Atheism versus God

by JP Cusick Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:56 pm

First topic message reminder :

It is Atheism against God but God is not against Atheism.

That is a one-sided sword which cuts only one way.

It is important to give a general definition of Atheism as like on Wikipedia HERE.

Atheism is a negative concept, as in saying "no" as in no God, no Deity, no conscious higher power, etc.

So just because some one hates Christianity then that is not Atheist, or hating the scary Muslims is not Atheist, as one must reject the presence or the reality of any God by any name or form.

I myself declare the real existence of the "Creator Father God" but to use other names for the "Theo or Thea" is fine with me.

My view is that Atheism is simply a form of self-righteousness, because without the judgements of a God then people get to create our own righteousness, and that appears to be the true motivation for being an Atheist.

Question

by polyglide Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:36 pm

If scientist know the size of the universe then just tell me where it starts and where it ends and what is on the other side of the end.

If you understand it, then explain it.

by Dan Fante Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:08 pm

You're getting mixed up with religion there, PG. Science doesn't claim infallibility.

by Norm Deplume Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:35 pm

polyglide wrote:If scientist know the size of the universe then just tell me where it starts and where it ends and what is on the other side of the end.

If you understand it, then explain it.

What I had read is that the universe could be finite but unbounded and does not have a start or end point.

By way of analogy think of Earth which is similarly finite but unbounded. Wherever you are on the surface of the planet can be thought of as the "start". But you can travel in any direction and never find an "end". You will repeatedly pass through your arbitrary origin point but you can carry on for another circuit. This may give you an idea of why your question is simplistic.

Now take it a little further and consider how it would be if the Earth were expanding like a balloon at the same time faster than you can travel. It would remain finite but you could never return to your original point.

It is possible that the above has been superseded in the light of further evidence.

by stuart torr Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:11 pm

polyglide it starts at your front door and ends at your back door.

by Dan Fante Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:16 pm

by Tosh Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:29 pm

polyglide,

As a creationist your biggest problem is common ancestry not the beginning of the universe, care to tell my why the evidence science accepts is unacceptable to you?

by stuart torr Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:49 pm

Got to admit Norm it's not as funny as mine. Laughing

by Shirina Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:19 pm

polyglide wrote:If scientist know the size of the universe then just tell me where it starts and where it ends and what is on the other side of the end.

Scientists have never claimed to know the exact size of the universe. What scientists DO know is the size of the VISIBLE universe. Light has a finite speed. The further the distance, the greater the lag time between light leaving an object and light arriving at our eyes. Therefore, no matter how good our telescopes get, there will be a certain "cut-off" distance where we won't be able to see anything at all. This is because light from those galaxies and stars simply hasn't reached us yet. This is why we can know the size of the visible universe but not necessarily the entire universe.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:48 pm

polyglide wrote:If scientist know the size of the universe then just tell me where it starts and where it ends and what is on the other side of the end.

If you understand it, then explain it.

What has that to do with your spurious claim that no one knows the size of the universe? Also why do you make claims which are clearly guess work and often false, then when they are refuted demand that the person who refutes them personally present evidence for something else?

It's always striking to me, that theists who set the bar so low for evidence of their beliefs, will deny any amount of evidence for things that contradict those beliefs.

by polyglide Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:21 pm

You are the one who says you know the size of the universe, I say you do not, nor does anyone else.

I made a simple request based on YOUR statement.

How big is the universe?.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:59 pm

polyglide wrote:You are the one who says you know the size of the universe, I say you do not, nor does anyone else.

I made a simple request based on YOUR statement.

How big is the universe?.

