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 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 stuart torr Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:56 pm

Sheldon, something makes me feel that you and PG are at opposite sides of the fence when it comes to religion, and also evolution and how we were created mate. Laughing

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:28 pm

stuart torr wrote:Sheldon, something makes me feel that you and PG are at opposite sides of the fence when it comes to religion, and also evolution and how we were created mate.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment mate. I was just reading his posts in the thread on homophobia. He's a lost little soul I'm afraid, and he's not showing any signs that he wants to join reality any time soon. What strikes me about theists who deal in moral absolutes is how casually they condemn with prejudice those who don't fit their bronze age vision of morality.

It's very sad that people who think they are 'fighting the good fight' are in fact so often doing the opposite. As for JP Cusick, his opening post says it all really. Anyone who rejects his beliefs is in his opinion acting on hatred, though just how one hates what doesn't exist I don't know.

by stuart torr Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:59 pm

I know Sheldon, loving and hating the same non existent being. Strange behaviour from people. Laughing

by polyglide Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:57 am

Dr. Sheldon.
I am not homophobic, one of my friends who is one of the best organists around is both a friend and a homosexual.

I also have other friends the same.

My thought regarding this matter is based on what is normal and what is not.

I have no desire to go further as it can become out of hand, iot has nothing to do with creation as such.

by polyglide Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:27 am

Dr. Seldon.
The Rev. Williams explains very clearly numerous examples regarding evolution being false in many respects.

As for odds.

Consider a baker making a cake.

The ingredients are :-

Rough grained flour, butter, currants, raisins, crushed nuts, cherries and icing.

He bakes an example cake.

What are the odds that any other cake ever produced will be exactly the same as the original?.

Would any currant be in exactly the same place as one in the original, same position etc; would the nuts that were spinkled on the top be the same in number and be in exactly the same position etc;

The odds of any one of the ingrediants ever being in exactly the same position are great when compounded with all the other ingrediants are beyond calculation.

But as with humans all would be cakes as all humans are humans but all different but made in exactly the same way as God made man.

DNA would support this.

by polyglide Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:49 am

Hi Stu,
I thought I had explained the dinosaurs.

God created Jesus and though him other entities with creative powers.

Some of whom decided to have some fun of their own and go against God.

They ceated many ceatures for their own pleasure, some came down to earth, read Mathew, amongst them were the dinosaurs, instant creation being the only reasonable explanation.

God allowed this for a time and then called time and destroyed all that which they had created, that this happened is well documented in fossils etc;

The loving animals that God had created and been contaminated by the other entities were allowed to stay but still had the bad habits,however, God has promised to make all animals the same as he intended once Satan has been dealt with.

by polyglide Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:59 am

Hi Stu,
I have done this in two parts because I get half way through and the thing goes blank and I have difficulty enough without having to repeat.

The time scales we use are man made, to God a day is as thousands of years etc;

This in itself confuses mant issues.

In my opinion the best way to consider matters is through that which we do actually know.

We can see that the conditions that were said to become have become a reality.

Brother fight brother, pestilance, earthquakes, famine, nations turning against the Jews, etc; it is all there in the Bible.

Just look at the world today Stu, think what it would be like if things were as God promised, you were healthy in every respect, no need to worry about having a knife in your back, every animal you could give a cuddle to and everyone repected and loved one another.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:10 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon.
I am not homophobic, one of my friends who is one of the best organists around is both a friend and a homosexual.

I also have other friends the same.

My thought regarding this matter is based on what is normal and what is not.

I have no desire to go further as it can become out of hand, iot has nothing to do with creation as such.

Your claim is slightly incongruous with your comments in the other thread. Homosexuality is an evolved trait like everything else and research which shows it be perfectly natural among other species indicates it is a mechanism to reduce aggressive competition for partners when male or female populations are imbalanced.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:14 pm

polyglide wrote:Hi Stu,
I thought I had explained the dinosaurs.

God created Jesus and though him other entities with creative powers.

Some of whom decided to have some fun of their own and go against God.

They ceated many ceatures for their own pleasure, some came down to earth, read Mathew, amongst them were the dinosaurs, instant creation being the only reasonable explanation.

God allowed this for a time and then called time and destroyed all that which they had created, that this happened is well documented in fossils etc;

The loving animals that God had created and been contaminated by the other entities were allowed to stay but still had the bad habits,however, God has promised to make all animals the same as he intended once Satan has been dealt with.

Leaving aside the fact you are making bare unevidenced claims again, Jesus if he existed wasn't born until hundreds of millions of years after dinosaurs became extinct.

