Feed on Posts or Comments 30 August 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 13 Jan 2012 12:44 am

The incredible ignorance behind the statement “God created the Universe”

The video is entitled: “Neil DeGrasse Tyson Destroys Bill O’Reilly.”

Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here is a list of things from the past that scientists didn’t understand… If that is how you want to invoke your evidence of God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that is getting smaller and smaller and smaller.

Even more important is the character of the person who would invoke such an ignorant argument. Tyson goes on:

What would bother me is if you were so content in your answer that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stop looking because you are content that God did it, I don’t need you in the lab. You are useless…

When you learn learn how it happened, you are learning the truth. Those who follow religion apparently have no interest in the truth.

134 Responses to “The incredible ignorance behind the statement “God created the Universe””

  1. on 13 Jan 2012 at 1:28 pm 1.MrQ said …

    It’s the definition of the mind numbing anti-science world views of The Hor, Xenon, Bozo, and the rest of that cast of zombie worshippers. Wow and LOL.

  2. on 13 Jan 2012 at 2:10 pm 2.Anonymous said …

    It’s about time we started calling this for what it is. Believing in the supernatural with all that we know about how the universe works is willful ignorance.

    People that believe that “God did it”, quite frankly, are morons.

    Reason doesn’t work on these idiots. So let’s start shaming and embarrassing them. Yes, Hor, we’re looking at you.

  3. on 13 Jan 2012 at 3:37 pm 3.Pryor said …

    The fact we understand how the tide goes in out does not eliminate God. How ridiculous. I understand how an embryo forms but I still have enough sense to realize God is behind the process. Understanding a process does not eliminate its creator and designer much like understanding a 4 stroke engine does not eliminate its designer.

    I watched the video but missed DeGrasse destroying O’Reilly? He wasn’t even in the video. Wouldn’t he need to be present for rebuttal?

  4. on 13 Jan 2012 at 4:01 pm 4.BrianE said …

    Pryor – If you actually had enough sense to understand how an embryo forms, then you would know god is nowhere in the process. Enlighten us – where is god in that process? Is it in the initial fertilization of the egg? Cellular divide? Are you aware that human embryos are covered in hair, have a tail, and look more like a tadpole than a human? Are you aware that almost 3 out of 5 pregnancies end in miscarriage? Is that where god shows up in the process? And your analogy to a 4-stroke engine is disingenuous – I’ve never seen an engine self-replicate.

    As the video tried to explain to you (but was obviously lost on you), is that your scientific ignorance on a topic is not proof for your god. That’s Bill O’Reilly’s problem, and obviously your problem as well, and that’s where Neil takes him to task.

  5. on 13 Jan 2012 at 6:08 pm 5.Lou (DFW) said …

    3.Pryor said …

    “The fact we understand how the tide goes in out does not eliminate God.”

    The point is that NOT understanding natural phenomena is not evidence or proof of god.

    “How ridiculous.”

    But a belief in a god isn’t?!

  6. on 13 Jan 2012 at 6:52 pm 6.Anonymous said …

    Pryor, how does this strange logic of yours work?

    Before you can claim that something doesn’t eliminate god, you first must prove that this god exists. Otherwise your argument is circular.

    So, where is your proof of this god? Let’s start there.

  7. on 13 Jan 2012 at 7:34 pm 7.Ted said …

    Brian E

    You’ve produced one of the funnier posts I have seen here. Haeckel’s Biogenetic Law has been repudiated on all fronts however you bring it, probably unknowingly, as if it still garners attention.

    Proof of God is subjected to the beholder. We are here, laws of nature rule and design is evident all around us. You may deny it as so called “proof” it is enough for me.

  8. on 13 Jan 2012 at 8:22 pm 8.BrianE said …

    Ted – the point being, is that there’s an incredible amount of evolutionary evidence for life, and zero evidence for a god-based theory on life. Your concept of proof is clearly flawed if you see ‘proof’ of god’s hand all around us, yet have nothing worthy to bring to the table. Perhaps you should answer Dawkins famous question – how would this universe and life appear differently if there was no god guiding everything?

    So what you? A creationist? Or a god-of-the-gaps believer that concedes evolution but still finds wiggle room for their creation god until abiogenesis is complete, and shrinks your god box even more?

  9. on 13 Jan 2012 at 8:52 pm 9.Lou (DFW) said …

    7.Ted said …

    “We are here, laws of nature rule…”

    AKA – evolution.

  10. on 13 Jan 2012 at 9:45 pm 10.Lou (DFW) said …

    7.Ted said …

    “You may deny it as so called “proof” it is enough for me.”

    The sun, moon, and stars obviously revolve around the earth. I see it happen everyday and night. If the earth was spinning and flying through space, then we would fly off of it. It is proof enough for me.

  11. on 13 Jan 2012 at 11:10 pm 11.Ted said …

    “how would this universe and life appear differently if there was no god guiding everything?”

    You wouldn’t be here to talk about it. That is like asking what would a Mercedes Benz 550 look like if there was no one to build it.

    I hope you get the point Brian. Try not to be dishonest in the future with things like Haeckel’s Biogenetic Law. I know they still put in some textbooks but don’t believe everything you read.

    And Brian, I am not attempting to push God on you. That’s up to you. I have all I need in that arena. Just don’t be dishonest.

  12. on 14 Jan 2012 at 12:59 am 12.Anonymous said …

    “how would this universe and life appear differently if there was no god guiding everything?”

    “You wouldn’t be here to talk about it”

    “You may deny it as so called “proof” it is enough for me.”

    You win the prize for the most brain-dead answer so far. Wow.

    Ted, I hope you enjoy living in ignorance because you’re the poster child for someone desperate to believe in 2000 year old superstitions. I suppose if it was good enough for illiterate and uneducated goat herders then it’s good enough for you?

    Thanks for showing us how uneducated some Christians actually are.

  13. on 14 Jan 2012 at 1:19 am 13.Anonymous said …

    Ted, if you believe in this creator god then you probably also believe that morals come from your magic man and his words in stone.

    Here, then, is another example of morality, Christian-style: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16543091

  14. on 14 Jan 2012 at 1:41 am 14.alex said …

    “The fact we understand how the tide goes in out does not eliminate God.”

    The fact we understand how the tide goes in out does not eliminate the Tooth Fairy.

    The fact we understand how the tide goes in out does not eliminate Santa Clause.

    The fact we understand how the tide goes in out does not eliminate Zeus.

  15. on 14 Jan 2012 at 2:12 am 15.Anon. said …

    “Haeckel’s Biogenetic Law has been repudiated on all fronts however you bring it” (Ted, #7)

    You derived a call to Haeckel’s Biogenetic Law, better known as the recapitulation hypothesis, from “I have seen here. Haeckel’s Biogenetic Law has been repudiated on all fronts however you bring it, probably unknowingly, as if it still garners attention.” (Brian, #4)?

    No, I don’t think so. “Looks like” is a long way from invoking that repudiated hypothesis. This is a straw-man argument, then, and doesn’t stand except in fallacy-land.

  16. on 14 Jan 2012 at 2:35 am 16.Anonymous said …

    14.Alex and based on your comment, you haven’t disproved that the universe was created by a pink and yellow spotted elephant named Simon.

    So, according to Ted’s Law, I have all I need to know that Simon is The Creator of Everything.

  17. on 14 Jan 2012 at 2:54 am 17.alex said …

    you missed the point. because I can’t disprove X, does not mean X exist. just like Bush’s weapons of mass destruction. I cannot disprove allah, ra, sis boom bah so…..

  18. on 14 Jan 2012 at 3:33 am 18.Vince said …

    “That is like asking what would a Mercedes Benz 550 look like if there was no one to build it.”

    Ted a little time, a little chance and survival of the fittest would eventually construct one I’m sure.

  19. on 14 Jan 2012 at 4:25 am 19.DPK said …

    “Ted a little time, a little chance and survival of the fittest would eventually construct one I’m sure.”

    Well, since Mercedes 550′s exist, that’s exactly what happened. Nature evolved a creature capable of building Mercedes autos…. what are you saying, god makes Mercedes?

