The Evolution Fraud - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15006133
MrWonderful wrote:Right on, Hindsite, my Friend.

There is a lovely graph showing the percentage of various faiths and their retention rates.
At the bottom of the list is atheism, 30% retention. Atheism has been stipulated to be a religion by the Supreme Court. This is something that makes atheists gnash their teeth in fury.
heh heh


https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2012/07/religious-retention-rates/


Knowing the recent history of 'creationism' in America, along with religious penetration of legal or other areas of political life there, the deliberation that 'Atheism' has been stipulated to be a 'religion' by the Supreme Court surprises no one.

It would be 'interesting' to read the 'deliberation' of the Supreme Court(I'm sure there is a joke in that title somewhere), perhaps accompanied by the divulgence of the religious & political interest of it's members.

As an outsider, I would reasonably speculate that the majority were\are of the 'bible-thumping' variety.

I think that I will stick to the certainty that science offers, rather than the falsity of all things religious.

I think I am correct in my observations through life, that 'science' opens one's eyes & 'faith' closes them'.

For that reason, the likes of Einstein, Darwin,along with many others, are the true heroes of the world of our experience.

When 'faith' determines the fate of non-believers of any particular 'faith', with such punishment's, as burning 'witches' or men, alive at the stake, imprisonment, mass slaughter, 'ex-communication', a myriad of inhuman tortures to make them comply for the purpose of simply controlling people, it's time to question just what 'faith' is about.

Some would say that that, as ISIS demonstrates, it reveals that the zealots actually believe in nothing, for no matter how many 'faiths' or 'religions' there are in the world, the one common component in them, is the absolute absence of substance & the complete presence of zilch.

The fact that there are mutations within all living things that eventually manifest themselves is evidence of evolution, because it is an agent of change over time, whether beneficial or not.

As an example,explain 'blue' eyes through the eyes(pun intended) of 'faith' Mr 'Wonderful'?
By Sivad
#15006136
Nonsense wrote:I think that I will stick to the certainty that science offers, rather than the falsity of all things religious.


:knife:
#15006159
Nonsense wrote:As an outsider, I would reasonably speculate that the majority were\are of the 'bible-thumping' variety.

I think that I will stick to the certainty that science offers, rather than the falsity of all things religious.

I think I am correct in my observations through life, that 'science' opens one's eyes & 'faith' closes them'.



“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

As to "the falsity of all things religious:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

------------------
The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.

In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. Genesis 1:1 was not.

Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.

So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

-------------------
Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.

I have much, much more of what YOU call "falsity" from the Holy Bible. It will be presented when and where I choose, much to your dismay.

Nonsense wrote:

When 'faith' determines the fate of non-believers of any particular 'faith', with such punishment's (sic) as burning 'witches' or men, alive at the stake, imprisonment, mass slaughter, 'ex-communication', a myriad of (sic) inhuman tortures to make them comply for the purpose of simply controlling people, it's time to question just what 'faith' is about.



“The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.” – Adolf Hitler

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine. - The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 243

Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of communism. - Vladimir Lenin

100,000,000 murdered in the atheist name of communism and you choose to focus on a few thousand killed in the Crusades, organized by the Spanish king, and a few score of witches. Which were the more recent and the more numerous victims by far?


Nonsense wrote: The fact that there are mutations within all living things that eventually manifest themselves is evidence of evolution, because it is an agent of change over time, whether beneficial or not.

As an example,explain 'blue' eyes through the eyes(pun intended) of 'faith' Mr 'Wonderful'?


You confuse and extrapolate. Adaptation is unquestionable. Adaptation is NOT Darwinian evolution. Biologists have spent decades and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars trying to speed up the process by irradiating fruit flies, bacteria, and other animals to create a new specie. All have failed. Flies with four wings cannot survive outside the laboratory. Darwinism fails and you refuse to accept the facts.

Nonsense wrote: Andre PREVIN : "Your (sic) playing all the 'wrong' notes" .

Eric MORECOMBE ; "I'm playing all the 'right' notes,but, not necessarily in the 'right' order".


Grammar is much simpler than science, and you fell flat in your often repeated footnote. None of your other brilliant *scientific* allies told you? But you have *faith* in them....... (Pun intended.)
#15006162
Sivad wrote:While I would bet my life that the babbitts are totally full of shit on the empirical adequacy of the neo-darwinian model, you're all the way up your own ass if you think a naturalistic explanation isn't possible in principle.


They're full of shit. I'm full of shit, but you have all the answers. Why don't you take the challenge I posed and explain the naturalistic explanation for a polypeptide of 1,000 amino acid residues in length. Be sure to explain precisely how all L-forms were used, and how this polypeptide was so precisely folded. Then there will be about 10,000 more of them to explain away, but I'm not asking for all of those. Just one, Mister Vulgar.