I suppose it's pointless to ask for anything approaching tangible evidence for these 'entities '?

Or to ask why a purportedly benevolent and omnipotent deity allowed mass predation?

Or again to ask why the same deity related none of this in Genesis?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:19 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Seldon.
The Rev. Williams explains very clearly numerous examples regarding evolution being false in many respects.

As for odds.

Consider a baker making a cake.

The ingredients are :-

Rough grained flour, butter, currants, raisins, crushed nuts, cherries and icing.

He bakes an example cake.

What are the odds that any other cake ever produced will be exactly the same as the original?.

Would any currant be in exactly the same place as one in the original, same position etc; would the nuts that were spinkled on the top be the same in number and be in exactly the same position etc;

The odds of any one of the ingrediants ever being in exactly the same position are great when compounded with all the other ingrediants are beyond calculation.

But as with humans all would be cakes as all humans are humans but all different but made in exactly the same way as God made man.

DNA would support this.

I'm not sure I can make this any simpler or clearer. But he's just offering his own subjective opinion based on his own beliefs. unless you can point to anew evidence he's had peer reviewed and published?

Then of course you'd have to explain why this paradigm shifting 'scientific' breakthrough has gone unnoticed by the world of science and the world's press and the Nobel committee.

DNA incidentally entirely validates Darwinian evolution.

You're still using your spurious polemic about odds I see. It's a well known logical fallacy called the 'lottery winner fallacy ' that despite being thoroughly debunked remains popular amongst ignorant and or dishonest creationists.

by stuart torr Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:08 pm

To tell you the truth Sheldon, I didn't answer PGs post this time as it made no sense to be honest, I do not like saying that regarding a fellow poster on this forum, on the other I would not mind.
But what the hell have dinosaurs got to do with the bible? because they are definitely not mentioned in it are they?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:15 pm

stuart torr wrote:To tell you the truth Sheldon, I didn't answer PGs post this time as it made no sense to be honest, I do not like saying that regarding a fellow poster on this forum, on the other I would not mind.
But what the hell have dinosaurs got to do with the bible? because they are definitely not mentioned in it are they?

The mental gymnastics some theists perform in order to rationalise the hokum in the Bible is truly astonishing. Just why anyone looks for an explanation beyond the author of the text belonging to an era that were entirely ignorant of the existence of dinosaurs I really can't fathom. Rest assured that Occam'so razor applies to such idiotic complications of the facts.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:17 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
stuart torr wrote:To tell you the truth Sheldon, I didn't answer PGs post this time as it made no sense to be honest, I do not like saying that regarding a fellow poster on this forum, on the other I would not mind.
But what the hell have dinosaurs got to do with the bible? because they are definitely not mentioned in it are they?

The mental gymnastics some theists perform in order to rationalise the hokum in the Bible is truly astonishing. Just why anyone looks for an explanation beyond the author of the text belonging to an era that were entirely ignorant of the existence of dinosaurs I really can't fathom. Rest assured that Occam's razor applies to such idiotic complications of the facts.

by polyglide Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:53 am

Dr Sheldon,

Were there to be an event that destroyed the earth and all things were buried, then consider the following:-

After the event little cells formed by an imaginary method developed into life similar to present day humans.

They attempt to solve the existing problems of history and in particular where they originated.

They start digging in where London existed.

They find numerous examples of previous life.

Evidence of all the animals kept in London Zoo, all the different nationalities of humans Etc; Etc;

We know that the answer is simple to all that they find but they would come up with all the nonsense like Darwin.

by polyglide Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:31 am

DR. Sheldon,
You refer to homosexuality as a natural thing, presumably those that way inclined can do nothing about and society should make allowances etc;

So lets take this all the way.

If sexual preferences are natural then please explain the following:-

You cannot say one is natural and the others not and the same consideration must be given to all.

Sexual preferences:-
Hetrosexual.
Lesbianism
Homosexual
Sadism
Paodophile
Animal
Rape
Self Satisfaction.

Now all should be treated the same according to your logic.

So please give the answer for those who have not already been catered for.

by snowyflake Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:35 am

Hey Doc, what happened to you?

by snowyflake Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:45 am

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
You refer to homosexuality as a natural thing, presumably those that way inclined can do nothing about and society should make allowances etc;

So lets take this all the way.

If sexual preferences are natural then please explain the following:-

You cannot say one is natural and the others not and the same consideration must be given to all.

Sexual preferences:-
Hetrosexual.
Lesbianism
Homosexual
Sadism
Paodophile
Animal
Rape
Self Satisfaction.

