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 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 Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:47 pm

polyglide wrote: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.

If you wish to try and claim that Darwinian evolution is applicable to nuts and bolts then I will not interfere with the hilarity of such idiocy, many here no doubt work as hard as I do and deserve a good laugh at the end of a busy day.

For the record I accept that some nuts have evolved, both the literal ones and metaphorical ones.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:57 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
You continually request information relating to evolution as opposed to creation,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No I haven't, again you've just made this up.

Atheism is so senseless- Sir Isaac Newton.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Is this the same Isaac Newton who believed in astrology and alchemy, he was wrong about those as well, in case you're wondering what I think here, as opposed to making wild speculative guesses.

Louis Pasteur, strongly opposed Darwins theory.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:...and his "opinion" has been proved wrong by the evidence, next

Read Don Batten.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Read him yourself, blimey.

Lord Kelvin, The atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So he couldn't even put a cogent argument together for his claim, you're not really getting the hang of this are you?

Read. Werner Van Braun.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No thanks.

I can quote many other such examples from people who are regarded as knowing their stuff.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Bully for you, unfortunately you haven't the intelligence to grasp that it's not their stuff they're offering a personal opinion on. So I'll pay it the same credence I would medical advice from my mechanic, or car maintenance tips from my Dr. You alternatively are free to continue to believe whatever superstitious claptrap you want.

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.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Already digested some time ago, and answered some time ago, but you go on ignoring the fact that these creationist propaganda show pieces have never ever managed to pass scientific scrutiny. I'm sure if you shout loud enough you'll convince some hapless moron.

by polyglide Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:56 am

DR. Sheldon,
Moron ?.

Do you actually know what a moron is?.

I have stated previously that what I am interested in is how life came about and not little changes that occur from time to time through a break down of DNA in chromosomes etc;

Any change to date that can be verified does not result in a new life form, just a mutation and these invairibly die before reaching maturity and do not produce their like.

If you believe evolution explains life, then just answer the question I have asked previously, tell me how the complicated life cycle of a butterfly evolved, stage by stage, one wing, one leg, half an eye etc; eic;

The examples I gave will show that at no time has any fossil or other evidence been found to substanciate anything other than instant creation.

There would not be millions but countless examples of all kinds of inbetweenies, yet there is not one.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:46 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
Moron ?.

Do you actually know what a moron is?.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yes,if you're not sure look it up.

I have stated previously that what I am interested in is how life came about
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No you're not, you have accepted as absolute fact a bronze age explanation based on superstition and have no interest in anything else that contradicts it in any way. That's obvious from your posts.

Any change to date that can be verified does not result in a new life form, just a mutation and these invairibly die before reaching maturity and do not produce their like.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:There you go, publish that get it peer reviewed and receive your Nobel prize and I'll happily accept it. Until then I'll continue to point out that you're simply spouting superstitious nonsense which science has refuted repeatedly.

If you believe evolution explains life
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I don't, I never have done, I've repeatedly said so. It only explains the how life evolved into the diversity we see today. Why you must repeat this lie I don't know? I have repeatedly told you where you can educate yourself on evolution. It's a massive subject so asking me to post it here is just an obvious red herring.

The examples I gave will show that at no time has any fossil or other evidence been found to substanciate anything other than instant creation.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:A blatant lie. Do you really think I am unaware of the thousands of transitional fossils science has unearthed? Save this nonsense for the gullible in the pews.

There would not be millions but countless examples of all kinds of inbetweenies, yet there is not one.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What on earth are you talking about? I really think you don't know how absurdly ignorant that sentence is. This is a creationist cliché it has no scientific basis, as I keep telling you and will keep telling you.

Though the irony of you denying the fossil record whilst claiming unevidenced magic and superstition are valid explanations is not wasted on me, even if it is on you.

The most complete fossil record science has is for the evolution of the horse, there is a complete fossil record of every transition spanning 55 million years.

Look it up for yourself. Someone has lied to you PG and you ought to use your own critical thinking.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:35 pm

Here's a link to the transitional fossils for 55 million years of evolution of the modern horse that you claim don't exist PG.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm

by polyglide Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:56 am

DR. Sheldon,
I have looked at the above and there are too many gaps, as other scientists have pointed out.

My only concern is the creation of life, nothing else is of any consequence as far as I am concerned.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:46 am

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
I have looked at the above and there are too many gaps, as other scientists have pointed out.

My only concern is the creation of life, nothing else is of any consequence as far as I am concerned.

Hilarious. Very Happy

You're joking right?

Or perhaps you'd not heard of the joke about creationist that when they point to a gap in the fossil record and are shown a transitional fossil for it they then point to the two gaps, one on each side. The joke was made with you in mind it seems, as you're determined to rehash every creationist cliché there is.

For the record what an individual scientist claims about these fossils is meaningless unless they can get their assertions validated by science including peer review. Though of course I doubt there are any real scientists who dispute what the fossils show, as your posts show that you have a fairly reliable habit of simply lying and making things up, as you've undoubtedly done here.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:48 am

Polyglide wrote: Any change to date that can be verified does not result in a new life form, just a mutation and these invairibly die before reaching maturity and do not produce their like.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I don't, I never have done, I've repeatedly said so. It only explains the how life evolved into the diversity we see today. Why you must repeat this lie I don't know? I have repeatedly told you where you can educate yourself on evolution. It's a massive subject so asking me to post it here is just an obvious red herring.

I didn't catch your response here? Do we have to wonder at all why you have ignored my point?

by polyglide Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:47 pm

DR. Sheldon,
We can put part of this matter to sleep.

Please give me any scientific paper that can prove the DNA of a prehistoric creature is exactly that of a present animal.

Not 99.9999% bacause in such a case it may as well be a mile.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:27 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
We can put part of this matter to sleep.

Please give me any scientific paper that can prove the DNA of a prehistoric creature is exactly that of a present animal.

Not 99.9999% bacause in such a case it may as well be a mile.

What matter?

I'm not a geneticist, nor do I have the faintest idea why your making ludicrous wild demands for things you have no understanding of and which clearly don't amount to proper evidence as if they did then someone would be able to get them validated by the scientific process, they can't though can they, not even once. It's enough to know that science has validated evolution with masses of proper evidence, and creationism can't manage to meet the same criteria for evidence even once.

I notice you again ignore my post and ignore my calling you on your repeated falsehoods which you haven't the integrity to even acknowledge.

by polyglide Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:11 am

Dr. Sheldon,
I do not acknowledge outragous claims.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:44 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
I do not acknowledge outragous claims.

That much is obvious, though you keep on making them.

Are you ready to admit that creationism is entirely based on faith yet, and has no scientific basis whatsoever?

by polyglide Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:26 pm

DR. Sheldon,
What is there must have been created by some means or another.

It matters not what form it takes.

As I have stated previously, you would not agree that a car could come about without intelligence being involved, nor the simple cup but appear willing to assume that life came about by chance along with everything else, strange.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:44 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
What is there must have been created by some means or another.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So you keep claiming, yet you seem unable to grasp that un-evidenced claims are worthless. Yet again Hitchen's razor applies, and your un-evidenced claim can be dismissed, and again it's a little surprising that an expert in debating keeps repeating this spurious polemic.

It matters not what form it takes.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:If you say so, though this seems a very odd claim for a theist.

As I have stated previously, you would not agree that a car could come about without intelligence being involved,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Organic life evolved, science has validated mountains of evidence for this, your puerile analogies won't change this.

One last time then....

MAN MADE MACHINES ARE NOT ORGANIC, THEY CANNOT EVOLVE IN THE DARWINIAN SENSE. So your analogy is completely irrelevant.

nor the simple cup but appear willing to assume that life came about by chance along with everything else, strange.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:**I NEVER CLAIMED LIFE CAME ABOUT BY CHANCE, NOR DOES EVOLUTION** this is a lie you've made up, and are dishonestly repeating ad infinitum, despite being told each time that it's a lie, for shame.

WHY ARE YOU LYING? What do you think that says about your apologetics that you have to resort to lies?

Once again then

"LIFE DIDN'T EVOLVE BY CHANCE, THOUGH CHANCE PLAYS A PART.

by polyglide Fri Feb 13, 2015 11:10 am

Dr. Sheldon,
Of course plants evolve, as does anything that moves in stages from one stage to another, you cannot disregard the part of a definition to suit.

Then perhaps you have a sensible explanation of how life actually started, if you feel there is no creator.

The scientists are presently making a study of the genomes relative to Darwins theories and they do not all agree with his ideas.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:15 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Of course plants evolve,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Who said otherwise?

as does anything that moves in stages from one stage to another,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Not through Darwinian natural selection, so comparing things that do to things that don't in an attempt to suggest a designer is laughably idiotic.

you cannot disregard the part of a definition to suit.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What part? The definition of Darwinian evolution does not have any claims about man made objects, this is just something you've made up, and are lying about it being part of the definition, who knows why.

It's based on a fallacious creationist polemic called Hoyle's fallacy, as I've told you. It's a well known creationist polemic that has been thoroughly dismantled, and again you've been told this. An expert in debating, as you claimed you were, would be aware of such a well known fallacy, I shall leave it to others to judge why you used it, and why even worse your self proclaimed expertise hasn't helped you follow the link I provided to educate yourself on it, and thus avoid the embarrassment of persisting in using it again, and again.

Then perhaps you have a sensible explanation of how life actually started, if you feel there is no creator.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You're mixing together two unrelated topics again, EVVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE STARTED. Again I tire of repeating this fact, and of your inability to grasp it.

As for the origins of life that is for science to investigate. I leave wild speculative guesswork to theists like yourself who seem to enjoy that sort of thing. There is no evidence for a deity, and none for creationism, the latter of course is demonstrably wrong in the religious texts of modern monotheistic religions.

The scientists are presently making a study of the genomes relative to Darwins theories and they do not all agree with his ideas.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:"The scientists"? Hilariously disingenuous

Can you please:

1. Cite their peer reviewed evidence that you are claiming refutes Darwinian evolution through natural selection?
2. Tell me when they are accepting their Nobel prize for falsifying the theory of evolution or expanding our knowledge of it in this paradigm shifting discovery?
3. Explain why this hasn't been on the news?
4. Explain why the largest Christian churches on the planet seem unaware of this discovery and all still accepted Darwinian evolution?

The truth is that there is no scientific evidence which refutes Darwinian evolution, and this is yet another tiresome and completely un-evidenced attempt to offer the subjective opinion of a person or persons unknown as if it is validated scientifically when it most definitely is not

I really would like you to for once acknowledge that last sentence, as you make this dishonest claim continually and simply don't even acknowledge my posts pointing out that a "scientists" opinion outside of the scientific process is no more valid than the local vicars or some tramp in a subway, etc etc..

by polyglide Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:33 am

Dr. Sheldon,
It is in the news.

Stop reading the Dandy and Beano and try the up to date information channels.

Stop, also, the ridiculous idea that evolution is only applicable to Darwin.

It is only applicable to him regarding HIS theory and theory it still is.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 14, 2015 9:34 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
It is in the news.

Stop reading the Dandy and Beano and try the up to date information channels.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Ad hominem.

Stop, also, the ridiculous idea that evolution is only applicable to Darwin.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I never said this, another bare faced lie, or is your grasp of English really this tenuous?

It is only applicable to him regarding HIS theory and theory it still is.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:If it's only applicable to him regarding his theory why are you repeatedly touting the imbecilic claim it applies to cars and buses? Do you really not know how moronic that is? Apparently not, wow.

A scientific theory is no more just a theory than a racing car is just a car, again this is either rank dishonesty on your part or incredible stupidity, which is it?

