Questions For Darwinists

[JGL53]

In biology, Intelligent Design Theory evolved from the Darwinian religion.

Yes, and your notion of invisible agency is doomed to extinction, like the Dodo bird. OTOH, evolution will continue as it has, for billions of years.

There is no such thing as a "Darwinian religion".

And it is not "intelligent design theory", rather it is "imaginary design false inference."

LOL.

 

[Freysinn]

I'm sure you would.

After all, higher academia ultimately teaches that the Jews were "ignorant, Bronze Age, goat herders".

Scientism is a very dangerous religion.

Lmao!! What is scientism?...

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Lmao!! What is scientism?...

I can't speak for AV but I interpret scientism as being a fundamentalist religious cult belief that atheist scientists are infallible and have a monopoly on truth.

The corollary to this is that Wikipedia should be treated as infallible holy scriptures that can never be questioned.

So for example, scientism states that viruses can give birth to humans, meteorites do not exist because they are in the Bible, parthenogenesis is impossible because Mary was a virgin, the Milky Way is the entire universe because Harlow Shapley said so, etc.

 

[Freysinn]

I think you have no idea what your'e talking about.

What causes gravity?


You've obviously ignored everything I've posted.

Actually i havent, you just didnt post anything that was revelant to your statements, now that you have posted that video, i think you are implying that it supports your case, please explain how it supports it.

In biology, Intelligent Design Theory evolved from the Darwinian religion.

Adding the word theory, does not make it scientific. Intelligent Design, is far from scientific. Because the creators of intelligent Design already had a preconceved idea and then helplessly scouerd for evidence, finding nothing but "irreducable complexity" which has been numerously proven false . So no it is not a theory, nor has it replaced evolution, or "darwinian religion" as you would like to call it.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I can't speak for AV but I interpret scientism as being a fundamentalist religious cult belief that atheist scientists are infallible and have a monopoly on truth.

The corollary to this is that Wikipedia should be treated as infallible holy scriptures that can never be questioned.

So for example, scientism states that viruses can give birth to humans, meteorites do not exist because they are in the Bible, parthenogenesis is impossible because Mary was a virgin, the Milky Way is the entire universe because Harlow Shapley said so, etc.

The best piece of nonsense I've read in a while. I really want to meet one of these followers of 'scientism'.

 

[FreezBee]

The best piece of nonsense I've read in a while. I really want to meet one of these followers of 'scientism'.

So do I, but I am afraid they are all members of the empty set.

- FreezBee

 

[Freysinn]

I can't speak for AV but I interpret scientism as being a fundamentalist religious cult belief that atheist scientists are infallible and have a monopoly on truth.

Again lmao! I asure you science is not a religion, this reminds me of a quote from dan barker which goes:

"Scientists do not join hands every Sunday and sing "Yes gravity is real! I know gravity is real! I will have faith! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about the concept."
— dan barker.

The corollary to this is that Wikipedia should be treated as infallible holy scriptures that can never be questioned.

Wikipedia has whidely acsessable information, but i do not consider it holy scripture of any sorts, and they even post sources, when most Holy scripture does not, like your bible, which i belive you should question a lot more.

So for example, scientism states that viruses can give birth to humans, meteorites do not exist because they are in the Bible, parthenogenesis is impossible because Mary was a virgin, the Milky Way is the entire universe because Harlow Shapley said so, etc.

No we do not believe viruses, can give birth to humans, its ridiculous, insted we(most atheists) accept the theory of evolution... No just because one scientist, that was wrong, stated that "flying rocks from heaven" was ridicoulus does not mean that this is the opinion of all atheists dismiss the idea of metiorites instantly. Yes, women who havent had sex can not give birth to a baby, but there are probably some ways to bypas it. No we do not think the MIlky Way is the entire universe, where the freak did you get that idea?!.




Note: This was all wrote under the assumption that he is atheism as a whole "fundamentalist religious cult belief that atheist scientists are infallible and have a monopoly on truth."

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

No we do not believe viruses, can give birth to humans, its ridiculous

I agree evolution is ridiculous.

women who havent had sex can not give birth to a baby

How do you know that?

Because the Pope of Atheism Richard Dawkins told you so?

Actual science says otherwise.

Trivedi, B.P., The End of Males? Mouse Made to Reproduce Without Sperm, National Geographic News, Apr 2004

Vogel, G., Japanese Scientists Create Fatherless Mouse, Science, Volume 304, Number 5670, Pages 501 - 503, Apr 2004

Pearcy, M., et al., Conditional Use of Sex and Parthenogenesis for Worker and Queen Production in Ants, Science, Volume 306, Number 5702, Pages 1780-1783, Dec 2004

Watts, P.C., et al., Parthenogenesis in Komodo Dragons, Nature, 444, Pages 1021-1022, Nov 2006

Highfield, R., No Sex Please We're Lizards, Daily Telegraph, Dec 2006

Virgin Shark Gives Birth, Live Science, May 2007

Eilperin, Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone Researchers Find, The Washington Post, May 2007

Pogatchnik, S., Female Sharks Capable of Virgin Birth, Associated Press via MSNBC, May 2007

Fountain, H., Female Shark Reproduced Without Male DNA Scientists Say, The New York Times, May 2007

Captive Shark Had 'Virgin Birth', BBC, May 2007

Mayell, H., Shark Gives 'Virgin Birth' in Detroit, National Geographic News, Sep 2007

Szkotak, S., Scientists Confirm Shark's ‘Virgin Birth’, Associated Press via MSNBC, Oct 2008

As you can see the Bible is a prescient scientific treatise that was aware of scientific realities thousands of years before mainstream science.