    Geez it’s not like someone is claiming clouds of hydrogen gas can just “assemble themselves” into working fusion reactors or something crazy nuts like that…. hahaha.

  20. on 14 Jan 2012 at 4:28 am 20.DPK said …

    And btw… if god now makes cars… how do you explain this in terms of intelligent design?
    http://www.selectism.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/the-yugo-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-worst-car-in-history-selectism.jpg

  21. on 14 Jan 2012 at 4:36 am 21.Anonymous said …

    17.Alex – I got your point, and was agreeing with you. Sarcasm fail, my bad.

  22. on 14 Jan 2012 at 6:28 am 22.alex said …

    a benz is quality product, unlike a human. if i was the creator, i would have left out autism, cancer, schizophrenia, among others. intelligent design? free will? which one is it?

  23. on 14 Jan 2012 at 6:54 am 23.alex said …

    “And Brian, I am not attempting to push God on you.”

    I’m tired of this crap. God is everywhere. In our coin/currency, when we sneeze, Tebow, Thanksgiving, etc. The fanatics knocking on my door, politicians pandering, the multitudes of Sunday Services.

    The atheist doesn’t push. We question and discard nonsensical views. We use logic and formulate conclusions. To be an atheist requires you to come to grips with the dreaded possibility of NO afterlife! I suspect religious people really don’t believe in Hell, but cling to the belief of some kind of heaven. Most of the time, this belief is strong enough to resist any kind reasoning/evidence no matter how sound.

  24. on 14 Jan 2012 at 8:08 am 24.Severin said …

    7 Ted
    “We are here, laws of nature rule and design is evident all around us. You may deny it as so called “proof” it is enough for me.“

    It is not as evident as you say.
    I, for example, have a problem with recognizing design! Design is NOT evident all around us for me!

    So, please share with us how to distinguish designed from undesigned.
    What are the atributes of something that tell you: „I am designed“, when you see it?

    Then, please tell us, if there is a designer who designed everything, how did HE come to reality? Where from? Who designed him?
    After that, please tell us when and how did the designer interfere design?

    You can not let those questions unanswered, if you want to be serious.

  25. on 14 Jan 2012 at 12:46 pm 25.Anonymous said …

    The universe from nothing:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

  26. on 14 Jan 2012 at 1:36 pm 26.Anonymous said …

    “You can not let those questions unanswered, if you want to be serious.”

    But Ted can, and will.

    These idiotic creationists think “design” is “as it is”. It’s laughable. As Severin says, when you ask someone what design is they can only give you a circular argument.

    Still, why are we even debating these fools?

    God doesn’t exist. It’s a fairy story for people scared of the dark. None of these bozos have proof, all they have is the security blanket of “well, that’s all the proof I need”.

    It’s pathetic. They are pathetic. They need to grow up or go back to herding goats.

  27. on 14 Jan 2012 at 1:38 pm 27.Anonymous said …

    Here’s an example of how best to ridicule Christians. Don’t like it? Too bad.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/alstefanelli/2012/01/13/notequal/

  28. on 14 Jan 2012 at 1:57 pm 28.Dez said …

    “a benz is quality product, unlike a human”

    Alex when you get a little older you will learn, I hope.

    Lets look at a human heart compared to say simple pump. A quality positive displacement pump needs to be rebuilt every 5-10 years at minimum. That is man’s best effort. The human heart built by God often goes 70-100 years without a rebuild. Winner? God.

    Alex the reason you are so frustrated with God in your nation is natural. Those who hate God, Christians, etc is because your are unfulfilled. God is attempting to get your attention. You will find no rest until you accept Him. It is a good thing.

  29. on 14 Jan 2012 at 2:33 pm 29.alex said …

    “Alex the reason you are so frustrated with God in your nation is natural. ”

    I cannot let this kind of crap go on. I will debate you until the day I die and I will not hedge right to the end. I will fight your racist, sexist, and primitive view points and if I’m on my deathbed, I will go on YouTube and mock all you idiots without any fear. I will try to treat everyone fairly regardless of their sex or religious belief.

  30. on 14 Jan 2012 at 2:37 pm 30.alex said …

    and if you’re a woman, you can’t talk in this blog.

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man, she must be quiet”
    Timothy 2:12

    ..keep bringing it.

  31. on 14 Jan 2012 at 5:47 pm 31.alex said …

    “A quality positive displacement pump needs to be rebuilt every 5-10 years at minimum. That is man’s best effort. The human heart built by God often goes 70-100 years without a rebuild. Winner? God.”

    God sucks. You say a heart can last up to 100 years? What percentage of the population lives that long? What percentage of the population have perfect health? If God is the creator, he can’t use a good template? Shoddy work? Winner God?

    btw. I’m almost finished with my bible lookup page. It will allow you to lookup and search by keyword. I’ll index the stupid/conflicting/ridiculous verses. when someone quotes 3:16, you’ll be able lookup ‘hate’ and you’ll get all passages where god hates the world. the page will be mobile so you can search on the go.

  32. on 14 Jan 2012 at 7:27 pm 32.Anonymous said …

    “A quality positive displacement pump needs to be rebuilt every 5-10 years at minimum. That is man’s best effort. The human heart built by God often goes 70-100 years without a rebuild. Winner? God.”

    Umm, no, you’re an idiot, Alex.

    In the biblical time frame, you know the one where your magic man in the sky was around, your so-called god could rarely manage to keep people alive past their late 20s and 30s. The lifespan you talk about is the one achieved by man through science. That’s a complete fail for your god. Gosh, man bested god’s sloppy work. How did that happen?

    Also, lets get some clarification from you. Before you go around asserting that your invisible friend created people, you need to come up with some proof.

    Which god are we talking about?
    How do you know it’s that god?
    Why not some other god?

    You can’t just claim “god did it” and expect to be taken seriously outside of kindergarten.

  33. on 14 Jan 2012 at 7:27 pm 33.Anonymous said …

    Sorry, Alex, 32 was addressed to Dez

  34. on 14 Jan 2012 at 9:50 pm 34.Asher said …

    “The human heart built by God often goes 70-100 years without a rebuild. Winner? God.”

    @ Dez, more impressive than the heart is the brain, the endocrine system and how about the incredible design of the cell not to mention DNA. Man has not come up with anything even come close to the systems of the body created by God.

  35. on 14 Jan 2012 at 10:27 pm 35.What? said …

    Man has not come up with anything even come close to the systems of the body created by God.

    Anyone who thinks that should read this article. It is a real eye opener and it is funny:

    Intelligent Design Made Mankind?

  36. on 14 Jan 2012 at 10:48 pm 36.alex said …

    “Dez, more impressive than the heart is the brain, the endocrine system and how about the incredible design of the cell not to mention DNA. Man has not come up with anything even come close to the systems of the body created by Allah.”

    “Dez, more impressive than the heart is the brain, the endocrine system and how about the incredible design of the cell not to mention DNA. Man has not come up with anything even come close to the systems of the body created by RA.”

    “Dez, more impressive than the heart is the brain, the endocrine system and how about the incredible design of the cell not to mention DNA. Man has not come up with anything even come close to the systems of the body created by Zeus.”

    now say it loud. my brainwashed wife couldn’t.

  37. on 15 Jan 2012 at 1:36 am 37.Challenge to Atheists said …

    I will narrow the challenge by giving a basic view of what constitutes the term “God”, thereby hopefully eliminating the Atheist confusion of “many, many gods”:

    There are two levels available for Atheists to attempt to refute.

    First is the perceived necessity of an originating cause of the universe; for example, the cause of the original quantum field from which Hawking’s (fallacious) “spontaneous creation from nothing” theory derives. In terms of Cause and Effect, such a cause would be expected to be larger, more powerful, totally coherent, able to construct coherent structures (i.e. rational), necessary and sufficient, able to implement causation at a distance (per quantum mechanics). Note that a story such as that of “infinite universes” does not defeat the need for an original cause, it merely moves the cause back a step by using imaginary, unfalsifiable stories of unobserved objects or processes; the logical need for an originating cause persists.