Now all should be treated the same according to your logic.

So please give the answer for those who have not already been catered for.

Most people are heterosexual. A small proportion are homosexual. Homosexuality is not harmful to anyone else between consenting adults. Masturbation (self-satisfaction) harms no one. Sadomasochism (dominance-submission) harms no one if practised between consenting adults. While it might be extreme to some people's sensibilities it is a) between consenting adults b) none of your business. If people want to spank the crap out of each other to get their jollies what is it to you? It is not a crime or illegal to do so.

Rape, bestiality and paedophilia are crimes and largely down to the matter of consent. If a couple wish to play act a rape scenario because that turns them on, what is it to you? Children are not in a position to give consent and are therefore exploited if used sexually. It has been shown to cause harm both psychologically and physically and therefore has rightfully been legislated as a criminal act.

What happens between consenting adults is none of your business. You are in no position to judge, nor should you use your religious beliefs to judge others.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:21 am

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
You refer to homosexuality as a natural thing, presumably those that way inclined can do nothing about and society should make allowances etc;

So lets take this all the way.

If sexual preferences are natural then please explain the following:-

You cannot say one is natural and the others not and the same consideration must be given to all.

Sexual preferences:-
Hetrosexual.
Lesbianism
Homosexual
Sadism
Paodophile
Animal
Rape
Self Satisfaction.

Now all should be treated the same according to your logic.

So please give the answer for those who have not already been catered for.

I see snowyflake has given a thorough explanation of how stupid it is to compare consensual sex between adults with criminal assault abuse and exploitation.

The fact you see these as in any way analogous with being gay is deeply worrying and speaks for itself.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:24 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
You refer to homosexuality as a natural thing, presumably those that way inclined can do nothing about and society should make allowances etc;

So lets take this all the way.

If sexual preferences are natural then please explain the following:-

You cannot say one is natural and the others not and the same consideration must be given to all.

Sexual preferences:-
Hetrosexual.
Lesbianism
Homosexual
Sadism
Paodophile
Animal
Rape
Self Satisfaction.

Now all should be treated the same according to your logic.

So please give the answer for those who have not already been catered for.

I see snowyflake has given a thorough explanation of how stupid it is to compare consensual sex between adults with criminal assault abuse and exploitation.

You claimed being gay was unnatural I cited scientific research which showed otherwise. I made no comment on whether a natural act was moral or legal. So again you've simply leaped to a false conclusion based on religious bigotry. I wonder how your organist friend would feel about the groups you've just compared him to?

The fact you see these as in any way analogous with being gay is deeply worrying and speaks for itself.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:27 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
You refer to homosexuality as a natural thing, presumably those that way inclined can do nothing about and society should make allowances etc;

So lets take this all the way.

If sexual preferences are natural then please explain the following:-

You cannot say one is natural and the others not and the same consideration must be given to all.

Sexual preferences:-
Hetrosexual.
Lesbianism
Homosexual
Sadism
Paodophile
Animal
Rape
Self Satisfaction.

Now all should be treated the same according to your logic.

So please give the answer for those who have not already been catered for.

.

You claimed being gay was unnatural I cited scientific research which showed otherwise. I made no comment on whether a natural act was moral or legal. So again you've simply leaped to a false conclusion based on religious bigotry. I wonder how your organist friend would feel about the groups you've just compared him to?

The fact you see these as in any way analogous with being gay is deeply worrying and speaks for itself.

by polyglide Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:06 pm

DR Sheldon.
The dictionary which I believe is the basis for all our interpretations regarding any matter, clearly defines homosexuality as abnormal activity, if you refute this, then on what grounds.

by polyglide Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:12 pm

DR. Sheldon,
Once again you miss the whole point.

If the DNA or RNA are responsible for particular characteristics, then the person has no choice.

However, you cannot pick and choose.

Either all are not resonsible for their actions or all are.

I am not making a judgement on any but making a valid point.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:25 pm

polyglide wrote:DR Sheldon.
The dictionary which I believe is the basis for all our interpretations regarding any matter, clearly defines homosexuality as abnormal activity, if you refute this, then on what grounds.

It would enormously help your cause if you looked it up instead of guessing. As the OED defines homosexuality as

"Sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex."

It should also be noted that you said it was unnatural,not abnormal. Two very different things. You're very much at sixes and sevens here. Care to explain why something not being the norm is an issue here in the way you discriminate against gay people?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:33 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
Once again you miss the whole point.

If the DNA or RNA are responsible for particular characteristics, then the person has no choice.