I never claimed to know the size of the universe, for someone who bleats endlessly that people don't read his drivel properly you don't half make a fool of yourself by not reading the posts of others properly, as you've done here. You have already been given links to current science and cosmology on the size of the known universe, Nestov posted a link, as did I, try reading peoples post and you'd not look so stupid, well maybe. Rolling Eyes

by stuart torr Tue Nov 19, 2013 3:51 pm

I have already told you polyglide, the universe starts at your front door and ends at your back, see you don't read other posts do you.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:13 pm

JP Cusick wrote:

My view is that Atheism is simply a form of self-righteousness, because without the judgements of a God then people get to create our own righteousness, and that appears to be the true motivation for being an Atheist.

Motivation? Unlike you I won't insult everyone's intelligence by claiming to know the motives of people I've not met, but as an atheist I can tell you categorically that my motivation for not believing in God is the complete lack of any credible evidence for the existence of a deity, and the obvious human propensity for creating them, coupled with the obviously erroneous claims that humans have made for, and on behalf of, these Gods in their religious writings and scriptures. As for the rejection of belief in a deity being arrogant, I don't think it can approach the kind of arrogance required to believe that the universe was created with us in mind, or the arrogance of claiming to know what that creator thinks and wants.

by stuart torr Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:33 pm

Should have heard a J.W. talking yesterday Sheldon, who said jesus christ was resurrected in 1940, boy did I have a word or two with him. Laughing

by Norm Deplume Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:57 pm

stuart torr wrote:Should have heard a J.W. talking yesterday Sheldon, who said jesus christ was resurrected in 1940, boy did I have a word or two with him.

1940? Ridiculous. Every Rasta will tell you he was born in 1892.

by polyglide Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:03 pm

Dr Sheldon.
You have evry right to your opinion and others have every right to disagree.
Evolution is a theory with no real foundation or there would be no need to discuss the subject.

As theories go you could build a ladder to the moon and a man could walk his way there.

The probability and possibility of doing so are the same as evolution being the cause of all life.

The odds of an eye for instance becoming about by chance is many times the odds accepted as impossible, then we have the heart, the lungs, and all the other organs necessary for life.

Accumalate those odds of even one comming about by chance and then multiply by all the others and you have odds that you are unable to calculate.

You take Christianity and it answers every question asked.
regards.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:39 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr Sheldon.
You have evry right to your opinion and others have every right to disagree.
Evolution is a theory with no real foundation or there would be no need to discuss the subject.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:This is absurdly wrong. A scientific theory is no more 'just' a theory than a speed boat is a rowing boat, and I never cease to be stunned that educated people in the 21st century trot out this appalling nonsense.

As theories go you could build a ladder to the moon and a man could walk his way there.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again the absurdity of the claim is eclipsed by the absurdity of not knowing that a scientific theory is not 'just a theory' there really is no excuse for pedalling such ignorance in this day and age.

The probability and possibility of doing so are the same as evolution being the cause of all life.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Ah, you don't even know what a scientific theory is and now you're making claims as absolutes about one that has stood up to 150+ years of scientific scrutiny, and every single time amassed and validated more evidence. I can only suggest you turn down antibiotics if ever they are prescribed as their validity is based entirely on evolutionary science, as is an enormous amount of medical research and medicines, but I'm sure they'll abandon the billions of dollars of R&D and all the medicines and treatments immediately you trot out your little ladder story. Dear oh dear PG this is risible stuff.

The odds of an eye for instance becoming about by chance is many times the odds accepted as impossible, then we have the heart, the lungs, and all the other organs necessary for life.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:More 'expertise', this is one of the oldest and most tired creationist clichés there is, it is absurdly stupid, and utterly without merit. If you bothered to even learner the basics you'd know that every single stage of development of an eye can be seen on living creatures right now, from a light sensitive group of cells right through to the fully evolved eye, and every stage in between. Nor did the eye develop entirely by chance, another popular misnomer pedalled by ignorant creationist who really ought to be embarrassed at such idiocy. What are the odds btw? I'm prepared to bet you haven't a clue as it's the kind of rank dishonesty that creationist parrot without actually bothering to think critically about what they're swallowing as true. the irony is palpable

Accumulate those odds of even one comming about by chance and then multiply by all the others and you have odds that you are unable to calculate.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Accumulate what, you've given no odds? If you ever get around to doing so I suggest you do the calculations yourself, get it peer reviewed then published, and collect your Nobel prize. You really ought to educate yourself a little on the subject your attacking PG as this kind of woeful creationist propaganda is laughable I'm sorry.

You take Christianity and it answers every question asked.
regards.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Not even close, it's a simple superstition that substitutes belief in an unknown labelled as god to avoid examining difficult questions. It's absurdity is matched only by it's stunning lack of proper evidence.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:07 am

polyglide wrote:Dr Sheldon.

The probability and possibility of doing so are the same as evolution being the cause of all life.

Evolution didn't cause life, you're showing that you haven't even a basic understanding of evolution. Evolution shows how the diversity of life came about, it has nothing whatever to do with how life started. This is another of those spurious creationist red herrings.

by polyglide Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:45 pm

Dr Sheldon,
So far as I am aware the evolutionists believe that life started by amino acids etc; and from there evolved into all animal and plant life, single cells etc; etc; little pools of water etc; etc;

Let us not argue on evolution as I have already said, evolution is a fact.

What the million dollar question is, how did life start.

Dr Sheldon,
As replies go I have seen more appropriate response from children.

Every eye in any animal is exactly that needed for it to comply with it's existance and God's intention.

An eagle for instance could not see it's prey with the eye of a human, there are animals that have no eyes, the reason
being they do not need them to live the life intended.

I have said that evolution takes place but only in that which already exists and the whole point is where did life originate and not what man has used it for.

I am aware of what the scientist say as regarding the source of life, amino acids, little pools of hot water and all such nonsense.

The diversity of life came about because Satan has intefered with life as created by God, in order to give the ignorant a chance to refute the truth.

A scientific theory is a notion thought up by a person based on what he/she feels to be the facts although the facts cannot be confirmed or it would be a fact and not a theory.

You have not explained the creation and life cycle of a butterfy, have you.

Let me put you in the picture.

A butterfly lays an egg on the underside of a leaf on a particular tree, it cannot be any tree just the one.

This egg hatches and becomes a caterpillar and then a crysalis after constructing it and hangs there until it turns into a butterfly.

Now just explain how this happened by stages and how the tree was the only one that could be used etc; and how evolution can explain it.

by polyglide Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:29 pm

Odds regarding enzymes and the place they take in evolution for them to act as some scientists think.

10 to the power of 40,000

Odds regarding DNA relevant to same 10 to the power of 243.

Read Henry M Morris Ph. D.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:53 am

polyglide wrote:Dr Sheldon,
So far as I am aware the evolutionists believe that life started by amino acids etc; and from there evolved into all animal and plant life, single cells etc; etc; little pools.

One more time, evolution makes no claims whatever about the origins of life. This is a piece of creationist propaganda God of the gaps argument.

The rest is mainly the spurious use of another erroneois creationist argument or irreducible complexity. It's been roundly refuted many times.

If your arguments had even one shred of scientific validity then evolution would have been refuted.

When did this happen? Where was the news coverage? Who accepted the Nobel prize?

You're living in a delusional dreamworld where you pick and choose which bits of science to accept. Then make bare claims about angels demons and satan.

Let's see YOU evidence those to the same standard evolution had been validated.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:18 am

polyglide wrote:Odds regarding enzymes and the place they take in evolution for them to act as some scientists think.

10 to the power of 40,000

Odds regarding DNA relevant to same 10 to the power of 243.

Read Henry M Morris Ph. D.

Could you link the peer reviewed paper that asserts this and concludes it refutes evolution please?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:46 am

polyglide wrote:Odds regarding enzymes and the place they take in evolution for them to act as some scientists think.

10 to the power of 40,000

Odds regarding DNA relevant to same 10 to the power of 243.

Read Henry M Morris Ph. D.

What are the odds they were created instantly by magic without leaving a single shred of tangible evidence except a deeply flawed collection of bronze age superstitions?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:56 am

polyglide wrote:

Dr Sheldon,
As replies go I have seen more appropriate response from children.

Every eye in any animal is exactly that needed for it to comply with it's existance and God's intention.

An eagle for instance could not see it's prey with the eye of a human, there are animals that have no eyes, the reason
being they do not need them.

Your somewhat arrogant response is rather ironic given your inability to grasp even the most basic concepts of evolution. The finished eye matches the environment because millenia of minute changes occurred, with the vast majority failing and either being eradicated by natural selection or leading to extinction.

Your parroting of irreducible complexity from crwstionists just shows how woefully ignorant of evolution you are.

Try asking yourself if it's true why not one scientist has ever managed to get this peer reviewed and publpublished.

World fame a Nobel prize and the gratitude of every religion on the planet await, even I suspect the religions that would have to make yet another embarrassing u turn on evolution.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:06 pm

Let's deal with some of the more common lies, misconceptions, and ignorance that creationist polemic uses.

1. Evolution doesn't show how life originated and is therefore falsified.
This is oddly quite a common argument creationists trot out, given how obviously silly it is. Evolutionary science deals only with the development of living things, it does not makes any assertions about the origins of life.

Though bare claims that it was started by supernatural magic based on bronze age superstition should really speak for themselves to any intelligent remotely educated person.

2. Irreducible complexity. The favourite example of creationidt apologists here is the eye, as ee see from PG's post.

It's a spurious argument that has been refuted by science, but put in the simplest possible terms. ..

A single light sensitive cell can give a life form an advantage in certain environments, enough of an advantage so that such genes could be expected to prosper. The different environments, and the vast timescales involved are what produce enough attempts to produce the many stages of the evolution
of an eye. A good book by one of evolutions foremost experts on this is "Climbing Mt Improbable".

3 The odds against a complete human dna evolving by chance negates the possibility of evolution being true.

This of course is the 747 gambit creationists love. It's so silly an argument because it misunderstands basic principles of evolution. For instance complex organisms didn't evolve all at once but by gradations over enormous timescales. This rather silly creationist argument ignores the fact that the the vast majority of species end in extinction and the ones we see today are the end product of lottery after lottery where each win builds on the last. No one hands back a lottery win because they have defied the odds and with good reason, as the one winner is matched to an enormous amount of losers. So PG's use of this creationist cliché is spurious because the odds though long are not being defied in reality.

I shouldn't need to add that claiming the whole of life and it's myriad species being created and 'managed' by supernatural magic ofof one deity is hardly a more rational explanation and is not evidenced at all. Though it does immediately beg the question why would a being with omnipotence need evolution? Which also begs the question why such a deity would leave out any mention of evolution in its biblical message? The obvious answer is that the Bible is entirely human in origin and its writers were entirely ignorant of evolution.

by polyglide Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:51 pm

You are stating what the eye can do not how it was created.

Your understanding of theory also leaves much to be desired.

Theory ;- a "suposition" Speclutive fanciful views etc. as the dictionary which 'I' accept the meaning of words from.

arrogance;- presumtuous.

You obviously do not understand the former but are adept at the latter.

If you consider just the odds of the DNA resulting from that which the evolutionists put forward they are such as to be many times that accepted as possible.

The odds are calculated by scientists not by me and are on sounder ground than evolution as a means of life.

It is how life was created that is the basis of everthing else.

I have no dispute that evolution takes place but that which evolves was not as a result of evolution.

There are far sounder grounds for intelligence to be involved in creation than anything else, if you were to see the most basic machine you would not in a million years think intelligence was not involved in it's making.

You can quote as many scientists as you wish that are as deluded as you, they once thought the world was flat and have on numerous occasions been proven to be way, way, off the mark.
. as they are about creation.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:37 pm

polyglide wrote:You are stating what the eye can do not how it was created.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It wasn't created, that's the fact you seem determined to ignore.

Your understanding of theory also leaves much to be desired.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What theory? Please tell me this isn't yet another lame attempt to dishonestly claim a scientific theory is just a theory, as you're embarrassing yourself.

You could easily stop this display of ingorance by just Googling it, but faith is clearly blind so I'll do it for you..

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

Theory ;- a "suposition" Speclutive fanciful views etc. as the dictionary which 'I' accept the meaning of words from.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:As I said this clumsy lie is so obviously fasle you should be embarrassed, I thought honesty was considered part of being a Christian it seems it can be picked up or discarded as the fancy takes you, just like your use of science.

arrogance;- presumtuous.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It's not me that is claiming to know what an omnipotent creator of everything thinks and wants, but if hurling insults makes you happy knock yourself out.

You obviously do not understand the former but are adept at the latter.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Sigh...

If you consider just the odds of the DNA resulting from that which the evolutionists put forward they are such as to be many times that accepted as possible.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So you said, and I asked you to produce the peer reviewed scientific paper that validates your claim? Surely we can expect you to at least produce one piece of evidence of the calibre that has been published to validate evolution countless times over 150 years of scientific scrutiny, or is it the usual made up dishonest BS creationists love to tout as science? Your ball.....

The odds are calculated by scientists not by me and are on sounder ground than evolution as a means of life.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Excellent, then you should be able to cite that scientific peer reviewed paper and tell us all when the news is going to break that evolution has been refuted and when the scientist(s) will receive his Nobel prize?

First though perhaps you can tell us why after this paradigm altering revelation you earlier claimed evolution was a fact? As you're not being very consistent.

It is how life was created that is the basis of everthing else.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It wasn't created, that's just wishful thinking based on ancient and unevidenced superstition.

I have no dispute that evolution takes place but that which evolves was not as a result of evolution.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What? You've done nothing but dispute it, as you've done again above with your claim life was created, or are you claiming your chosen deity created microbial life and then evolved it over millions of years? If so why? I mean your religion claims your deity is omnipotent after all, and the bible claims he did it in 6 days, so which is it?

There are far sounder grounds for intelligence to be involved in creation than anything else, if you were to see the most basic machine you would not in a million years think intelligence was not involved in it's making.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Machines are not organic, you really are determined to trot out the very worst creationist cliches aren't you.

You can quote as many scientists as you wish that are as deluded as you, they once thought the world was flat and have on numerous occasions been proven to be way, way, off the mark.
. as they are about creation.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So accepting scientifically validated evidence is deluded to you? Whereas claiming that an ancient bronze age superstition is the immutable word of an omnipotent omniscient deity is rational. Have you ever heard of Orwellian Doublethink? The church championed a geocentric universe for thousands of years, and it took a scientific empiricist to disavow them of that howler, and they promptly threatened to try Galileo with heresy.

Come on surely you can do better than these petty insults?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:45 am

We're still waiting for you to cite one single peer reviewed scientific paper that either refutes evolution or validates creationism. The silence after your fairly bombastic claims about delusional scientists doesn't look good.

Nor have you answered any of the questions I posed.

by polyglide Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:31 am

A theory however presented is just that, a theory and as the dictionary explains it is fanciful in many cases just as evolution as the source of life is.

I, as I have stated previously,I agree that things evolve, technology has evolved beyond all expectations during the past 100 years but that which has evolved was first created in it's first form.

You are either less understanding of the English written word or purposely obtuse.

Read Henrey M Morris Ph.D for an explanation why evolution is a none goer.

The only dispute is the origin of life and not what happen since God created it.

You talk about science, then consider one of the calculations made by scientists.

The odds of the theory regarding enzymes playing a part in evolution, a major part according to some scientists, are 10 to the power of 40,000.

