Evolution is a lie

[dad]

Well, no, not quite. In that form masses are treated as point masses, not extended masses, so you can't account for certain observations like perihelion precession.

Also, Newtonian gravity doesn't hold when the gravitational potential and velocity of the objects involved begin to approach the speed of light.

Gravity as Newton perceived it cannot be proven to even exist far from earth.

 

[dad]

Excellent line, mind if I use it? It will engenfer howls of laughter, so I promise not to mention you as the source.

Feel free. It helps picture the absurdity that has come to be called science today, and their actual claims.

 

[Grizzly]

Feel free. It helps picture the absurdity that has come to be called science today, and their actual claims.

And the irony that you used a simple keyboard to transmit your message about the absurdity of science around the globe (in an instant!) is duly noted.

 

[dad]

What I really find ironic is that all the other fruits of science are accepted as truth and are used to better our lives by the same people who say that evolution is a lie...

How much evolving has gone on since computers or cars or even trains or telescopes have been invented?? I mean really? Evolving is not an issue. The issue is not science or what it does. The issue is the godless dream world where stars and men supposedly evolved from sweet nothing. There is no evidence that evolving is responsible for the creation of kinds and men. None. Evolving and adapting went on I believe, but after we were here and already created with the ability to evolve. Since that used to be real real real fast, it confuses some modern arm chair speculators on the past and what evolved when.

 

[Non sequitur]

Turtles all the way down.

I LIKE TURTLES.

 

[AV1611VET]

As for us, if we don't have a clue, we can at least say that.

The thing is though, you guys are good at playing Clue™ at almost everything, including the moon, which has six different endings to the game.

A lack of knowledge is not something to be ashamed of.

Eyes ain't shamed -- eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

And we certainly feel no need to fill a gap of knowledge with magical thinking.

Is that why there's more missing links in evolution than there are feet to the moon and back?

 

[Jazer]

And the irony that you used a simple keyboard to transmit your message about the absurdity of science around the globe (in an instant!) is duly noted.

Sounds like you have science and technology mixed up and confused.
Of course people get evolution mixed up and confused with real science.

 

[CabVet]

Sounds like you have science and technology mixed up and confused.
Of course people get evolution mixed up and confused with real science.

Technology wouldn't be here if it wasn't for science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Technology wouldn't be here if it wasn't for science.

Christa McAuliffe would.

Was the trade worth it, in your opinion?

 

[CabVet]

Christa McAuliffe would.

Was the trade worth it, in your opinion?

Not sure what trade you are referring to, but most definitely worth it.

 

[CabVet]

Christa McAuliffe would.

Was the trade worth it, in your opinion?

Come to think of it, Christa McAuliffe would not be here if it weren't for science either, since Europeans wouldn't have found the Americas and there would be no US of A, no New Hampshire and no McAuliffe family.

 

[AV1611VET]

Come to think of it, Christa McAuliffe would not be here if it weren't for science either,

She's not.

 

[CabVet]

She's not.

Yep, along with the 2,000+ people that died in 9/11 because of religion.

 

[ChristianT]

Not true either, many people were killed by atheists because of their religious beliefs. Communist China and the USSR come to mind. Bottom line is, people kill people, not "science" or "religion".

yep, truth in textual form.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

That's Bologna.

An honest atheist would agree that he believes God doesn't exist. He accepts the statement "God does not exist" as true. Belief. Non-belief is something agnostics have (which is just that, not a belief-meaning they either have no opinion or they choose not to answer because they don't want to form an opinion). Even then, there is no such thing as a non-belief, because it's either you believe A, maybe A, maybe !A, or you believe !A, you can't !believe A or !believe !A, that'd just be antithetical.

Using the correct philosophical definitions, I am an agnostic atheist and likely the majority of everyone who calls themselves an atheist or an agnostic is as well. I am an atheist because I don't believe in God, and I am agnostic because I am not sure if God exists. Read up on the position here.

Atheism/theism is about believing, agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowing. You can mix and match. You're either an agnostic (you don't know if God exists) or gnostic (you know God exists) theist (you believe in God).

If you persist in claiming that atheism = gnostic atheism ("I do not believe in God, and I know God doesn't exist"), you prove how little you know about atheism, philosophy, and the words we use to describe the differences between belief and knowledge.

 

[ChristianT]

Using the correct philosophical definitions, I am an agnostic atheist and likely the majority of everyone who calls themselves an atheist or an agnostic is as well. I am an atheist because I don't believe in God, and I am agnostic because I am not sure if God exists. Read up on the position here.

Atheism/theism is about believing, agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowing. You can mix and match. You're either an agnostic (you don't know if God exists) or gnostic (you know God exists) theist (you believe in God).

If you persist in claiming that atheism = gnostic atheism ("I do not believe in God, and I know God doesn't exist"), you prove how little you know about atheism, philosophy, and the words we use to describe the differences between belief and knowledge.

So you'll be the first to sign the petition to encourage American schools to teach philosophical ideologies and the thought processes so more people can understand the world better?

So is the existence of the Loch Ness monster a belief or a non-belief?

C. None of the above;
D. Science or non-science
[CIRCLE]
E. Both "C" and "D"
[/CIRCLE]

Is the existence of the SilkySlinker on the other side of Mars a belief or a non-believe?

Again, science, telescopes, a tinge of government (if they are keeping it a secret, a.k.a. conspiracy), and irrational kicking and screaming

You think that because you believe in something every one must believe in something.

That would be evidence of a working brain, so I don't believe that, I hope for that, knowing not everyone does.

Atheist do not believe in gods because they have not been given any scientific reasons to believe in gods.

Correct.
Some are also atheists because they want to rebel against God (crazy, I know, but people like that do exist).
Some are also atheists (get this) because their parents are! Now atheism is as dangerous to youth as religion is! (0, just wanting to inform advocates of neoatheism, which strongly dislikes religion and anyone within, basically religophobes)

 

[ChristianT]

Why did you add the word 'scientific'?

Because most actually were given reasons, they just either deny them as reasons, say the reasons are invalid, or simply because the reasons cannot be validated by science. If a person were given scientific evidence of God, they'd "believe." Which even then, is not enough, but because no such thing exists (scientific God fingerprint, which is even debatable about DNA, other arguments for ID), they dismiss anything else as insufficient.

what reasons were you given?

Logic, experience, text, intricate design of the universe, the clues mentioned in said text, verified by the "real world," and common sense, which is basically more logic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheist do not believe in Gods because they have not been given any reasons to believe in Gods.

Do you believe in the existence of the Mariana Trench, even though all you have is two-dimensional software at your disposal?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Do you believe in the existence of the Mariana Trench, even though all you have is two-dimensional software at your disposal?

You should ask James Cameron.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Because most actually were given reasons, they just either deny them as reasons, say the reasons are invalid, or simply because the reasons cannot be validated by science. If a person were given scientific evidence of God, they'd "believe." Which even then, is not enough, but because no such thing exists (scientific God fingerprint, which is even debatable about DNA, other arguments for ID), they dismiss anything else as insufficient.



Logic, experience, text, intricate design of the universe, the clues mentioned in said text, verified by the "real world," and common sense, which is basically more logic.

Arguments from incredulity are fallacious.