Atheist messiah
- Thread starter arcticpenguin
- Start date
EdipisReks
Custom Title
Re: My Opinion on The Atheist....
that was perhaps the most retarded thing i have ever read. considering that i have read Jedi Knight threads, Billiefan2000 threads, and Uninteresting Ian threads, that says a lot.
Fnlou said:
that was perhaps the most retarded thing i have ever read. considering that i have read Jedi Knight threads, Billiefan2000 threads, and Uninteresting Ian threads, that says a lot.
DialecticMaterialist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,022
Fnlou:
EdipisReks
Custom Title
DialecticMaterialist said:
how apropos
DialecticMaterialist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,022
Are you trying to totally undermine your credibility? Darwin's theory is considered as solid as gravity by the scientific community.
In fact the nations leading scientific institution and magazine have gone on record to say just that:
Scientific american: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
The National Academy of Sciences: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/EVOLUTION/index.html
As has the National Center for Science Education:
http://www.ncseweb.org/
As has PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
As has every leading scientist in this nation, including 72 Nobel Prize winners:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-misc.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
Now I'm sorry to say this but I don't believe your non sequitur "criticisms" undermine a scientific theory supported by this nation's leading scientific journal, academy, science education center and 72 Nobel Prize winners.
Evolution simply is not driven by progress but by necessity. Creatures do not evolve unless 1) They have to. and 2) They can in time. In fact many fail to do this, which is why they go extinct.
Why don't you tell me why God would create animals just to let them go extinct? This seems like quite a waste of time, especially seeing as how 99.9 percent of all animals that ever existed are now extinct according to scientists.
Crocodiles simply do not have the necessary pressure or means to evolve an intellect, nor the time, so they in all likelyhood when faced with predators as intelligent as us will simply go extinct (unless the intelligent creatures decide otherwise or some catastrophy befalls them.)
Anyone who even had a basic understanding of Darwinism would know this.
In fact the nations leading scientific institution and magazine have gone on record to say just that:
Scientific american: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
The National Academy of Sciences: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/EVOLUTION/index.html
As has the National Center for Science Education:
http://www.ncseweb.org/
As has PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
As has every leading scientist in this nation, including 72 Nobel Prize winners:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-misc.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
Now I'm sorry to say this but I don't believe your non sequitur "criticisms" undermine a scientific theory supported by this nation's leading scientific journal, academy, science education center and 72 Nobel Prize winners.
Evolution simply is not driven by progress but by necessity. Creatures do not evolve unless 1) They have to. and 2) They can in time. In fact many fail to do this, which is why they go extinct.
Why don't you tell me why God would create animals just to let them go extinct? This seems like quite a waste of time, especially seeing as how 99.9 percent of all animals that ever existed are now extinct according to scientists.
Crocodiles simply do not have the necessary pressure or means to evolve an intellect, nor the time, so they in all likelyhood when faced with predators as intelligent as us will simply go extinct (unless the intelligent creatures decide otherwise or some catastrophy befalls them.)
Anyone who even had a basic understanding of Darwinism would know this.
Fnlou
Unregistered
F
awww geeeeeee
I was merely pointing out the intersting name, but I'm in no position to argue the "scientific merits" of Darwinism as I am not a scientist. There ARE scientists who disagree with it and there are "Nobel Prize Winners" amongst them.
http://www.evolusham.com/
You know what they say about "opinions". Everybody's got one - Nobel or not.....
Enjoy
I was merely pointing out the intersting name, but I'm in no position to argue the "scientific merits" of Darwinism as I am not a scientist. There ARE scientists who disagree with it and there are "Nobel Prize Winners" amongst them.
http://www.evolusham.com/
You know what they say about "opinions". Everybody's got one - Nobel or not.....
Enjoy
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
Re: awww geeeeeee
Just in case some day you tire of being an ignoramous: http://www.talkorigins.org/Fnlou said:
Opinions are irrelevant here. Evolution is science, creationism isn't. That site you posted is a lot of nonsense, and there are plenty of people here who can prove it. The very first thing on that site is blatant deception - a selectively edited Darwin quote. Here's the full thing, with the creationist edit in bold.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
And here's the second part:
Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is more than enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.
Creationists, having no scientific argument, very often resort to this kind of flagrant dishonesty.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
And here's the second part:
Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is more than enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.
Creationists, having no scientific argument, very often resort to this kind of flagrant dishonesty.
Fnlou
Unregistered
F
Such a friendly forum...
So I suppose each of you have your own "Nobel Prize" and you know better than these folks:
"God is very difficult to define, but I feel his presence. I feel an omnipresence everywhere and something, at the same time, rather personal." Charles H. Townes - Nobel Prize in Physics 1964
"If I had no other data than the early chapters of Genesis, some of the Psalms and other passages of Scripture, I would have arrived at essentially the same picture of the origin of the universe, as is indicated by the scientific data." Arno Penzias - Nobel Prize in Physics 1978
"I was brought up a Protestant Christian and I’ve been in a number of denominations…I go to church to a very good Methodist church." - Arthur Schawlow - Nobel Prize in Physics 1981
"shortly after Jane and I moved to Gaithersburg, we joined Fairhaven United Methodist Church. We had not been regular church-goers during our years at MIT, but Ed and Jean Williams invited us to Fairhaven and there we found a congregation whose ethnic and racial diversity offered an irresistible richness of worship experience." William D. Phillips - Nobel Prize in Physics 1997
Now quickly - RUN TO YOUR SEARCH ENGINES!
