"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

/\/ollog wrote: »

jc: If you don't give me food, I can walk to a lake, or eat a bug, or even find and plant some potatoes and hope they don't get the blight.

Go right ahead ... but please don't be surprised if you collapse from starvation as a result of the lack of food from your efforts!!!!

The point that I am making is that tolerance cuts both ways ... and if Atheists want me to tolerate the exposure of my children to hours of indoctrination into the details of their philosophy, right across all subjects, including English Literature and Materialistic Evolution ... I fail to understand why exposing their children to a few moments of other childrens prayers gets them so 'up tight' and intolerant themselves!!!

Sauce for the Goose should be sauce for the Gander ... and all that ... unless you're an atheist, apparently!!!:eek:

dead one

J C wrote: »

... and if Atheists want me to tolerate the exposure of my children to hours of indoctrination into the details of their philosophy, right across all subjects, including Materialistic Evolution ... I fail to understand why exposing their children to a few moments of other childrens prayers gets them so 'up tight' and intolerant themselves!!!

because, it's simple
Materialistic Evolution is creation theory for religion of atheism

amacachi

dead one wrote: »

because, it's simple
Materialistic Evolution is creation theory for religion of atheism

Obviously, and Evolution is why some of us don't think that it's OK to beat wives or children for questioning us.

Some of us.

dead one

amacachi wrote: »

The fact that I've lasted over a year without doing it suggests to me that the only issue I have with anger management may be that I'm just too good at it.

believe me,
you need some physical doze in real world.
Your anger is only limited to this artificial world.
It will make you brave
cradle to the grave

amacachi

dead one wrote: »

believe me,
you need some physical doze in real world.
Your anger is only limited to this artificial world.
It will make you brave
cradle to the grave

Oh don't worry, I realise that, I'm just gonna wait til I can find a baby to eat before I go to sleep.

dead one

amacachi wrote: »

Obviously, and Evolution is why some of us don't think that it's OK to beat wives or children for questioning us.
Some of us.

obviously, and
1.Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to cheat wives or children for question you.
2. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to sleep with someone else wife
3. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to produce children without fathers.
4. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to have girl friends rather wives.
4. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to decorate parts of women in the shops to attract customers.
5. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to decorate women in strip clubs.
6. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to to treat fathers as second class citizen
7. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to sell women in the name of freedom
I can go on and on....

dead one

amacachi wrote: »

Oh don't worry, I realise that, I'm just gonna wait til I can find a baby to eat before I go to sleep.

oh i am scared, please don't eat me, you, the giant of this artificial world --- some help me, help help :eek:

amacachi

dead one wrote: »

1.Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to cheat wives or children for question you.

It's human nature.

2. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to sleep with someone else wife

The problem there is on the wife's end, I don't think many of us would advocate stoning them though.

3. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to produce children without fathers.

**** CERN, I want to hear more about this!

4. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to have girl friends rather wives.

One Girlfriend is enough, all the wives in the world aren't enough.

4. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to decorate parts of women in the shops to attract customers.

4 again, serious deja vu. Are you talking about actual women or manikins? One's as bad as the other to you probably.

5. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to decorate women in strip clubs.

Yeah but we prefer to not do so, strip clubs work better when the women as as undecorated as possible. Or so I hear.

6. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to to treat fathers as second class citizen

No you'll find the root of that in religion. Firstly to keep the women in the home and secondly to allow the father to get remarried (once he tells Allah he's divorced it's all good!)

7. Evolution is why some of you think that it's ok to sell women in the name of freedom

I can guarantee you that you won't find many human traffickers in Europe without a cross around their necks. And it's not like the North Africans and other Muslims didn't get a bit of the slave trade.
I do love that "in the name of freedom", it gave me a lol.

I can go on and on....

I'm tempted to ask you to, I just don't want it to get easier though.

amacachi

Holy ****, the muslims have evolved to where newborns can type!? If we all close our eyes and renounce (lol) evolution maybe we can reverse it!?

dead one

amacachi wrote: »

It's human nature.

no, don't blame nature, It's corruption in your nature -- You've chosen corruption for yourself and you see whole nature in prism of that corruption. Cure yourself from this disease.

amacachi wrote: »

The problem there is on the wife's end, I don't think many of us would advocate stoning them though.

You advocate stoning the whole society... Isn't it worse... See, a society standing on wishful thinking.

amacachi wrote: »

**** CERN, I want to hear more about this!

What you want to hear, where you've chosen deafness for your ears

amacachi wrote: »

One Girlfriend is enough, all the wives in the world aren't enough.

