Feed on Posts or Comments 23 October 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism &Rationals &Science Thomas on 07 May 2010 12:22 am

Why science is way better than religion

Simple and straightforward – science blows religion away:

42 Responses to “Why science is way better than religion”

  1. on 07 May 2010 at 11:51 am 1.Grimalkin said …

    Breast implants? Seriously?

    Other than that, a good video.

  2. on 07 May 2010 at 3:42 pm 2.ChristianScientist said …

    It’s funny to me when people place the world in a box and say this is science and this is science fiction. As scientist our egos tend to get a little bit out of control, and we start distorting what science is truly about. Scientist often let their own personal opinion get in the way of being objective, which is a fundamental of being a scientist. The universe is a vast and magnificent place, and what gives you the right to place constraints on it. Creationism is a legitimate theory, and for certain scientist to completely disregard it is irresponsible.

  3. on 07 May 2010 at 3:49 pm 3.MrQ said …

    Mr Scientist (post#2),

    Real science, as you already know, is peer reviewed, tested, and verifiable. Helps to nullify personal opinions.
    Point me to the Theory of Creationism? I am extremely curious; where is the research on that?

  4. on 07 May 2010 at 5:17 pm 4.Lou said …

    “peer reviewed, tested, and verifiable”

    So, you have verified the Big bang and the creation of matter in a peer reviewed journal? You have tested this, correct?

    Point me to “The creation of matter” theory. I am extremely curious.

    ID is a legitimate theory like it or not and it is being taught in schools around the country. It is backed by scientist and being researched daily.

    Surprise!

  5. on 07 May 2010 at 5:39 pm 5.PulRalSol said …

    “ID is a legitimate theory like it or not and it is being taught in schools around the country. It is backed by scientist and being researched daily.”

    This statement is false. Lou, you might want to watch the PBS documentary on the Dover trials. Here’s a link for you, its free to watch.

    http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807/

  6. on 07 May 2010 at 6:01 pm 6.MrQ said …

    Lou,
    “Point me to “The creation of matter” theory. I am extremely curious.”

    Psssst, Lou. Three letters… ‘LHC’. They’re working on it. Always asking questions, always looking, always trying to understand. Slowly plodding along, never fast enough for you.

    Relax your anxiety levels just a touch; after all, you’ve already rejected the “old bible sciences” and now accept that the world isn’t flat, isn’t the centre of the universe, and there is no ark. You might as well say Zeus took a shit and here we are with your mentality.

    Lou, you approach the subject from an unbelievably weak position; one of already knowing “the answer.” Good luck with that.

    Lou, one last note: I was trying to ask the Scientist where he got his information for the Theory of Creationism. Still waiting….

  7. on 07 May 2010 at 6:31 pm 7.Lou said …

    “This statement is false. Lou, you might want to watch the PBS documentary on the Dover trials. Here’s a link for you, its free to watch.

    BAAAHHHHHHHH, wrong answer. Teachers are teaching ID in the schools by getting the kids to ask the questions. My understanding is that it is legal and everything. I know this for fact even if PBS does not.

    My position is weak at which part Q? You brought up Zeus, Bible, Flat earth but I don’t see that in any of my post. Please elaborate.

    So Q they are working on it? Well good, that means you don’t know the answer right? The your opinion is BS.

    Hey, pssst, the theory of creationism….they are working on it….pass it along….

    Good night now!

  8. on 07 May 2010 at 6:48 pm 8.MrQ said …

    Lou,

    Try to re-read and UNDERSTAND the posts before venting your spleen. Does ‘LHC’ mean anything to you?

    Still no links for the Theory of Creationism. Still waiting…

    Lou, you’re part of the reason I fight ignorance and stupidity. Keep the BS out of my children’s school science programs. Religion is OK to teach as an optional comparative religious studies class. That make you happy?