Now I do not know your appreciation of math but I earned my living using them and believe me the odds are many, many times, those accepted, by scientists, as being impossible

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:51 pm

polyglide wrote:A theory however presented is just that, a theory and as the dictionary explains it is fanciful in many cases just as evolution as the source of life is.
Dr Sheldon Cooper Phd wrote:No one other than you is claiming evolution is a theory, it's a scientific theory, and that's an entirely different definition as you have been shown, not that you couldn't just Google it yourself, so why lie? I thought Christian beliefs were supposed to place large emphasis on honesty?

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. Note this last sentence... This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)."

I, as I have stated previously,I agree that things evolve, technology has evolved beyond all expectations during the past 100 years but that which has evolved was first created in it's first form.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:And as I said technology is not organic, so your analogy is asinine, and since you've ignored this more than once I have to assume it's either dishonest or you're too lazy to even read my posts?

You are either less understanding of the English written word or purposely obtuse.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: Hahahhahahahahaha, thanks for the belly laugh.

Read Henrey M Morris Ph.D for an explanation why evolution is a none goer.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Excellent, so now you don't believe evolution, you need to make up your mind as your constant u turns are making your posts look rather silly. Now once again can you cite the peer reviewed published piece of evidence this "scientist" produced and tell us when he can expect his Nobel prize, when the RCC is due to recant it's admission that evolution is a fact, and of course why you have claimed more than once that evolution is true, but now do yet another about turn? You're either not understanding what you're posting or are simply trolling, which is it?

The only dispute is the origin of life and not what happen since God created it.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Another claim that is axiomatically false, you yourself claimed there was evidence that evolution was a none goer in your last sentence, oh dear. Again your attempt to make bare claims about deities and magic based on bronze age superstition is not at all compelling, and certainly doesn't come close to representing evidence, despite your repetition of the claim.

You talk about science, then consider one of the calculations made by scientists. The odds of the theory regarding enzymes playing a part in evolution, a major part according to some scientists, are 10 to the power of 40,000.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Another repetition you refuse repeatedly to evidence, so once more could you please link the peer reviewed published paper for this claim.......though of course the claim doesn't refute evolution, something else you seem unable to grasp.

Now I do not know your appreciation of math but I earned my living using them and believe me the odds are many, many times, those accepted, by scientists, as being impossible
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:ah, another bare claim without any attempt to evidence it, does this kind of bluff and bluster work on the kids in Sunday school?

Please link the peer reviewed paper blah blah blah etc etc etc, I tire of asking now as it's quite clear you either don't have even a bsaic grasp of how science works, or are simply dishonestly bluffing, do I seem like I bluff easily?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:53 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:We're still waiting for you to cite one single peer reviewed scientific paper that either refutes evolution or validates creationism. The silence after your fairly bombastic claims about delusional scientists doesn't look good.

Nor have you answered any of the questions I posed.

We're still waiting PG, and every response that tries to use bluster instead of admitting you can't offer any evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny just makes you look more and more dishonest and desperate.

by polyglide Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:15 am

Dr. Sheldon,
If I could prove beyond doubt that God exists in a manner that you could understand then there would be no need to even consider the evolution.

Just as if you could prove creation through evolution the same would prevail;.

You admit that you have no idea how things were created only that evolution takes place, I agree evolution takes place but only to things already created.

Anything that exists must have been created one way or another and that is the most significant matter.

by stuart torr Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:09 pm

One thing is for sure and that is enzymes play a huge role in evolution, in four different ways at least.
All you have to do is check it out on your computer PG.
They are part of the things that helped life get created in the first place.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:25 am

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
If I could prove beyond doubt that God exists in a manner that you could understand then there would be no need to even consider the evolution.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:it's not a question of understanding,you have no proper evidence and the same broad claims of faith and personal experience are made from Zeus and Ball to Jesus and Mohammed .
Just as if you could prove creation through evolution the same would prevail;.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I'm afraid you're still not understanding this, evolution makes no claims whatever about the origins of life. The two topics are not connected except by people like yourself who wish to disingenuous suggest a lack of conclusive evidence for the origins of life somehow negates the fact of evolution. It does not of course, as evolution is sufficiently evidenced to stand on its own.