Incidentally, I have not once brought up the term "intelligent design." I have simply challenged Darwinism, which must stand on its own or else it falls. The prevailing argument propounded everywhere is to argue AGAINST intelligent design when in fact the subject is Darwinism.
Try to stick to the subject. That would be scientific. Bringing up something else is your strawman argument. Unintelligent and anti-science, that.
By Sivad
#15006174
MrWonderful wrote:They're full of shit. I'm full of shit


Exactly, you are all full of shit. And you're all full of shit in the exact same way for the exact same reason. You all share the same exact mentality and you are all militantly dedicated to bullshit. The only difference between you is your preferred brands of bullshit. It's the ideological equivalent of the cola wars.


but you have all the answers


I have honest rational skepticism, you're the one that claims to have all the answers.

Why don't you take the challenge I posed


Because your challenge is Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15006195
MrWonderful wrote:“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

As to "the falsity of all things religious:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

------------------
The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.

In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. Genesis 1:1 was not.

Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.

So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

-------------------
Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.

I have much, much more of what YOU call "falsity" from the Holy Bible. It will be presented when and where I choose, much to your dismay.

“The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.” – Adolf Hitler

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine. - The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 243

Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of communism. - Vladimir Lenin

100,000,000 murdered in the atheist name of communism and you choose to focus on a few thousand killed in the Crusades, organized by the Spanish king, and a few score of witches. Which were the more recent and the more numerous victims by far?

You confuse and extrapolate. Adaptation is unquestionable. Adaptation is NOT Darwinian evolution. Biologists have spent decades and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars trying to speed up the process by irradiating fruit flies, bacteria, and other animals to create a new specie. All have failed. Flies with four wings cannot survive outside the laboratory. Darwinism fails and you refuse to accept the facts.



Grammar is much simpler than science, and you fell flat in your often repeated footnote. None of your other brilliant *scientific* allies told you? But you have *faith* in them....... (Pun intended.)


Nonsense-

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation

I asked a simple question about blue eyes , the answer incomprehensible to anyone but you.

DARWIN is a bringer of light to the world of his time, religion or faith followers are mere purveyers of lies & untruths about anything or everything.
There is nothing in faith or religion that relates to reality, the stupid example you give about Genesis & Lamaitre.

The church to which he belonged can not accept the event of the Big Bang without taking 'ownership' of it by none other than the last Pope(Francis),or is that Dope?
It's analogous of politicians staying on 'message' so too with religious dogma-AKA Lies & Falsehoods.

What about the catholic church saying that Jesus was , 'the son of god', the BIG lie, on which that church is founded, because, if a 'god' existed, why wouldn't the church that says that such a thing exist, set out to prove that statement which they purvey?

Scientist are often proven wrong by their peers, that, to any scientist, is proof that the scientific method validates science itself, because it is always amenable to reason, something which faith & religion can never accept.

It's no good you or anyone trying to 'prove' anything related to science, when such people as yourself cannot think for yourselves, but just quote what some writer purporting to be a 'scientist' publishes & taking it as gospel.

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation

More nonsense in your Genesis about man being formed from the dust of the ground, you take any information from a book as 'truth', it's unbelievable, funny really, because that same book also says of Genesis, that everything was created in six days, :lol:
Your 'god' must have been on 'holiday' when it all happened, not in six days but millionths of a second. :knife: :knife: :moron:

FACTS are sunny Jim, everything in the universe was created in that first few seconds or so, every atom in the universe, there was no time or space for any fictional characters called 'god'.

Here is my 'scientific' take on your nonsense

'god' = Sigma 0

Higgs Boson = Sigma 5

As one can see, science has the substance to discover what is invisible to non-scientist & faith or religion can never prove anything on which it is based, because there is zilch substance to it.

Now go and read some more fables in that book of 'magic' that you call a 'bible' & leave people to live their lives in the real universe. :moron: :evil:

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation, "100,000,000 murdered in the atheist name of communism and you choose to focus on a few thousand killed in the Crusades, organized by the Spanish king, and a few score of witches. Which were the more recent and the more numerous victims by far"?

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation seem to be the predominant feature of your post, either prove your statements from real sources or refrain from making them in the name of reason. :knife:
#15006216
Nonsense wrote:
More nonsensical lies from you, "100,000,000 murdered in the atheist name of communism and you choose to focus on a few thousand killed in the Crusades, organized by the Spanish king, and a few score of witches. Which were the more recent and the more numerous victims by far"?

Foul lies seem to be the predominant feature of your post, either prove your statements from real sources or refrain from making them in the name of reason. :knife:



1. You engage in petty ad hominem attacks, without providing anything remotely factual or compelling towards achieving your claims. These statements are well known. That you demand proof without ever proving any of your own claims is the height of hypocrisy, and ignorance, and pretension.