    Second is the theist notion of a personal relationship with the deity described in the First level. The occurrence of the relationship is internal to the individual person; is not a scheduled event; is not empirically, experimentally replicable; and most importantly it is not falsifiable using Popper’s criterion for separation of non-empirical from empirical entities. Such an event cannot be experienced by anyone other than the targeted individual, but it can be related in muted terms that are insufficient to describe the event(s) with accuracy and completeness due to their non-material, independent nature.

    These two levels are necessary and sufficient to justify theism. Refuting these levels would refute the existence of a deity. However, the only refutation allowed to the materialist (Atheists are materialists) is a material refutation. Arguments without material support for their premises are incapable of containing meaning within the constraints of materialism; this is the Atheist requirement for argument as exemplified by the demand for material evidence to support an argument FOR a deity.

    So refuting using anything other than material evidence is meaningless in terms of supplying any rational deniability for the existence of a deity, under the conditions set out by Atheists themselves.

  38. on 15 Jan 2012 at 2:09 am 38.alex said …

    Challenge to Atheist?

    Not only does your Pseudo Intellect Style fail to impress, you don’t make any sense.

    “Note that a story such as that of “infinite universes” does not defeat the need for an original cause, it merely moves the cause back a step by using imaginary, unfalsifiable stories of unobserved objects or processes; the logical need for an originating cause persists.” WTF?

  39. on 15 Jan 2012 at 2:32 am 39.Hell Yeah said …

    All I know is if there has to be a god because we don’t know the beginning cause, and I had to pick a religion (even though I was brainwashed into Christianity growing up), I would choose the one where my afterlife would include 72 virgins. Or does the Christian heaven include whatever I want including those virgins? My point is, by thinking a god must be the absolute answer to the beginning, that why is it that a certain religion is the true religion?

    Those that have a religion believe theirs is the true one. Right now Christianity has been one of the most popular over the last 2000 years. Throughout man’s history, different religions have been popular at different times. But if there is only one true religion, then why isn’t it obvious and why hasn’t it been obvious from the beginning? That is because religions are man made.

    If there is a god that created the universe, there is a pretty good chance it doesn’t really give a shit if we believe, believe and worship, or don’t believe at all. And if it does care if we believe, then it hasn’t done a very good job.

  40. on 15 Jan 2012 at 2:48 am 40.alex said …

    “I would choose the one where my afterlife would include 72 virgins”.

    That’s why it extremely important that you work out and keep in shape. You think those virgins want to see your fat ass?

  41. on 15 Jan 2012 at 3:01 am 41.Hell Yeah said …

    “That’s why it extremely important that you work out and keep in shape. You think those virgins want to see your fat ass?”

    Who cares what they think, as long as I get to fuck them. I suppose at least in the Christian heaven we wouldn’t have a body anymore, so it wouldn’t matter…….but then again, how would those virgins have a body and how would the fucking work……nevermind, the Christian heaven would suck.

  42. on 15 Jan 2012 at 6:02 am 42.Anonymous said …

    CTA reads like the idiot previously posting as 40YA. Here’s the thing. Until you come up with some absolute physical proof, then there’s nothing to refute. Until you do that, your belief in gods makes you either educationally subnormal or delusional. I don’t care which one it is, you’re still an idiot.

    AS HY says, if there was a god, he’s long gone and doesn’t give a shit about us. Hence bowing down to a non-present never-coming-back deity is an act of insanity. And mark our words, your beliefs are a sign of a mental illness and you no longer get a pass on that. We’re going to call you out on it until you get treatment and you stop poisoning the minds of the young and impressionable.

    In a sign of how delusional Christians are, Alex’s point will be lost on believers. Somehow they can see how loony it is to believe that the Aztec Sun God made the universe yet they can’t see how it’s no different from believing that their sky daddy did the same. Again, mental illness at the forefront.

    Heaven sounds boring and how on earth (I mean heaven) is 72 virgins supposed to last one all of eternity? It’s also interesting to see how every Christian has a different version of heaven. It’s the same as they way they cast their own desires onto their version of god. No, when I’m dead I’m glad it’ll be all over after all, unlike a believer, I’d have lived this life to the full.

  43. on 15 Jan 2012 at 2:10 pm 43.Lou (DFW) said …

    28.Dez said …

    “Lets look at a human heart compared to say simple pump. A quality positive displacement pump needs to be rebuilt every 5-10 years at minimum. That is man’s best effort. The human heart built by God often goes 70-100 years without a rebuild. Winner? God.”

    Oh, the mind of a simple goat-herder. No wonder they believe in imaginary gods.

  44. on 15 Jan 2012 at 7:36 pm 44.Tom said …

    CTA,

    Nothing but chirp chirp chirp. A great challenge but you wasted it here.

  45. on 15 Jan 2012 at 10:18 pm 45.alex said …

    The three groups that should not even believe in god.

    1. gays
    2. african-americans
    3. women

  46. on 16 Jan 2012 at 12:18 am 46.Anonymous said …

    45 – another amazing thing about the nonsense known as Christianity is that most “believers” haven’t actually read their book of holy fairy stories. Instead they rely on what they think their book ought to say or, conversely, what their child-raping priests tell them it contains.

    If they’d read their own books then they’d realism that they are worshiping an insane and megalomaniac monster.

  47. on 28 Jan 2012 at 10:15 pm 47.Slapnuts said …

    This is a great read. This should be required reading for everyone over the age of 18.

  48. on 29 Jan 2012 at 1:35 am 48.BB said …

    I agree with you slapnuts. If the above comments don’t show how out of touch, clueless and bigoted the new atheists are nothing would. I have never seen such erroneous misinformation in one place.

  49. on 29 Jan 2012 at 2:02 pm 49.Anonymous said …

    BB, you are delusional. But then, you probably think that a magic man in the sky created an entire universe so that idiots like you could worship him on account of him sacrificing himself to himself to atone to himself for screwing up. Get help, Christianity is a mental illness.

  50. on 29 Jan 2012 at 2:48 pm 50.Lou (DFW) said …

    “49.Anonymous said …

    “Get help, Christianity is a mental illness.”

    I would say that religion is a mental illness.

  51. on 29 Jan 2012 at 3:10 pm 51.Lou (DFW) said …

    48.BB said …

    “I agree with you slapnuts.”

    Says Hor…

    “If the above comments don’t show how out of touch, clueless and bigoted the new atheists are nothing would. I have never seen such erroneous misinformation in one place.”

    Me neither. The theists here post more lies about atheists and evolution than I have ever seen elsewhere. And then there’s that so-called “holy book,” The Bible, that is full of myths and fairy tales upon which xtians base their delusional religion.

  52. on 29 Jan 2012 at 6:56 pm 52.Ben said …

    “you probably think that a magic man in the sky created an entire universe”

    That would be so ridiculous. A magic nothing obviously created everything.

  53. on 29 Jan 2012 at 7:13 pm 53.Lou (DFW) said …

    52.Ben said …

    “you probably think that a magic man in the sky created an entire universe”

    “That would be so ridiculous. A magic nothing obviously created everything.”

    What’s ridiculous is your juvenile taunts.

    Do you yet have any evidence for your imaginary god, or is the above comment all you have?

  54. on 29 Jan 2012 at 10:14 pm 54.Suh said …

    I think it was Puff the magic dragon. Oh wait, no proof for that. Maybe Puff the Magic fire ball.

  55. on 29 Jan 2012 at 11:18 pm 55.Lou (DFW) said …

    54.Suh said …

    “I think it was Puff the magic dragon. Oh wait, no proof for that. Maybe Puff the Magic fire ball.”

    It is indisputable that it was the invisible purple gnome who lives in MY dishwasher.

  56. on 30 Jan 2012 at 1:24 am 56.Anonymous said …

    Lou, you are correct, it’s religion that is the illness, Christianity is but a symptom. Nothing personal there Xtians, Muslims, Jews and the other 38,000 brands of Xtianity that isn’t yours are just as silly.