  9. on 07 May 2010 at 7:29 pm 9.ChristianScientist said …

    If we look at Evolution Theory it starts with the idea of the first living cell. It offers no explanation of how that cell came into existence on a dead planet. Scientist really don’t have an explanation of how this single cell came into existence, but there are several theories. One theory is that this cell was created from proteins coming together and joining into a cell. There is no evidence that this is even possible. Experiments have been conducted to try and create life from proteins, but they have all failed. Another theory is that mutating crystals can form cells. This has been proven possible, but the probability of this happening is so infinitely small it’s basically 0. The third theory given by creditable scientist is that aliens planted the first cell.
    Any reasonable person would conclude that Creationism is just as likely. As much as we hate to admit it we truly know very little about this universe, and to try and pretend like we have it figured out is arrogant and absurd.

  10. on 07 May 2010 at 7:54 pm 10.MrQ said …

    Mr Scientist,

    Unfortunately you are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

    The theory of evolution deals with complex life forms becoming complexer. Abiogenesis speaks to formation of life from inanimate matter; matter of the kind which we are all composed of. Google ‘abiogenesis’ and you’ll find a couple links with details and information on the mechanism.

    As a Scientist you know that the earth is many billions of years old, so it’s not likely anyone was around to witness abiogenesis. We have to use the data and evidence at hand, as well as our reasoning and logical brains. But no sense telling you all that old-hat stuff.

    So, onto your Theory of Creationism, what have you gotten from the research so far?

  11. on 07 May 2010 at 8:01 pm 11.3D said …

    If we look at Evolution Theory it starts with the idea of the first living cell. It offers no explanation of how that cell came into existence on a dead planet.

    It’s not that theory’s function to explain that. It leads us to that cell, and tells us how we evolved from that cell.

    The discovery of where that cell came from is another question with other hypotheses.

    Scientist really don’t have an explanation of how this single cell came into existence, but there are several theories. One theory is that this cell was created from proteins coming together and joining into a cell. There is no evidence that this is even possible. Experiments have been conducted to try and create life from proteins, but they have all failed. Another theory is that mutating crystals can form cells. This has been proven possible, but the probability of this happening is so infinitely small it’s basically 0.

    Yes — and on a related note, it’s almost impossible that the grains of sand on the beach outside my house fell into the exact configuration they are in now. The probability of this is so small is basically 0. And yet, THERE THEY ARE!

    I think you can see why this is a shitty argument. The origin of life may be extremely rare and impossible to reproduce in a lab. That does not equate to evidence that a hand came down from the sky and got it going with jumper cables.

    Finally, *even if you believe in God* there’s nothing preventing you from believing that God ignited the natural processes that started life and evolution, and then trying to discover how those processes work. The only reason these two concepts have been set as adversaries rather than co-existing peacefully, is because of the Abrahamic religions, who fear that their dopey books are going to be rendered obsolete if they don’t threaten science with the full power of all their ammunition at their disposal.

    The third theory given by creditable scientist is that aliens planted the first cell.
    Any reasonable person would conclude that Creationism is just as likely.

    Well, no, I would go out on a limb and say that most reasonable people wouldn’t conclude that interstellar travel from faraway planets is just as likely as “Creationism” in the Biblical sense, where people came from dirty clay. One makes sense based on an extrapolation of science we have now, raised to a higher degree; the other is just stupid nonsense made up by ancient folk.

    But even having said that, neither the alien theory nor the God theory really answers anything about how life started. In either case, the actual origin mystery is just shifted back one generation even if proven true. Who created the aliens? Who created God?

    As much as we hate to admit it we truly know very little about this universe, and to try and pretend like we have it figured out is arrogant and absurd.

    I agree with you. Theists are arrogant and absurd, because they try and pretend they have it all figured out. Scientists (good ones, anyway, not fake ones pretending to be “intelligent design specialists”) have no problem accepting “we don’t know yet, let’s try to figure it out” as an answer.

  12. on 07 May 2010 at 8:11 pm 12.Burebista said …

    “one makes sense based on an extrapolation of science we have now, raised to a higher degree”

    Really, elaborate on how?

    “the other is just stupid nonsense made up by ancient folk.”

    Proof?

    “The probability of this is so small is basically 0. And yet, THERE THEY ARE!”

    More evidence of ID.

    “we don’t know yet, let’s try to figure it out” as an answer.”

    If only we could get the arrogant and absurd humanist to quite pretending they have it all figured out. That would mean to stop with there is no God debate as well. You don’t know, when you do come tell us about it.