2. OF COURSE I'm far beneath you and your godless friends. That's all you have are your arrogant claims of intellectual superiority. But that's all they are - claims.

I'm quite sure you and your atheist friends don't talk so hatefully, so condescendingly, so maliciously in public gatherings. But if you do, you have few friends, and not anyone I would care to call a friend.

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation
User avatar
By noemon
#15006225
Admin Notes:

This conversation has descended into who can scream at the top of his lungs that his interlocutor is stupid/arrogant/idiot/whatever. This is a warning to all that cards will be handed around if you carry on attacking your interlocutor personally.
By Hindsite
#15006246
Ter wrote:I don't pretend to be wise but I am reasonably knowledgeable.
What about you ? Not very it seems, if you try to defend intelligent design.

It appears that you are not even reasonably knowledgeable on intelligent design. So I shall wait to see if MrWonderful or anyone on here is knowledgeable enough to explain it. The atheists and evolutionists don't like the possibility that the world might have been intelligently designed; therefore, defending intelligent design will obviously receive many insults from the atheists and evolutionists. Perhaps religion and faith can be kept out of the discussion.
#15006248
Hindsite wrote:It appears that you are not even reasonably knowledgeable on intelligent design. So I shall wait to see if MrWonderful or anyone on here is knowledgeable enough to explain it. The atheists and evolutionists don't like the possibility that the world might have been intelligently designed; therefore, defending intelligent design will obviously receive many insults from the atheists and evolutionists.


This is because we human beings receive everything on faith, even those of us who are atheists and skeptics, but the object of faith between human beings differ. For Christians the Object of faith and trust is ultimately God, while for others it is ultimately only themselves.

It is in fact logically and philosophically foolish to think that all things arose by themselves from nothing, and then from Chaos to Order, but it is necessarily believed to be so by Atheists on faith, for their religion (''religion'' being defined I say as a individually and collectively binding system explaining issues of ultimate concern to the human person) which they firmly believe in.

This is why I have stated before that even should an genuine Atheist encounter God on a personal level, they would likely only see in Him merely a more powerful and more intelligent alien being than themselves, not as Creator and Lord of the Universe, the Personal Ground of all Being, including their own being.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15006263
@annatar1914 Atheism is not a religion. You do your intelligence a dis-service by stating such. Not believing in something is not a "belief", but an absence of it.

Intelligent design would be fine were it not also disputing real science to support literal interpretations of the Bible.

Science does not dispute the Bible, because it's about figuring out the world around us, and not dealing with philosophical questions like, "Who are we?", "Who made us?", or "Why are we here?".

The scientific theories do not disprove the existence of a god, because they're not trying to. They are taking factual observations of the world around us. If you want to think that a god made that, then that's fine. It doesn't make the science any less real, unless you try to apply it to a book made 2,000 years ago when people thought a person flying would be inconcievable.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15006322
MrWonderful wrote:1. You engage in petty ad hominem attacks, without providing anything remotely factual or compelling towards achieving your claims. These statements are well known. That you demand proof without ever proving any of your own claims is the height of hypocrisy, and ignorance, and pretension.

2. OF COURSE I'm far beneath you and your godless friends. That's all you have are your arrogant claims of intellectual superiority. But that's all they are - claims.

I'm quite sure you and your atheist friends don't talk so hatefully, so condescendingly, so maliciously in public gatherings. But if you do, you have few friends, and not anyone I would care to call a friend.

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation


Nonsense-

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation your post regarding the numbers of people killed according to your own invented figures, Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation, you would admit to an 'error', but no, you decide to play the 'victim', so let me tell you something, the tens of millions of innocent people killed in WW2 are real victims.

You invent your nonsense about the universe, how it began according to a collection of brainwashing books containing fables - aka- The Bible & you expect people on forums like this to play along with such stupidity-unbelievable nonsense.

Here is another pile of you know what from another religious actor, the former pope Francis, which should fit perfectly into your Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation mindset:

Pope Francis-

It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church’s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.
“The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it,” the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.
“Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”
Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.
“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything,” he said.
“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”
Although Francis was packaging the ideas with his trademark eye for a soundbite, the content of what he was saying does not mark a break with Catholic teaching, which has modified considerably since Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1859.
Popes before him have also said that– with certain provisos – there is no incompatibility between evolution and God as divine creator.


Now, if you intend to argue in favour of this set of catholic lies, intended to give an impression of validity to the false premise on which the catholic church is based on, you had better come up with something altogether than the literary incontinence displayed in your previous post on the subject.

When you make a statement about the existence of something, such as the proposition of the existence of a 'god', it is a statement, any reader is entitled to demand that you prove beyond doubt the truth of that statement.

Now, because you can't, doesn't mean such a thing cannot exist-even metaphorically, such as in rhetoric, but no, there is no qualification to your statement's on the subject, so one is entitled to read them as intended fact by the author of such statement's,that being yourself.