    Ben, if you’re reduced to strawman taunts then it’s game over for you, I’m afraid. Your lack of even an attempt to provide even the tiniest piece of evidence for the existence of your god speaks volumes. Evidence please.

    Suh, yes, you are proving the point. Thank you. Without proof, and by resorting to the tired old “prove me wrong” argument, the explanations of a bunch of frightened and uneducated goat-herders have as much validity and backing as Lou’s claim to be housing the creator of the universe in his washing machine. As long as you allow Lou to appeal to the unknown or the supernatural, you won’t be able to prove him wrong – yet we know he is talking nonsense. Just like those goat-herders of biblical times.

    And Ben, your preconceptions are holding you back. Why should the universe needs a “who” and, if it does, who created that who?

    Two Thousand years ago our frightened and uneducated ancestors were incapable of thinking beyond invisible spirits. You have unparallelled opportunities for education. Accepting the stories of people so backward that they were no better educated than the animals that they believed could talk, shows a distinct lack of critical thinking.

  57. on 30 Jan 2012 at 2:09 am 57.Curmudgeon said …

    “Why should the universe needs a “who” and, if it does, who created that who?”

    Let me add a point. Why does it need a what and who created what? Maybe we don’t exist at all. No proof for our existence other than the five senses but what proof do we have they are reliable? Maybe they are not reliable after all they arose from random chaotic processes.

    Are all atheist just completely clueless with no beliefs? is it just to hard to support a belief due to the fact you can’t meet your own burden of proof?

  58. on 30 Jan 2012 at 2:24 am 58.Anonymous said …

    Once again, Hor goes back looking for a “who”? Really, you’re like a broken record.

    You really are stuck in that narrow mind set of a uneducated goat-herder looking for a superstitious answer to his “unknowns”. Little do you realize that the answers serve equally to control and keep you dumb as they are legitimate answers to actual questions.

    Also, what’s with the attempt to divert the conversation and avoid living up to your promise to provide proof of the existence of your god?

    It’s been months now, is it that hard for you to find it?

    Let’s see your proof. If you can’t provide it, it’s obvious that it doesn’t exist.

  59. on 30 Jan 2012 at 5:52 pm 59.MrQ said …

    From Cur (#57):

    Are all atheist just completely clueless with no beliefs? is it just to hard to support a belief due to the fact you can’t meet your own burden of proof?

    Ok, I will try to answer from personal experince.

    I “belive” that our planet Earth is a few billion years old. The universe is several billion tears older. First/early lifeforms were simple single celled varieties. Humans -that would be us- have existed on the planet Earth for much less than a million years. No human ever saw a living dinosaur 65 million years ago because at that point in time humans did not exist.

    Cur, we know these as facts. Both of us agree that it meets the burden of proof as evidence. But evidence of what? I have created a model of REALITY that fails to put a god into what I know and “believe”. On the other hand, you have used the same evidence and come to accept the bible and god. Perhaps your god only exists as “the spark that started it all”. I, too, wonder how it all began but have yet to find a need to slot god as the instigator.

  60. on 30 Jan 2012 at 6:17 pm 60.Curmudgeon said …

    “First/early lifeforms were simple single celled varieties.”

    OK, where’s your proof? Who or what created this simple single cell?

  61. on 30 Jan 2012 at 6:17 pm 61.Lou (DFW) said …

    59.MrQ said …

    “Perhaps your god only exists as “the spark that started it all”. I, too, wonder how it all began but have yet to find a need to slot god as the instigator.”

    Especially the maniacal, narcissistic, blood-thirsty xtain god. (I think he was in Star Trek V)

  62. on 30 Jan 2012 at 6:56 pm 62.MrQ said …

    Cur #60
    Look up “Acasta Gneiss” for the age of the Earth and go from there to discover early lifeforms. Let the voyage of discovery be yours too. In your model of REALITY, when/how did your god create us?

    Who created the cell? Nobody. It was (likely) created the same way as other life in the universe. Now that the Kepler satellite has began “scanning the skies” for habitable planets (and finding them) it’s virtually undoubtable that there are other lifeforms in the universe. Simple single celled organisms or War of the World aliens…..take your pick.

  63. on 30 Jan 2012 at 10:39 pm 63.Curmudgeon said …

    “Who created the cell? Nobody. It was (likely) created the same way as other life in the universe.”

    Likely? If? If a frog had wings we wouldn’t bump his butt either.

    No Mr Q, we need cold hard facts that Lou and Anonymous would expect. Since you couldn’t prove this, expound on these other lifeforms and provide proof for these. Who? What?

  64. on 30 Jan 2012 at 11:07 pm 64.MrQ said …

    Oh, sorry Cur.
    You seem to accept all the other facts I’ve stated…. You know the ones, about the age of the Earth, early lifeforms, humans have only been around for a very brief time (geologic time scale). You OK with these “cold hard facts”?

    Life happens. It is composed of “CHNOPS”. It mutates and evolves. I stand in wonder of how it all began. Just as I like to look at the entirely too huge universe and try to wrap my head around how there are more stars than grains of sand on our planet Earth. It is amazing and god is nowhere to be found other than our imaginations.

    Now if you would be kind enough to address my question Cur:

    In your model of REALITY, when/how did your god create us?

    It might help to convert me as I try and understand your POV.

  65. on 30 Jan 2012 at 11:28 pm 65.Curmudgeon said …

    Mr Q,

    I ask for evidence, facts if you will on What or Who created the first living cell and you give me elements. I wonder, would this be how you answer a test question? And then you are trying with such gusto to quickly change the subject since you have backed yourself into a corner. (I would assume)

    So can I just claim the CHNOPS for
    all questions now?

    Cell is derived from the Latin for small room. So, Mr Q how was the small room full of wonderful surprises created? By Who or What?

    Mr Q: CHNOPS

    Care to try again, or is that it? Please, no multitasking, just stick to this question and your claim.

    I’ll get out the popcorn.

  66. on 30 Jan 2012 at 11:37 pm 66.Anonymous said …

    Cur, you are in no position to ask for anything. You are the one that promised evidence of your god, then ran away when it became apparent no one was falling for your distractions. Besides, your demands are just that, distractions.

    It has been said before, so we’ll say it again, let’s assume no one can provide evidence of how the first cell came about. Let’s assume the theory of evolution is wrong. Now that we have removed every possible objection you could have let’s see you prove your case.

    Show us the evidence for the existence of your god. There are no competing theories on the table. All you have to do if provide some evidence. Try not to run away this time.

    Put up, or shut up.

  67. on 30 Jan 2012 at 11:49 pm 67.Lou (DFW) said …

    65.Curmudgeon said …

    “I ask for evidence, facts if you will on What or Who created the first living cell and you give me elements.”

    Oh no, another diversion form the FACT that you have no evidence for your imaginary god.

  68. on 31 Jan 2012 at 2:24 am 68.A said …

    Cur, I think Mr Q did provide an explanation. Here it is his quote:

    “Life happens”

    That says it all. I don’t think I could have put that together.

  69. on 31 Jan 2012 at 12:48 pm 69.Curmudgeon said …

    A, thanks I missed the caveat.

    Anonymous and Lou have come to Mr Qs aid to change the subject. If Mr Q cannot back his claim

    “First/early lifeforms were simple single celled varieties.”

    then he should be the first to admit so. Lou more than anyone trumpets proof but asks for known here. Then agin he doesn’t no proof from poof. For a people who claim science and science alone is all that exist I would think this is child’s play.

  70. on 31 Jan 2012 at 12:58 pm 70.Lou (DFW) said …

    69.Curmudgeon said …

    “Anonymous and Lou have come to Mr Qs aid to change the subject. If Mr Q cannot back his claim”

    The subject of this blog is and always has been god and religion, not evolutionary biology. The only people who change the subject are those such as yourself who cannot produce any evidence for THEIR CLAIM of an imaginary god.

    Not only do you lie about atheists in general, but you lie about what individuals write on this blog. I never came to Mr Q’s aid. Besides, he doesn’t require any such aid. He dispenses with you very easily. But, who doesn’t?

