Atheist; 'Evolution is a religion not science' (paranormal, philosophy, divine)

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

Wow... Time to relax you appear to think you are the morality/answer police. In free societies people talk and forums are a place for that to happen. You didn't even attempt to talk here but instead inflame. Breathe in and out and countdown from 10 -1. Apparently you feel threatened for some reason from someone who is not threatening.

No, you are not threatening, but rude when you don't get an answer you like.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

No, you are not threatening, but rude when you don't get an answer you like.

(ref'ing BJ's response to my long diatribe...)

Thanks, sanspeur.. well said, and brief! You saved me from having to get all wound up again. Of course, I was just responding to BJ's barrage of insults against you and some others. I kept breathing calmly the whole time, deciding just how to respond to him.

BJ, If you'd have just accepted the other guys' opinions and not lauched the Exocet missles, I'da kept my oversized yap shut. If you don't see it that way, I'd suggest that you go back and objectively review your posts as if they were aimed at you.

P&L2A.... rflmn™

[BigJon3475]

Before I was even asked about what I actually thought I was told what my religion was and how wrong it was.

Originally Posted by sanspeur

You don't seem to understand that the scientific method is to take any new hypothesis and attempt to prove it wrong. If it can't be proven wrong then it may be elevated to the status of theory, so naturally many fall by the wayside. Science, unlike religion has the integrity to admit when it is wrong and make no claims that it can't provide evidence for.

Wrong again; science could care less one way or the other about religion....Religion though has always considered the search for knowledge an enemy.

Do you think it is necessary to have a belief in a deity in order to appreciate the wonders of all that surrounds us? The main difference between the religious and atheists is that we atheists generally have a curiosity to understand what makes everything tick, and that has nothing to do with attempting to disprove religion. It is only a by product. You think science is urinating in your cornflakes only because many things in your bible are proven wrong, but the only goal science has is that of discovery.

You believers on the other hand seem to have no curiosity at all but blindly accept that God did it all. Where would mankind be today if we all thought your way?

If someone got ill that I called them out on assuming what others think by making broad generalizations then so be it. Even when someone post something that in and of itself shows a curiosity for life (the links I provided)

You believers on the other hand seem to have no curiosity at all but blindly accept that God did it all. Where would mankind be today if we all thought your way?

You wouldn't be anywhere without the religious fore fathers that wanted to know what their god thinks and how he works. Does that mean you should throw it all out the window because someone religious like Newton discovered gravity?

[sanspeur]

So where is my attack? Where do I say your religion is wrong? What I said is that over time science has proven many things in the bible wrong or impossible...I'm just the messenger.
Saying that believers seem to have no curiosity was a general statement, and not aimed at you, but perhaps I should have inserted the word "many" believers because some are curious. In fact some scientists are in fact religious....We all have brain farts from time to time...

[17271]

If evolution were a proven fact, evolutionists wouldn't get angry at people for not believing it. You don't see people getting mad at someone for not believing in gravity, they would just laugh. The problem is evolutionists can't prove their theory for a fact and they know it.

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by 17271

If evolution were a proven fact, evolutionists wouldn't get angry at people for not believing it. You don't see people getting mad at someone for not believing in gravity, they would just laugh. The problem is evolutionists can't prove their theory for a fact and they know it.

You obviously missed the links earlier where (macro)evolution was observed in a lab.

Most of us do just laugh, but some get irritated that people can be so thick-headed about science. Also, there aren't a large number of people refusing to believe gravity, and wanting to teach 'alternative theories' like that there is a colony of people in the earth with invisible ropes pulling everything down, or that we all have invisible magnets in our feet that are undetectable by science.

[agnostic soldier]

Originally Posted by 17271

If evolution were a proven fact, evolutionists wouldn't get angry at people for not believing it. You don't see people getting mad at someone for not believing in gravity, they would just laugh. The problem is evolutionists can't prove their theory for a fact and they know it.

People who accept evolution wouldn't get angry about it if the nonthinkers wouldn't try to empirically prove that their religious gibberish is true and try to take evolution out of public schools and replace it with Irrational Design. The reason people don't bother with people who don't believe in gravity is because they aren't trying to replace real science with pseudoscience. Evolution is a proven fact and any rational thinking person can see that it is a fact.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by 17271

If evolution were a proven fact, evolutionists wouldn't get angry at people for not believing it. You don't see people getting mad at someone for not believing in gravity, they would just laugh. The problem is evolutionists can't prove their theory for a fact and they know it.

Anger? I see no anger from disbelief in evolution....That would be kind of silly don't you think? Evolution sure seems to have creationist's panties in a wad though, judging from all the web sites attempting to defend it. creationism is good for a laugh now and then though.

[jackdonekings]

mehn crap i didn't enjoy arguing in my own forum my internet has been cut off for the next two weeks. But anyway the public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific establishment has a double standard
when it comes to the free flow of information. In essence, it goes like this... Scientists are highly educated,
well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct
critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable
of functioning on this high mental plane.


The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial, apolitical observer and assembler of
established facts into a useful body of knowledge seems to have been shredded under the pressures and
demands of the real world. Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but we should know
by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn't those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us
nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in World War II. That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual superiority is thinly veiled under a carefully
orchestrated public relations guise. We always see Science and Progress walking hand in hand. Science as
an institution in a democratic society has to function in the same way as the society at large; it should be
open to debate, argument and counter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned authoritarianism. Is
modern science meeting these standards?


We have seen this same "unscientific" approach applied to archaeology and anthropology, where
"scientists" simply refuse to prove their theories yet appoint themselves as the final arbiters of "the facts".
It would be naive to think that the scientists who cooperated in the production of the series were unaware
that there would be no counter-balancing presentation by critics of Darwin's theory.


Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an ardent true believer in Darwinian doctrine until his
investigative instincts kicked in one day. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he
suddenly realised that there were many disconcerting holes in the theory. He decided to try to allay his
doubts and prove the theory to himself by using the standard methods of investigative journalism.
Milton became a regular visitor to London's famed Natural History Museum. He painstakingly put every
main tenet and classic proof of Darwinism to the test. The results shocked him. He found that the theory
could not even stand up to the rigours of routine investigative journalism.


The veteran science writer took a bold step and published a book titled The Facts of Life: Shattering the
Myths of Darwinism. It is clear that the Darwinian myth had been shattered for him, but many more
myths about science would also be crushed after his book came out. Milton says:
I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first handÉit was deeply
disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent Oxford zoologist [Richard Dawkins] as
"loony", "stupid" and "in need of psychiatric help" in response to purely scientific reporting.
(Does this sound like stories that came out of the Soviet Union 20 years ago when
dissident scientists there started speaking out?)

Dawkins launched a letter-writing campaign to newspaper editors, implying that Milton was a "mole"
creationist whose work should be dismissed. Anyone at all familiar with politics will recognise this as a
standard Machiavellian by-the-book "character assassination" tactic. Dawkins is a highly respected
scientist, whose reputation and standing in the scientific community carry a great deal of weight.
According to Milton, the process came to a head when the London Times Higher Education Supplement
commissioned him to write a critique of Darwinism. The publication foreshadowed his coming piece:
"Next Week: Darwinism - Richard Milton goes on the attack". Dawkins caught wind of this and wasted no
time in nipping this heresy in the bud. He contacted the editor, Auriol Stevens, and accused Milton of
being a "creationist", and prevailed upon Stevens to pull the plug on the article. Milton learned of this
behind-the-scenes backstabbing and wrote a letter of appeal to Stevens. In the end, she caved in to
Dawkins and scratched the piece.

Imagine what would happen if a politician or bureaucrat used such pressure tactics to kill a story in the
mass media. It would ignite a huge scandal. Not so with scientists, who seem to be regarded as "sacred
cows" and beyond reproach. There are many disturbing facts related to these cases. Darwin's theory of
evolution is the only theory routinely taught in our public school system that has never been subjected to
rigorous scrutiny; nor have any of the criticisms been allowed into the curriculum. This is an interesting fact, because a recent poll showed that the American public wants the theory of evolution taught to their children; however, "71 per cent of the respondents say biology teachers should
teach both Darwinism and scientific evidence against Darwinian theory". Nevertheless, there are no plans
to implement this balanced approach.

reference book 'Forbidden Archeology, 'The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism' 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'. most of the people that believe in evolution have little knowledge to it, a face has two sides, if both sides do not agree then we have a decietful picture. Think deep, search deeper the world can be more cunning than you can imagine, the elite can be dangerous in double standard terms. Evolution is a myth

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by jackdonekings

mehn crap i didn't enjoy arguing in my own forum my internet has been cut off for the next two weeks. But anyway the public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific establishment has a double standard
when it comes to the free flow of information. In essence, it goes like this... Scientists are highly educated,
well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct
critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable
of functioning on this high mental plane.

Evolution is scientific theory.

Creationism is religion.

You can attack the science community forever, but it will go no where because evolution is science theory, designed to be challenged and perhaps disproved. Just propose an alternative theory that addresses all the evidence, and does so in a scientific way. That's all you have to do.