However, you cannot pick and choose.

Either all are not resonsible for their actions or all are.

I am not making a judgement on any but making a valid point.

On the contrary it is you who is missing the point spectacularly. Is it deliberate?

Care to show where I have mention either DNA or RNA? However since you make the claim, perhaps you'd like to show proper scientific evidence that sexual preference is affected by genes?

In the mean time it's worth noting that you " don't judge" between harmless consensual sex between adults and deeply insidious sexual assaults. I'm afraid I do judge the latter even if you don't.

It's odd that you can't see how consent or the lack of it involves someone being hurt or harmed, very odd indeed.

Can we at least now hear you acknowledge your error in claiming homosexuality as unnatural? As you make these sweeping claims so often then when they're repudiated go off at a tangent rather than acknowledging you were wrong.

by polyglide Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:04 pm

DR Sheldon,
Firstly, it was you who stated that scientists had proven DNA determines ones sexual preferences through animals etc;

How stupid can one get?.

Read the definition of homosexual in the dictionary.

Homosexuality, a perversion.

This makes according to the accepted meaning of the word those engaged in, it perverts.

I would have no disgreement with being called a pervert if I was one and thought my being so was justified.

I make no judgement, I do not make up the meaning of words, we all, sane people, accept the meaning of words as detailed in the dictionary and the dictionary says that homosexuality is not normal.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:14 pm

polyglide wrote:DR Sheldon,
Firstly, it was you who stated that scientists had proven DNA determines ones sexual preferences through animals etc;
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No it wasn't, that's not even close to what I posted, learn to read or stop guessing. Or both.

How stupid can one get?.
Dr SC wrote:I'm not sure it's quantifiable but your arguments are certainly providing some salient data.

Read the definition of homosexual in the dictionary.

Dr SC wrote:I just quoted the OED definition in my post FFS, you really would test the patience of job. Is this idiocy deliberate?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:22 pm

Polyglide wrote: This makes according to the accepted meaning of the word those engaged in, it perverts.

Charming. Leaving aside your inability to read the Oxford English dictionary even when it's quoted for you, that's a charming example of religious bigotry.

Again I wonder how your organist 'friend'would feel about you describing him in this way. Your attitude is as detestable as it is stupid.

by polyglide Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:47 pm

DR> Sheldon,
I do not know which dictionary you use but mine says Homosexuality is :-

Lets not argue about Homosexual.

Look at the word pervert, you could not get a clearer definition that homosexuality is abnormal.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:54 pm

polyglide wrote:DR> Sheldon,
I do not know which dictionary you use but mine says Homosexuality is :-

Lets not argue about Homosexual.

Look at the word pervert, you could not get a clearer definition that homosexuality is abnormal.

Of course you don't know, even though I've said specifically that I was quoting the OED each time.

You also appear to not know the difference between normal and natural. It's becoming increasingly clear that illiteracy is playing a large part in the confused ad hoc nonsense you've posted here.

Your prejudice is appalling.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:56 pm

I also notice that you again lack the integrity to acknowledge your misrepresentation of my post where you claimed that I had posted scientific proof that DNA influenced sexuality when I'd made no mention of DNA or genetics.

You're have no shame.

by polyglide Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:19 pm

DR Sheldon.
Abnormal, Not normal, deviating from the usual etc;

Natural, Produced by nature, etc; it has 22 different meanings and usuage.

You can try and twist every way possible, homosexuality is not normal, nor if you look at the real revelance to homosexuality is it natural other than happening in the way that thousands of other perversions occur which does not make it either good or bad but just a perversion, which is not normal.

by polyglide Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:22 pm

Nor natural.

by snowyflake Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:55 pm

polyglide wrote:DR Sheldon.
The dictionary which I believe is the basis for all our interpretations regarding any matter, clearly defines homosexuality as abnormal activity, if you refute this, then on what grounds.

Homosexuality: A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

Doesn't say anything about it being abnormal. What dictionary are you using polyglide? Oxford Homophobix?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:30 pm

polyglide wrote:DR Sheldon.
Abnormal, Not normal, deviating from the usual etc;

Natural, Produced by nature, etc; it has 22 different meanings and usuage.

You can try and twist every way possible, homosexuality is not normal, nor if you look at the real revelance to homosexuality is it natural other than happening in the way that thousands of other perversions occur which does not make it either good or bad but just a perversion, which is not normal.

Could you please stop lying, or quote the post where I said homosexuality was the norm?