    This is so old, but easy and still amazingly joyful.

  13. on 07 May 2010 at 10:13 pm 13.Severin said …

    12 Burebista
    “Really, elaborate on how?”
    “Proof?”
    “More evidence of ID.”
    What are you?
    A Superior Court?

    Instead of provoking with yur shit questions, you better SAY something, and, of course, BRING SOME EVIDENCES for what you have to say.
    OR: elaborate oposite!

    “Arrogant”, “ignorant” are the only “elaboartion” and “evidences” seen from your side ever.
    Are you a child, in which case we could pardon you, or just an idiot, in which case we, of course, pardon you too, by all our hearts?

  14. on 07 May 2010 at 10:18 pm 14.Severin said …

    11 3D
    “Yes — and on a related note, it’s almost impossible that the grains of sand on the beach outside my house fell into the exact configuration they are in now. The probability of this is so small is basically 0. And yet, THERE THEY ARE!”

    Perfect argument! Thank you!

  15. on 07 May 2010 at 10:26 pm 15.Severin said …

    9 ChristianScientist
    “It offers no explanation of how that cell came into existence on a dead planet.”

    There were theories about flat earth. There were also theories about sun orbiting earth.
    Thousands of theories existed which were not able to explain anything (“flogiston”…)
    Then, one by one, many of them were explained rationally, with good evidences, and (most important) fitting in reality surrounding us.
    Not all were/are explained.

    Wait and enjoy!
    Some “scientist” you are!

  16. on 07 May 2010 at 11:16 pm 16.MrQ said …

    Lou,
    “Hey, pssst, the theory of creationism….they are working on it….pass it along….”
    I know what you meant to say was “they are working on making it up”. You must try to fit the evidence to the conclusion that goddidit. Good luck with that.

    “My position is weak at which part Q? You brought up Zeus, Bible, Flat earth but I don’t see that in any of my post. Please elaborate.”
    Your post reeks of it, watch where you step! No amount of faith is going to turn a turd into a nugget of gold.

  17. on 08 May 2010 at 12:26 am 17.3D said …

    12.Burebista said …
    “one makes sense based on an extrapolation of science we have now, raised to a higher degree”

    Really, elaborate on how?

    We can travel to the moon now. It’s not too hard to imagine humans aliens traveling farther than we can, by the same principle but with more advanced technology.

    The previous poster equated this very reasonable extrapolation of current science, with God making little mud people out of clay. Absurd.

    “the other is just stupid nonsense made up by ancient folk.”
    Proof?

    I don’t have to prove why a man in the sky reaching down and making human beings out of clay is absurd. You have the burden to prove that your claim is valid.

    The same way that scientists have to prove that their claims are valid. And when they don’t, they say “I don’t know, let’s keep working on it.” When you don’t know, you say “Shut up, blasphemer.”

    “The probability of this is so small is basically 0. And yet, THERE THEY ARE!”
    More evidence of ID.

    Sure, to you. You believe bushes and snakes can talk, so you will believe anything =) It’s not surprising that you see ID in every grain of sand and dog’s asshole.

    If only we could get the arrogant and absurd humanist to quite pretending they have it all figured out. That would mean to stop with there is no God debate as well.

    LOL. You are on an atheist website, debating with atheists, and telling them to stop debating? If you didn’t come here seeking a debate, there wouldn’t be any debate here.

    What you really mean to say is, “stop making websites and going on TV shows saying things other than what I believe in!” And, if we had a religious constitution and government like those in the Arab world, it would be enforced, at penalty of death by burning alive or beheading, the way it was in the Middle Ages. Thank goodness for the US Constitution.

  18. on 08 May 2010 at 1:34 am 18.A real-ist said …

    I think ChristainScientist’s name comes from that his religion is Christian Science, which really isn’t science. They are just Christians who believe that their body is a temple, that it shouldn’t be poisoned with anything including medicine. Some scientists they are if they don’t even believe in medicine. I dated someone whose religion is Christian Science. It is just another one of those wacky religions.