Girlfriend is a relation which is based on wishful thinking, It isn't permanent relation.. So it is no match even if you're married with 4 women..[/QUOTE]

amacachi wrote: »

4 again, serious deja vu. Are you talking about actual women or manikins? One's as bad as the other to you probably.

good grief, i am talking about actual women in real world

amacachi wrote: »

Yeah but we prefer to not do so, strip clubs work better when the women as as undecorated as possible. Or so I hear.

you have made women an object of desires. To cloth your desires, you have naked women ... You've snatched her modesty to cloth your desires.... uncivilized creatures pretending to be civilized.

amacachi wrote: »

No you'll find the root of that in religion. Firstly to keep the women in the home and secondly to allow the father to get remarried (once he tells Allah he's divorced it's all good!)

home is security for women. You secure yourself at cost of women.

amacachi wrote: »

I can guarantee you that you won't find many human traffickers in Europe without a cross around their necks. And it's not like the North Africans and other Muslims didn't get a bit of the slave trade.
I do love that "in the name of freedom", it gave me a lol.

here is solution for your problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teJrNacEMfU

dead one

showing off, that's what we have learned from materialistic evolution.
No reality but illusion

amacachi

dead one wrote: »

no, don't blame nature, It's corruption in your nature -- You've chosen corruption for yourself and you see whole nature in prism of that corruption. Cure yourself from this disease.[/quote[
Asking questions is a corruption of nature? Awesome.

You advocate stoning the whole society... Isn't it worse... See, a society standing on wishful thinking.

ROFLMAO.

What you want to hear, where you've chosen deafness for your ears

Please, tell me how people have started making babies without fathers!

Girlfriend is a relation which is based on wishful thinking, It isn't permanent relation.. So it is no match even if you're married with 4 women..

Allah etc. woo!

good grief, i am talking about actual women in real world

4 is a real number, you should know that given how much you use it.

you have made women an object of desires. To cloth your desires, you have naked women ... You've snatched her modesty to cloth your desires.... uncivilized creatures pretending to be civilized.

No, you want to clothe them to try to control your own desires because your God has made you so pathetic that you can't think for yourself.

home is security for women. You secure yourself at cost of women.

It's for their own good, imagine if they had to do something for themselves. Bless their silly little heads.

here is solution for your problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teJrNacEMfU

I have no problem if someone wants to "marry" a fence, once they don't try to insist that everything else is wrong.

dead one

amacachi wrote: »

dead one wrote: »

no, don't blame nature, It's corruption in your nature -- You've chosen corruption for yourself and you see whole nature in prism of that corruption. Cure yourself from this disease.[/quote[
Asking questions is a corruption of nature? Awesome.

You advocate stoning the whole society... Isn't it worse... See, a society standing on wishful thinking.[/uote]
===========================================================
What fresh hell is this? -- Why are you hands shaking with fear -- you can't quote properly, how could you respond?

amacachi

dead one wrote: »

no, don't blame nature, It's corruption in your nature -- You've chosen corruption for yourself and you see whole nature in prism of that corruption. Cure yourself from this disease.[/quote[
Asking questions is a corruption of nature? Awesome.

You advocate stoning the whole society... Isn't it worse... See, a society standing on wishful thinking.[/uote]
===========================================================
What fresh hell is this? -- Why are you hands shaking with fear -- you can't quote properly, how could you respond?

Just thought I may as well quote that to show that you can't quote either. Awesome.

IamtheWalrus

J C wrote: »

Where have I done this?

I have responded with logic and precision to every posting.:)

Love and kisses to you all.

I wasn't spaeking about you specifically. Just stating the reason I get frustrated.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

"This is hopeless Sam, we're going in circles!!!!"

Quite possibly, Galvasean.

I'm making steady progress in prosecuting my points!!!

J C

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

I wasn't speaking about you specifically. Just stating the reason I get frustrated.

If you go and get Saved, your frustrations might go away!!!!:)

... its worth a try!!!:)

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

Love and kisses to you all.

It brings us the love...

Break it's legs!

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

It brings us the love...

Break it's legs!

... there is no accounting for how some people react to being told that they are loved ... by God or Man.:eek::D:)

J C

amacachi wrote: »

The fact that I've lasted over a year without doing it suggests to me that the only issue I have with anger management may be that I'm just too good at it.

Good for you ... now try loving feelings!!!:)

Sonics2k

mickrock

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Christopher Hitchens


The assertion is that life emerged from inanimate matter completely by chance (abiogenesis).

There is absolutely no evidence for this. Abiogenesis research is at an impasse and has been for a long time.

It has turned from a theory into an article of faith, the very antithesis of science. It is blindly accepted as fact and then an attempt is made to figure it all out.