  71. on 31 Jan 2012 at 1:23 pm 71.Anonymous said …

    So, Curmudgeon, when are you going to provide the proof that you promised that this god of yours exists? You keep avoiding the question.

    And why doesn’t this god of yours heal amputees? Bit of a failure as a deity isn’t he if he can’t do that?

  72. on 31 Jan 2012 at 1:56 pm 72.MrQ said …

    Cur states

    If Mr Q cannot back his claim
    “First/early lifeforms were simple single celled varieties.” then he should be the first to admit so.

    The FSM says they were simple lifeforms, single celled and composed of fairy dust. What the FSM says goes. Prove me wrong?

    A

    “Life happens”
    That says it all. I don’t think I could have put that together.

    If the conditions are right, then “Life Happens”. Just look at our planet Earth. Life, evolution, and not a sign of a magic man. I guess we could also say that when life and evolution happen, then we get “God Happens”, which is your present state.

  73. on 31 Jan 2012 at 2:02 pm 73.DPK said …

    He is never going to provide the proof that he claims to have because he has none. How can he? That is why he continually retreats to nonsensical arguments like “show me exactly how the first cell formed”…. because if you can’t??? what… that proves Jesus rose from the dead and will reward or punish you for eternity depending on whether or not you believe in him and eat his body and blood??
    WTF??? I mean seriously, that’s how warped their reasoning functions are. “I’m too dumb or too stubborn to understand “x” therefore “a” through “h” must then be true. I can’t comprehend how complex life could evolve over billions of years from simpler forms, therefore a magic being from another reality without form, substance or time MUST have created it, not only that, but it created the entire universe for ME and it loves me and listens to my thoughts.
    Even poor Michael who appeared here full of peace and love got really nasty and viscous when you tried to take away his fix. He has simply traded one dependency for another. Michael, you are still addicted, just to a different drug, and you’ll do, think, or say anything to keep your high. But this one is just as false as the heroin.

  74. on 31 Jan 2012 at 2:15 pm 74.MrQ said …

    DPK,
    You are correct. I am applying the same silly logic in post#72 that they apply to “proving” the existence of god. Cur seems to be stomping his feet demanding PROOF of my claims yet, in return, offers nothing to back up his dogma.

    All the necessary information is out there. You just got to want to find it. But if a bible gives one a warm fuzzy security blanket in a cold world, go for it. Just don’t expect me to buy into the program and leave that shit out of my kids schools.

  75. on 31 Jan 2012 at 2:17 pm 75.Lou (DFW) said …

    73.DPK said …

    “Even poor Michael who appeared here full of peace and love got really nasty and viscous when you tried to take away his fix.”

    Exactly, the true personality of the faithful eventually emerges every time their faith is tested and exposed for the fraud that it is. After all their evasion, deception, and lies, they eventually resort to the behavior that you described – it’s inevitable.

  76. on 31 Jan 2012 at 3:53 pm 76.Anonymous said …

    DPK, Lou, MrQ; yes, in a previous post I pointed out how the believer will invariably resort to attacking the messenger as an escape from having to examine their own flawed reasoning.

    Of course Curmudgeon isn’t going to provide his non-existent evidence. However, I do think it’s important that reader are consistently informed of his character history of broken promises and continued attempts to divert the conversation in lieu of answering questions.

    Look at how the theists (particularly Christians) run away from the conversation when the “origins” gambit is removed from the table and all they have to do is show how, if evolution and abiogenesis are false, their claims are true. When they have no “enemy” to attack they have no conversation and have to hide. They delete in playing the character of a victim, but shun that of a thinker.

    As for MrQ’s comment. By all means teach religion in school alongside other myths and legends. Just don’t go round trying to kid anyone that any of it was ever in any way true.

  77. on 31 Jan 2012 at 4:27 pm 77.MrQ said …

    #76
    Yes, I agree. Teaching about religion in something such as a comparative religion class would be most excellent. Kids need to understand how different cultures and groups of people became mesmerized and locked into the various cults of belief (or, in other words, how beliefs “evolved” into religions ;-)).
    I think it boils down to our need to want to know everything about the world around us. And the discomfort some people get when scientific thinking changes and, for example, moves the decimal point in defining the speed of light. Some folks find solace in a world of absolutes.

  78. on 31 Jan 2012 at 4:50 pm 78.DPK said …

    “Some folks find solace in a world of absolutes.”

    The fundamental difference between science and religion is science is always drawing conclusions from evidence, which is subject to improvement, refinement, and yes.. change. Religion starts with conclusions, and then looks only for facts that support the conclusions while ignoring or rationalizing anything that does not. I mean come on, it took the Catholics until 1969 to admit Galiello was right!

    How about it Crum…. you have all the answers… Why WON’T god heal amputees???

  79. on 31 Jan 2012 at 6:30 pm 79.Curmudgeon said …

    “First/early lifeforms were simple single celled varieties.”

    Well, there above is Mr Qs claim….again. He claims this to be science backed with evidence, proof, verifiable and as importantly falsifiable. Yet, he cannot support it. Remember at DPK claims, science draws from the evidence. He again resorts quite quickly to changing the subject, as predictable.

    What do you believe, huh? Bible this, Pope that, religion this and and and….

    Look at DPK, Anonymous, Lou gather the troops. Change the Subject Quickly!!!! What great fun.

    Mr Q, you should learn to claim nothing as your friends and then you won’t be made to look silly. Learn from this mistake.

  80. on 31 Jan 2012 at 7:14 pm 80.MrQ said …

    Oh, Cur.
    Again, I think we can agree that the first lifeforms on our planet were single celled. Or are you saying there were elephants 2+ billion years ago?

    You claim these single cells were divinely inspired and created by one of FSM, Allah, Ra, Zeus..etc. I say if the conditions are right “Life Happens”. Just look at us ;-). Do we disagree on the mechanics? Is that it? Or is it the time frame?
    All the best to you Cur.

  81. on 31 Jan 2012 at 7:23 pm 81.DPK said …

    He won’t tell you WHAT he believes… that would leave him open to rebuttal… can’t have that, can we… he will only tell you YOU are wrong. If he can convince himself that you are wrong, then in his small mind, he is right…. see how it works?
    Crum knows no tune other than “I’m right, you’re wrong, nah nah nah… look at his obsession with the origin of life… he keeps trying to steer every conversation back to that.. always. Why? Because he thinks pointing out that the exact process is not fully understood, that somehow, that makes HIS belief in a magical god true. Now isn’t that sad?

  82. on 31 Jan 2012 at 7:37 pm 82.Curmudgeon said …

    “Again, I think we can agree that the first lifeforms on our planet were single celled.”

    That depends. DO you have proof?

    “Or are you saying there were elephants 2+ billion years ago?”

    I made no claim. I am responding to yours. You are the clan that only believes in things proven by science.
    Well?

    DPK is still working hard for you to change the subject. The great atheist rebuttal. DPK maybe you have the facts and evidence? That would be some real help.

  83. on 31 Jan 2012 at 8:03 pm 83.MrQ said …

    Cur, oh Cur:

    “Again, I think we can agree that the first lifeforms on our planet were single celled.”

    That depends. DO you have proof?

    I think that YOU have enough proof yourself to form an idea. Let me know what you think. Do some research (drop the bible and investigate) my friend.
    Now answer my queries, if you would be so kind:

    Do we disagree on the mechanics? Is that it? Or is it the time frame?

  84. on 31 Jan 2012 at 8:07 pm 84.Severin said …

    82 Curmudgeon
    “I made no claim.”

    How typical and how disgusting!

    Why don’t you make claims, Curmudgeon?
    You don’t know anything?
    You are an ignorant?
    You can’t prove your words?

    What is the purpose of writnig here for someone who has nothing to say? WHY are you here?
    To say NOTHING of your own?

    I would be desperate if I tried to stay in a debate without making claims.

    How miserable!

