Darwin vs DNA

[JakeStarkey]

CandySlice can stop the lying. I never said or suggested that you were ungodly, Show me exactly where I said that, please.

I have found that extremists, such as atheists or the Tea Party or libertarians or stormfronters, resort to lying when having trouble on the board.

Give yourself a break, CandySlice, and stop that nonsens.

I'll bring it to your attention again

I guess you are gonna ignore this.

'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' ( Harvard geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin. In an interview in Harpers entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. Feb. 1985 p. 61)

Think about this above argument long and hard. This evolutionist has admitted that no one has ever found an organism that did not originate from parent-stock! Is this evidence a death-blow to creation? Or is it a death-blow to evolution? Which 'theory' affirms that all life has come from pre-existing life? In Creation, ultimately everything came from God. (Genesis 1:1). In evolution, where did everything ultimately come from? Life or non-life?

It was posted earlier.

If everything came from the gods then you need to explain where your gods came from.

NOVA | The Judge Speaks

The Judge Speaks

The 2005 trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover was a major bout in the battle over the teaching of evolution. The crux of the case was a Dover, Pennsylvania school distract policy requiring that students hear a disclaimer that "gaps" exist in Darwin's theory. It also introduced an idea called intelligent design (ID). Was Dover's ID policy a covert way to put religion into a public school? Following six weeks of testimony from leading biologists as well as from ardent supporters of ID, Judge John Jones issued a 139-page ruling on the case. Here, Judge Jones reads some of his key findings.

That is a very interesting link. This is the kind of thing I find interesting and worth hearing about. I don't know why Jake and YWC feel it's so important to call people with earnest questions 'ungodly 'or some version of that. I also find it hard to believe that people with such flawed and irrational (and at times downright dishonest) answers to the simplest of questions aren't operating on some agenda that really doesn't have anyones best interest in mind. These people are the kind of folks that caused me to start asking questions in the first place. You just catch them in too many lies and half-truths to believe what they say. And when caught they don't have even the slightest hint of shame over their deceptions. They just glass it over and go on to the next Gospel According to Themselves.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Wow. You're just the LOLz.

Atheism is not a religion, and requires no faith what-so-ever.

I'm glad you find it funny, always happy when I can share my entertainment.

The fact remains, however, that it can't be proven that there is definitely no God. Believing anything that you can't prove requires faith. Period.

Nonsense. By your inadequate notions of rational beliefs, since literally nothing can be "proven," then every belief is faith, and that's just retarded.

Lol. Call it retarded if you want, it's absolutely true. Believing anything other than your own existence as some sort of consciousness requires some amount of faith.

Never thought I'd find someone obviously intelligent to whom the basic premise of The Matrix would be profound. Always figured it was basic, run-of-the-mill philosophy in a retardedly shiny shell.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, Loki is retarded if he does not realize his belief in atheism is in fact faith.

 

[LOki]

I'm glad you find it funny, always happy when I can share my entertainment.

The fact remains, however, that it can't be proven that there is definitely no God. Believing anything that you can't prove requires faith. Period.

Nonsense. By your inadequate notions of rational beliefs, since literally nothing can be "proven," then every belief is faith, and that's just retarded.

Lol. Call it retarded if you want, it's absolutely true. Believing anything other than your own existence as some sort of consciousness requires some amount of faith.

Never thought I'd find someone obviously intelligent to whom the basic premise of The Matrix would be profound. Always figured it was basic, run-of-the-mill philosophy in a retardedly shiny shell.

Rational beliefs do not require "proof." Faith is a specific kind of belief. All beliefs are not faith.

 

[LOki]

Yup, Loki is retarded if he does not realize his belief in atheism is in fact faith.

Demonstrate. Or are you going to run away (again) like your superstitious tribe member, Youwerecreated?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is going to accept a link to yourself as proof of anything other than meglomania.

Grow up. Accept that belief in no god is a faith that no god exists.

Rational beliefs do not require "proof.

 

[CandySlice]

CandySlice can stop the lying. I never said or suggested that you were ungodly, Show me exactly where I said that, please.

I have found that extremists, such as atheists or the Tea Party or libertarians or stormfronters, resort to lying when having trouble on the board.