Even though all attempts to explain abiogenesis are proving fruitless, the theory is clung to even more strongly.


"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe, as an article of faith, that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." (Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)


“Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written." Yockey, 1977. (A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377–398, quotes from pp. 379, 396)


“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."(Francis Crick (Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88)


“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." (Dose, Klaus. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 13(4):348 (1988)


“Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not understand how life came about. Of course, it depends on the definition of life. To me, autoreplication of a macromolecule does not yet represent life. Even a viral particle is not a life organism, it only can participate in life processes when it succeeds in becoming part of a living host cell. Therefore, I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macromolecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem." - Werner Arber (Professor of Microbiology at the University of Basel, Switzerland, shared Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine in 1978 ), "The Existence of a Creator Represents a Satisfactory Solution," in Margenau H. & Varghese R.A., eds., "Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe Life, and Homo Sapiens," (1992, Open Court: La Salle IL., 1993, Second Printing, pp.142-143


"Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions. … The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life." (Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK

Turtwig

mickrock wrote: »

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Christopher Hitchens


The assertion is that life emerged from inanimate matter completely by chance (abiogenesis).

There is absolutely no evidence for this. Abiogenesis research is at an impasse and has been for a long time.

It has turned from a theory into an article of faith, the very antithesis of science. It is blindly accepted as fact and then an attempt is made to figure it all out.

Even though all attempts to explain abiogenesis are proving fruitless, the theory is clung to even more strongly.


"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe, as an article of faith, that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." (Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)


“Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written." Yockey, 1977. (A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377–398, quotes from pp. 379, 396)


“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."(Francis Crick (Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88)


“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." (Dose, Klaus. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 13(4):348 (1988)


“Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not understand how life came about. Of course, it depends on the definition of life. To me, autoreplication of a macromolecule does not yet represent life. Even a viral particle is not a life organism, it only can participate in life processes when it succeeds in becoming part of a living host cell. Therefore, I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macromolecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem." - Werner Arber (Professor of Microbiology at the University of Basel, Switzerland, shared Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine in 1978 ), "The Existence of a Creator Represents a Satisfactory Solution," in Margenau H. & Varghese R.A., eds., "Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe Life, and Homo Sapiens," (1992, Open Court: La Salle IL., 1993, Second Printing, pp.142-143


"Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions. … The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life." (Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK

On my phone right now and saw this crap will probably reply in detail when I have the time. I certainly don't consider origin of life research to be a failure though I will admit it very much depends on what you define as a success or failure in science. Let's not forget that one of the most successful experiments in physics was a complete failure.(if a mod could edit that sentence to be a hyperlink to the Michelson Morley wikipedia page I'd be eternally grateful.)
Also, why is this in a&a?

yawha

Do you understand how science works or do you just think that because we don't have a solid answer to some question or because scientists formed some hypotheses that were invalidated that scientific exploration of some subject is invalid?

Invalidation of hypotheses is the whole point of science. Demonstrable failures are fundamental to how we discover apparent and applicable truths about the universe.

Science hasn't failed just because it hasn't found an answer to something yet, that is absurd.

Doctor DooM

Jesus Christ.

Pun intended.

Sonics2k

"We believe in a God, but have no actual physical proof anything written in this book is real. We base it all firmly on belief and faith."

Jaysus you guys are hypocrites.

mickrock

yawha wrote: »

Invalidation of hypotheses is the whole point of science. Demonstrable failures are fundamental to how we discover apparent and applicable truths about the universe.

If a hypothesis is proving to be invalid, alternative ones need to considered.

In the case of abiogenesis the mainstream won't consider the alternative. This isn't a very scientific attitude.

mickrock

Sonics2k wrote: »

"We believe in a God, but have no actual physical proof anything written in this book is real. We base it all firmly on belief and faith."

Jaysus you guys are hypocrites.

"We believe in abiogenesis but have no evidence. Anything written in a textbook is real. We base it all firmly on belief and faith."

Corkfeen

mickrock wrote: »

If a hypothesis is proving to be invalid, alternative ones need to considered.

In the case of abiogenesis the mainstream won't consider the alternative. This isn't a very scientific attitude.

You require some data that genuinely supports this theory which abiogenesis does have (Although I assume that you'll repeatedly deny it)... You'll find that Intelligent Design is absolutely baseless rubbish...

Dades

mickrock wrote: »

In the case of abiogenesis the mainstream won't consider the alternative. This isn't a very scientific attitude.

"The" alternative.

That word sums up right there why even having this conversation with you is a waste of time. All you are looking to do is to insert a GOD into a gap you find in human knowledge. You have no interested in seeking an actual answer, only in asserting the only answer you will ever accept.