  19. on 08 May 2010 at 1:40 am 19.A real-ist said …

    “If only we could get the arrogant and absurd humanist to quite pretending they have it all figured out. That would mean to stop with there is no God debate as well. You don’t know, when you do come tell us about it.”

    This is a great quote that I saw:

    It annoys me that the burden of proof is on us. It should be: ‘You came up with the idea. Why do you believe it?’ I could tell you i’ve got superpowers. But i can’t go up to people saying ‘Prove I can’t fly.’ They’d go: ‘What do you mean? ‘prove you can’t fly?’ Prove you can!!

  20. on 08 May 2010 at 5:28 am 20.Severin said …

    4 Lou
    “Point me to “The creation of matter” theory.”

    Why should we?
    Do YOU need a new theory?
    Was Genesis not good enough for you?

    Just look how beautiful and simple the Genesis theory is: god blinked, and there was light (before sun!). He blinked again, and there were plants and animals.
    Then he made man from mud and women from his rib.

    Is something wrong with such a GREAT (and picturesque) theory about creation of universe (matter, energy)!
    DO YOU DENY IT?

    Read Genesis and cry!
    Then reach to your pocked for your mobile phone.
    You will find a good piece of science there. Not made of mud, and not mentioned in any “god’s words” ever.

    Untill you enlighten us with some new theories, we will trust scientist. They offer SOME evidences, and they honestly say when wrong.

  21. on 08 May 2010 at 5:28 am 21.Sister Chromatid said …

    It’s religious people who pretend to know stuff that no-one can actually know about. They are the ones who believe in undetectable entities for which there is no evidence– they are the ones who claim to be “in on” divine truths (that just happen to conflict with other divine truths). They claim to “know” stuff through “faith” and “feelings” that no human CAN know because there is no measurable evidence or anything which distinguishes god belief from mythological god belief– a real god from an imaginary one!

    There is just one objective reality– one truth. So far, science is the best method at illuminating that truth– the only method with a built in error correcting mechanism. And humans are excellent at making up crap to explain that which they don’t understand.

    You don’t need faith for airplanes to fly or computers to work or the earth to go around the sun. They just do. Thank science for this knowledge. No holy book mentioned DNA or decoded the human (and now the Neanderthal) genome.

    What can any supernatural story offer us that can compare? There are millions of creation stories. There is only one truth. Science has been refining and honing that truth for years as religion tries desperately to keep humans in the dark ages– as they imagine themselves humble.

    That creationist babble may have worked to indoctrinate you (along with promises of salvation for belief and threats of damnation for doubt), but it really doesn’t fly on the internet– where religions come to die. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rqw4krMOug&feature=player_embedded

    (Religous posters: If you are lucky, one day you may look back and be embarrassed for the arrogance and ignorance you’ve displayed on the internet. Remember, most atheists, were once like you. We evolved. There’s hope for you Thanks for providing us with hours of amusement in the mean time.)

  22. on 08 May 2010 at 5:38 am 22.3D said …

    18.A real-ist said …
    I think ChristainScientist’s name comes from that his religion is Christian Science, which really isn’t science. They are just Christians who believe that their body is a temple, that it shouldn’t be poisoned with anything including medicine. Some scientists they are if they don’t even believe in medicine. I dated someone whose religion is Christian Science. It is just another one of those wacky religions.

    That’s true, but it’s no more wacky than Christianity.

    I will say one thing in defense of Christian Scientists: at least they have the conviction of their crazy beliefs, and have the bravery to try to pray away their illnesses. Sure, prayer doesn’t work, but at least they put into practice what they claim to believe in. “Regular” Christians say they believe in the power of prayer, but let them get a simple cold and they are running for the Sudafed, let alone more serious diseases.

    The ethical problem comes in when Christian Scientists impose their beliefs on their helpless kids, and don’t give them the medical treatment they need. Then they cross the line from self-delusion into depravity and evil.

  23. on 08 May 2010 at 12:54 pm 23.Xenon said …

    “Regular” Christians say they believe in the power of prayer, but let them get a simple cold and they are running for the Sudafed,”

    So you believe they should not eat when hungry either? LOL, such silliness really hurts in case you may claim to have. If God provides medicine take the medicine! When he provides food eat the food.