  85. on 31 Jan 2012 at 8:29 pm 85.Anonymous said …

    Thank you, DPK. I’ve been at a loss to understand the xtian obsession with finding fault yet refusing to provide an alternative. It’s another manifestation of their need to put down anyone who doesn’t share their delusion. At no point will they ever actually offer anything other than complaints. They don’t care to find out if they are right, they just need to believe everyone else to be “wrong”.

  86. on 31 Jan 2012 at 9:17 pm 86.Lou (DFW) said …

    82.Curmudgeon said …

    “I made no claim.”

    You haven’t claimed god is real?

  87. on 31 Jan 2012 at 9:38 pm 87.DPK said …

    Sigh… not that it makes a difference to your hypothesis of a magical god Crum… but have you heard of the fossil record? Yes, the further back in time you go, the simpler life forms become, until the only life forms you find are single celled organisms. I’m likely not as old as you, so no, I didn’t witness it.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/
    Curiously:

    “Theobald also tested the creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have no evolutionary ancestors.

    The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is “an absolutely horrible hypothesis,” Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.”

    Now, tell us why your god won’t heal amputees?? Is it because he can’t, or won’t?
    D

  88. on 01 Feb 2012 at 1:16 am 88.Curmudgeon said …

    What I can ascertain here is that atheist cannot prove using the Lou rule of proof:

    “the first lifeforms on our planet were single celled.”

    Therefore they believe this in faith, they follow the faith of men who tell them to believe this and they do not look at the proof themselves. If they did, they would know there in no proof. Therefore, when they eviscerate theists for faith in God they are nothing but hypocritical.

    Could it be true? Maybe, but only through faith.

    I am at a loss at the atheist sheep’s obsession with finding fault yet refusing to provide an alternative. It’s another manifestation of their need to put down anyone who doesn’t share their delusion. At no point will they ever actually offer anything other than complaints. They don’t care to find out if they are right, they just need to believe everyone else to be “wrong”.

  89. on 01 Feb 2012 at 2:03 am 89.Anonymous said …

    Ah, typical Curmudgeon. Unable to think for himself, he continuously apes other people’s words and style. Each time he posts he shows he has nothing of substance nor any independent thought.

    Now about that evidence you promised? That you refuse to provide it, do we take it that you are nothing but a dishonest and hypocritical liar intent on nothing other but disruption? Or do you have some other excuse for your scurrilous actions?

  90. on 01 Feb 2012 at 3:29 am 90.Lou (DFW) said …

    89.Anonymous said …

    “Ah, typical Curmudgeon. Unable to think for himself, he continuously apes other people’s words and style. Each time he posts he shows he has nothing of substance nor any independent thought.”

    What he always attempts here is to reverse the argument by declaring that even disbelief requires faith. This is a complete and utter fallacy. He’s intellectually dishonest and an intellectual fraud. But, what else does he have except to admit that he’s wrong? He knows he’s taken an indefensible position. He then challenges the other side to present an argument against his position, and to prove that god doesn’t exist. This cannot be done, so in his pea-brain, he thinks he’s equalized the argument.

    There’s an expression that goes “Don’t argue with a fool because he’ll pull you down to his level and then beat you with his experience there.”

    He perfectly demonstrates the idea that astronomers don’t debate with astrologists nor do chemists debate with alchemists. Such arguments can’t be taken seriously by a educated, intelligent person.

    “That you refuse to provide it, do we take it that you are nothing but a dishonest and hypocritical liar intent on nothing other but disruption?”

    That’s the only logical conclusion.

  91. on 01 Feb 2012 at 3:31 am 91.Lou (DFW) said …

    88.Curmudgeon said …

    What I can ascertain here is that atheist cannot prove using the Lou rule of proof:

    “the first lifeforms on our planet were single celled.”

    What I “ascertain” is that this line of arguing is 100% irrelevant to your claim that god exists.

  92. on 01 Feb 2012 at 3:52 pm 92.MrQ said …

    Cur claims

    cannot prove using the Lou rule of proof:

    “the first lifeforms on our planet were single celled.”

    Therefore they believe this in faith

    What is the Lou rule of proof? Nobody observed the first cells? We can’t determine the age of the Earth accurately enough?

    You asked:

    DPK is still working hard for you to change the subject. The great atheist rebuttal. DPK maybe you have the facts and evidence? That would be some real help.

    and they provided a link

    Sigh… not that it makes a difference to your hypothesis of a magical god Crum… but have you heard of the fossil record? Yes, the further back in time you go, the simpler life forms become, until the only life forms you find are single celled organisms. I’m likely not as old as you, so no, I didn’t witness it.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

    Cur, it is an EPIC FAIL that you are either unable or unwilling to address the simplest of questions on the topic of first life on Earth.
    Again I ask, regarding the first lifeforms on Earth:

    Do we disagree on the mechanics? Is that it? Or is it the time frame?

    Grow a pair and use whatever resources available for your answer, including but not limited to the link from DPK. Or are you out of popcorn? ;-)

  93. on 01 Feb 2012 at 6:14 pm 93.Curmudgeon said …

    Still stalling Mr Q? I understand. The Lou rule you ask? The level of proof required by Lou. You don’t have any so…
    Read the link. Maybe you should to. Supposes, maybes mixed with mathematical computations. Was that your proof?

  94. on 01 Feb 2012 at 6:31 pm 94.MrQ said …

    Cur, oh Cur
    Volumes of data, evidence, proof is all I’ve got. Visit your nearest library or scan the ‘net. You didn’t seem to have any problem with CHNOPS, why the stuttering nonsense with a simple age of the Earth question and early Earth lifeforms?
    What have you got?…out with it.

  95. on 01 Feb 2012 at 7:46 pm 95.Curmudgeon said …

    I’m not asking for a volume, just one or two facts/proof/evidence. Maybe you are unaware of the scientific method? Need it outlined?

  96. on 01 Feb 2012 at 9:34 pm 96.MrQ said …

    Cur,
    Does the question scare you? Yes, I would say. If you answer your whole foundation of belief shatters and dissolves. I understand the need for discretion. Keep the faith, my friend.

  97. on 01 Feb 2012 at 9:55 pm 97.MrQ said …

    Cur,
    Oh yeah. Use the scientific method, as you understand it, in determining your answer. Or just use a bible. Which will you do? What will your answer be?

    Age of the Earth is_________years and/or
    Age of the universe is___________years

    I will make it easy. Make the margin of error for the guess +/- a couple of billion years.

    Go for it, buddy!!!

  98. on 01 Feb 2012 at 10:21 pm 98.Anonymous said …

    Curmudgeon, you should show us by example what you are looking for. That way there will be no dispute about MrQ not answering your question.

    He’s asked you two simple and innocuous questions. You can have no issue with them, right?

    So do answer his questions and show us, by example, your using the scientific method and your use of “just one or two facts/proof/evidence”.

    It’s not as if you are asking for something you would be unwilling to do yourself. It’s not as if you are playing a game here. Or is it?

    MrQ asked you:

    Age of the Earth is_________years and/or
    Age of the universe is___________years

    What is your answer and why?

  99. on 02 Feb 2012 at 3:14 am 99.Curmudgeon said …

    Mr Q,

    Hmmmmmm? The old digression and challenge on my manhood. Interesting tactic. Tell you what. You support your CLAIM then I will answer a question. I don’t fall for the old tired fallacies. FYI

    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#digression

    To refresh:

    “the first lifeforms on our planet were single celled.”

    As you would say…grow a pair and support your claim.

  100. on 02 Feb 2012 at 3:22 am 100.Curmudgeon said …

    DPK

    This is what you consider facts and evidence. If you fellas would only read before posting. From your link:

    The “best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis” has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.

    A hypothesis not passes as proof/evidence and fact for DPK.

    Mr Q, the question still remains.

  101. on 02 Feb 2012 at 8:22 am 101.Lou (DFW) said …

    100.Curmudgeon said …

    “Mr Q, the question still remains.”

    Yes, it does. Where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

  102. on 02 Feb 2012 at 12:45 pm 102.Anonymous said …

    On November 11, 2001 in post #25 http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2038 “Curmudgeon” offered to provide proof of his god.

