RpRGone Girl
Excellent till the last ten minutes when all the police except one do a good imitation of Barney Fife.
RpR…but, strangely, it only seems to be in the investigation of evolution or in determining the age of the Earth that scientists are suddenly reduced to ridiculous ‘quacks’ that merely make ‘guesses’ based on little or no evidence!
Why is that?
Because evolution, the age of the earth is meaningless as the Bible only hints at the age of man, not the planet, is man strutting its god wannabe arrogance and bragging about it.
God used science, most of which man is still totally ignorant, to create the physical universe.
Only the majority of the science community eliminate that fact and try to insert, by their public attutudes, that Christians believe in what could only be called magic to replace it, while at the same time replacing the science God used with their own nut-job theories and insist they are correct regardless of the fact they leak like a sieve.
RpRIn one post you claim to be atheist and then spent the rest of the thread rubbishing science, evolution, knowledge, yet defending the concept of god. — Atheist, you are very, very wrong.
Frankly I don’t care about any-one’s religious beliefs or lack of, provided they don’t bother me with their theories or set out to kill me because I don’t bend a knee to the “right” god. — Take the latter up with the Muslims but beyond that science was my easiest, and most enjoyable, of classes in High School and College but do not try to force unproven-unprovable theories on me to the exclusion of other opinions.
However I do know this, “our” planet indeed the solar system of which we are a part, is an insignificant dot on the scale of the universe, whatever happens on this planet has very little effect on the workings of the universe, for any-one to believe that in our minute corner of the universe we have found the “truth” through religion take a lot of swallowing.
You rubbish evolution, yet the fossil record says otherwise, you rubbish “big bang” theory, but there is a growing theory that “big bangs” have been happening across the universe for millions of years and probably still are. We know for instance that stars (ie suns) have a tendency to implode or explode taking any attendant systems with them, all the energy and material is either trapped or scattered, it is still there, for all we know new suns and new systems may be forming right now, the problem being of course is that we only see these events millions of years after they occurred due to the distance involved. — There is no growing evidence there are opinions. The fossile record shows nothing except we are incredibly ignorant of the number of species that are extinct.
The evolution theory based on fossils has gaps big enough one could fly a 380 through them without wind turbulence from its passing.There is much that science knows and can prove, it is equally true that there is probably as much if not more that we can only speculate about, but I for one do not subscribe to some overall supreme being having control over all of this.
What science knows and can proves is the equivalent of how much water a gnat crapping in the ocean would displace.
If they would spend more time to see how God might have done what God did, with or without the word God, rather than trying to prove what they think is how it should have been done, there would be no quarrels as they would go about it admitting they know nothing and are onlytrying to learn what might, or might not, have happened.
RpRRubbish.
You are making up fantasy to suit your position and beliefs. — No more than scientists are doing the same to support their position and beliefs.
Science by it’s very nature questions and continues to question. — Mocking anyone who challenges an unproven theory is not questioning, it is taking an uncontrovertilbe stance.Commonly accepted scientific understanding has been, and will continue to be, challenged and where new discoveries point to differing conclusions those will become the new norm, until new evidence brings challenge to those too. — That is bs. An article in Scientific American in the eighties exposed what happens to scientists who challenge the majority accepted dogma even if they are eventually proven correct.
They are ostracized and driven out of the community.
Those in the article had that happen and they never practiced their chosen field again.Religon does not accept challenge. — Neither does the majority science community.
A woman from the article mentioned above, had her theory found to be true years later by a man; he was given credit for the NEW discovery, she was not mentioned in any papers about the idea she said was true years earlier.
To proper scientists, she did not exist.Science does not “scoff” (emotive language there, i wonder do you have a reason for it?) at religion.
Yeah right.
If you say that often enough you might convince your self.
This is from JConline:
The scientific community, including the one at Purdue University, might scoff at what’s going on at Ball State University these days, as a handful of Indiana legislators circle the Muncie campus, questioning whether a physics professor has been unduly stifled from exploring the topic of intelligent design in a science class.
But this is some potent stuff, as reported by Seth Slabaugh of the Muncie Star Press. And the implied threat by the lawmakers, including state Sen. Dennis Kruse, shouldn’t be taken lightly.
RpRAnd here we see why the religious are so hopeless. Oh am i “scoffing?” Why yes i am. Completely justifiably.
Unlike the belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden the theory of evolution is supported by considerable evidence.
Evidence —
— they have as much evidence for evolution as they had for the water canals on Mars.
Evolution is scientists version of Three-Card Monte.
RpRDogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Well let us see, all that is was either created by a supreme being or it was not.
Ask the scientific community to include God in their theories and one is on a good day, merely scoffed at, all the rest condemned as a ignorant fool following a fable; therefore, their scientific opinions and theories are uncontrovertibly true to them.
That is a dogma as the Oxford English prefers to define it.
At the same time a theory from the Oxford is:
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained
and supposition is:
an uncertain belief.
Yet they ridicule those who consider their theory to be nothing more that a poorly educated guess without proof.
The main scientific communities attitudes is why evolution is as much a dogma to them as the Bible is a dogma to Christians.
RpRFor example the ‘young Earth’ creationists seemed to spring-up at about the time that science was beginning to be able to measure the age of the Earth and that evolution was suggesting how many millennia would be required for evolution to take place.
Young earth believers have nothing to do with science or lack of it.
