Proof the God was created by Man (behavior, gay, children)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People have been pointing out the flaws in your arguments for over a year. Yet your perspective has not changed.
Sorry, but I'm not going to accept your opinion at face value because you have demonstrated a deeply rooted bias against Christianity. Therefore, you need backing supporting evidence for me to consider that I'm wrong. Anytime you approach me with condescending commentary then I am even less likely to consider your points.
The real question is if it is such a lesson in futility then why do you and "your ilk" keep responding to every single post I write?
I guess you can consider yourself fortunate. Some would, anyway.
Most of us can't "choose" to believe anything once we're past the age of 10 or so - especially when all that's offered is a smorgasbord of childish fairy tales.
We prefer to believe in things that are true.
The bible isn't true.
Why because you say so? It's a new day and you still fail completely to prove that the Bible is false.
Why because you say so? It's a new day and you still fail completely to prove that the Bible is false.
I don't need to prove it.
I'm intelligent, educated and I can read.
There are some moral truths in the bible. There may even be a bit of historical truth here and there.
But most of it is absolute nonsense, myth and lies. That you are unable to separate the wheat from the chaff is your failing and that of all fundamentalists.
Those whose ignorance comes naturally - from lack of education, intellectual difficulties, intense indoctrination when young - have my pity.
Those of you who are not handicapped as above, those who deliberately choose to ignore truth and reality in favour of ancient superstitions, bigotry and lies, earn only my scorn.
The link above shows the citation to be incorrect -- a possible obfuscation of the quote not even being a reasonable paraphrase of what was actually said. Yet another pious fraud.
Extensive quotations are given showing Wald's position. For those with short attention spans, it is this: he argues that life from non-life is a special case of spontaneous generation, which science has demonstrated does not happen under current conditions. However the fact that we are here demonstrates that it happened at least once under some condition or other. Time, he says, is the hero in that particular narrative. It is difficult for us to conceive of events rare enough not to have happened in our lifetime or indeed in human history, but this is not much of a concession on his part: human history is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to geologic history.
Personally I do not agree with Wald that this is a question of spontaneous generation. The latter was the notion that, e.g., maggots and flies (complex life forms) generate from decaying matter in a short time. That is not the mechanism or even the association and we have established that. The failure of the hypothesis of spontaneous generation and the establishment of germ theory says nothing at all about primitive proto-life (viruses, prions) or primitive life (single cell or cell wall deficient bacteria) arising on vastly different time scales in vastly different environments. It is a category error really. Apples and oranges. Just because Wald was a Nobel laureate doesn't mean he's infallible.
Funny how I see a scientist constantly giving us new things to fears so we will run out and buy products instead of offering practical solutions. Millions of dollars donated to things like cancer research and what do we get year after year, nothing but the same old horrible treatments of chemo and radiation.
That is a (valid BTW) criticism of technology (applied science) and business use of technology, not of science itself.
It is certainly true that scientists are human and have egos and need money like everyone else and that sometimes this leads to turf wars that have nothing to do with the scientific method or its proper use. A great example of this would be a scientist working for the tobacco industry or for fossil fuel interests and being given the crack cocaine of lavish funding to prop up narratives that cigarettes are not harmful and humans don't cause climate change or that global warming is a hoax.
The difference is that such problems are self-limiting and cannot forever contravene the facts. They are holding actions, designed to allow corporate interests to delay disruptive change that will cost them short to medium-term profits. This in turn is driven, not by science, but by corporatism and its focus on near-term results (quarterly reports, stockholder value and the like). So the fix is determined by the actual source of the problem, which, if you follow the money, isn't hard to figure out. The source is not the scientific method or science itself, it is corporate corruption of science.
It is also true that the scientific method is not perfectly adhered to. There is a movement underway in science currently for example to do a better job of fraud detection and peer review using data mining and analysis techniques (among other things)*. There is certainly room for improvement here, as the exposure of several outright frauds in the scientific community in the past couple of generations has shown. Those guys should have been detected much sooner than they were. However their concocted research results did not invalidate any scientific theories, either. Their ability to deceive was based on the fact that they were operating in a very focused area such as statistical research on a particular topic.
All of this is to say that, yes, science is imperfectly practiced by imperfect human beings. But the vast conspiracy that would have to take place to advance a proven theory against the evidence is far in excess of what I am admitting to above. It is basically impossible. It would require too many people, too many competing interests, to be in some sort of mysterious orchestrated lockstep, too many shadowy enforcers silencing dissent. It would be rather like the conspiracy theories put forth by people claiming that aliens live among us in disguise or that the government is suppressing evidence of vast alien spacecraft bases in underground locations around America. Deception of such scope simply can't happen. Because then you don't just have imperfect humans imperfectly practicing science, you have imperfect humans imperfectly practicing deception and misdirection. The truth will ALWAYS out.
* This is of particular interest to me because I am working on similar techniques for fraud detection in the business world. My client is interested in spotting patterns characteristic of fraudulent activity by simply paying attention to available data.
LOL? Tell me, why should I even bother listening to the opinion of someone who mocks?
When a person is not literate in a discipline on or a subject and proceeds to make outrageous and inaccurate claims about the discipline or subject then they themselves set themselves up for mockery. You have no one to blame but yourself...it's long overdue for you to take responsibility for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And my point stands. There is such a stigma that any scientist who comes out questioning any aspect of evolution would possibly face career suicide. It's the same problem with doctors coming out saying that they witnessed a healing miracle. The skeptic community would put them under an uncomfortable microscope.
This is a perfect example of why you get mocked. You are completely ignorant of the world of science.
When a person is not literate in a discipline on or a subject and proceeds to make outrageous and inaccurate claims about the discipline or subject then they themselves set themselves up for mockery. You have no one to blame but yourself...it's long overdue for you to take responsibility for it.
This is a perfect example of why you get mocked. You are completely ignorant of the world of science.
What's important here I believe is adding the word "deliberately" to the bolded. Jeff has had his factual errors regarding science explained dozens of times. And he's smart enough and educated enough to process what he's been taught.
Yet all those many dozens of times he blithely ignores the information and continues to spew his nonsense and persecution paranoia.
THAT is why he faces mockery and disdain. He earned it.
I see this term used by fundies all the time. Just exactly what do you mean when you say cosmic accident?
It's not used anywhere in science to describe the Big Bang. Are you confusing yourself with the Cosmic Radiation Background?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