    It’s almost three months later and we’ve received nothing but excuses from him.

    The fact that he makes demands that others provide information while ignoring everyone who asks him why he won’t answer questions is demonstration that he’s someone who cannot be trusted and has no intention of engaging in a discussion.

    Curmudgeon is a fraud and a troll. We should simply ignore him and treat him like the invisible man in the sky that he believes in.

    Disagree, Curmudgeon? Answer MrQ’s question. Show us you can.

  103. on 02 Feb 2012 at 3:16 pm 103.MrQ said …

    Let’s give Cur one more chance to answer the simplest of questions.
    In order to commence a discussion of the earliest lifeforms on Earth we should at least see his “scientific method” in action. I could provide links to sites, but all he’s going to do is:
    a)say that nobody was there to see it
    b)complain that it’s not using the scientific method
    c)suggest that it is a red herring
    d)ask for more information, ad infinitum, without providing anything in return

    So, Cur, can you use whatever resources that you require; links, books, personal contacts, whatever. Let me know the age of the Earth (and universe as a bonus) and show me that you have the thinest of slivers of scientific understanding. To make the task even simpler, just apply the same standard of proof to my question as you apply to accepting that goddidit. OK?

  104. on 02 Feb 2012 at 5:56 pm 104.DPK said …

    He won’t… know why?
    There is ample, abundant, mountainous amounts of evidence supporting evolution. That is why virtually every biologist and life scientist in the world… including religious ones, accept evolution by natural selection as fact. There is ZERO evidence that life was created, in basically it’s present form, all at once in some magical moment of creation. Zero.
    You can point him to endless resources of knowledge, research, education, explanations about evolutionary biology. He will reject it out of hand because for some warped reason, he doesn’t WANT to understand it. That is called willful ignorance. Most educated theologians (not the bible thumping redneck panhandlers or silver haired TV evangelists) have no issue with evolution, and not surprisingly, have claimed it as the brilliant invention of their god. This is how it always works… when scientific understanding advances knowledge and that knowledge infringes on what was once claimed to be the realm of god, eventually the faithful double back and then claim it as god’s working after all. As has been mentioned, even the pope accepts the big bang and evolution as reality…

  105. on 02 Feb 2012 at 7:11 pm 105.Curmudgeon said …

    Mr Q,

    To speed along the process, whatever you say the age of the earth and universe is fine.

    Now, back to your claim.

    “the first lifeforms on our planet were single celled.”

    I’m sorry to see you have a problem with the scientific method and I’m sorry you believe hypothesis are proof. However, to help you, I only require the same proof Lou requires for a God. No more.

    Next claim:

    “just apply the same standard of proof to my question as you apply to accepting that goddidit. OK?”

    Would you be claiming there is the same amount of evidence for God as your first claim about single cells Mr Q?

  106. on 03 Feb 2012 at 8:03 pm 106.MrQ said …

    Cur,
    Get back to me when you can figure out the age of our Earth and the universe. And do let me know how you arrived at the figures.
    I will discuss one celled and other ideas when you demonstrate an ability to understand and use the grey matter between your ears. Yes, that was another dig at YOU, but at least it doesn’t question your manliness.

  107. on 03 Feb 2012 at 11:55 pm 107.Curmudgeon said …

    Mr Q!

    Please! I have already agreed with you on the age of the earth, now we anxiously await your proof for:

    “the first lifeforms on our planet were single celled.”

    Don’t leave us all hanging when you can offer so much. You are the real man here and we hang on your every word.

  108. on 04 Feb 2012 at 12:34 am 108.alex said …

    “the first lifeforms on our planet were single celled.”..a theory, which I believe in, considering the alternatives.

    What is offered, Adam & Eve? Single cells may not be definite, but God1 is not the only other possibility. Nor God2, God3, and so on….

    This is the way I look at it based on my level of skepticism:

    single cell origin .00000001%
    god .99999999999999999999999%

    I suppose if Allah showed up at my house, shot lightning out of his ass, levitated my car, and cured my cancer, I MIGHT believe, but I’ll still be doubtful. After all, he could be a magician and/or an Alien. It’s good to be a skeptic.

  109. on 04 Feb 2012 at 1:02 am 109.Anonymous said …

    Curmudgeon is a troll and sock puppet.

    Before responding to him do recognize that in November 2011 he made an unambiguous statement that he would provide evidence of the existence of his god. When called on that, he has been alternately running away and back peddling since then.

    He posts these “questions” in an attempt to divert the topic away from his failure to even attempt to address his claim.

    Please don’t engage him as you will only be encouraging and rewarding his dishonesty and deception.

    See post #25 http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2038

  110. on 04 Feb 2012 at 2:26 am 110.MrQ said …

    Cur,
    I await your demonstration of the “scientific method” which you always drone on about. Prove to everyone that you are capable of thinking scientifically. Why are you so scared? It’s such a simple request.

    If the age of the Earth is scientifically undefinable, just say so. Surely you have some kind of idea. Stop playing the simpleton. What’s that? You’re not playing….Oh!!

  111. on 04 Feb 2012 at 3:12 am 111.l said …

    “the first lifeforms on our planet were single celled.”

    Let me be the first to say this is not science, it is history. The scientific method cannot address this possibility therefore it is a guess only.

    It actually is a great parallel to God since God is also a possible source of first cells. Neither can fit the modern scientific method.

  112. on 04 Feb 2012 at 3:59 am 112.DPK said …

    “It actually is a great parallel to God since God is also a possible source of first cells.”

    Look, just because 2 ideas share the same characteristic of being unverifiable or untestable, doesn’t then mean that they are equally likely. I can claim that the flying spaghetti monster created the first life on earth from linguini and tomato sauce… that doesn’t mean that it’s an equally valid claim as ” the first life forms were singled celled creatures.”
    Take your head out of your ass and quit playing silly word games. Whether the first life forms on earth were single celled bacteria, or self replicating molecules without a cell structure, or a cauldron of amino acids doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to the position that there is a magical being who answers prayers and listens to your thoughts.
    Curm again brought up Francis Colins, saying he considers DNA evidence for god. So what? For every Colins you can also find 20 scientists of equal reputation who think there is no need to attribute it to gods… so what? Curm promised months ago to “prove” the existence of god. So far he has failed to deliver, or even make an attempt to do so other than play word games. Curm, we KNOW you can’t scientifically prove god… that’s a given… but surely you have SOMETHING? Give us what you have that makes YOU a believer, other than it makes you feel warm and fuzzy in your tummy, you are terrified of dying, or you simply aren’t bright enough to imagine a world without a magical king running everything. What are you so afraid of? We all tell you why we DON’T believe… tell us why you do.

  113. on 04 Feb 2012 at 1:36 pm 113..I said …

    “Look, just because 2 ideas share the same characteristic of being unverifiable or untestable, doesn’t then mean that they are equally likely.”

    I agree. There is no chance life formed without the presence of a creator. Absolutely none. Until someone can prove otherwise atheism is and remains the weakest of all positions.

  114. on 04 Feb 2012 at 1:46 pm 114.DPK said …

    And I also know that the chance that a volcano erupts without the presence of a volcano god who is angry to make it happen is zero, absolutely none. It can’t happen, and until someone can prove otherwise, non-volcanogod-ism is and remains the weakest of all positions.

  115. on 04 Feb 2012 at 1:50 pm 115.Lou (DFW) said …

    113..I said …

    “There is no chance life formed without the presence of a creator.”

    There is no chance that a creator formed without the presence of a creator, and so on, and so on. Until someone can prove otherwise, theism is, and remains, the weakest of all positions.

    Oh yeah, there’s also that problem that there is no evidence for a creator god.

  116. on 04 Feb 2012 at 2:53 pm 116.Anonymous said …

    I agree. There is no chance life formed without the presence of a creator. Absolutely none. Until someone can prove otherwise atheism is and remains the weakest of all positions.

    Based on what? Your desire to feel special that a magic man in the sky is looking out for you?

