could post the proof
> 
> Or maybe not. Bullshitters make claims, but never back them up
Click to expand...


The lack of proof makes something unprovable? I might be confused but I am pretty sure it doesn't work that way. Unprovable is different from unproven in the real world.

Please note that at no point did I insist that the existence of God is provable, I am simply challenging you to prove it is unprovable. There is a significant difference, even if it escapes your massive intellect.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of proof
> 
> But since you continue to insist that Gods existence is provable, maybe you could post the proof
> 
> Or maybe not. Bullshitters make claims, but never back them up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lack of proof makes something unprovable? I might be confused but I am pretty sure it doesn't work that way. Unprovable is different from unproven in the real world.
> 
> Please note that at no point did I insist that the existence of God is provable, I am simply challenging you to prove it is unprovable. There is a significant difference, even if it escapes your massive intellect.
Click to expand...


OK, Gods existence is unprovable because His nature (supernatural) is beyond our comprehension. I do not know of any religion that doesn't define God (or Gods) as supernatural. Do you?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

IanC said:


> yup. everyone wants to be in a group that they can believe in. it used to be 'God is on my side' but now it is 'the scientists say...'


And yet the two are not equivalent.  One is based on blind faith, the other is based on reproducible facts.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I am issuing a challenge, and you still attempt to define the rules. Why am I not surprised?


Define the rules?  No hardly.  I am however posting definitions of WORDS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE which you seem to fail at understanding.  If you disagree, then by all means where I am defining "rules".  You can't.

Stop being a child.  You're wrong. I just provided numerous sources regarding the definitions of the words you're using which directly show you're wrong.  Quit while you're behind.



Quantum Windbag said:


> BTW, I not only understand the differences, and similarities, between religious and political beliefs, I know they are not mutually exclusive. This video was produced by people who are religious fanatics, not BY people with simple political beliefs.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM&


So far you are showing that you in fact have no clue what the differences are, and what actually constitutes religious beliefs.  Take the video you just posted.  Which part is religious about it?  Do you need me to define religion again for you?



daveman said:


> Retard.
> 
> Retard.
> 
> Retard.


You are not presenting a very convincing rebuttal.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, after destroying this wingnuts lies, the only response he can muster is "You're wrong!!"
> 
> davey boy claimed that scientists believe that dark matter exists, but he can't post any evidence to support his lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo...the scientist who said "...But there are LOTS of reasons to *believe* in Dark Matter..." doesn't count?
> 
> You're a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No because the same scientist said that dark matter is unproven
Click to expand...

But he said there are reasons to believe in it.  

So you think that means he doesn't believe in it?

Well...you are you, after all, so, yeah, you probably do.


----------



## daveman

SmarterThanHick said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard.
> 
> Retard.
> 
> Retard.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not presenting a very convincing rebuttal.
Click to expand...

The people those are aimed at will not accept any rebuttal.  

This ain't my first rodeo.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can, I just didn't, it is more fun watching you twist in the wind.
> 
> The part you got where you are wrong is where you say God's existence is unprovable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is Gods' existence provable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it not?
Click to expand...


It's not provable because no proof exists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make it really simple for you.
> 
> If Scientology actually meets whatever definition you have for religion, than I can easily fit AGW into the same definition. There is no way you can define Scientology as a religion that would exclude AGW unless you require that a religion define itself by applying to the US Government for tax exempt status. I am not even sure that would apply since Al Gore routinely applies for subsidies for his "business" interests.
> 
> Bet feel free to continue to apply your own interpretation of English, since you will anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not quite how it works.  You don't get to call global warming a religion just because I call scientology a religion.  You're wrong, regardless of what correct points I make.  This has nothing to do with my personal interpretation of English. I just gave you a Wikipedia article to read which you clearly didn't.  If you don't like that source, you can select any standard dictionary in the country.  It will still show me to be correct, and you to be making things up.
> 
> You seem incapable of distinguishing between religious beliefs and political beliefs.  EVEN IF they have something in common, it does not make them equal.
> 
> But here, instead of relying on your avoidance of the actual issue, I'll just provide the definitions for you:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Applies to scientology, and not global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dictionary.com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> /r&#618;&#712;l&#618;d&#658;&#601;n/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn]
> noun a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Applies to scientology, and not global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oxford dictionary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Applies to scientology, and not global warming.
> 
> Are you starting to catch the trend now?  Yes, if you do continue to make your ridiculous point, I will continue to shoot you down with those pesky things called facts and reason.
Click to expand...


