"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Intelligently Designed, or Lucky Pond Scum?
15 comments:
Anonymous
said...
"Intelligently designed, or lucky pond scum?"
*** The answer to that depends on what that is a picture of. The pictures you show don't give enough information to answer with accuracy (as your little 'london at night' trick clearly showed).
*** How does "pond scum" attain luck BTW? What makes it "lucky"?
*** Creationists are some of the weirdest people on the planet....
Gosh, it makes a guy feel good when you hear those words, 'dun it?
I should have said,
Answer: First, a lucky explosion (a really Big One and one which just somehow contained all the necessary laws of physics built-in), followed by a lucky lightning strike, yadda, yadda, yadda, then Beethoven.
creationist views about life are ridiculous? First there was nothing - then something somehow - even miraculously appeared. Then nothing caused this something to explode and wallah - the universe. Now that is ridiculous
"First there was nothing - then something somehow - even miraculously appeared. Then nothing caused this something to explode and wallah - the universe."
*** Let me guess... you're a creationist right? You must be because science doesn't explain it that way. That is the typical creationist (ignorant) rant. It's like looking/sounding stupid is a goal of creationism.
*** Learn a little science and you'd be amazed how beautiful it truly is.
Truly funny listening to a science apologist. Science doesn't explain anything simply because it is based only on observation. The second it steps beyond observation it becomes nothing more than speculation. Of course to hold speculation up as fact requires faith in the human speculating. Thus while the science apologist decries the observations of the religious simply because he has never experienced it shows that he is not near the scientist that he claims.
My religious points of view are not the result of indoctrination but rather shared experience. When I go back through the annals of religion particularly the Judea/Christian religion I find an amazing wealth of experiences that I share with people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Thus I ask the question whose experiments should I trust? People who look at a fossil and try to "make a story" for it or the simple experiences I have known and shared with people like Issiah, St Paul, St Augustine.
Choose this day whom you will serve. As for me and my household we shall serve Yahweh.
I've always thought it took more faith to be atheist than to believe in (insert your favorite deity) but I've had any number of atheists call me bad names which I said as much. Oh well. :lol:
"Of course to hold speculation up as fact requires faith in the human speculating."
*** I hate to break up your little party of ignorance here boys - but you really don't know what you're talking about.
*** Science doesn't deal with "facts", it deals with "evidence". There is a difference and that you make your statement lamenting that science "holds" things up as "fact" just underscores how little you actually know about science.
"it shows that he is not near the scientist that he claims."
*** I have never claimed to be a scientist. Are you trying to break the record for most untruths in one paragraph??
"My religious points of view are not the result of indoctrination but rather shared experience."
*** I'm happy for you. What's your point??
*** If you would only practice your religion with like minded individuals that would be fine. It's (especially) when religion is brought in as a viable alternative to evolution that I have a real problem.
*** I don't care if you worship Jesus or Thor... just don't expect the public to back you up.
"Thus I ask the question whose experiments should I trust?"
*** Should ~you~ trust?? I don't care. I know that I'll trust the experiments that are reproducable, make predictions with accuracy and holds itself up to scrutiny by it's peers.... In a word: science.
"I've always thought it took more faith to be atheist than to believe in (insert your favorite deity)..."
*** The fact that you can "insert" ~any~ diety into your statement with equal validity underscores just how funny your statement here is!!
*** You insert god right? I would like to point out that your statement is just as valid if you insert the 'flying spaghetti monster' as your diety of choice. Isn't that enough to show how much faith you have to have? There's as much evidence of a 'flying spaghetti monster' as there is for your god.
*** Atheism does not take faith. It's the default position - we're ALL born atheist until religion gets it's grubby little hands on us.
Sorry, Joe, you're wrong about a couple of things.
The "default state" (if such a thing truly existed) would be agnostic, not atheist. The agnostic, whether through ignorance or choice, neither denies nor acknowledges God (whichever God that happens to be) whereas the atheist denies the existence of God. How strange that one who uses the label Joe Agnost would make such an error!
It does take faith for the atheist to deny the existence of God. Faith is simply another word for belief.