Is that all you could muster? Not one point in my post addressed, you really have nothing at all.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:37 am

JP Cusick wrote: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.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:The problem here is you've cited Wikipedia and provided a link then disingenuously paraphrased their definition. Which reads as follows:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century. Some ancient and modern religions are referred to as atheistic, as they either have no concepts of deities or deny a creator deity, yet still revere other god-like entities."

So quite obviously your very narrow definition is a biased attempt to derogate those who don't share your beliefs. I notice you ignore entirely the later part of the definition which outlines some of the main reasoning and rationale for disbelief, here:

"Arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to social and historical approaches. Rationales for not believing in any supernatural deity include the lack of empirical evidence; the problem of evil; the argument from inconsistent revelations; the rejection of concepts which cannot be falsified; and the argument from nonbelief."

JP Cusick wrote: 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
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:This straw man argument is based on something of a non-sequitur, as obviously no sane person hates what they don't believe exists, so I'm not sure what purpose the claim serves other than to state the obvious. Very often atheists will cite the morally repugnant actions of deities outlined in religious texts, in order to show the inconsistency of beliefs that venerate such texts as immutable revelation and the deity as perfect. Quite obviously since atheists don't believe the deity in question exists their objections are hypothetical moral objections, and they don't literally hate a being they disbelieve or actions they know are entirely human, if indeed they occurred at all as described. Were a being with limitless knowledge and power to really exist and to behave as described in the old testament I would certainly hate it, as I would any being that out of choice chose to commit genocide, advocate infanticide and child sacrifice and encourage rapine, to name just a few.

The paradox of someone not hating such a being whilst trying, as you've done here, to claim superior morals is deeply ironic.
.

JP Cusick wrote: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.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Well you might just as easily declare the "real" existence of Thor or Zeus, it's all the same, and epistemologically Hitchen's Razor applies, since the bare claim is made without evidence it can be, and is dismissed without evidence.

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.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Hardly an objective claim given your statements thus far, and I'd say it was more self righteous to claim to know what an omnipotent omniscient deity that created everything thinks and wants, than to base your morality on a personal responsibility towards every man woman and child that's alive, and take personal responsibility for your actions in this life which the evidence suggests is all we have. Besides humans have created literally thousands of deities and religions with widely differing moral codes, so how is that different from an atheist choosing their own morals, with the caveat atheists don't base it on ancient superstitions?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:48 am

polyglide wrote:Stop, also, the ridiculous idea that evolution is only applicable to Darwin. It is only applicable to him regarding HIS theory and theory it still is.

I've never suggested the word evolution in its broadest sense and definition applied only to Darwin, but I think you know this and your misrepresentation is deliberate. I only pointed out the spurious logic creationists and you use when they compare man made machines to Darwinian evolution of organic life to erroneously suggest a designer for the latter. These are in fact well known creationist polemics, and I've given examples that have been used in formal logic to illustrate that they are completely erroneous, see Holye's fallacy as one example.

Your repetition of your disingenuous misrepresentation of a scientific theory must I assume also be deliberate as you could simply Google scientific theory and know your claim is entirely spurious, but I'll play along and do it for you. As we can see the phrase scientific theory is entirely different to the definition attached to the word theory, and though science often abbreviates the phrase to theory in titles everyone knows it is not just a theory. Well, everyone who can be bothered to learn a little about the subject matter under discussion, and excluding of course those who dishonestly want to misrepresent the facts.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

by polyglide Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:06 am

Dr. Sheldon,
A theory is a theory and will be until positive proof is provided, it matters not one iota on what it may be based.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:58 am

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
A theory is a theory and will be until positive proof is provided, it matters not one iota on what it may be based.

Firstly Evolution isn't just a theory as you've been repeatedly told, that's the point. It's a scientific theory, as you've been told, and could easily learn for yourself if you had any interest in learning the facts here, but it appears you prefer to pretend. Nonetheless a scientific theory is very different to a theory, and I shall from now on simply post the definition of it every time you repeat this falsehood.

Secondly science doesn't prove things, that suggests absolutes, and there are no absolutes in science, science gathers tests and validates evidence, all the evidence for evolution has been validated by science. Not one shred has been validated by science for creationism, I believe we've been here, and here again I'm happy to simply to challenge you to prove your claim:

1. Cite a published peer reviewed scientific paper that either refutes evolution or validates creationism.
2. Cite the Nobel prize ceremony and the name of the recipient, and some news articles outlining that science has now abandoned evolution as true.

The latter challenge should show you how ridiculously transparent the falsity of your claim is.

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.

by polyglide Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:08 pm

DR. Sheldon,
I do not dispute the above but clatify that evolution only takes place because of changed circumstances, tell me one scientist that would dispute this and why without the changes evolution would be necessary.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:24 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
I do not dispute the above but clatify that evolution only takes place because of changed circumstances, tell me one scientist that would dispute this and why without the changes evolution would be necessary.

I don't understand what you think this qualifying claim, without evidence again I might add, proves? However since it's your claim it's for you to evidence it properly, not for me to disprove it, or else it can simply be dismissed again, Hitchen's razor applies, and this is basic debating skills. I don't believe I've actually commented on it one way or the other, since it's both unevidenced and unclear what it is you're claiming, but I'll go this far and no farther, if it is validated and accepted by science then cite the peer reviewed scientific paper and the proper scientific journal that published it. Though of course it's again obvious if it is valid it does not in any way refute Darwinian evolution by natural selection else again this world news would be known and the scientist who made the discovery received a Nobel prize, and it's ramifications would be fairly obvious, none of which has happened.

Also you have absolutely disputed the difference between a theory and a scientific theory repeatedly, and again on this page just above. So I'm not sure how you can say you now don't dispute it?

by polyglide Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:28 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Then you must think evolution is random and the results are purely luck.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:39 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Then you must think evolution is random and the results are purely luck.

You already know this isn't true, as you've claimed it repeatedly and I've corrected you. Also as well as being a false claim it's not evidence to validate your claim, you were supposed to be citing proper peer reviewed scientific evidence for your claim, and explaining the significance of your claim was regarding Darwinian evolution, not making assumption about what I think, that you have been told more than once already aren't true. Evolution is not entirely by chance or by luck, though these quite obviously are factors. Being a large plant eating dinosaur when an asteroid wipes out nearly all plant life on the planet is pretty unlucky I'd say.

by polyglide Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:17 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
There is no proof that an asteroid did in fact destroy the dinosaurs.

What interests me more is where the 50 ton animals evolved from. [ the heaviest I have seen recorded]

It matters not what any of us think, or believe, there are more questions than answers.

You must be aware that Darwin's theory has been challenged on sound ground more than once.

Just put against Darwin, on your computer and you will have a few hours of information to digest.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:55 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
There is no proof that an asteroid did in fact destroy the dinosaurs.What interests me more is where the 50 ton animals evolved from. [ the heaviest I have seen recorded] It matters not what any of us think, or believe, there are more questions than answers. You must be aware that Darwin's theory has been challenged on sound ground more than once.Just put against Darwin, on your computer and you will have a few hours of information to digest.

Must you put a line break at the end of every sentence it's very annoying? I never said an asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs I merely used it as an example, there is however a great deal of evidence that just such a cataclysmic event did bring about the extinction of the dinosaurs. They evolved from smaller less complex animals as did all life, over enormous timescales the vast complexity of life we see developed, no opinion is necessary here as the evidence is overwhelming in support of Darwinian evolution, in fact not one single piece of evidence has ever managed to falsify it, as I have repeatedly pointed out. So just what you consider "sound grounds" only you can know, but Darwinian evolution has never ever been falsified.
When a scientific theory is falsified it's discarded, anyone doing this to evolution would immediately be the most famous name in science, they'd get a Nobel prize and be a household name. It's ludicrous for you to keep claiming this has happened when it axiomatically has not. Googling people's personal opinion online can provide mountains of claims for just about any crazy crackpot notion, including creationism, if it were scientifically valid then it would pass the stringent scientific scrutiny that all the evidence for evolution has, including the process of peer review, and as I said above we'd know if this happened off the news, never mind some nutjob creationists personal blog.

Now can you cite one single piece of evidence that validates creationism that has been peer reviewed and published in a worthy scientific journal? If you can do this I'll accept it, and bear in mind that thousands and thousands of such articles have been published to validate evolution that pass this strict level of scientific scrutiny.

by polyglide Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:21 am

DR. Sheldon,
Just log on to, disproof of Darwin's theories.

by snowyflake Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:06 pm

Darwin's theories are a fact of life, polyglide. You are going to have to get over this. You saying they are not true is just an example of your own ignorance of the subject. Evolution is a fact. There is a massive amount of evidence to support the theory and so far NOTHING has been discovered that disproves it. NOTHING.

The genetic tree is evidence enough to show common ancestry of every living thing on this planet. That it doesn't jive with your religious belief is just tough toenails. Creationist websites that pedal the lie of creationism to muggles like yourself are an offence to knowledge, science, rationality and humanity.

I cannot stress this enough. You need to take a basic science course and you would see for yourself that Darwin's theory is THE answer to how we have diversity of species.

by polyglide Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:13 pm

snowyflake,
Of course everything has a common ancestry, God.

by snowyflake Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:19 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
Of course everything has a common ancestry, God.

Wow, that's about as rubbish a response as one can give. Are you always this intellectually lazy? Evolution shows common ancestry with other species. Are you suggesting that we all have god-DNA? I'd like to see your evidence for that outlandish claim.

by polyglide Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:23 pm

snowflake,
As I said, God.

by snowyflake Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:11 pm

As I said, not an answer

by Norm Deplume Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:17 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
Of course everything has a common ancestry, God.

According to the vast majority of Christians, God had only one offspring, and that a mere 2000 years ago. How then could this all-but-infertile entity be the common ancestor of everything that lived before that?

[Edited: 2,000 not 20,000]

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:51 am

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
Just log on to, disproof of Darwin's theories.

In the same way you can log on to prove David Icke is Jesus you mean? I set a slightly higher bar for evidence than that I'm afraid. Now once again:

1. Please cite the peer reviewed publication that falsifies evolution, just one will do.
2. Please cite the peer reviewed publication that validates any evidence for creationism, again, one will do.
3. Please name in each case the scientist(s) involved and the name of the Nobel prize winner(s).

You are of course entitled to keep posting the same ludicrous falsehood, but I'm not sure what you think your posts are achieving beyond appearing dishonest, and of course ridiculous.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:53 am

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
Of course everything has a common ancestry, God.

Hitchen's razor.

"Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor which asserts that the burden of proof in a debate (the onus) lies with whoever makes the (greater) claim; if this burden is not then met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents do not need to argue against it. It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Hitchens's razor is actually a translation of the Latin proverb "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur", which has been widely used at least since the early 19th century, but Hitchens's English rendering of the phrase has made it more widely known in the 21st century. It is used, for example, to counter presuppositional apologetics. "

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:56 am

snowyflake wrote:
polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
Of course everything has a common ancestry, God.

Wow, that's about as rubbish a response as one can give. Are you always this intellectually lazy? Evolution shows common ancestry with other species. Are you suggesting that we all have god-DNA? I'd like to see your evidence for that outlandish claim.

He doesn't do evidence, it's a common trait among creationists. At least his flat denials and bare claims are putting the lie to his claim to be interested in learning the truth about the origins of life, as I stated at the time he posted the claim; he's no interest in this at all, else he'd not stick doggedly to one un-evidenced explanation that is based entirely on a superstitious beliefs that originated in the bronze age.

by polyglide Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:07 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Tell me about the butterfly.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:53 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Tell me about the butterfly.

Read one of my many answers already posted to this request. It'll be the same no matter how many times you ask.

by Sponsored content