I am not the one that has the problem differentiating between religious and political beliefs.

Funny thing about facts, they support the truth, and not any false belief system. The truth is that AGW believers are religious fanatics, as this movie clearly demonstrated. 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM[/ame]

Feel free to live in denial if you like, but the truth is still the truth.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo...the scientist who said "...But there are LOTS of reasons to *believe* in Dark Matter..." doesn't count?
> 
> You're a retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because the same scientist said that dark matter is unproven
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he said there are reasons to believe in it.
> 
> So you think that means he doesn't believe in it?
> 
> Well...you are you, after all, so, yeah, you probably do.
Click to expand...


Proof that wingnuts don't know the difference between "evidence" and "proof"

An example - There are reasons to believe that sexual orientation is genetically determined. However, there are also reasons to believe that sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined.

So do you think that sexual orientation is *AND* is not genetically determined?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because the same scientist said that dark matter is unproven
> 
> 
> 
> But he said there are reasons to believe in it.
> 
> So you think that means he doesn't believe in it?
> 
> Well...you are you, after all, so, yeah, you probably do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof that wingnuts don't know the difference between "evidence" and "proof"
> 
> An example - There are reasons to believe that sexual orientation is genetically determined. However, there are also reasons to believe that sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined.
> 
> So do you think that sexual orientation is *AND* is not genetically determined?
Click to expand...


Since the scientist who believes dark matter exists probably understands the difference between evidence and proof better than you his statement that he believes, instead of knows, that dark matter exists says something about his personal beliefs. It does not, however, justify you twisting what he said to prove how stupid you are.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because the same scientist said that dark matter is unproven
> 
> 
> 
> But he said there are reasons to believe in it.
> 
> So you think that means he doesn't believe in it?
> 
> Well...you are you, after all, so, yeah, you probably do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof that wingnuts don't know the difference between "evidence" and "proof"
> 
> An example - There are reasons to believe that sexual orientation is genetically determined. However, there are also reasons to believe that sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined.
> 
> So do you think that sexual orientation is *AND* is not genetically determined?
Click to expand...

Your childish foot-stamping aside, it's obvious the scientist I linked believes in dark matter.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But he said there are reasons to believe in it.
> 
> So you think that means he doesn't believe in it?
> 
> Well...you are you, after all, so, yeah, you probably do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof that wingnuts don't know the difference between "evidence" and "proof"
> 
> An example - There are reasons to believe that sexual orientation is genetically determined. However, there are also reasons to believe that sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined.
> 
> So do you think that sexual orientation is *AND* is not genetically determined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the scientist who believes dark matter exists probably understands the difference between evidence and proof better than you his statement that he believes, instead of knows, that dark matter exists says something about his personal beliefs. It does not, however, justify you twisting what he said to prove how stupid you are.
Click to expand...


QW is getting pwned for conflating evidence with proof, so now he's going lie about what the scientist said. He didn't say he believes dark matter exists.


----------



## sangha

daveman said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But he said there are reasons to believe in it.
> 
> So you think that means he doesn't believe in it?
> 
> Well...you are you, after all, so, yeah, you probably do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof that wingnuts don't know the difference between "evidence" and "proof"
> 
> An example - There are reasons to believe that sexual orientation is genetically determined. However, there are also reasons to believe that sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined.
> 
> So do you think that sexual orientation is *AND* is not genetically determined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your childish foot-stamping aside, it's obvious the scientist I linked believes in dark matter.
Click to expand...


The scientists never says he believes dark matter exists.

This has already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread, and you still can't get it. The scientist points out that something is affecting the measurements and so therefore, the scientists believes that there is SOMETHING affecting the measurements. He does not say that he believes it is dark matter. He says, as you have pointed out, that there are "reasons to believe" dark matter exists. He does not say that he believes it exists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof that wingnuts don't know the difference between "evidence" and "proof"
> 
> An example - There are reasons to believe that sexual orientation is genetically determined. However, there are also reasons to believe that sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined.
> 
> So do you think that sexual orientation is *AND* is not genetically determined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the scientist who believes dark matter exists probably understands the difference between evidence and proof better than you his statement that he believes, instead of knows, that dark matter exists says something about his personal beliefs. It does not, however, justify you twisting what he said to prove how stupid you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> QW is getting pwned for conflating evidence with proof, so now he's going lie about what the scientist said. He didn't say he believes dark matter exists.
Click to expand...


It amazes me how you could think you are intelligent enough to debate rdean.



> The amount of matter that astronomers can detect with their instruments  doesn't seem to be nearly enough to explain why some of the big-ticket  items in the cosmos behave the way they do. Spiral galaxies spin faster  than they should, and clusters of galaxies stick together even though  the velocities of their constituent galaxies suggest they should be  flying apart. The standard solution to the problem posits the existence  of some hidden mass in the universeoften called dark matter (sometimes  abbreviated DM)that's holding everything together by the force of  gravity. *Most astronomers believe that dark matter existseven though it  has never been seen, and no one knows what it might be. *



Dark-Matter Heretic » American Scientist

Not to worry though, no one believes it because Sangha says they don't.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the scientist who believes dark matter exists probably understands the difference between evidence and proof better than you his statement that he believes, instead of knows, that dark matter exists says something about his personal beliefs. It does not, however, justify you twisting what he said to prove how stupid you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QW is getting pwned for conflating evidence with proof, so now he's going lie about what the scientist said. He didn't say he believes dark matter exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me how you could think you are intelligent enough to debate rdean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The amount of matter that astronomers can detect with their instruments  doesn't seem to be nearly enough to explain why some of the big-ticket  items in the cosmos behave the way they do. Spiral galaxies spin faster  than they should, and clusters of galaxies stick together even though  the velocities of their constituent galaxies suggest they should be  flying apart. The standard solution to the problem posits the existence  of some hidden mass in the universeoften called dark matter (sometimes  abbreviated DM)that's holding everything together by the force of  gravity. *Most astronomers believe that dark matter existseven though it  has never been seen, and no one knows what it might be. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dark-Matter Heretic » American Scientist
> 
> Not to worry though, no one believes it because Sangha says they don't.
Click to expand...


The author doesn't say that he believes in dark matter. Like I said, you lied when you claimed that he did

All you have is the unnamed "most astronomers"

Most unnamed sources are full of shiite


----------



## Quantum Windbag

You really are incredibly ignorant and arrogant, aren't you?

Why I Believe (In Dark Matter)

Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?

Dark Matter in the Bullet Cluster | The n-Category Caf&#233;

Martin White: Dark Matter

I can literally keep this up all year without repeating myself once. Just give up, or run away with your tail between your legs.


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> You really are incredibly ignorant and arrogant, aren't you?
> 
> Why I Believe (In Dark Matter)
> 
> Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?
> 
> Dark Matter in the Bullet Cluster | The n-Category Café
> 
> Martin White: Dark Matter
> 
> I can literally keep this up all year without repeating myself once. Just give up, or run away with your tail between your legs.



Your links don't say what you claim they say. I guess that's why you didn't quote them saying they believe that dark mtter exists 

From the first link


> , if they fail to detect dark matter particles with the Large Hadron Collider within the next 10 years, then the theory should be reexamined. Until then, its pretty likely.