Ask a theist who created the universe and they'll give you the name of their favorite deity (mine is the invisible pink unicorn... may her hooves never be shod!) and if you ask for proof, they'll willingly admit they accept such on faith.
Ask an atheist the same questions and the angry denials start spinning. When push comes to shove, the atheist believes (there's that word again) in a scenario which is just as improbable as creation.
The theist can tolerate the atheist but not vice versa. Why? The atheist cannot abide any challenge to his faith.
"The 'default state' (if such a thing truly existed) would be agnostic, not atheist."
*** That's true Mac... I stand (sit) corrected.
"Ask an atheist the same questions and the angry denials start spinning. When push comes to shove, the atheist believes (there's that word again) in a scenario which is just as improbable as creation."
*** The creation of the universe has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism simply means not believing in god(s). Why do you take it further and assume EVERY atheist has a particular 'creation' belief? It is not relevant to ATHEISM. *** The only "scenario" every atheist believes is that no god(s) exist.
*** And your implication that atheists get "angry" is offbase too. I'm sure there are angry atheists out there, there are angry people of EVERY type (yes, including theists!)... anger, like creation, isn't a pre-requisite of atheism and therefor is not relevant.
"The theist can tolerate the atheist but not vice versa."
*** Whatever dude... as an atheist I have no problem "tolerating" theists. I won't tolerate the topic of creationism worming it's way into biology classes though.
*** But by all means, enjoy church! Pray to god. Have a merry christmas! This atheist doesn't care! :)
15 comments:
"Intelligently designed, or lucky pond scum?"
*** The answer to that depends on what that is a picture of. The pictures you show don't give enough information to answer with accuracy (as your little 'london at night' trick clearly showed).
*** How does "pond scum" attain luck BTW? What makes it "lucky"?
*** Creationists are some of the weirdest people on the planet....
Joe Agnost
*** How does "pond scum" attain luck BTW? What makes it "lucky"?
Answer: When it gets struck by lightning and turns into Beethoven.
*** Creationists are some of the weirdest people on the planet....
Response: I know some of them.
"When it gets struck by lightning and turns into Beethoven."
*** This is why I say creationists are weird... you are either more ignorant than I though possible, or you're just plain weird.
*** Either way - creationist views about life are ridiculous...
"I know some of them."
*** "Know" some of them?? You seem to be a member in good standing!
Joe Agnost
Joe -- you are right!
Gosh, it makes a guy feel good when you hear those words, 'dun it?
I should have said,
Answer: First, a lucky explosion (a really Big One and one which just somehow contained all the necessary laws of physics built-in), followed by a lucky lightning strike, yadda, yadda, yadda, then Beethoven.
But why do you inject "luck" into it?? Luck has nothing to do with it.....
creationist views about life are ridiculous?
First there was nothing - then something somehow - even miraculously appeared. Then nothing caused this something to explode and wallah - the universe. Now that is ridiculous
"creationist views about life are ridiculous?"
*** Yes. Utterly so. Embarrassingly so. Painfully so.
"First there was nothing - then something somehow - even miraculously appeared. Then nothing caused this something to explode and wallah - the universe."
*** Let me guess... you're a creationist right? You must be because science doesn't explain it that way. That is the typical creationist (ignorant) rant. It's like looking/sounding stupid is a goal of creationism.
*** Learn a little science and you'd be amazed how beautiful it truly is.
Joe Agnost.
Wait. A. Minute.
Wallah?!
Shouldn't that be "Voila"?!
The concept of beauty, and the perception of beauty, are twin absurdities in an undesigned, unintended universe.
Another pair of surprising gaseous burps of mindless evolution.
Truly funny listening to a science apologist. Science doesn't explain anything simply because it is based only on observation. The second it steps beyond observation it becomes nothing more than speculation. Of course to hold speculation up as fact requires faith in the human speculating. Thus while the science apologist decries the observations of the religious simply because he has never experienced it shows that he is not near the scientist that he claims.