  24. on 08 May 2010 at 1:22 pm 24.A real-ist said …

    Xenon,
    I think you are missing the whole point. 3D was explaining the difference betweeen Christianity and Christian Science, which are both wacky. Christians believe that God put the medicine there while as Christian Science believes prayer is the only medicine.

  25. on 08 May 2010 at 9:50 pm 25.3D said …

    23.Xenon said…

    If God provides medicine take the medicine! When he provides food eat the food.

    Sorry, but this strikes me as being disingenuous… Theists are always shooting down scientific findings, saying they’re guessing in the dark, wildly inaccurate, etc. But when the findings produce life-saving medicine, or something else beneficial to you, the response is God provided it?

    I mean, when someone passes away, Christians always say, “it was part of God’s plan” or “God wanted it to happen”. So if you take the meds, aren’t you fighting God’s plan? Isn’t that selfish, and also counterproductive, assuming he is omniscient and knows better? Seems like, if we assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is true, the Christian Scientist’s position is a lot more logical.

  26. on 09 May 2010 at 1:26 am 26.Xenon said …

    “So if you take the meds, aren’t you fighting God’s plan? Isn’t that selfish, and also counterproductive, assuming he is omniscient and knows better?

    LOL, The fact that Luke is a physician and the writer of Acts & Luke I would guess shoots down your theory. However, I’ll consider your argument if you can provide passages telling us to stop eating and not going to see ol’ Doc Luke!

    What theist are shooting down theories in medical sciences. I don’t know any theist who shoot down any theories in the observational sciences. You know those that can be tested, observed, recorded, repeat.

    Your position sadly is just silly. R U considering becoming a CS?

  27. on 09 May 2010 at 1:51 am 27.Danny said …

    I hate it when the benefits of science are used to exalt some man-made ideology. This science-religion dichotomy is such a modern idea, that even some of the greatest scientific minds in history would be disgusted by such a hypothesis.

    I love science, but it is not value-free. Technology (which science is credited with in this video) has been used for evil purposes, even killing millions of people.

    One non-scientific entity or quality which beats out all of science…..love. To believe in and express love for fellow humans beat out any scientific invention.

  28. on 29 May 2010 at 8:32 pm 28.Tom said …

    3D- Yes — and on a related note, it’s almost impossible that the grains of sand on the beach outside my house fell into the exact configuration they are in now. The probability of this is so small is basically 0. And yet, THERE THEY ARE!

    The difference between a beach’s complexity and human’s complexity is that human complexity is specific and exact. A good visual of this is putting scrabble letters in a bag, and blindly pulling five out to try and create the name Kevin. The chances would be 1 in 26 to the fifth power. But, if you pull five letters out, you’ll automatcially get some sequence of letters. The beach could be any sort of thing, we can only be one thing. We’re specific. A beach is not.

  29. on 29 May 2010 at 11:14 pm 29.3D said …

    28.Tom said …
    The difference between a beach’s complexity and human’s complexity is that human complexity is specific and exact.

    The beach is also specific and exact. The grains of sand are in the exact order they are in right now, because of the path they took to get there over thousands of years, because of tides, because of people kicking them around, etc.

    A good visual of this is putting scrabble letters in a bag, and blindly pulling five out to try and create the name Kevin. The chances would be 1 in 26 to the fifth power.

    No, actually there are multiple tiles of each letter in different frequencies (except for J, X, Q, J and K each having 1) in a Scrabble set (in English). If we exclude blanks, the chances are:

    K – 1/98 = ~.0103
    E – 12/97 = ~.1237
    V – 2/96 = ~.0208
    I – 9/95 = ~.0947
    N – 6/94 = ~.0638

    (.0103) x (.1237) x (.0208) x (.0947) x (.0638) = ~.00000024 = .000024%. Which is still not very likely, but a lot more likely than what you said, which was 1/(26^5).

    But, if you pull five letters out, you’ll automatcially get some sequence of letters. The beach could be any sort of thing, we can only be one thing. We’re specific. A beach is not.

    You’re begging the question here — you’re trying to prove that human beings were designed, by starting with the claim that human beings were designed. That’s a fallacious argument.