You should, as the saying goes, "Put up, or shut up", or would you prefer to try digging yourself out of the hole that you are in?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :knife: :moron:
Last edited by Nonsense on 21 May 2019 13:55, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15006327
MrWonderful wrote:Nowhere in my original post does the word "faith" appear.
You and your godless friends continue thumping the Bible and attributing your thumps to me.
Very unscientific and dishonest of you. tsk, tsk

Faith doesn't require evidence. What is dishonest about that??
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15006331
Besoeker2 wrote:Faith doesn't require evidence. What is dishonest about that??


You tell me what is honest about it?

End of discussion.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15006344
Besoeker2 wrote:The definition.


Nonsense-

Well, 'faith' is just vapourware isn't it, devoid of substance, at best it's like Schrodinger's cat, in terms of a 'creator', you will have to excuse me, I can't stop myself laughing. :evil: :evil: :evil:
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15006348
Nonsense wrote:Nonsense-

Well, 'faith' is just vapourware isn't it, devoid of substance, at best it's like Schrodinger's cat, in terms of a 'creator', you will have to excuse me, I can't stop myself laughing. :evil: :evil: :evil:


I like the Samuel Clemens definition.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15006354
Besoeker2 wrote:I like the Samuel Clemens definition.



A man of observation & many quotes on the subject.

Right now it's for me, a case of "May religion with reality pass afar, the TWAIN never to meet"....there you go, a new career beckons. ;) :lol: :lol:
#15006442
@Godstud ,


Atheism is not a religion. You do your intelligence a dis-service by stating such. Not believing in something is not a "belief", but an absence of it.


Under my definition of Religion (and ''Religion'' comes from the Latin word meaning ''to bind'')as a system that claims to have answers to common issues of ultimate human concern, there's no such animal in reality as an absence of belief but rather the replacement of one belief by another.

Intelligent design would be fine were it not also disputing real science to support literal interpretations of the Bible.


Real Science doesn't dispute intelligent design, it is the necessary condition for real science to even develop. Nor is a ''literal interpretation'' of the Bible in this case something that is ''Anti-scientific'', because science involves matters that are testable and repeatable under rigorous laboratory conditions, organized philosophically in terms of formal logic.

Science does not dispute the Bible, because it's about figuring out the world around us, and not dealing with philosophical questions like, "Who are we?", "Who made us?", or "Why are we here?".


Exactly so... But an Atheist intellect necessarily still has to make fundamental assumptions about reality, and so brings these assumptions into juxtaposition with the framework of their scientific thought. Non-Atheistic thinkers and scientists do the same thing, merely in some cases making different fundamental assumptions about nature and reality than the Atheist scientist and thinker would do. I could talk about information theory and irreducable complexity, and other specific philosophical and scientific problems with the the theory of evolution, but I don't think that would be particularly useful or necessary. You simply believe in it, and I simply do not, although I used to and equally as sincerely until I saw intellectual problems with it.

The scientific theories do not disprove the existence of a god, because they're not trying to. They are taking factual observations of the world around us. If you want to think that a god made that, then that's fine. It doesn't make the science any less real, unless you try to apply it to a book made 2,000 years ago when people thought a person flying would be inconceivable.


This unfortunately is another assumption of our modern secular age in which the ancients are seen as being somehow ignorant of possible future realities. And yet in Greco-Roman Myth for example we have the legend of Icarus and Daedelus flying around with artificial wings, and in Scripture we have all kinds of sightings of winged creatures called Angels. So yeah, people back then weren't ignorant, and even could imagine technics capable of doing what could not be done in their time even if they didn't know how exactly.

And with Scripture itself, in earlier posts on threads elsewhere I have mentioned that I take it quite literally when it calls for it, and I'm even quite deliberately but entirely seriously naive in my understanding of it as well. I'm intelligent enough to have a simple faith that simply receives these things as true. By analogy, it might be like your life decision to live in a simpler society like Thailand that is very different in many ways from the Western one. I have made a conscious decision to make a somewhat similar move, but internally rather than physically.
#15006496
Besoeker2 wrote:Faith doesn't require evidence. What is dishonest about that??


1. YOU brought up the subject of "faith" in a discussion of science. You and your atheist/Leftist allies (but I repeat myself) are constantly condemning the Holy Bible and religion, but you can't wait to bring them up whenever the subject is .... science. That is dishonest. That is hypocritical. That is you.

2. You know very little about either faith or evidence, obviously. You only PRETEND to be some kind of intellectual authority, without demonstrating any at all.


“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 17
Canadian Federal Election

The two countries have similar histories, and thus[…]

Election 2020

Yes, I am certain that one of the reasons why Obam[…]

I mean I suppose I can go pretty low, but at leas[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c2[…]