No we do not think the MIlky Way is the entire universe, where the freak did you get that idea?!

The atheist pseudoscientist crackpot from Harvard University, namely Harlow Shapley.

 

[laconicstudent]

I agree evolution is ridiculous.

We agree that your strawman representation of Evolution certainly is ridiculous. Evolutionary Theory, the real one, not the absurdity that has animals giving birth to members of other clades, is quite fine.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

We agree that your strawman representation of Evolution certainly is ridiculous. Evolutionary Theory, the real one, not the absurdity that has animals giving birth to members of other clades, is quite fine.

So you don't think that all life on Earth evolved from viruses, which evolved from mythological soup, which evolved from nothing?

 

[Freysinn]

I agree evolution is ridiculous.

Well thats your opinion, but to clear up any misconception about evolution: EVOLUTION DOES NOT CLAIM THAT VIRUSES SUDDENLY GIVE BIRTH TO HUMANS! You are obviously not qualified to make an informed decision about the subject of evolution.

How do you know that?

Because the Pope of Atheism Richard Dawkins told you so?

No actually not, it's really just comon sence that says that if you dont have sex you wont have children, unless im unaware of observed acurance in humans that allows them to have a child in such fashion.

Actual science says otherwise.

edit: I see, so you think god is a scientist that used a lab to create jesus then impregnate mary?

The atheist pseudoscientist crackpot from Harvard University, namely Harlow Shapley.

If indeed he did state that the milky way is the entire universe, what makes you think other atheists believe him?

 

[laconicstudent]

So you don't think that all life on Earth evolved from viruses, which evolved from mythological soup, which evolved from nothing?

No, once again, that isn't what I said. Although you are correct that we most certainly didn't evolve from viruses.

 

[FreezBee]

I agree evolution is ridiculous.

Who claims that humans evolved from vira?

How do you know that?

Because the Pope of Atheism Richard Dawkins told you so?

Actual science says otherwise.

Trivedi, B.P., The End of Males? Mouse Made to Reproduce Without Sperm, National Geographic News, Apr 2004

Vogel, G., Japanese Scientists Create Fatherless Mouse, Science, Volume 304, Number 5670, Pages 501 - 503, Apr 2004

Pearcy, M., et al., Conditional Use of Sex and Parthenogenesis for Worker and Queen Production in Ants, Science, Volume 306, Number 5702, Pages 1780-1783, Dec 2004

Watts, P.C., et al., Parthenogenesis in Komodo Dragons, Nature, 444, Pages 1021-1022, Nov 2006

Highfield, R., No Sex Please We're Lizards, Daily Telegraph, Dec 2006

Virgin Shark Gives Birth, Live Science, May 2007

Eilperin, Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone Researchers Find, The Washington Post, May 2007

Pogatchnik, S., Female Sharks Capable of Virgin Birth, Associated Press via MSNBC, May 2007

Fountain, H., Female Shark Reproduced Without Male DNA Scientists Say, The New York Times, May 2007

Captive Shark Had 'Virgin Birth', BBC, May 2007

Mayell, H., Shark Gives 'Virgin Birth' in Detroit, National Geographic News, Sep 2007

Szkotak, S., Scientists Confirm Shark's ‘Virgin Birth’, Associated Press via MSNBC, Oct 2008

As you can see the Bible is a prescient scientific treatise that was aware of scientific realities thousands of years before mainstream science.

Your references are about ants, mice, and sharks, not humans.

The atheist pseudoscientist crackpot from Harvard University, namely Harlow Shapley.

Harlow Sharpley made the claim that the Milky Way comprised most of the universe back before Edwin Hubble's discovery of the galactic red shift.


- FreezBee

 

[ReverendDG]

I agree evolution is ridiculous.

well of course, i mean if you think all the nonsense you spew is truly evolution, no wonder you think it's ridiculous, good thing you are completely wrong.

How do you know that?

Because the Pope of Atheism Richard Dawkins told you so?

there is no evidence of it happening.

Actual science says otherwise.