"Pretty likely" does NOT mean "I believe it's true"

From the 2nd link



> Still, at least one of you is likely to write in with something about whether Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND, for short) could explain away the need for Dark Matter. Basically, you're asking, what if Einstein was wrong? He could have been, of course



Again, saying that it could be wrong is not the same as saying "It's true"
Your other links also fail to back your claim


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are incredibly ignorant and arrogant, aren't you?
> 
> Why I Believe (In Dark Matter)
> 
> Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?
> 
> Dark Matter in the Bullet Cluster | The n-Category Café
> 
> Martin White: Dark Matter
> 
> I can literally keep this up all year without repeating myself once. Just give up, or run away with your tail between your legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your links don't say what you claim they say. I guess that's why you didn't quote them saying they believe that dark mtter exists
> 
> From the first link
> 
> 
> 
> , if they fail to detect dark matter particles with the Large Hadron Collider within the next 10 years, then the theory should be reexamined. Until then, it&#8217;s pretty likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Pretty likely" does NOT mean "I believe it's true"
> 
> From the 2nd link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, at least one of you is likely to write in with something about whether Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND, for short) could explain away the need for Dark Matter. Basically, you're asking, what if Einstein was wrong? He could have been, of course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, saying that it could be wrong is not the same as saying "It's true"
> Your other links also fail to back your claim
Click to expand...




You are actually telling me that a scientist wants me to believe in dark matter, but does not believe in it himself.


----------



## daveman

sangha said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof that wingnuts don't know the difference between "evidence" and "proof"
> 
> An example - There are reasons to believe that sexual orientation is genetically determined. However, there are also reasons to believe that sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined.
> 
> So do you think that sexual orientation is *AND* is not genetically determined?
> 
> 
> 
> Your childish foot-stamping aside, it's obvious the scientist I linked believes in dark matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scientists never says he believes dark matter exists.
> 
> This has already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread, and you still can't get it. The scientist points out that something is affecting the measurements and so therefore, the scientists believes that there is SOMETHING affecting the measurements. He does not say that he believes it is dark matter. He says, as you have pointed out, that there are "reasons to believe" dark matter exists. He does not say that he believes it exists.
Click to expand...


----------



## amrchaos

I have a simple question

Why is it that people believe Science is attacking religion?

If anything, not science aid religion, well not in terms of its mythology, bu in terms of the  religions mission--aid to man, better security, preserving and multiplying the harvest, longer life, et cetera et cetera?

I guess in my view of the science versus religion question, I don't see the problem.  And I am one of the people that claim that science and religion are focused on distinct goals.

It is like a Psychiatrist arguing with a Blacksmith on on how he strikes his iron rods.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

All good ideas, except religion is easily and often threatened by science.  Religion relies on the ideas of blind belief and anecdotal interactions.  Science inherently dismisses such things and demands higher standards of evidence and reasoning.  It's not that science attacks religion any more than an elephant cares to "attack" an ant, but religious people can still be threatened.  Ants will still swarm.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> All good ideas, except religion is easily and often threatened by science.  Religion relies on the ideas of blind belief and anecdotal interactions.  Science inherently dismisses such things and demands higher standards of evidence and reasoning.  It's not that science attacks religion any more than an elephant cares to "attack" an ant, but religious people can still be threatened.  Ants will still swarm.



And we all know that scientists, not being human, never do this.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

You never elaborated, Quantum Windbag.  What part of the youtube clip you posted has anything to do with religion?  It's foolish that you are still incapable of distinguishing between religious and political fanaticism. Do you need me to post the definitions of "religion" again for you?


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are incredibly ignorant and arrogant, aren't you?
> 
> Why I Believe (In Dark Matter)
> 
> Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?
> 
> Dark Matter in the Bullet Cluster | The n-Category Café
> 
> Martin White: Dark Matter
> 
> I can literally keep this up all year without repeating myself once. Just give up, or run away with your tail between your legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your links don't say what you claim they say. I guess that's why you didn't quote them saying they believe that dark mtter exists
> 
> From the first link
> "Pretty likely" does NOT mean "I believe it's true"
> 
> From the 2nd link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, at least one of you is likely to write in with something about whether Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND, for short) could explain away the need for Dark Matter. Basically, you're asking, what if Einstein was wrong? He could have been, of course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, saying that it could be wrong is not the same as saying "It's true"
> Your other links also fail to back your claim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are actually telling me that a scientist wants me to believe in dark matter, but does not believe in it himself.
Click to expand...


I never said that. I think it was probably one of the many voices in your head


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> You never elaborated, Quantum Windbag.  What part of the youtube clip you posted has anything to do with religion?  It's foolish that you are still incapable of distinguishing between religious and political fanaticism. Do you need me to post the definitions of "religion" again for you?



Are you trying to say that YouTube clip is not the work of fanatics?


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never elaborated, Quantum Windbag.  What part of the youtube clip you posted has anything to do with religion?  It's foolish that you are still incapable of distinguishing between religious and political fanaticism. Do you need me to post the definitions of "religion" again for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that YouTube clip is not the work of fanatics?
Click to expand...


I can't speak for STH, but it seems pretty clear that he thinks its the work of fanatics, but he doesn't think it has anything to do with religion. Why is this so hard for you to understand?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never elaborated, Quantum Windbag.  What part of the youtube clip you posted has anything to do with religion?  It's foolish that you are still incapable of distinguishing between religious and political fanaticism. Do you need me to post the definitions of "religion" again for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that YouTube clip is not the work of fanatics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't speak for STH, but it seems pretty clear that he thinks its the work of fanatics, but he doesn't think it has anything to do with religion. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...


You can't even speak for yourself, yet you never have any problem trying to put words into other peoples mouths. Do you think that might be a sign of schizophrenia or some other delusional mental illness?


----------



## sangha

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that YouTube clip is not the work of fanatics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for STH, but it seems pretty clear that he thinks its the work of fanatics, but he doesn't think it has anything to do with religion. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even speak for yourself, yet you never have any problem trying to put words into other peoples mouths. Do you think that might be a sign of schizophrenia or some other delusional mental illness?
Click to expand...


I see you're still trying to avoid the question.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for STH, but it seems pretty clear that he thinks its the work of fanatics, but he doesn't think it has anything to do with religion. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even speak for yourself, yet you never have any problem trying to put words into other peoples mouths. Do you think that might be a sign of schizophrenia or some other delusional mental illness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you're still trying to avoid the question.
Click to expand...


Am I? Or am I just picking at the sore that is named Sangha?


----------



## Madeline

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even speak for yourself, yet you never have any problem trying to put words into other peoples mouths. Do you think that might be a sign of schizophrenia or some other delusional mental illness?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you're still trying to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I? Or am I just picking at the sore that is named Sangha?
Click to expand...


Who is impugning the mental stability of my friend Quantum Windbag?

Dun be such an ass, sangha.


----------



## sangha

One doesn't pick at sores. One picks at scabs, and yes, I've left you with many scabs from many wounds so you probably are picking at them


----------



## Madeline

sangha said:


> One doesn't pick at sores. One picks at scabs, and yes, I've left you with many scabs from many wounds so you probably are picking at them



Did you really think this qualified as debate?


----------



## sangha

If QW is involved, it can't possibly be a debate.


----------



## Madeline

sangha said:


> If QW is involved, it can't possibly be a debate.



You are wrong.  He is an excellent debater.  Stop behaving childishly here, and if he has tagged you for being wrong, then admit it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Madeline said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't pick at sores. One picks at scabs, and yes, I've left you with many scabs from many wounds so you probably are picking at them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really think this qualified as debate?
Click to expand...


Give him a break, you are talking to Sangha.


----------



## Madeline

Quantum Windbag said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't pick at sores. One picks at scabs, and yes, I've left you with many scabs from many wounds so you probably are picking at them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really think this qualified as debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give him a break, you are talking to Sangha.
Click to expand...


Am I supposed to be impressed?  Intimidated?  Charitable?

WTF is this guy?


----------



## L.K.Eder

Madeline said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you're still trying to avoid the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I? Or am I just picking at the sore that is named Sangha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is impugning the mental stability of my friend Quantum Windbag?
> 
> Dun be such an ass, sangha.
Click to expand...


windbag is impugning sangha's mental stability.

windbag is the ass. take it up with your friend windbag.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Madeline said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> If QW is involved, it can't possibly be a debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  He is an excellent debater.  Stop behaving childishly here, and if he has tagged you for being wrong, then admit it.
Click to expand...


wtf is this shit, windbag is a windbag. if windbag tags someone for being wrong, then this has zero consequence. and it certainly does not mean that that someone is in fact wrong.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never elaborated, Quantum Windbag.  What part of the youtube clip you posted has anything to do with religion?  It's foolish that you are still incapable of distinguishing between religious and political fanaticism. Do you need me to post the definitions of "religion" again for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that YouTube clip is not the work of fanatics?
Click to expand...

Well, seeing as I JUST stated in the very post you quoted that you can't distinguish this as political fanaticism or religious fanaticism, I think it's safe to assume I do believe the clip is the work of fanatics.  As that other person mentioned: you're just avoiding the question and your mistake now. 

The clip is absolutely fanaticism. What part of it do you interpret as RELIGIOUS, as you originally claimed it was?


----------



## sangha

SmarterThanHick said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never elaborated, Quantum Windbag.  What part of the youtube clip you posted has anything to do with religion?  It's foolish that you are still incapable of distinguishing between religious and political fanaticism. Do you need me to post the definitions of "religion" again for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that YouTube clip is not the work of fanatics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, seeing as I JUST stated in the very post you quoted that you can't distinguish this as political fanaticism or religious fanaticism, I think it's safe to assume I do believe the clip is the work of fanatics.  As that other person mentioned: you're just avoiding the question and your mistake now.
> 
> The clip is absolutely fanaticism. What part of it do you interpret as RELIGIOUS, as you originally claimed it was?
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

Madeline said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> 
> If QW is involved, it can't possibly be a debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  He is an excellent debater.  Stop behaving childishly here, and if he has tagged you for being wrong, then admit it.
Click to expand...


Did you just call The Windbag a Masterbater????  That was childish!!!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never elaborated, Quantum Windbag.  What part of the youtube clip you posted has anything to do with religion?  It's foolish that you are still incapable of distinguishing between religious and political fanaticism. Do you need me to post the definitions of "religion" again for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that YouTube clip is not the work of fanatics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, seeing as I JUST stated in the very post you quoted that you can't distinguish this as political fanaticism or religious fanaticism, I think it's safe to assume I do believe the clip is the work of fanatics.  As that other person mentioned: you're just avoiding the question and your mistake now.
> 
> The clip is absolutely fanaticism. What part of it do you interpret as RELIGIOUS, as you originally claimed it was?
Click to expand...


Remember the post where I said that Al Gore's disciples wanted to kill people who disagree with them, and you replied along the lines that he doesn't want to kill anyone? I can easily point out that Jesus never wanted to kill anyone, yet I would not attempt to deny that the people who follow him have not only killed, but did so in his name.

Labeling fanatics as being either religious or political trivializes the whole thing. In reality fanatics are religious about their beliefs, and religious fanatics are often extremely political. Where exactly do you draw the line between religion and political fanaticism?

Your prime criteria for a religion is a belief in the supernatural. Actually, I think you want religion to include belief in a Supreme Being, but I can easily point to many religions that believe in spirits, but do not believe in a Supreme Being. I am not sure how you can reconcile your insistence in belief in the supernatural with the existence of Buddhism, but that is your problem, not mine.

The disciples of anthropomorphic global warming believe that man and the emission of carbon dioxide is the sole cause of global warming, and that the result of this warming is the imminent loss of the Artic ice cap, the melting of all the ice in Greenland, and a catastrophic rise in sea level that will result in the loss of many coastal cities. If you think I am making any of this up I would point you to An Inconvenient Truth. That movie is full of lies and deliberate misrepresentations of fact, which has been proven in court, yet it is still touted as truth and pointed to as gospel.

The disciples of the prophet of AGW, aka Al Gore, are calling for everyone to convert to their belief, despite the fact that it is not based in truth, and insisting that they are the only people who know the Truth. They pray to gods that others will believe in the wisdom they lay out, and call for the death of non believers. 

I am still waiting for you to define religion in such a way that it includes Scientology, which believes that all gods are ascended from lesser beings, essentially form us, and rejects the, as an organization, the specific requirement to believe in either a god, or even gods, yet somehow excludes AGW and its disciples.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> Remember the post where I said that Al Gore's disciples wanted to kill people who disagree with them, and you replied along the lines that he doesn't want to kill anyone?


Not really.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Labeling fanatics as being either religious or political trivializes the whole thing. In reality fanatics are religious about their beliefs, and religious fanatics are often extremely political. Where exactly do you draw the line between religion and political fanaticism?


In the definition of the two words religion and politics.  Once again you seem to exhibit your lack of understanding if you need to question where to draw the line between the two.  You are correct in stating that religious people can and often do try to push their beliefs into the political realm, but that does NOT make them equal, and the opposite is not true.  You don't see completely unrelated people pushing their political beliefs into religious groups of which they don't belong.  Just because they share one thing in common does not make them equal, and your insinuation of such is poorly placed.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Your prime criteria for a religion is a belief in the supernatural. Actually, I think you want religion to include belief in a Supreme Being, but I can easily point to many religions that believe in spirits, but do not believe in a Supreme Being.


Actually I made no such claim.  What my "criteria" is for religion is well stated in the DICTIONARY and ENCYCLOPEDIA definitions of the word.  If you want to read those definitions you are struggling with as spirits, supreme being, or magic elves, be my guest.  But then it's still your responsibility to  back your claim and point out what part of that POLITICAL video contains relations to said spirits, supreme beings, magic elves, or any other aspect contained within the defined realm of RELIGION.  



Quantum Windbag said:


> The disciples of anthropomorphic global warming believe that man and the emission of carbon dioxide is the sole cause of global warming, and that the result of this warming is the imminent loss of the Artic ice cap, the melting of all the ice in Greenland, and a catastrophic rise in sea level that will result in the loss of many coastal cities. If you think I am making any of this up I would point you to An Inconvenient Truth.


I honestly don't really care.  You could tell me they are claiming the world is turning to cheese and are pushing THAT as factual.  It STILL has nothing to do with religion.



Quantum Windbag said:


> The disciples of the prophet of AGW, aka Al Gore, are calling for everyone to convert to their belief, despite the fact that it is not based in truth, and insisting that they are the only people who know the Truth. They pray to gods that others will believe in the wisdom they lay out, and call for the death of non believers.


This is YOU pushing religious themes on a non-religious topic by using words like disciples, prophet, convert, pray to gods, and non believers.  In all actuality, people who agree with Al Gore do not believe him to be a prophet.  That's you pushing your ideas, not accurately representing their ideas.  So again I ask: what part of the video contains RELIGIOUS tones?  You are very good at complaining about the question, but not very good at answering it.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I am still waiting for you to define religion in such a way that it includes Scientology, which believes that all gods are ascended from lesser beings, essentially form us, and rejects the, as an organization, the specific requirement to believe in either a god, or even gods, yet somehow excludes AGW and its disciples.


Please see the various dictionary and encyclopedic references I have already provided, as every single one of them applies to scientology.


----------