    You BELIEVE that humans were specifically designed. That’s OK, but there’s nothing in your argument that proves that as a fact. You’re taking it on faith, and really

    In reality, given billions of years of time, human beings could have evolved in very different ways given small changes in the ecosystem. Like the sand grains on a beach, what we have is one very unlikely configuration of life out of many, many possible configurations.

  30. on 30 May 2010 at 1:48 am 30.Merlin said …

    “In reality, given billions of years of time, human beings could have evolved in very different ways given small changes in the ecosystem.”

    That’s not reality, that is faith and hope! No proof and no reason to assume it could happen. I could assume 100 fairiers on the head of a pin, but that is also not likely.

    Do we have proof that life crawled out of primordial soup? No, we don’t. The chances of life evolving from non-life is zero, You must prove it happened and you have not. With an intelligent designer behind the process, the chances become much greater and possible.

  31. on 30 May 2010 at 4:27 am 31.Tom said …

    3D- The beach is also specific and exact. The grains of sand are in the exact order they are in right now, because of the path they took to get there over thousands of years, because of tides, because of people kicking them around, etc.

    The specific and exactness I’m speaking of is different still. Wind and kicking sand could never create a sandcastle. I don’t see how this is different from evolutionary theories of coming from a cell.

    And for the begging the question thing, I was merely giving an example of the difference between a complex, unlikely beach, and a comples, unlikely and specific human.

  32. on 30 May 2010 at 5:50 am 32.Severin said …

    30 Merlin
    „Do we have proof that life crawled out of primordial soup? No, we don’t.“

    Do we have proof a god created life? No, we don’t.

    I deliberately put „a god“ in this sentence, because of thousands of present and ex-gods we were pushed to believe they were creators of universe, during history of human race.
    Quetzalkoatl or Ra, or Zeus are NOT worse candidats to be creators of universe than christian god. Why would they be?

  33. on 30 May 2010 at 5:57 am 33.Severin said …

    Merlin,

    WHY are you, and all believers discussing here avoiding to say what god are you believing in?
    WHY are you hiding your beliefs?

    Do you believe biblical god created earth and man the way descibed in the Bible?

    It is an open and very simple question. Are you able to answer it?

  34. on 30 May 2010 at 12:00 pm 34.Merlin said …

    “I don’t see how this is different from evolutionary theories of coming from a cell.”

    It’s not, which is why Darwinism creates the same fervor that religion does in the human species. Darwinism is a religion that requires faith and priest to tell the followers what to believe. It has be wrong so many times I have lost count.

  35. on 30 May 2010 at 2:50 pm 35.3D said …

    30.Merlin said …
    Do we have proof that life crawled out of primordial soup? No, we don’t.

    Yet.

    Just to make an analogy, we didn’t have proof of the earth orbiting the sun… yet… 500 years ago, either. And if you lived then, you probably would have insisted it was impossible, and been in the front row of pitchforkers yelling out “HERETIC!”

    Fortunately, in these enlightened times, unlike those uneducated peasants, you have a chance to examine your silly beliefs against mountains of evidence that hardworking people have assembled through blood, sweat and tears. Use it!

    The chances of life evolving from non-life is zero, You must prove it happened and you have not.

    The guy who thinks a hand came down from the sky and made people out of dirt and blew souls into them with a magic sneeze, is suddenly concerned with a burden of proof? Really?

    When are you going to start trying to prove that the first woman came from a sparerib? Any lab experiments going on trying to synthesize a living female pig from Chinese takeout that I am unaware of?

    With an intelligent designer behind the process, the chances become much greater and possible.

    Well, since you just said that it’s impossible for life to come from non-life, then where did the intelligent designer? What created the intelligent designer? Intelligent Designer Sr.?

  36. on 30 May 2010 at 2:52 pm 36.3D said …

    (fixed tags)

    30.Merlin said …
    Do we have proof that life crawled out of primordial soup? No, we don’t.

    Yet.

    Just to make an analogy, we didn’t have proof of the earth orbiting the sun… yet… 500 years ago, either. And if you lived then, you probably would have insisted it was impossible, and been in the front row of pitchforkers yelling out “HERETIC!”