You admit that you have no idea how things were created only that evolution takes place, I agree evolution takes place but only to things already created.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You have zero evidence for creation. I have repeatedly asked you to cite just one single peer reviewed scientific paper that validates your claim in the hope this fact would sink in. What's more the claims your religion makes about creationism is puerile nonsense that is utterly refuted by proper scientific evidence.

Anything that exists must have been created one way or another and that is the most significant matter.

Again this is simply a subjective unevidenced claim. No different to claiming Thor or Appollo did it.

by polyglide Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:34 am

HI Stu,
Yes I agree that they do play a major part in creation but not evolution, I have already quoted the odds as calculated by the scientists that explain the theory is not possible.

If my memory serves me correctly I believe they are 10 to the power of 40,000, not an insignificant number when you think the odds accepted as impossible are many times less.

DNA is also an evidence that all things were created and not by chance.

Of course man's DNA is close to some other living things but that is confirmation that all things were created by the same means and it must be that some DNA is very close to others.

Each animal and plant if left alone and without man's interferance will produce it's like, mutations through defective chromosomes etc; will die and never foprm another species, confirming that intelligence and means beyond out comprehension must be involved.

A human who has never seen a motor car before would not have a clue how it came about with all the technology involved but we know there is a simple answer.

by polyglide Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:46 am

DR.Sheldon.
Read Duane Gish Ph.D.

Read, The Greatest Deception in Modern History

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:01 am

polyglide wrote:DR.Sheldon.
Read Duane Gish Ph.D.

Read, The Greatest Deception in Modern History

Duane Tolbert Gish (February 17, 1921 – March 5, 2013[1]) was an American biochemist and a prominent member of the creationist movement.[2] A Young Earth creationist, Gish was a former vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)

Why? It's blatantly obvious he's voicing the same subjective unevidenced claims you are or you'd not cite him. His opinion is just that unless mainstream science has validated his assertions, have they? If so then cite that work not a book based on his own subjective opinion.

I have already asked you several times to cite just one single peer reviewed scientific paper that validates creationism.

Your silence on that is most edifying.

by polyglide Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:27 am

Dr. Sheldon

Read the Book.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:33 am

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon

Read the Book.

PG why? The author is a YEC. They're basing their opinions on bronze age superstition.

Now can you are can you not cite any scientifically validated peer reviewed evidence for creationism?

by polyglide Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:21 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Please read Rev. William Williams, New Jersy, USA.

His account of evolution is as relevant today as ever.

He explains the way in which odds of anything being a fact, Compound Mathamatical Probability and puts this to the test regarding evolution.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:05 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Please read Rev. William Williams, New Jersy, USA.

His account of evolution is as relevant today as ever.

He explains the way in which odds of anything being a fact, Compound Mathamatical Probability and puts this to the test regarding evolution.

What are his conclusions? If you're claiming they in any way show evolution to be a guided force, or part of creationist beliefs then I'll reiterate again, there is not one shred of validated scientific evidence for the assertion that evolution is guided by anything supernatural, or to support creationism.

As for odds, well calculating the odds on a horse race isn't science is it? If these odds you refer to represented compelling evidence then creationists could get such evidence peer reviewed and published, but they have never done so, not once, that should make my point but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge this fact.

The mechanisms that drive evolution are environmental, and of course natural selection. These are scientifically validated, unlike creationism which is not. You keep citing theists and creationists who offer opinions that are not scientifically validated, I have no interest in these as I am an atheist and base my acceptance of evolution on the fact that it stands up to scientific scrutiny. The fact that a very minute number of people with some scientific credentials put those credentials aside in favour of their religious beliefs to dispute scientific fact is of no interest to me.

by Sponsored content