So I suppose each of you have your own "Nobel Prize" and you know better than these folks:
"God is very difficult to define, but I feel his presence. I feel an omnipresence everywhere and something, at the same time, rather personal." Charles H. Townes - Nobel Prize in Physics 1964
"If I had no other data than the early chapters of Genesis, some of the Psalms and other passages of Scripture, I would have arrived at essentially the same picture of the origin of the universe, as is indicated by the scientific data." Arno Penzias - Nobel Prize in Physics 1978
"I was brought up a Protestant Christian and I’ve been in a number of denominations…I go to church to a very good Methodist church." - Arthur Schawlow - Nobel Prize in Physics 1981
"shortly after Jane and I moved to Gaithersburg, we joined Fairhaven United Methodist Church. We had not been regular church-goers during our years at MIT, but Ed and Jean Williams invited us to Fairhaven and there we found a congregation whose ethnic and racial diversity offered an irresistible richness of worship experience." William D. Phillips - Nobel Prize in Physics 1997
Now quickly - RUN TO YOUR SEARCH ENGINES!
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
Now quickly, since the topic is evolution, how many of those on your list are biologists? Even if those quotes are genuine and not taken out of context, those people are speaking outside their field of expertise.
It's clear to me that fnlou is just a creationist troll.
So I'm not going to comment on much, but...
...Could you please name some of these nobel prize winners who disagree with evolution? And furthermore, are they scientists? If they are, are they in a field relevant to evolution?
I'd also reccommend that you do a google search of "Project Steve," you'll be surprised with what you find.
So I'm not going to comment on much, but...
...Could you please name some of these nobel prize winners who disagree with evolution? And furthermore, are they scientists? If they are, are they in a field relevant to evolution?
I'd also reccommend that you do a google search of "Project Steve," you'll be surprised with what you find.
EdipisReks
Custom Title
Re: Such a friendly forum...
*yawn*
Fnlou said:
*yawn*
rwald
Unregistered
R
Also, it's important to note that for some, belief in God does not equat to belief in creationism. There are those who believe that evolution created the human body, and that God then inserted a "spirit" into that body. So, just because someone believes that God created "man" in the most general sense does not mean that they disagree with evolution.
Of course, all the people who matter already knew that, but anyway...
Of course, all the people who matter already knew that, but anyway...
Good points....rwald said:
Try telling that to a classroom full of teenagers. Some of them cannot use there brains to remotely understand other peoples beliefs. They will yell at you stuff like "How can you believe in Heaven, but not Hell". I dont know, ask a mormon. Just the same, some Christians believe God influences evolution (yet another point teenagers have a hard time trying to grasp).
rwald said:
The last episode of the PBS Evolution series is entirely devoted to that subject. There are actually various ways that people can reconcile Christianity and evolution. That doesn't satsify those ho want an ultra-liberal interpretation of the bible though.
Facsinating stuff.
Re: Such a friendly forum...
I'm not impressed by quotes from famous people. I'm not jolted by witty analogies (remember that famous inkcartridge-humanconsciousness analogy a while ago). Super cool! You've come across a website that lists quotes by creationists who won Nobel Prizes, does that somehow make creationism any more valid of a belief? Of course not! Science validates a belief, not the actions of famous/intelligent/respected/Nobel prize winning people.
I want to quickly reply to your post subject "Such a friendly forum..."... yes, we are a friendly bunch, and (for the most part/with the exception of the few idiots) we're intelligent also.Fnlou said:So I suppose each of you have your own "Nobel Prize" and you know better than these folks:
"God is very difficult to define, but I feel his presence. I feel an omnipresence everywhere and something, at the same time, rather personal." Charles H. Townes - Nobel Prize in Physics 1964
"If I had no other data than the early chapters of Genesis, some of the Psalms and other passages of Scripture, I would have arrived at essentially the same picture of the origin of the universe, as is indicated by the scientific data." Arno Penzias - Nobel Prize in Physics 1978
"I was brought up a Protestant Christian and I’ve been in a number of denominations…I go to church to a very good Methodist church." - Arthur Schawlow - Nobel Prize in Physics 1981
"shortly after Jane and I moved to Gaithersburg, we joined Fairhaven United Methodist Church. We had not been regular church-goers during our years at MIT, but Ed and Jean Williams invited us to Fairhaven and there we found a congregation whose ethnic and racial diversity offered an irresistible richness of worship experience." William D. Phillips - Nobel Prize in Physics 1997
Now quickly - RUN TO YOUR SEARCH ENGINES!
I'm not impressed by quotes from famous people. I'm not jolted by witty analogies (remember that famous inkcartridge-humanconsciousness analogy a while ago). Super cool! You've come across a website that lists quotes by creationists who won Nobel Prizes, does that somehow make creationism any more valid of a belief? Of course not! Science validates a belief, not the actions of famous/intelligent/respected/Nobel prize winning people.
First of all, none of the quotes he provided show any of these "nobel prize winners" (they provide no source for me to verify their validity, so I guess I'll just take his word for it for now) Explicitly profressing creationism. Their simply talking about their religious ubringings for the most part. Even if the quotes are valid and the "laurettes" are religious, that does not make them creationists. Many biologists, zoologists, antroplogists, etcetera are religious and have no problem reconciling evolution with their religious beliefs (refer: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html)
It's clear to me that this guy is simply trolling about.