    Fortunately, in these enlightened times, unlike those uneducated peasants, you have a chance to examine your silly beliefs against mountains of evidence that hardworking people have assembled through blood, sweat and tears. Use it!

    The chances of life evolving from non-life is zero, You must prove it happened and you have not.

    The guy who thinks a hand came down from the sky and made people out of dirt and blew souls into them with a magic sneeze, is suddenly concerned with a burden of proof? Really?

    When are you going to start trying to prove that the first woman came from a sparerib? Any lab experiments going on trying to synthesize a living female pig from Chinese takeout that I am unaware of?

    With an intelligent designer behind the process, the chances become much greater and possible.

    Well, since you just said that it’s impossible for life to come from non-life, then where did the intelligent designer? What created the intelligent designer? Intelligent Designer Sr.?

  37. on 30 May 2010 at 2:59 pm 37.Severin said …

    30 Merlin
    “The chances of life evolving from non-life is zero,You must prove it happened and you have not”

    And the chance an abracadabra creature made life from dut (dirt, mud…) is 100%.
    So you do not have to prove it, of course. Why would you?

    Don’t you think you have some problems with logic here?

  38. on 30 May 2010 at 5:19 pm 38.3D said …

    37.Severin said …

    And the chance an abracadabra creature made life from dut (dirt, mud…) is 100%.
    So you do not have to prove it, of course. Why would you?
    Don’t you think you have some problems with logic here?

    Not if he doesn’t make it a problem!

    You see, he is using the famous “One-Sided Burden of Proof” method. Things you like to believe in don’t require any proof at all. But for things you don’t like, no amount of evidence is satisfactory, cherry-pick holes in data, etc.

  39. on 30 May 2010 at 7:32 pm 39.Severin said …

    30 Merlin
    3D said:
    “In reality, given billions of years of time, human beings could have evolved in very different ways given small changes in the ecosystem.”

    Merlin said:
    “That’s not reality, that is faith and hope! No proof and no reason to assume it could happen.”

    So thousands of species of animals and plants LIVING TODAY, being very similar to each other, but differing just enough to meet specific conditions of ecosystems they are living in, are not proofs for you?
    Asian elephants/African elephants, many species of bats (some eating fruits, other insects, some sucking animal and human blood..)…you name them! Millions of examples!

    Then: Lucy, Sinanthropus pekinensis, Ardi (Archipitecus ramidus), Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis…..just WHAT would YOU say all of them were, if someone asked you? And I am asking you: WHAT WERE ALL OF THEM?

    Humans DID evolve in different directions, it is proved without any doubt.

  40. on 30 May 2010 at 9:33 pm 40.Merlin said …

    3D, so you do admit we have no proof of the soup theory and no proof matter has existed forever and no proof that the BB was a naturalistic event.

    So why do you believe such nonsense? You claim Christians/Muslims/etc are the ones with faith? Do you now see how religious you really are?

  41. on 31 May 2010 at 1:10 am 41.3D said …

    40.Merlin said …
    3D, so you do admit we have no proof of the soup theory and no proof matter has existed forever and no proof that the BB was a naturalistic event.

    No, we have strong evidence. Not “proof”.

    So why do you believe such nonsense?

    Because it’s not nonsense, it’s the most likely scenario because of the overwhelming evidence.

    You claim Christians/Muslims/etc are the ones with faith? Do you now see how religious you really are?

    Why do you get into your car and drive to work every day? Aren’t you afraid it could fall apart?

    No, because there is overwhelming evidence that it isn’t going to do it. You can’t PROVE that your car won’t fall apart or turn into a dragon, eat you, and excrete you out its tailpipe. But the evidence is overwhelmingly telling you that that’s a stupid idea.

    The same overwhelming type of evidence tells us the way life began was a favorable combination of chemicals, not a man with a long white beard coughing up some soul-snot into Mr. Dirt-Clump’s nostril and then yanking out a rib. But your mileage may vary.

  42. on 21 Jul 2010 at 7:05 pm 42.i belive in god said …

    i belive in god and in profhet muhameed and profhet jesus and profhet mosas and all the god profhets . thanks god for islam .

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply