articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
That clip brightened my day.
If you can't educate them, at least you can use them for entertainment purposes.
Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
- Status
That clip brightened my day.
If you can't educate them, at least you can use them for entertainment purposes.
Lothian
should be banned
To be fair, writing just crap 300,000 times wouldn’t count. The reader would have no idea which book of the bible he was referring to.
I would suggest. “The Book of Revelation a review by Isaac Newton.
Crap crap crap crap (& 299.984 more craps)”
would be better.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
In order to find the total amount of crap in the Book of Revelations, we would have to talk about the incremental change in crap, dc, per incremental change in length of the Book of Revelations, dR, and then sum over the entire Book of Revelations as dR approaches zero.
Of course, Newton wouldn't have thought about it quite in those terms.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,342
It's actually one of the highest sugar content cereals on the market. Throw it together with some fat-free, lactos-laden milk, and it's a diabetic's nightmare.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,342
Not quite nothing. It tangentially shoots down the religious argument that a god is needed to create life in general and the designs of individual life forms in particular.
It's not much impact, because God of the Gaps continues on uncaring, but there you go.
Yes, although politically, this is unfortunately not the case. Just as evolution doesn't care why you reproduce (tender lovin', or brutal rape) so, too, does politics not care why you win the election (truthful reasoning based on solid science and philosophy, or idiotic lies to the masses and cheap shots stirring up rage in them.)
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,111
Raisin Bran: The cereal killer.
Irony
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Messages
- 934
You can't really consider it attacking the messenger DOC. You see, messengers tend to carry a message, which can be attacked independent of the messenger if that is warranted. You however carry no message, have no argument, and say nothing of substance; so you can't really call yourself a messenger in any meaningful sense.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
An organism can be single celled but not necessarily... we are organisms...
And mitochondria in single cells are like their own little oranisms...they are thought to have evolved independently before being engulfed and incorporated as an organelle--a kind of battery for some cells. All humans start as a single cell-- but they start from two separate gametes-- are those organisms?
DOC you just know too little to even fake like you understand what you are saying. What is and isn't an organism is one of those continuum things you suck at.
Perhaps you are better equipped to discuss cereal products.
And mitochondria in single cells are like their own little oranisms...they are thought to have evolved independently before being engulfed and incorporated as an organelle--a kind of battery for some cells. All humans start as a single cell-- but they start from two separate gametes-- are those organisms?
DOC you just know too little to even fake like you understand what you are saying. What is and isn't an organism is one of those continuum things you suck at.
Perhaps you are better equipped to discuss cereal products.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Why did you ruin my fun.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
Back to this lie, I see. Why bother? Do you think that your older posts just disappear, and we all forget the lies you've previously told? You dispensed with the "I'm just putting out information" lie, and admitted that you are trying to "support Christianity", and now you've reverted back to the earlier lie.
Pathetic.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Not so much pathetic as it is pathologic.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
And, really, it is the underlying "message" of his posting history: it is ok to be ignorant, and to be a liar, as long as it is in the service of promoting Christianity. Dealing with other people honestly and in good faith takes a back seat to pushing a religious agenda.
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Dagnabbit! Would you at least let me POST before you go claiming this? Ferchrissake, I can't even logon to attack you without you making that claim, ya moron. There, now you've been attacked.
Good to see another content-free
AudioFreak
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 374
Somehow I get the feeling DOC has a book printed by fundies called "Science" that just packed full of straw men, ignorant misinformation and pure lies. He just flips open to a random page, reads a paragraph and starts a thread with "science says *insert poorly constructed straw man*" in the OP and then proceeds to plug his ears screaming "la la la la la".
You can't simply make a claim and expect it to be taken seriously when you say "science says so" yet fail to produce any meaningful sources to cite. What's this thread got? 1 line on a webpage. Obviously this is the consensus of the scientific community but us atheists are notorious for turning a blind eye to scientific inquiry if the outcome challenges our previously held beliefs.
It's a shame too, because we've missed out on so many new and exciting understandings because of our unwillingness to accept new data and re-allign our views with the evidence regardless of the fuzzy feeling we get when we think about there being no god. But regardless of the fact that scientific study might imply that our beliefs are false, we will always insist on enjoying the fruits of science in the form of medicine and technology because we wouldn't want to be hypocritical.
You can't simply make a claim and expect it to be taken seriously when you say "science says so" yet fail to produce any meaningful sources to cite. What's this thread got? 1 line on a webpage. Obviously this is the consensus of the scientific community but us atheists are notorious for turning a blind eye to scientific inquiry if the outcome challenges our previously held beliefs.
It's a shame too, because we've missed out on so many new and exciting understandings because of our unwillingness to accept new data and re-allign our views with the evidence regardless of the fuzzy feeling we get when we think about there being no god. But regardless of the fact that scientific study might imply that our beliefs are false, we will always insist on enjoying the fruits of science in the form of medicine and technology because we wouldn't want to be hypocritical.
Last edited:
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
DOC doesn't even have that much. He has woefully misinterpreted (intentionally or ignorantly) what that 1 line on a web page says.
It is the intellectual equivalent of:
Person A: "It is my duty to inform you..."
Person B: "You said doody."
Hawk one
Emperor of the Internet
Technically correct, but you can say that about any field of science who ever disagrees with the Bible's "explanation" of what (if anything) happened, and how it happened. And the only fields of science not doing that would be those concerning stuff that that piece of religious dogma never tried to explain at all (like quantum mechanics, perhaps?). So it's rather meaningless to single out biology (evolution and abiogenesis) as being "atheistic" because it disagrees with the Bible. They pretty much all do.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I'm not well-versed in your other threads, other than the casual view here and there, but in this thread, the info you are putting out there isn't even contained in the link you keep providing. If you could support that at least one scientist in the field stands by this hypothesis, that would be one thing.
(It wouldn't be much since one scientist's support does not a theory make, but I digress.)
The link you provide doesn't say what you claim it does. As such, I hardly think you have room to be indignant about people asking you to support your claim.
The problem is that, as far as I can see, you aren't putting out information. To all appearances, you are putting out misinformation, i.e. information that is not in accordance with the facts.
Why would you expect anyone to thank you for that?
Sorry, but what reason would I, or anyone, have to go out and read your other posts when this one doesn't appear to have any actual substance? Do your others fare any better, in your estimation?
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
I have a vexatious nature.
That was certainly the case in his Thomas Jefferson, Columbus, Viking and related rants. Beaten completely in both fact and logic, he keeps bouncing back - almost like somebody had sent him here to convert the heathen - and the heathen were way beyond his feeble abilities. Ah well.....
Once again you are (uh, ahem..) misrepresenting what you are doing. You are not JUST putting out info - you are misinterpreting info, misunderstanding (or purposefully misrepresenting) info and or it's actual meaning/interpretation
and frequently misrepresenting responses to what you have done - or pretending they were never made. Not the same as "presenting info".
- Status