My religious points of view are not the result of indoctrination but rather shared experience. When I go back through the annals of religion particularly the Judea/Christian religion I find an amazing wealth of experiences that I share with people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Thus I ask the question whose experiments should I trust? People who look at a fossil and try to "make a story" for it or the simple experiences I have known and shared with people like Issiah, St Paul, St Augustine.
Choose this day whom you will serve. As for me and my household we shall serve Yahweh.
I've always thought it took more faith to be atheist than to believe in (insert your favorite deity) but I've had any number of atheists call me bad names which I said as much. Oh well. :lol:
"Of course to hold speculation up as fact requires faith in the human speculating."
*** I hate to break up your little party of ignorance here boys - but you really don't know what you're talking about.
*** Science doesn't deal with "facts", it deals with "evidence". There is a difference and that you make your statement lamenting that science "holds" things up as "fact" just underscores how little you actually know about science.
"it shows that he is not near the scientist that he claims."
*** I have never claimed to be a scientist. Are you trying to break the record for most untruths in one paragraph??
"My religious points of view are not the result of indoctrination but rather shared experience."
*** I'm happy for you. What's your point??
*** If you would only practice your religion with like minded individuals that would be fine. It's (especially) when religion is brought in as a viable alternative to evolution that I have a real problem.
*** I don't care if you worship Jesus or Thor... just don't expect the public to back you up.
"Thus I ask the question whose experiments should I trust?"
*** Should ~you~ trust?? I don't care. I know that I'll trust the experiments that are reproducable, make predictions with accuracy and holds itself up to scrutiny by it's peers.... In a word: science.
"I've always thought it took more faith to be atheist than to believe in (insert your favorite deity)..."
*** The fact that you can "insert" ~any~ diety into your statement with equal validity underscores just how funny your statement here is!!
*** You insert god right? I would like to point out that your statement is just as valid if you insert the 'flying spaghetti monster' as your diety of choice. Isn't that enough to show how much faith you have to have? There's as much evidence of a 'flying spaghetti monster' as there is for your god.
*** Atheism does not take faith. It's the default position - we're ALL born atheist until religion gets it's grubby little hands on us.
Joe Agnost
Sorry, Joe, you're wrong about a couple of things.
The "default state" (if such a thing truly existed) would be agnostic, not atheist. The agnostic, whether through ignorance or choice, neither denies nor acknowledges God (whichever God that happens to be) whereas the atheist denies the existence of God. How strange that one who uses the label Joe Agnost would make such an error!
It does take faith for the atheist to deny the existence of God. Faith is simply another word for belief.
Ask a theist who created the universe and they'll give you the name of their favorite deity (mine is the invisible pink unicorn... may her hooves never be shod!) and if you ask for proof, they'll willingly admit they accept such on faith.
Ask an atheist the same questions and the angry denials start spinning. When push comes to shove, the atheist believes (there's that word again) in a scenario which is just as improbable as creation.
The theist can tolerate the atheist but not vice versa. Why? The atheist cannot abide any challenge to his faith.
"The 'default state' (if such a thing truly existed) would be agnostic, not atheist."
*** That's true Mac... I stand (sit) corrected.
"Ask an atheist the same questions and the angry denials start spinning. When push comes to shove, the atheist believes (there's that word again) in a scenario which is just as improbable as creation."
*** The creation of the universe has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism simply means not believing in god(s). Why do you take it further and assume EVERY atheist has a particular 'creation' belief? It is not relevant to ATHEISM.
*** The only "scenario" every atheist believes is that no god(s) exist.
*** And your implication that atheists get "angry" is offbase too. I'm sure there are angry atheists out there, there are angry people of EVERY type (yes, including theists!)... anger, like creation, isn't a pre-requisite of atheism and therefor is not relevant.
"The theist can tolerate the atheist but not vice versa."
*** Whatever dude... as an atheist I have no problem "tolerating" theists. I won't tolerate the topic of creationism worming it's way into biology classes though.
*** But by all means, enjoy church! Pray to god. Have a merry christmas! This atheist doesn't care! :)
Happy Festivus, Joe. I've now met two atheists who don't snarl upon mention a god (or three)...
Post a Comment