Give yourself a break, CandySlice, and stop that nonsens.

If everything came from the gods then you need to explain where your gods came from.

NOVA | The Judge Speaks

The Judge Speaks

The 2005 trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover was a major bout in the battle over the teaching of evolution. The crux of the case was a Dover, Pennsylvania school distract policy requiring that students hear a disclaimer that "gaps" exist in Darwin's theory. It also introduced an idea called intelligent design (ID). Was Dover's ID policy a covert way to put religion into a public school? Following six weeks of testimony from leading biologists as well as from ardent supporters of ID, Judge John Jones issued a 139-page ruling on the case. Here, Judge Jones reads some of his key findings.

That is a very interesting link. This is the kind of thing I find interesting and worth hearing about. I don't know why Jake and YWC feel it's so important to call people with earnest questions 'ungodly 'or some version of that. I also find it hard to believe that people with such flawed and irrational (and at times downright dishonest) answers to the simplest of questions aren't operating on some agenda that really doesn't have anyones best interest in mind. These people are the kind of folks that caused me to start asking questions in the first place. You just catch them in too many lies and half-truths to believe what they say. And when caught they don't have even the slightest hint of shame over their deceptions. They just glass it over and go on to the next Gospel According to Themselves.

Ah. Comes the Dawn. Finally!
I think your entire philosophy can be summed up as 'Believe like me or die'. And you evidently have no trouble name calling and throwing a tantrum of sorts when you are trapped. I also find it interesting that we finally see you starting to fray around the edges, calling on such disparate entities as the Tea Party and libertarians ( two things that don't seem to fit together too well, by the way), seing 'the Enemy' everywhere. Very telling. It's intersting how you integrate politics into your philosphy. I wasn't expecting that.

It all goes together with your slightly skewed idea of how we should see the world.

Personally despite the traits you keep trying to assign me, I have no problem reconciling one disipline with the other.


I think creationism and Darwin go together nicely.

I think the more you search the more the two not only dovetail but actually begin to compliment each other. But that's just me. . .on my own personal
search . . that really shouldn't bother you the way it does.

 

[LOki]

No one is going to accept a link to yourself as proof of anything other than meglomania.

Grow up. Accept that belief in no god is a faith that no god exists.

Rational beliefs do not require "proof.

Upon what rational basis do you assert that believing there's no god is faith, when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god. Upon what basis do you assert that it is irrational to believe there's no god when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god.

Upon what rational basis do you assert there are ANY rational beliefs if there is no rational basis for ANY beliefs.

Go on faith-boy, explain it to me, or just forfeit the point as you so gamely have before.

 

[ima]

Yup, Loki is retarded if he does not realize his belief in atheism is in fact faith.

Demonstrate. Or are you going to run away (again) like your superstitious tribe member, Youwerecreated?

I can prove it to you loki: atheism is bullshit because you can't prove that a god doesn't exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You start lying, get caught short on it, and you start throwing tantrums?

You can believe anyway you want, but you don't get to change the definition of words and terms anymore than wackos like bripat.

Tis what tis. Atheism is a belief in no gods, thus it is a faith.

 

[ima]

You start lying, get caught short on it, and you start throwing tantrums?

You can believe anyway you want, but you don't get to change the definition of words and terms anymore than wackos like bripat.

Tis what tis. Atheism is a belief in no gods, thus it is a faith.

Which makes agnosticism (god has yet been proven, but if it is one day, I'll change my mind) the only intelligent viewpoint.

 

[CandySlice]

Notice, if you will, when copy and pasting random scripture and belittling other people's ideas doesn't work we get treated to the 'helpful Father' who cautions us to 'Grow up'.

Jake you are so predictable I could phone this in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

atheism is faith because you cannot empirically prove that a god does not exist.

belief in God is faith because you can't prove empirically that He exists.

Neither atheists, nor Darwinists, nor IDers, nor Creationists are exempt from the rules of language and logica, little ones.

I get a real kick watching you several pollywogs go flip flopping all around.

You goof balls.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have been soundly corrected and don't like it.

You are not an authority.

Empirical data and philosophy can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God.

You extremists are all hooked.