It amounts to a group who read the Bible insert assumptions that are not there and create their doctrine on their opinions.
Ignoring rules of grammar is the main tool many use to float their home-made doctrine.
RpR‘Scientific dogma’? Science doesn’t go in for dogma…..you are thinking of religion. —
DOGMA
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate groundstenet
: a belief or idea that is very important to a group
Science is making enormous strides in understanding DNA; perhaps even revealing the complete mechanism by which evolution takes place.
And what is the response of those that deny that evolution exists? State that DNA does not mutate when the scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that it does mutate.
Demonstrates, when, where, how
It has to be replicated at will to be a proof. Of course if the same thing happens repeatedly that is merely topical adaptation caused by artificially created scenarios.
RpR…Believers of one credo killing believers of another, though, that is utterly commonplace.
Yes as Leninists who loathed the Russian church showed.
RpRThe ‘hard wiring’ is DNA and DNA can, and does, mutate all the time without any reference to the environment; that is why we are not all clones of our parents.
If ‘topical adaptation’ involves the natural selection of different DNA strains…..then it is evolution.
It does, hmmm, I would like to see the scientific proof for that.
It does not mutate, merely reveals something that was already there that scientists in, some not all, arrogance simply could not fathom being there because it does not fit their scientific dogma.
RpRWhy does it have to be a major change or be on an instantaneous scale? — One creature with an oddity cannot change how that species continues on; a portion of that species, larger than the norm must at the same period of time suddenly change from the norm. Evolution pretty much has to be magic.
Luck aside, a cheetah will catch the slowest gazelle; all other things being equal the fastest gazelle will always get away. And the fastest gazelle will get to breed and the one that the cheetah ate will not. Likewise a slow cheetah will likely starve, or not produce offspring as successfully as a fast, well-fed, cheetah.Given enough time this naturally selective breeding could, quite by accident, produce all sorts of variations without any divine intervention or ‘magical theories’.
Look at all the varieties of dog man has managed to breed in just a few centuries; nature could surely have achieved much more in many millennia.
That is all topical adaptation or calculated adaptation. Each one is hard wired to produce the result depending on who survives or how they are crossed.
That is not evolution.
RpRWhy?
You are making an assertion with no evidence to support it, at the same time insisting that others must believe in one of two options you have given them.
Umm, no.
Because every scientific experiment ever and simple logic has proven that from nothing comes nothing, period.
For anyone to say that after energy suddenly popped into existence where nothing, by nothing I mean nothing, existed before by chance formed the complicated formulas by which the universe as we know it functions, is in the most polite manner of description, asininely moronic.
There are only two options, god exists or god does not.
If I am wrong give me all those other possibilities with some sort of logic that there are more than two options.
Those who believe that energy already existed but just floated around empty of any function and then BOOM, the Big Bang happened and complicated formulas sprang forth by chance is absurd using simply logic, but at least they have something already existing.
Of course then, if they believe energy has always existed with no beginning, why is it so hard for them to believe that a god, using god as a title, also simply has always existed and is the creator of the physical universe using said same energy.
RpRQualifications, I have a BSc, does that count?
But religion does not want to be questioned. `It is` because otherwise it would cease to exist.
Of course there is one question that has always intrigued me. If god made everything who made god?
Now that’s one dude I would lke to meet.
Well then who made the god that made the god that made the god that made the god … to infinity.
That still defeats the atheistic view of their is no god.
Who says religion does not want to be questioned?
Questioned about what?
Christianity is based on faith, faith cannot be proven, if there is proof then it is no longer based on faith.
So if you want proof, any true Christian can only give you a Bible and tell you to read and decide for yourself.
Demanding proof, is merely starting a straw man argument, as there is none.
God cannot be proven to exist or not exist.
RpRI thought that for believers their god created everything……….no?
That is an idea that too many christians do not think through or turns their brains off and play follow the leader.
It is illogical that God, (God being a triune unit with god being a title is another reason christians have split into factions as the authority Jesus gives God the Father in the Bible, over him, screws with their, God is God, ain’t no difference narrow minds), once was all by itself with nothing else and suddenly decided it needed more.
Because that is illogical and for those who believe God created everything, God created logic, it would be a catch 22.
The creation of the Bible is the creation of the physical world not the universe or God’s realm .
RpRLet me postulate this: what if god created the things that caused the ‘accidents’: gravity, lightning…..and evolution?
Where religions require you to believe that you are following the ‘word’ of god then it is impossible for them to be ‘wrong’ about anything, ever, because how can you have a fallible god?
Postulate what?
This is an area where some Christian dogmas go head to head in a very belligerent manner.
Free will, some dogmas do not believe it exists, but the RC Church and most branches that were created in protest from it do.
As a part of heaven fell due the arrogance allowed by free will, any supposed “accidents” are merely man’s stupidity having its just rewards.
If you have studied biology, an oddity in a society of living creatures is not well accepted or simply not as hardy to survive as the norm.
For an oddity to evolve in a manner that would cause a major, majority dominant, change the accident would have to happen on a instantaneous scale that exceeds the norm to be able to dominate and replace the norm.
It has never happened nor will it ever, as it is one of the magical theories evolution, not topical adaptation which does happen, to be possible.
The only thing Christians will never say they are wrong about is that which is preached in the Gospel of the New Testament which is the only thing Jesus came for in the first place.
Sign In
