Here Is What Louisiana Schoolchildren Learn About Evolution

[Lonbjerg]

You ignored my question. What context makes the verse that I quote (where god orders the slaughter of women and children) any less horrible?

Get ready for a lot of babble....but no reply....

 

[Atreus21]

You arguments is a tried old one (I suspect there are a LOT of areas of science you are utterly cluesless about....hence your "argumentation".

Here is my reponse to you old, tired "song:

Bring me ANY evidence for your "creator"...or keep fiction out of it.

And what exactly are your credentials to look down on the rest of us poor unenlightened?

 

[Lonbjerg]

For all the atheist's claim of higher knowledge and superior intellect, you sure are long on cheap insults.

And you sure predictable...fallcies...no arguments....booooooooooooooooooring...ZZZZzzzzZZZZZzzZZZZzZZZZ

 

[Retro Rob]

You ignored my question. What context makes the verse that I quote (where god orders the slaughter of women and children) any less horrible?

Because I don't think you really want an answer to it. You want something to ridicule - that's what you want.

If I am wrong, I'd be more than happy to. But I need to get home to research it to be sure to give you a complete explanation.

 

[Lonbjerg]

And what exactly are your credentials to look down on the rest of us poor unenlightened?

I don't use circulear logic...nice own goal.
And by your own admission...I knew enoguh facts to debunked your fallacy with two words.

Did you have any facts?
No?
Didn't think so either...

 

[Lonbjerg]

Because I don't think you really want an answer to it. You want something to ridicule - that's what you want.

If I am wrong, I'd be more than happy to. But I need to get home to research it to be sure to give you a complete explanation.

Like I called it...no reply...just babble.

 

[Atreus21]

I don't use circulear logic...nice own goal.
And by your own admission...I knew enoguh facts to debunked your fallacy with two words.

Did you have any facts?
No?
Didn't think so either...

You refuted the claim that matter isn't spontaneously generated, yes.

You haven't answered the larger question behind that claim, which asks for the origin of any order at all, including forces like quantum fluctuation.

 

[Retro Rob]

Like I called it...no reply...just babble.

How's that babble? Because I'm admitting I don't know all the answers off the top of my head, or because I am offering to give him a reply when my work day is over?

Which is babble?

 

[ichy]

Because I don't think you really want an answer to it. You want something to ridicule - that's what you want.

If I am wrong, I'd be more than happy to. But I need to get home to research it to be sure to give you a complete explanation.

I'm sorry, but if you can find a line where god directly advocates genocide then it is NOT a cheap shot to say that there is something seriously wrong with the morality that the book is advocating. I'm no biblical expert but I know that's not the only hateful shit in the old testament (I like how at one point god sends a couple of bears to kill kids who made fun of a prophet's bald head.)

You can argue all you want about context but some statement will be outrageous no matter what context you put them in or no matter what background information you supply.

 

[Timorous]

You refuted the claim that matter isn't spontaneously generated, yes.

You haven't answered the larger question behind that claim, which asks for the origin of any order at all, including forces like quantum fluctuation.

You assume that there was a point where literally nothing (except god) existed and that any argument relating to the universe cannot explain how it just popped into existence. The issue is that there is no evidence that there was ever a point in time where nothing existed.

 

[randomrogue]

Clearly written by an idiot. It even got the age of the Earth wrong.

 

[Atreus21]

You assume that there was a point where literally nothing (except god) existed and that any argument relating to the universe cannot explain how it just popped into existence. The issue is that there is no evidence that there was ever a point in time where nothing existed.

The logic behind God necessarily assumes infinite and eternal existence outside of time, or else God is caused just like everything else, and is therefore subject to the infinite regress of "what caused God, and what caused that which caused God...".

A simple response to your statement that there was never a point where nothing existed is simply to say, "then where did it come from?"

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm sorry, but if you can find a line where god directly advocates genocide then it is NOT a cheap shot to say that there is something seriously wrong with the morality that the book is advocating. I'm no biblical expert but I know that's not the only hateful shit in the old testament (I like how at one point god sends a couple of bears to kill kids who made fun of a prophet's bald head.)

You can argue all you want about context but some statement will be outrageous no matter what context you put them in or no matter what background information you supply.

Like I said, you ask for an answer, but reject it before its even presented.

You're not a Biblical expert, or even a novice for that matter, because you prefer to stay stuck on stupid and to hold fast to your ignorance no matter how well- explained and accurate something biblical is presented to you.

Don't ask questions that you don't want the answer to.

 

[Paul98]

Lonbjerg there is no way to get though to them, they use faith in place of reason and have a predetermined goal. This is easy to see, just look at the arguments they keep on asking where something comes from, if you tell them they just ask where the new thing came from. While they do this they also say their god doesn't have to be created.

All this while having almost no understanding of the physics of this universe, and the very strange things that go on in it. If they really wanted answers to these questions they would go study physics and try and understand quantum physics.

 

[shira]

Again, the fact that we are created is evidence of a creator. The facts that forces exist which govern the creation of matter at its basis, such as Quantum Fluctuation, is evidence of a creator.

It's like trying to disprove that cars are created by men by crediting the tools involved in the job.

No, you're wrong. The existence of something is evidence of a process that brought it into existence. You're imposing your own prejudice and insisting that there must be an "ultimate cause" that created the "first" process, and you explain this (in a another post in this thread) by claiming that this ultimate cause must exist outside of time.

Yet if existence outside of time is possible, there's no need for an "ultimate cause," because one can just as easily postulate processes that exist outside of time.

The point is, you personally have a preference for the supernatural. You (implicitly) insist that only something supernatural can exist outside of time, yet you haven't a shred of objective evidence to support that assertion.

 

[Timorous]

The logic behind God necessarily assumes infinite and eternal existence outside of time, or else God is caused just like everything else, and is therefore subject to the infinite regress of "what caused God, and what caused that which caused God...".

A simple response to your statement that there was never a point where nothing existed is simply to say, "then where did it come from?"

The problem is there is no evidence that there is a before the universe in which this infinite and eternal god can act.

Of course the question you pose can be answered by saying that it did not come from anywhere and just is but without evidence to support that statement, and I doubt there ever will be evidence to support it, it is just the same as saying that god did it. The thing is when there is no evidence at all to say what actually did happen it is best to go with the most simple theory that explains what is observed.

We observe the universe exists and we observe that it is expanding. We trace that back to a single point in space but that is about as far as we can go. I propose that the universe just is, it was not created in any way and it simply exists because we observe it to exist. (I do not like that as written as it breaks causality. What I mean to say is that the universe just exists and there is no reason as to why.)

If you want to argue that god did it then you are adding in a layer of complexity that does not need to be there to explain what has been observed thus far. Until we have more observations to go on that is about as good as we can do at this point in time.

 

[Schmide]

Clearly written by an idiot. It even got the age of the Earth wrong.

It also gets the age of the Earth wrong according to the Evolutionist viewpoint.

Waddayamean? All the cool kids are saying the earth is approximately 4.5 thousand million years old. People don't say thousand million anymore. It's just sad.

Wizard. (RCSWEIII)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

But the argument holds that we don't observe, except in rare exceptions on atomic scales, spontaneous creation of intricately designed objects.

We don't observe "creation" of anything at all. Re-learn the 1st law of thermodynamics. Everything is simply a reconfiguration of things that already exist.

A wristwatch presupposes a watchmaker.

Because we know that watchmakers make wristwatches. Read "The Blind Watchmaker."

Yet a construct as massive and intricate as the universe is attributed to...nothing. All the processes necessary for its creation came from...what?

What creation?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Again, the fact that we are created is evidence of a creator.

It is not a fact that we are created. That's the problem with your reasoning. Garbage in, garbage out.

The facts that forces exist which govern the creation of matter at its basis, such as Quantum Fluctuation, is evidence of a creator.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's like trying to disprove that cars are created by men by crediting the tools involved in the job.

Cars aren't created. Cars are fashioned out of things that already exist.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is not a fact that we are created. That's the problem with your reasoning. Garbage in, garbage out.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



Cars aren't created. Cars are fashioned out of things that already exist.

I think he's saying that someone had to put those things together to make a usable product (car in this case).

You can have all the ingredients you want. Someone has to put it together to make a usable product.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I think he's saying that someone had to put those things together to make a usable product (car in this case).

You can have all the ingredients you want. Someone has to put it together to make a usable product.

Irreducal complexity has been debunked a loooong time ago.
Only ignorant nutters cling to that notion today.

Even Behe had to admit, in cout under oath, that he had no evidence...epci fail!

So creationist lie in public...but under oath they sing a different tune.

Lies and ignorance have always been the only defence for superstion.

 

[randomrogue]

There is not a shred of evidence to support religion. That's the bottom line. Period.

Each and every one of us is free to have faith in religion, mythology, and magic but that does not mean it can be presented as any kind of truth.

Stop mixing religion and science.

 

[MovingTarget]

What sepeartion?
Swear on the bible?
One nation under "god"?

You must mistake me for an ignorant person.

What separation? How about no state sanction for religion, religious test for office, etc? Have you seen the plethora of court rulings that keep religion OUT of public schools, town squares, etc.? We go out of our way to be sure that no one religion, or lack of religion, is preferred over another. Even in other countries that are more "atheistic" than ours, there are still official state-sponsored religions. (I'm looking at you, England) If I identify as Catholic or whatever, in the US I don't get my earnings tithed automatically to whatever church I identify with (Switzerland and other countries do this). These practices are anathema to any American.

You seem to confuse the separation of church and state to be the separation of religious people and government service. We are a nation where people hold many faiths. That does not mean that our government is anything but secular.

But yes, go ahead and cite those "examples" you put forth. Swearing on a bible is a tradition that is not required for you to follow. You can swear on a Koran or even nothing at all when giving court testimony or taking oaths of office. The "under god" part is nothing more than a relic of cold-war era red-baiting that will eventually go its own way. It no longer has any practical consequence.

So either I am mistaking you for an ignorant person because my sarcasm meter is broken, or you don't have enough experience with actual US culture.

 

[Lonbjerg]

There is not a shred of evidence to support religion. That's the bottom line. Period.

Each and every one of us is free to have faith in religion, mythology, and magic but that does not mean it can be presented as any kind of truth.

Stop mixing religion and science.

Quted for mother-fucking truth!!!

 

[Retro Rob]

Irreducal complexity has been debunked a loooong time ago.
Only ignorant nutters cling to that notion today.

Even Behe had to admit, in cout under oath, that he had no evidence...epci fail!

So creationist lie in public...but under oath they sing a different tune.

Lies and ignorance have always been the only defence for superstion.

Now it's your turn to explain to me how I was babbling when I offered to do research to answer ichy's question.

You did see how he ran from an answer before I got a chance to give him one, but I don't expect you to come to my defense on that one.