Do you think left handed people are perverts, or Olympic athletes? They're not normal either, this is cretinous stuff from you it really is, and all so you can wriggle away from your claim that homosexuality is not natural, when there is plenty of research which shows it is precisely that. At least you've stopped pretending you're not prejudiced against gay people, that ship has sailed.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:35 pm

polyglide wrote:Nor natural.

Is that why research has shown that homosexual behaviour is prevalent amongst many different animal species? Your religious bigotry and prejudice is based on the bronze age, science has moved on.

Here are some links if you want to stop basing your prejudice on superstition and educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

http://listverse.com/2013/04/20/10-animals-that-practice-homosexuality/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

That's scientific research, not mumbo jumbo superstition, give it a try.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:42 pm

Homosexuality

Definition of homosexual in English:
ADJECTIVE

1 Sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.

That's the OED definition, but please let us all know what dictionary you're claiming offers your bigoted prejudiced definition.

by polyglide Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:04 pm

DR. Sheldon,
Please read your dictionary.

The abnormal refers only to sexual preferences in perversion.

As I said previously, stop reading the Dandy.

As for animals, I have kept numerous different animals so my conclusions are based on what I know to be fact and not speculation.

An animal will behave according to the circumstances in which it resides.

I do not need a scientist or anyone else to tell me, I have actually experienced the differences that take place according to the circumstances.

If all things are idea the animal will conform to the original intention that God created them for.

Man has made matters change to the extent that very few areas concerning any kind of life are as was intended.

Treat anything in a manner that it was not created for and you will have different results according to the changed circumstanses.

I do not expect you to understand this as you are apparently unable to understand anything.

by polyglide Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:14 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Whilst we are at it.

I have made both nuts and bolts on a centre lathe and so I know the nuts and bolts of how things are made.

You say evolution is not applicable to anything other than life forms, or words to that effect.

Evolution is relevant to anything that goes from one stage to another.

Take a raft and all the stages that have taken place until you have the large acean liners, every stage that took place was a step in evolution.

Read the Oxford dictionary regarding evolution.

Every animal that can only produce it's like, which is all animals, are the creation of God, if not prove it by an alternative.

by polyglide Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:37 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
You continually request information relating to evolution as opposed to creation, then consider the following:-

Atheism is so senseless- Sir Isaac Newton.

Louis Pasteur, strongly opposed Darwins theory.

Read Don Batten.

Lord Kelvin, The atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words.

Read. Werner Van Braun.

I can quote many other such examples from people who are regarded as knowing their stuff.

Other relevantcies, missing links, Second law of Thermodynamics, Living things can only come from other living things, Darwin agreed that it was improbable that the eye could come from nothing,Complex systems do not evolve bit by bit.
mutations contrary to evolution. etc; etc;

When you have digested the above, I will give you sounder objections to evolution.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:38 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
Please read your dictionary. The abnormal refers only to sexual preferences in perversion.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No it doesn't you're again embarrassing yourself. And for the gazzillionth time I have never claimed homosexuality to be the norm you fruitloop.

As I said previously, stop reading the Dandy.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Ah petty ad hominem again, grow up man, these constant petty insults are pathetic, especially since most of the content of your posts are beyond cretinous.

As for animals, I have kept numerous different animals so my conclusions are based on what I know to be fact and not speculation.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:PERSONAL OPINION AND EXPERIENTIAL EVIDENCE ARE NOT FACTS YOU PLANK, dear oh dear, why do you think science bothers to offer it's evidence and claims up for scrutiny if all we had to do was consult the opinion of the almighty polymath that is polyglide.

The scientific research I cited was linked, your own egotistical claims to knowledge is worthless unless you can cite the scientific publication that validated it after it was peer reviewed....next

I do not need a scientist or anyone else to tell me,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Of course not, who the hell do these Einsteins', Hawkins' and Darwins' think they are compared to your towering intellect, Jesus wept words fail me.

If all things are idea the animal will conform to the original intention that God created them for.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Another piece of guff that Hitchen's razor applies neatly to.

Man has made matters change to the extent that very few areas concerning any kind of life are as was intended.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:While an omniotent god sat idly by, and exchanged messages with bronze age bedouins about 6 day creationism and men made by magic from clay in a geocentric universe, seek help, seriously.

I do not expect you to understand this as you are apparently unable to understand anything.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Oh I'm sure we can all see my mediocre intellect is no match for a sagacious polymath like yourself.

Alternatively, your posts are utter gibberish, there's nothing cogent to understand, and if you want to believe this ludicrous claptrap knock yourself out, but making cretinous assumptions based on bronze age ignorance isn't my thing.

by Sponsored content