No one is going to accept a link to yourself as proof of anything other than meglomania.

Grow up. Accept that belief in no god is a faith that no god exists.

Rational beliefs do not require "proof.

Upon what rational basis do you assert that believing there's no god is faith, when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god. Upon what basis do you assert that it is irrational to believe there's no god when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god.

Upon what rational basis do you assert there are ANY rational beliefs if there is no rational basis for ANY beliefs.

Go on faith-boy, explain it to me, or just forfeit the point as you so gamely have before.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are so predictable in your rage.

What random scripture pasting?

I am not belittling your ideas by telling you that philsophy and empirical data can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

Facts are facts.

Notice, if you will, when copy and pasting random scripture and belittling other people's ideas doesn't work we get treated to the 'helpful Father' who cautions us to 'Grow up'.

Jake you are so predictable I could phone this in.

 

[CandySlice]

You start lying, get caught short on it, and you start throwing tantrums?

You can believe anyway you want, but you don't get to change the definition of words and terms anymore than wackos like bripat.

Tis what tis. Atheism is a belief in no gods, thus it is a faith.

Who is bripat and what has he/she to do with anything??
PS, you're starting to sound like small child at this point.( 'i know you are but what am I?)

 

[ima]

You are so predictable in your rage.

What random scripture pasting?

I am not belittling your ideas by telling you that philsophy and empirical data can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

Facts are facts.

Notice, if you will, when copy and pasting random scripture and belittling other people's ideas doesn't work we get treated to the 'helpful Father' who cautions us to 'Grow up'.

Jake you are so predictable I could phone this in.

ringo, weren't you the one who said "god is", and when I asked why you belittled me for not agreeing that god just is, and that's proof enough?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

No one is going to accept a link to yourself as proof of anything other than meglomania.

Grow up. Accept that belief in no god is a faith that no god exists.

Rational beliefs do not require "proof.

Upon what rational basis do you assert that believing there's no god is faith, when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god. Upon what basis do you assert that it is irrational to believe there's no god when there is evidence (not proof, you retard) that there is no god.

Upon what rational basis do you assert there are ANY rational beliefs if there is no rational basis for ANY beliefs.

Go on faith-boy, explain it to me, or just forfeit the point as you so gamely have before.

Evidence, but not proof, requires, at its end, some leap of logic to assert a conclusion. The -only- conclusion that doesn't require some amount of faith is the following: I don't know.

Any assertion without undeniable proof requires some amount of faith, like it or not.

Rational beliefs are, in my opinion, much more solid than blind, religious faith. Many atheists have well thought-out reasons for believing what they believe. Then again, I've argued with people from several different religions who, believe it or not, lay out pretty convincing arguments regarding why they believe what they do.

I am not completely faithless. For instance, if I see a guy walking down the street with his hat on tilt, sagging in some Rocawear jeans and wearing a tall-T with dollar signs all over it, I have faith that he's going to be an ignorant SOB who listens to a lot of bad hip hop. This is a rational belief, as it's based on past observations. It is still faith, however, as I don't know until interacting with the fellow how he's going to turn out.

Simply because faith isn't blind doesn't mean it isn't faith.

 

[CandySlice]

atheism is faith because you cannot empirically prove that a god does not exist.

belief in God is faith because you can't prove empirically that He exists.

Neither atheists, nor Darwinists, nor IDers, nor Creationists are exempt from the rules of language and logica, little ones.

I get a real kick watching you several pollywogs go flip flopping all around.

You goof balls.

Jake, not for nothin' but there is a big difference between 'holy' and 'holier than thou'.

 

[CandySlice]

You are so predictable in your rage.

What random scripture pasting?

I am not belittling your ideas by telling you that philsophy and empirical data can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

Facts are facts.

Notice, if you will, when copy and pasting random scripture and belittling other people's ideas doesn't work we get treated to the 'helpful Father' who cautions us to 'Grow up'.

Jake you are so predictable I could phone this in.

ringo, weren't you the one who said "god is", and when I asked why you belittled me for not agreeing that god just is, and that's proof enough?

There is no rage here, at least not on my part. Another predictable ploy, by the way.

I remember that one, Ima. Now watch him try to turn it around on you.