Trivedi, B.P., The End of Males? Mouse Made to Reproduce Without Sperm, National Geographic News, Apr 2004

Vogel, G., Japanese Scientists Create Fatherless Mouse, Science, Volume 304, Number 5670, Pages 501 - 503, Apr 2004

Pearcy, M., et al., Conditional Use of Sex and Parthenogenesis for Worker and Queen Production in Ants, Science, Volume 306, Number 5702, Pages 1780-1783, Dec 2004

Watts, P.C., et al., Parthenogenesis in Komodo Dragons, Nature, 444, Pages 1021-1022, Nov 2006

Highfield, R., No Sex Please We're Lizards, Daily Telegraph, Dec 2006

Virgin Shark Gives Birth, Live Science, May 2007

Eilperin, Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone Researchers Find, The Washington Post, May 2007

Pogatchnik, S., Female Sharks Capable of Virgin Birth, Associated Press via MSNBC, May 2007

Fountain, H., Female Shark Reproduced Without Male DNA Scientists Say, The New York Times, May 2007

Captive Shark Had 'Virgin Birth', BBC, May 2007

Mayell, H., Shark Gives 'Virgin Birth' in Detroit, National Geographic News, Sep 2007

Szkotak, S., Scientists Confirm Shark's ‘Virgin Birth’, Associated Press via MSNBC, Oct 2008

awesome, though i've known this happens for years now, they are all good examples of evolutionary mechanisms
plus there is nothing on humans here, just natural instances and scientists doing what they do.
heck we can splice dna already and create a female-female child, though i don't think there could be a male child there.

As you can see the Bible is a prescient scientific treatise that was aware of scientific realities thousands of years before mainstream science.

dude there is nothing in the bible that is scientific at all, you just continue to mistake philosophy and mythology for science.
jesus being born without a father is impossible naturally, that is why it is a sign of gods power, even people back then realized this, why can't you?

The atheist pseudoscientist crackpot from Harvard University, namely Harlow Shapley.

yes years before hubble! who cares what an out of date quote says? i don't.
at least if you are going to try to make a point make a real one.

 

[ArteestX]

How come we don't observe any new animals evolving?
How come abiogenesis has never been observed in nature or the laboratory?

For the same reason we haven't observed a mountain eroded away.
For the same reason we haven't observed the formation of a valley by a glacier.
For the same reason we haven't observed a 6 km-wide meteor strike the Earth.
For the same reason we haven't observed a rock become grains of sand.

Doesn't mean there isn't evidence for all these events, including evolution.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Your references are about ants, mice, and sharks, not humans.

Well at least you admit humans are not animals.

That's a good first step.

Harlow Sharpley made the claim that the Milky Way comprised most of the universe back before Edwin Hubble's discovery of the galactic red shift.

Harlow Shapley tried to cover-up the evidence.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

dude there is nothing in the bible that is scientific at all

Why do you think heliocentrism, meteorites, parthenogenesis are unscientific?

 

[Ellinas]

Forgive me for calling a spade a spade.

What should I call people who believe in Darwinism if not Darwinists?

I also believe in the Atomic Theory; Am I an ATOMIST?

Scientific theories are not faith based nor are they rigid like religions. Science is not a religion. It is obvious that you have wrongly associated Science with religion.

For your information:

Every single molecule comprising your body is made up of chemicals and elements; none of which are alive! Evolution does not claim Abiogenesis! Pray tell me one single chemical in your body that is alive! ONE! This alone proves that you came from non living matter. Unless of course you have the ridiculous idea that organic chemicals are alive?

The Theory of Evolution is the most peer reviewed and scrutinised theory and has passed with flying colours.

You are trying to use misinformation to further your beliefs. This is not only wrong but it is immoral.

Do not judge something you know nothing about!

Also stop baiting! the fish ain't biting today!

 

[Ellinas]

Why do you think heliocentrism, meteorites, parthenogenesis are unscientific?

The bible does not claim Heliocentrism. Far from it, it claims the earth to be the centre of the universe.
Meteorites are Meteors that have landed on a solid body. There is nothing strange about them! Parthenogenesis has been observed in some life forms. It is possible in humans but the chances are so remote that it is considered almost an impossibility. It would take some freak mutations to occur for a human egg to self replicate and end up an embryo without a sperm or donor DNA.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I also believe in the Atomic Theory; Am I an ATOMIST?

Yes.

People who believe in atoms are called atomists.

" ... if one must believe Poseidonius, the ancient dogma about atoms originated with Mochus, a Sidonian, born before the Trojan times. However, let us dismiss things ancient." -- Strabo, geographer, 7

Scientific theories are not faith based nor are they rigid like religions. Science is not a religion. It is obvious that you have wrongly associated Science with religion.

I disagree.

"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all." -- G. K. Chesterton, writer, Orthodoxy, Chapter III: The Suicide of Thought, 1909

"All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual .... The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic." -- G. K. Chesterton, writer, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"As for science and religion, the known and admitted facts are few and plain enough. All that the parsons say is unproved. All that the doctors say is disproved. That's the only difference between science and religion there's ever been, or will be." -- G. K. Chesterton, writer, Manalive, 1912

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'" -- Max Planck, physicist, 1932

Every single molecule comprising your body is made up of chemicals and elements; none of which are alive!

That's because I have soul.

Evolution does not claim Abiogenesis!

Yes it does.

Pray tell me one single chemical in your body that is alive!

There are bacteria in my stomach that are alive.