    You want us to prove that your non-existent sky daddy is not a delusion? Wrong way round, sunshine. You think a creator exists and it’s not just the mental illness of religion speaking, then prove it.

    You think that a magic man created men from dust and women from ribs. You want to claim that “only a creator could do that” but you also want to claim the absolute opposite that “a creator doesn’t need a creator” just so you can cover all bases. That’s nonsense thinking. That’s serious psychosis. You are proud to believe that shit? I wouldn’t be.

    This is so typical of the muddled thinking of religion. You have only your self-reinforcing delusion which you pride yourself on maintaining in spite of its stupidity and lack of reason. You think that as long as no-one convinces you that you are suffering from a delusion that it’s real. That’s not how the world works and you know it.

    Get real. Get serious. Get educated.

  117. on 04 Feb 2012 at 2:55 pm 117.Anonymous said …

    Oh, and what happens when Horatiio runs out of letters? A, I, Q etc?

  118. on 04 Feb 2012 at 4:08 pm 118.MrQ said …

    Cur,
    Since you’ve got such a chub on for Francis Collins, I wonder if you’ve ever visited the website he created: Try, for starters:

    http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-in-an-erlenmeyer-flask

    Let’s start with something that you already use in proving your idea, whatever that might be.

  119. on 04 Feb 2012 at 4:20 pm 119.MrQ said …

    For my old friend Cur:

    http://biologos.org/questions/fossil-record “In rocks more than 1 billion years old, only fossils of single-celled organisms are found. Moving to rocks that are about 550 million years old, fossils of simple, multicellular animals can be found.”

    It’s some more information from the Biologos site. Remember, Cur, it’s a site that you endorse.
    I know, it’s not science you like so you’ll claim nobody was there to see them and it’s a red herring fallacy. But at least I didn’t slag you again.

  120. on 04 Feb 2012 at 6:41 pm 120.Curmudgeon said …

    Mr Q

    Kudos, because you are trying. But your claim was

    “the first lifeforms on our planet were single celled.”

    Remember, the very fist lifeforms were single cell. How do you know? I do realize single cell organism have and do exist. Remember this to, we need to meet the burden of proof as outlined by Lou. That is very tight.

    I only brought up Collins due to Lou (again with Lou), brought up the human genome. I have no special place in my life for him, but feel free to use who you like. Keep in mind he is delusional and insane.

  121. on 04 Feb 2012 at 7:12 pm 121.Severin said …

    113 I
    “There is no chance life formed without the presence of a creator.”

    And where the creator comes from?

  122. on 04 Feb 2012 at 7:59 pm 122.MrQ said …

    Cur says:

    we need to meet the burden of proof as outlined by Lou. That is very tight.

    I smell a red herring. WTF does it matter what Lou says? I want you to start thinking. Start with an answer to the age of the Earth and follow the logic of a practicing Xtian , Collins.

  123. on 04 Feb 2012 at 10:28 pm 123.Curmudgeon said …

    I smell the herring as well. So stop already. I already agreed with your age of the earth you broght up. Now how about proving your claim. If you cannot then we will dismiss your claim.

    R U telling us the threshold for proof is not the same for U and Lou? Could U guys get together?

  124. on 04 Feb 2012 at 10:34 pm 124.MrQ said …

    I already agreed with your age of the earth you broght up.

    I don’t remember mentioning it in this thread. What is wrong with you stating it?
    I brought up Biologos. Poke around there and see what you think. God, single celled organisms, evolution….all together in one neat package.
    Maybe the problem is that the god of the Cur is different than the god of the scientist. Donchathink?

  125. on 05 Feb 2012 at 2:31 am 125.Curmudgeon said …

    OK Mr Q, I will quit picking on you and let you off the hook. You are dancing and shaking like a fish on a hook. Anything to digress right Mr Q? You obviously cannot back your claim.

    It was a good lesson for you. You cannot prove your statement among, I’m sure, with many other things you believe. You believe by faith.

    I just hope Lou doesn’t begin to challenge you with:

    Where’s your evidence where’s your proof?

    He’s your boy so I doubt it.

  126. on 05 Feb 2012 at 3:08 am 126.alex said …

    curm, you’re an idiot. i believe in the theory of gravity. while readily proven, it’s not 100%. your belief in god is not the same thing. you got not an ounce of proof, none, just bs. i understand you’re a troll and a fool, but i will continue to call you out just like the rest of the idiots.

  127. on 05 Feb 2012 at 3:26 am 127.Anonymous said …

    Yes, Curmudgeon is a troll and he’s proven time and time again that he won’t engage in meaningful discussion, he won’t keep his word, and has radically differing standards depending on if he is for or against a position. His posturing means nothing. Anyone who reads these threads can see how he has been dispatched with aplomb.

    In the thread about “The problem with people who believe the Bible is that they are insane” the posted image ends thus:

    “I could if you’d listen to reason. I could just point right to Genesis, the same way I could point right to Harry Potter and say, “Look, silly, this is obviously fictional”. But you won’t listen to reason. It’s like playing Chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the
    board and strut around like it’s victorious”

    Curmudgeon in his various guises has been soundly put in his place; all he has left is crap, and he has a lot of that.

  128. on 05 Feb 2012 at 6:04 am 128.MrQ said …

    Cur,
    Thanks for proving that you’re truly an idiot. The original thread was about the ignorance of believers. Your entries do prove the point.

    But, Cur, honestly now. You’re really an atheist trying to make the believers look extremely stupid. That’s your game, isn’t it? I didn’t think that anyone could be more anti-science than Horatio/Horatiio (aka The Hor), but that’s just part of your ruse.

  129. on 05 Feb 2012 at 7:11 am 129.Severin said …

    125 Curmudgeon
    „You believe by faith.“

    If I see tire marks on the road, I do NOT need faith to think a car from earth made them. I would need faith if I claimed a car from Mars came to make them!

    Same for life on earth.
    I see an incomplete, but totally logical picture, and have no need to involve faith in my reasoning: according to our knowledge of chemistry, physics, math, biology, life was POSSIBLE to appear spontaniously on earth.
    Life IS here, so it obviously DID happen.
    No Aliens or gods were necessary.

  130. on 05 Feb 2012 at 1:00 pm 130.Lou (DFW) said …

    120.Curmudgeon said …

    “Remember this to,[sic] we need to meet the burden of proof as outlined by Lou.”

    Hor, I mean Crum,I never outlined any such “burden of proof.” You are a liar, and that’s part of the childish game that you play here to avoid presenting any evidence of your imaginary god.

  131. on 05 Feb 2012 at 1:02 pm 131.Lou (DFW) said …

    125.Curmudgeon said …

    “I just hope Lou doesn’t begin to challenge you with:”

    You don’t need to hope any such thing because I’ve repeated many times that this entire discussion is an irrelevant diversion that you use to divert attention from the fact that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god.

  132. on 06 Oct 2012 at 1:24 am 132.Dylan said …

    You people believing in your “God” makes me laugh. So then tell me, why cant fairy tales be believed in? I’ve asked this to a hard core religious man. He told me it wouldn’t make sense. That it couldn’t possibly exist…

    Now, i don’t know about you guys but that seems totally ridiculous to me. Like BEYOND ridiculous. How can this almighty higher power create all be the designer of everything? When a simple fairy tale seems false to them…

    Yeah, not finding the truth fist can really create some bad mistakes. When the bible fist came to be, they were ignorant of everything. They didn’t know dinosaurs existed. Just because it doesn’t say anything doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. And honestly, i think religion is a problem itself. As long as there is someone out there to commit an act or kill someone in the name of god, there will never be everlasting peace….

  133. on 06 Oct 2012 at 1:32 am 133.Dylan said …

    Maybe the bible was designed to test how stupid and gullible the human race can be….

  134. on 06 Oct 2012 at 2:50 am 134.Anonymous said …

    “Maybe the bible was designed to test how stupid and gullible the human race can be….”

    Ironically, that makes more sense than people who believe it’s anything other than a collection of myths and fairy stories.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply