Evangelicals & Jesus

[ToadBrother]

Says you.

Says pretty much every biologist out there.

Clearly we'll never agree on this.

Agree? I don't expect you to agree, I expect you to keep saying incredibly ignorant things.

[betsy]

Tough questions to an atheist I suppose. It's okay, you don't have to if you don't want to.

First off, being an atheist does not eliminate curiousity or to know our roots. Second of all, I don't have a need to disprove religious people, but if religious people make claims that are absurd, I will, as I will with political people or backgammon people or anyone else saying nonsensical or invalid things, correct them. Nothing to do with atheism, everything to do with this being a discussion forum, and not your soap box.

Does that answer your questions that have nothing at all to do with what we're talking about?

Kind of you to indulge me.

[betsy]

I came across this quotation from Dawkins,

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

-- Richard Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001)

It is understandable why several rabid atheists in this forum spout out the same insults to those who oppose their views.

One thing I notice though that all these people - Dawkins, Hitchens, and some of the atheists on this board (the same ones most of the time) - seem to share one thing in common. They are short-fused.

At the beginning, they all start with a seeming rational approach to a debate, with a seeming serious attempt at civilized discussion. However, they can only maintain it for so long. They almost, always end up bashing their opponents with insults and personal attacks. Rationality is quickly replaced by senseless verbal bashings. They love to bash! They inevitably revert back to their chimphood.

I guess it must be true.... you can definitely separate God's man from a chimp, but you can't take the chimp out of a religious atheist.

Edited March 27, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Now back to the so-called imbecilic-neener-neener-atheism-is-a-religion-too.

Here is a quote from atheist George Wald, a recipient of the Nobel Prize.

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others.

That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God.

Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.

This is about belief.

Edited March 27, 2011 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

Now back to the so-called imbecilic-neener-neener-atheism-is-a-religion-too.

Here is a quote from atheist George Wald, a recipient of the Nobel Prize.

This is about belief.

What you did is a quote mine, a dishonest and dishonorable practice of taking quotes out of context to make someone say one thing when they're saying another. Surely Jesus weeps when you bear false witness, no?

The entire quote can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4-2.html

I caution you Betsy, when you go to your favorite Creationist sources to find tidbits from scientists that seem to say one thing that you actually confirm the entire quote. Otherwise, you're promulgating lies.

[betsy]

What you did is a quote mine, a dishonest and dishonorable practice of taking quotes out of context to make someone say one thing when they're saying another. Surely Jesus weeps when you bear false witness, no?

The entire quote can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4-2.html

I caution you Betsy, when you go to your favorite Creationist sources to find tidbits from scientists that seem to say one thing that you actually confirm the entire quote. Otherwise, you're promulgating lies.

Of course it's hard to find the exact edition 1954 from that magazine. I actually went to TalkOrigin, and found a rebuttal that quoted an article from 1958. Four years gap - verbatim statements would be hard to verify unless we get a copy of the magazine when the statement was actually made.

So we've both reached a stalemate: Your Talk Origin version of that particular quote by Wald (given in the previous post) cannot be taken as is, the same way you cannot take mine as is.

I will humor you, Toadbrother and give you another piece which was taken from another site - american science magazine itself! The article actually supporting more than one of my arguments. Take note of the date it was published.

Philip Ball| November 8, 2010

Some scientists maintain that the origin of life is absurdly improbable--Nobel laureate and biologist George Wald baldly stated in 1954 that "one has only to contemplate the magnitude of [the] task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origins-life

Since I gave you another source which should not be doubted for its bias, I expect you to do the same.

TalkOrigin - which is the apologetics-counterpart of Christianity - cannot be accepted on its own.

How do we know that it's not pulling the same tricks as a lot of atheist evolutionist scientists do - wildly distorting, desperately fabricating to fill in the gaps?

Edited March 27, 2011 by betsy

[dre]

everything in this world is just so finely balanced. The earth must be just the right size to

sustain life, its rotation must be just right, the distance of the earth from the sun

must be within very narrow limits if life is going to exist and it’s just exactly right.

Its tilt must be exactly right to cause the seasons. The land and water ratio is a

very delicate balance. Biologically we are extremely fragile – a little too hot and

we burn; a little too cold and we freeze – either way we die. We are just exactly able to live because the temperature is right. We need light but not too much ultraviolet, we need heat but not too much ultrared.

Hahahahha

[betsy]

Hahahahha

Yes? Was that quote not correct? Can you explain how so?

Edited March 27, 2011 by betsy

[Bonam]

On the contrary there is a system! Intelligent Design makes more sense than that silly Common Descent prediction. These are some of the "fine-tuning" pro-ID scientists are talking about!

Excerpt from Charles Price:

http://www.livingtruth.ca/pdf/transcriptions/KNG/KNG_1.pdf

Except that he has the story exactly bass-ackwards. The Earth has existed in a certain temperature range, in a certain level of radiation, with the prevalence of certain chemical compounds on its surface and in its atmosphere, etc, for hundreds of millions of years. Lifeforms that have evolved on Earth throughout this time period have, naturally, adapted to survive and thrive in these conditions. It is not the Earth that was designed to have the perfect conditions for humans. Rather, it is humans and our precursor lifeforms that have evolved to make the most of Earth's environment.

[dre]

Yes? Was that quote not correct? Can you explain how so?

Its the conclusion being drawn from that thats funny, and almost infantile. Life developed here on earth under these conditions so of course this environment is going be well suited to the lifeforms that have prospered here. The earth is over 4 billion years old, and the environment has been constantly, as have the predominant species. Many species have died out when they no longer found this environment hospitable. Many have had to adapt. In another 4 billion years if the earth is still here then the predominant lifeforms will probably be completely different.

Not only has that inference between completely debunked literally hundreds of times, but a grade 3 student should be able to see the blantant logical fallacy in the argument that the fact life here is well suited for this environment means there was some sort of intelligent designer involved.

Edited March 27, 2011 by dre

[ToadBrother]

TalkOrigin - which is the apologetics-counterpart of Christianity - cannot be accepted on its own.

How do we know that it's not pulling the same tricks as a lot of atheist evolutionist scientists do - wildly distorting, desperately fabricating to fill in the gaps?

Talkorigins.org provides full references. If you have a problem with what they say, you're welcome to go there.

The larger point, Betsy, is that you know bloody well that the quotes you go from are from scientists who do not reject evolution. Artfully cherry picking their quotes to make them seem like they're saying one thing when they're saying another is dishonest.

Do you approve of lying, Betsy?

[betsy]

Talkorigins.org provides full references. If you have a problem with what they say, you're welcome to go there.

The larger point, Betsy, is that you know bloody well that the quotes you go from are from scientists who do not reject evolution. Artfully cherry picking their quotes to make them seem like they're saying one thing when they're saying another is dishonest.

Do you approve of lying, Betsy?

Eh? Come again?

You didn't like my first source. I obliged you.

I even gave you a source from your own camp! I challenge you to do the same - don't just rely on TalkOrigin!

So what's your problem now?

I guess he can't answer my challenge as to giving sources. So now here comes the bashing!

Except that he has the story exactly bass-ackwards. The Earth has existed in a certain temperature range, in a certain level of radiation, with the prevalence of certain chemical compounds on its surface and in its atmosphere, etc, for hundreds of millions of years. Lifeforms that have evolved on Earth throughout this time period have, naturally, adapted to survive and thrive in these conditions. It is not the Earth that was designed to have the perfect conditions for humans. Rather, it is humans and our precursor lifeforms that have evolved to make the most of Earth's environment.

Its the conclusion being drawn from that thats funny, and almost infantile. Life developed here on earth under these conditions so of course this environment is going be well suited to the lifeforms that have prospered here. The earth is over 4 billion years old, and the environment has been constantly, as have the predominant species. Many species have died out when they no longer found this environment hospitable. Many have had to adapt. In another 4 billion years if the earth is still here then the predominant lifeforms will probably be completely different.

Not only has that inference between completely debunked literally hundreds of times, but a grade 3 student should be able to see the blantant logical fallacy in the argument that the fact life here is well suited for this environment means there was some sort of intelligent designer involved.

It's both of you who got it backward!

Several noted scientists, including Stephen Hawking disagrees with you. Seems like this "disagreeing" with scientists is becoming a pattern.

Anyway, I'll just post this much - the list is long!

In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125).

In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop."

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."

http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm

Anyway, we're talking universe! Not just earth.

As an example, space travel required that scientists know exactly the laws that govern the orbits of heavenly bodies to allow a successful launch and return. They can't just send that rocket up with a hope and a prayer and count on a Luke Skywalker to bring it back.

One thing though....Faith is faith - whether blind or not. Faith in their belief. I admire all the religious atheists' courageous show of strong faith in this board.

***(Edited to add a short emphasis of statement)

Yep. It's a religion. So there.

Edited March 28, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

What more can one say. We have ToadBrother, dre, Bonam, making clear and concise points, backing up the long standing claim about evolution being fact, then we have Betsy who (and I agree with Bonam on the quote mining, because we've seen it before here on this board)....... who is from what I can tell, is doing nothing more than trolling.

I can no longer respond to this thread on the terms of honest debate. So it's simply laughable at this point. I guess this is why Betsy is my fave troll on this board.

[Bonam]

Anyway, we're talking universe! Not just earth.

No, what you quoted and what I responded to was talking specifically about Earth and the solar system. Of course, with your contention shown to be laughable, you backpedal to the whole universe. Yes, the physical constants of the universe are such that complexity is able to develop. We do not yet know the origins of the values of all these constants, though theoretical physics is beginning to touch on this. The fact that science has not yet answered why the universe is the way it is does not mean that a god is required to explain it.

The Greeks didn't know where lightning came from, so they invented Zeus to explain its origin. You do not know where the value of the gravitational constant or the fine structure constant comes from (well actually you probably don't even know what these are, but that's what the quote you posted is referring to), and so you invent god to explain its origin. There is no difference at all. Both will be looked back on by future generations as equivalently mythological. Just as the Church once claimed that the Earth is the center of the universe, but now even the most zealous believers realize that that is not the case.

Several noted scientists, including Stephen Hawking disagrees with you. Seems like this "disagreeing" with scientists is becoming a pattern.

No, actually he doesn't. Stephen Hawking himself recently said that a god is not necessary to explain what we have observed in the universe. We had a thread on it right here, with your fellow believer Oleg saying that Stephen Hawking was cursed with ALS by god for his impiety. If you are gonna try to misrepresent a famous scientist, at least try to be clever about it, rather than trying to use his quote to say exactly the opposite of what he actually holds to be true.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Bonam

[Oleg Bach]

To God a second and a thousand years are the same - evolution is creation. Having muttered that...nothing more insulting to the worlds greatest thinker and prophet to have his name tossed about with reckless abandon..."have you taken Jesus Christ as your personal saviour" I hate that shit....as if Jesus would get personal with you or I with him? God is a cold and distant thing..it has no emotion - life and death are not different to IT....eternity and beyond are concepts that boggle the human mind//////////////////////No human being speaks for GOD...God does not have a voice nor does he need to rent one at 10%.

[betsy]

No, what you quoted and what I responded to was talking specifically about Earth and the solar system. Of course, with your contention shown to be laughable, you backpedal to the whole universe. Yes, the physical constants of the universe are such that complexity is able to develop. We do not yet know the origins of the values of all these constants, though theoretical physics is beginning to touch on this. The fact that science has not yet answered why the universe is the way it is does not mean that a god is required to explain it.

The Greeks didn't know where lightning came from, so they invented Zeus to explain its origin. You do not know where the value of the gravitational constant or the fine structure constant comes from (well actually you probably don't even know what these are, but that's what the quote you posted is referring to), and so you invent god to explain its origin. There is no difference at all. Both will be looked back on by future generations as equivalently mythological. Just as the Church once claimed that the Earth is the center of the universe, but now even the most zealous believers realize that that is not the case.

No, actually he doesn't. Stephen Hawking himself recently said that a god is not necessary to explain what we have observed in the universe. We had a thread on it right here, with your fellow believer Oleg saying that Stephen Hawking was cursed with ALS by god for his impiety. If you are gonna try to misrepresent a famous scientist, at least try to be clever about it, rather than trying to use his quote to say exactly the opposite of what he actually holds to be true.

So you responded about the earth. And it was proven that you've got it backward. Anyway, support all your claims! Most especially, show a reference that what I posted was not Hawking's statement.

From now on....I insist other credible materials to back up claims used by you, or Dre, or any of you religious atheists in discussions.

Your claims without any credible support are nothing more than emotional babblings by religious cultist fanatics!

Edited March 29, 2011 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

Some atheists are also fanatics...I remember having dinner with one..He had one to many drinks...and when I mentioned the word God...He almost leap across the table to strangle me. All extremists are to be disrespected..no human being knows the answer to the deepest mystery of life...no one has ever reported back from the dead..no one has ever proven that God does not exist...and those that twart nature and destroy the earth are both - believers and non-believers...religious and secularist fanatics are cut from the same cloth. As for Jesus...Christianity was destroyed on the cross...and what developed later was a religion...all religion is evil...Christ had no intention of creating an institution of control...he was about freedom and truth...something all religions actively seek to destroy.

[cybercoma]

Its the conclusion being drawn from that thats funny, and almost infantile. Life developed here on earth under these conditions so of course this environment is going be well suited to the lifeforms that have prospered here. The earth is over 4 billion years old, and the environment has been constantly, as have the predominant species. Many species have died out when they no longer found this environment hospitable. Many have had to adapt. In another 4 billion years if the earth is still here then the predominant lifeforms will probably be completely different.

Not only has that inference between completely debunked literally hundreds of times, but a grade 3 student should be able to see the blantant logical fallacy in the argument that the fact life here is well suited for this environment means there was some sort of intelligent designer involved.

That's all very well, but don't expect her to give up her position. She'll just continue to spout the same ignorant nonsense time and time again.

[dre]

Eh? Come again?

You didn't like my first source. I obliged you.

I even gave you a source from your own camp! I challenge you to do the same - don't just rely on TalkOrigin!

So what's your problem now?

I guess he can't answer my challenge as to giving sources. So now here comes the bashing!

It's both of you who got it backward!

Several noted scientists, including Stephen Hawking disagrees with you. Seems like this "disagreeing" with scientists is becoming a pattern.

Anyway, I'll just post this much - the list is long!

Anyway, we're talking universe! Not just earth.

As an example, space travel required that scientists know exactly the laws that govern the orbits of heavenly bodies to allow a successful launch and return. They can't just send that rocket up with a hope and a prayer and count on a Luke Skywalker to bring it back.

One thing though....Faith is faith - whether blind or not. Faith in their belief. I admire all the religious atheists' courageous show of strong faith in this board.

***(Edited to add a short emphasis of statement)

Yep. It's a religion. So there.

No its not a religion at all. Evolution represents our best efforts at understanding life on this planet. The scientists that study it are doing real HARD WORK to figure this stuff out, and as a result our understanding is getting better all the time, and knowledge is being advanced.

The church on the other hand has actively tried to SUPRESS knowledge, and members of your little club have in fact persecuted many of the greatest seakers of knowledge. You are a cult of intellectually lazy book burners.

Your position on evolution is really just a modern day version the churches position on Galileos support for heliocentrism, and the refusal of people like you at that time to even glance through his evil telescope. Your arguments and your thought process is identical to what theirs was, as is your confrontational and accusatory tone (The non christians are brainwashing our kids!!!!)

When scientists suggested the world wasnt flat you attacked them.

When scientists suggested the earth wasnt the center of the universe the church attacked them.

So now when scientists suggest that humans were NOT created in their present form 6000 years ago by an immortal cosmic jew, naturally you attack them as well.

But in the end youll lose because science produces results and your doctrine produces... well... nothing at all. And thats why more and more CATHOLICS believe in evolution today. Never mind your obsession about what atheists believe in, you cant even convince your fellow Christians that evolution isnt true

Ill defer to the guys that get up off their asses and do the HARD WORK to try to understand the world around us... even if theyre often wrong... because at the end of the day that process is simply more credible than your whole "this is true because the roman government put it in a book thousands of years ago!" thing.

And in the mean time you can keep believing that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman made from a mans ribs was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

[GostHacked]

And in the mean time you can keep believing that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman made from a mans ribs was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

The Bible is the best fictional story I never read.

[Bonam]

The Bible is the best fictional story I never read.

Silmarillion > Bible

[Oleg Bach]

Jesus dispises Christians.

[Oleg Bach]

Oh and while I am at it JESUS hates evangelists...that I am sure of..they provide no power to the people what so ever...just submission and compromise to evil.

[betsy]

deleted. Double posting.

Edited March 29, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

No its not a religion at all.

Ha-ha-ha! Oh yes it is!

Complete with a choir....the Adhominem doo-wap choir! ha-ha-ha!

Evolution represents our best efforts at understanding life on this planet.

Good! You acknowledge evolution is not a fact!

The scientists that study it are doing real HARD WORK to figure this stuff out,

True. And they could not figure it out! That's the point, isn't it?

And like my sources claim, they are now considering Intelligent Design.

and as a result our understanding is getting better all the time, and knowledge is being advanced.[/quote

No. Others' understanding is getting better and more advanced. They're thinking and looking outside the box!

Yours - and those who belong to your sect - however, remain close-minded.

The church on the other hand has actively tried to SUPRESS knowledge, and members of your little club have in fact persecuted many of the greatest seakers of knowledge. You are a cult of intellectually lazy book burners.

Your position on evolution is really just a modern day version the churches position on Galileos support for heliocentrism, and the refusal of people like you at that time to even glance through his evil telescope. Your arguments and your thought process is identical to what theirs was, as is your confrontational and accusatory tone (The non christians are brainwashing our kids!!!!)

When scientists suggested the world wasnt flat you attacked them.

When scientists suggested the earth wasnt the center of the universe the church attacked them.

So now when scientists suggest that humans were NOT created in their present form 6000 years ago by an immortal cosmic jew, naturally you attack them as well.

But in the end youll lose because science produces results and your doctrine produces... well... nothing at all. And thats why more and more CATHOLICS believe in evolution today. Never mind your obsession about what atheists believe in, you cant even convince your fellow Christians that evolution isnt true

Ill defer to the guys that get up off their asses and do the HARD WORK to try to understand the world around us... even if theyre often wrong... because at the end of the day that process is simply more credible than your whole "this is true because the roman government put it in a book thousands of years ago!" thing.

Babblings and deflections! Look in the mirror!

And in the mean time you can keep believing that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman made from a mans ribs was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Once upon a time, there was an ugly frog. He found time. Time kissed him and he magically transformed into man.

or better yet...

From fish to amphibean to reptiles to mammals. Where is the bloody evidence?

Of course those desperate to fill in the gaps say...well the evolution happened at a fast rate.

I guess that must be true since it shows the religious atheists - evidenced by their behaviour in mature discussions, and their way of reasoning - are actually the missing link between ape and God's religious man!

Edited March 29, 2011 by betsy