An atheists world (3)

[bhsmte]

Who ever claimed that it was perfect?

To adapt a quote from AronRa: "Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."

I get a kick out of these guys looking so hard for stuff to show that science can be wrong. At the same time, they are putting a hope in this ID theory which has no science, no theory and to them, has all kinds of evidence behind it.

You gotta love the double standard that cognitive dissonance spawns.

 

[EternalDragon]

I get a kick out of these guys looking so hard for stuff to show that science can be wrong. At the same time, they are putting a hope in this ID theory which has no science, no theory and to them, has all kinds of evidence behind it.

You gotta love the double standard that cognitive dissonance spawns.

It uses the same science and evidence that anyone else has. How can it not? You just want to claim that so it somehow can be dismissed. So much for open science discovery....going where the evidence leads and all that.

Evolution theory needs an update.

 

[Loudmouth]

It uses the same science and evidence that anyone else has.

Used how?

So much for open science discovery....going where the evidence leads and all that.

Indeed. You have already shown that you have reached a conclusion before looking at the evidence, and that no evidence will change your mind. No shared genetic markers or transitional fossils will convince you. No pattern of characteristics will convince you. You will consider any and all observations to be consistent with a creator. Follow the evidence indeed. Why don't you try it sometime?

 

[bhsmte]

It uses the same science and evidence that anyone else has. How can it not? You just want to claim that so it somehow can be dismissed. So much for open science discovery....going where the evidence leads and all that.

Evolution theory is an old, outdated idea.

Back up what you just said with evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

So, how would we test that? You may as well say Bob is our creator.

we don't know now do we?

A false dichotomy while conflating the big bang with abiogenesis? Comical.

nope, false dichotomy is only when there are more than 2 options. Currently there aren't.

What I believe is not on the table right now

running from responsibility?

 

[createdtoworship]

So what evidence, if found, would disprove a creator?

big bang model where nothing explodes is an alternate theory if proven.

it's just not proven yet. But it is falsifiable.

 

[lasthero]

big bang model where nothing explodes is an alternate theory if proven.

Strawman. That's not what the Big Bang model proposes.

 

[Davian]

To the best of my awareness.

Are you being totally honest with us?

No, it is my understanding that my 'formation' was the product of natural processes.

They arranged for their individual genetic material required for conception to get in close enough proximity for the process to happen. Look it up on the internet. It's everywhere. I believe that the moderators would frown on the posting of visual aids at this point.

Please cite the biology textbook where you got that idea from.

Do you think biological reproduction involves magic?

A monkey and billions of years would probably just give you a dead monkey. What are you talking about?

So are you not going to respond to my post?

If oxygen, a electrical charge, and fluids is all we need to sustain life, why can't we create life?

Where did you get the idea that "oxygen, a electrical charge, and fluids" is all that is needed to sustain life, and that is also what is needed to "create" life?

Try this video.

Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins - YouTube

You could also read his book:

Robert Hazen, on Google Books:

Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins - Robert Hazen - Google Books

(the first 35 pages are available for preview)

Excerpted from page 28-29:
"Once-doctrinal distinctions between plants and animals or between single-celled and multicellular organisms have become similarly blurred.
Attempts to formulate an absolute definition that distinguishes between life and nonlife represents a similar false dichotomy. Here's why. The first cell did not just appear, fully formed with all its chemical sophistication and genetic machinery. Rather, life must have arisen through a sequence of emergent events - diverse processes of organic synthesis, followed by molecular selection, concentration, encapsulation, and organization into diverse molecular structures. The emergence of self-replicating molecules of increasing complexity and mutability led to molecular evolution through the process of natural selection, driven by a competition for limited raw materials. That sequential process is an organizing theme of this book."

is it not true the heart of a fetus begins to beat around three weeks, yet it's not known How? ( I would like to know)

No, I don't think you want to know. That would require initiative, effort, reading a book, and/or taking some classes on biology. I doubt you will even watch the above video.

 

[createdtoworship]

Does google not work in you part of the interwebs? A google search for "transitional hominid" and "transitional birds" worked for me.

Dino to bird:

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ancestral ape to man:

Evolution -- Transitional Hominids

wikipedia has a 60% error rate

Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Mail Online

as far as the other link:

everything that has a shovel face slope is ape like

everything that has a large nose ridge is human like (because of lack of shovel face).

that should clear up all that are homo genus and all that are of the ape genus.

homo habilus is one I haven't seen before , it would probably be the one exception that all of the homo genus are human like. That one has a shovel face so it would put it back in ape family.

 

[Split Rock]

wikipedia has a 60% error rate

Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Mail Online.

Having a factual error in 60% of the articles on Wikipedia does not constitute a "60% error rate."

 

[createdtoworship]

Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. That's it. If someone does not have a positive belief in a deity then they are an atheist. Agnostics are atheists.



I think Bertrand Russell put it best:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

that was actually not what was being said.

that is non sequitur.

doesn't follow the conversation.

what was being said was that

"if you can't know anything for sure, how do you know that for sure? (skepticism)?
In other words how do you know for sure that you can't know anything for sure?
You can't be a skeptic about everything because that means you would have to doubt skepticism. The more you doubt skepticism the more sure you become. "

-n geisler

 

[createdtoworship]

Having a factual error in 60% of the articles on Wikipedia does not constitute a "60% error rate."

please expand

 

[EternalDragon]

Used how?



Indeed. You have already shown that you have reached a conclusion before looking at the evidence, and that no evidence will change your mind. No shared genetic markers or transitional fossils will convince you. No pattern of characteristics will convince you. You will consider any and all observations to be consistent with a creator. Follow the evidence indeed. Why don't you try it sometime?

Wrong. I have looked at the evidence, heard both sides and decided which conclusion best fit the evidence. Similarities does not mean evolution. It could but ID fits the evidence better.

I think one of us is totally dismissing the possibility of a creator, thereby limiting possible alternate conclusions.

 

[lasthero]

please expand

Family Guy Go on - YouTube

 

[OllieFranz]

Nope, false dichotomy is only when there are more than 2 options. Currently there aren't.

There are not 2 options. There is either only one option, or there are many options. If you insist on treating ID as a legitimate contender, then you should also consider YEC, OEC, Gap Theory, the personal theories of AV and Aron, the Mormon cosmology and the Islamic version(s) of creation. They can't all be right.

 

[Ssup]

wikipedia has a 60% error rate



as far as the other link:

everything that has a shovel face slope is ape like

everything that has a large nose ridge is human like (because of lack of shovel face).

that should clear up all that are homo genus and all that are of the ape genus.

homo habilus is one I haven't seen before , it would probably be the one exception that all of the homo genus are human like. That one has a shovel face so it would put it back in ape family.

What's the error rate ot the Daily Mail?

 

[lasthero]

I have looked at the evidence, heard both sides and decided which conclusion best fit the evidence.

You say this, but all indications show that you either weren't paying attention to what the other side had to say, or you never actually looked in the first place. You routinely make mistakes and misunderstand things about evolution and basic biology in general that anyone who's taken even the most basic classes would understand.

 

[StormanNorman]

wikipedia has a 60% error rate

Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Mail Online

as far as the other link:

everything that has a shovel face slope is ape like

everything that has a large nose ridge is human like (because of lack of shovel face).

that should clear up all that are homo genus and all that are of the ape genus.

.

Gosh, we didn't you say so in the first place. That would have saved all these expert paleontologists so much time, pain, and effort; just ask some true believer on a religious forum and wala, you've got your answer.

 

[Davian]

So, how would we test that? You may as well say Bob is our creator.

A false dichotomy while conflating the big bang with abiogenesis? Comical.

What I believe is not on the table right now.

we don't know now do we?

Is that a retraction of your "definition"?

nope, false dichotomy is only when there are more than 2 options. Currently there aren't.

There is always another option: We don't know.

running from responsibility?

Where did I do that?

Do you have anything more than just being argumentative?

 

[Split Rock]

please expand

If I write 15 artticles and each has one error in it, you would call that a 100% error rate. That is absurd.