Is a naturally occuring universe/life the biggest conspiracy ever?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You do love misquoting science don't you? Its as if you begrudge science its place in a modern world.

On the previous page but a few posts ago I have linked Dawkins saying that everything came from nothing
I would be happy to show you new scientist explaining something from nothing and also talk origins as well

Your problem is the stupidity of your peers leave you no defense, your only choice is to attack my credibility, good logical plan.
Yet, talk origins, new scientist and Dawkins are not me, they all say everything came from nothing

You have to believe I misquote, you have to sell my misquoting to others, because without you pushing my misquoting agenda you look very foolish

Travel but a few posts before and you will see mr Dawkins explaining how nothing is something, not quarks, not air, not germs, that nothing is definetly something

Then realise the utter foolishness of your chosen religion

A few posts ago I was asked to define something so someone could define nothing
Then I was told because I was a layman my nothing was incorrect because smarter people had changed the value of nothing to something, making nothing something means it's no longer nothing
Evidently now I am trolling because I want someone to explain, without a stupid box they want to open, how nothing is something scientifically

I hope the guy with the box has crayons, I want him to sit in a corner and colour the box in, that will keep him amused I am sure

I don't misquote science, I linked it above so any person who wanted to question me could see I wasn't the one saying nothing was something

Understand, tee heee, heee, hee
You are so silly noinden, so silly indeed

I think you hate science noinden, hate it so you have to lie for it, hate it because it exposes your weakness, your fears, so you tear it apart, poison its root

I think science, all science is a poison to you and you desire to control it causes you to hate science, you corrupt science, you hate it

a reply to: Raggedyman

You seem totally hooked on Dawkins being the only voice in evolutionary science He is an individual. But sadly you assume that one person, equates to us all. As I have said. Science has MANY hypotheses for the start of life.

You are pretty poor at judging what I like as well. Go illustrate where I have lied, and where I hate science I'd be a pretty sick cookie to make a career in Science, if I hated it. NO I love it. I get to help with next generation pharmaceuticals, which may save lives.

So until you can prove what you state about me, keep on ranting.

a reply to: Noinden

You seem focused on what I say, go study dear boy

New scientist
Talk origins
To name two others I have listed apart from mr Dawkins
Now excuse my long winded post
I have noted adding text at length, no matter how invalid seems to add weight to posts, don't understand why, just seems to be what atheists do.
You ask them do you believe such and such and you get a page of writing with no substance

Why not look beyond ats for answers, do science, go study

Many stupid scientists say nothing is something, many places in googles world discuss the stupidity of nothing being something

Yet you come to me, a layman, a poor, simpleton, why?
Because I question your faith and you are a moth to a flame, drawn to the truth, no matter the pain.
You feel your religions grasp slowly releasing as you activate your brain, activating as you think more clearly," nothing can't be something, that's stupid"
Then wham, you fog out again and think nothing is something

I can prove it by stating you believe nothing is something and that's just dumb beyond all logic

a reply to: Raggedyman

You seem a tad confused as to what I am saying to you. I am asking YOU to back up your statements. Yo uare an adult right? You can stand by what you say? Show it to be true? OR do you just say things. You also seem confused over my religion (paganism) and my job (scientist).

I study every day of my life squire

a reply to: Raggedyman

So what exactly makes your version of religion more realistic? Just curious why you are so adamant and act like you know for a fact that your religion is correct and evolution is some unrealistically massive conspiracy. How do you know this? We already have established that you don't understand basic science and choose to ignore all evidence rather than address it. Why are you so stern in this position? I'm genuinely curious this time. Don't give me the usual troll answer, give me some valid reasoning. Where did god come from? Is he just stardust and mud? If you can't explain god's origin, it means you rely on stardust, mud and magic!

Except... scientists can be incorrect. And they are, all the time. Every time a new finding or discovery is made, science is changed, text books are changed, what they thought before was wrong. I don't see how it would be any different if God was proven.

a reply to: Barcs

Because he has belief in this being the truth. So a gnosis. As we all know gnosis trumps evidence and logic ...right? *cricket noises*

a reply to: Barcs

I don't think you have a single clue what basic science is
Not one drop of an idea
You will swap it for dogma and hope
Faith

Faith represents your position and mine
I believe by faith
I don't know my religion is correct
It's a faith a belief whole like yours


I am not going to deny dust water and magic
I don't claim it as a science
I don't need empirical evidence for my faith just like you don't need it for yours

God said He wAs already there that's enough

Now noinden
If you are a scientist as you claim you should have been taught I would assume at an education centre
The o us of science is on the testing of science
You can't test faith
The onus is on scientists to prove
Asking me to prove faith makes me dubious of your claims
Denying evidence and suggesting a truth is not science

So simply
Faith based. No. We'd to back it up

Science
Evidence based. Needs evidence

Unless it's not a science

The onus is. Of on me for proof

It's on s is tists when they claim a fact

Do you understand why I am dubious of your claimed education
You don't seem to understand how to apply think basic science

So where do pagans think life came from
Is paganism science based

If you demand science then science demands evidence

Not so much my problem with faith
Sorry

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Barcs

Because he has belief in this being the truth. So a gnosis. As we all know gnosis trumps evidence and logic ...right? *cricket noises*

I am not a gnosis
Gnostics may well believe what you suggest
Go ask Akragon

I don't need evidence for faith
Though I can suggest the bible as evidence that satisfies me

a reply to: Raggedyman

Just because i know what a gnostic actually is, and have studied Gnosticism for many years does not make me one...

Similar to how you know what Christianity is... and science, but you are neither a scientist or a Christian

a reply to: Raggedyman

You don't know the difference between the term gnosis and gnostic it seems just as scientific terms confuse you to the point you fixate on the incorrect meanings!

Gnosis is spiritual truth based solely on beliefs...

a reply to: Raggedyman

You didn't answer the question.

"God said He wAs already there that's enough"

God said this to you? Or is this based on what some guy wrote down thousands of years ago that you believe is literal truth?

Again, if god didn't say this to you directly, how do you KNOW the word of ancient man is the truth when it comes to god? There are dozens of other belief systems with the same claims and the same ancient scriptures.

a reply to: Barcs

I am staggered by your simplicity

You are arguing that I take Amans words written in a book and yet you listen to a man in a white coat with a few dug up bones maybe thousands or as you believe millions of years old with no evidence telling you what he thinks you should believe

You can't be that ...

a reply to: Noinden

I didn't know that noinden

You are sooo smaarrt

What I do know is that dirt and water is stupid

I don't claim to know everything

I don't claim that faith needs evidence like you do
I don't rely on faith to prove s ience like you

Tracking with me
Keeping up
Learning

Faith belief
Science evidence

Do you understand that

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
As I said "assuming that the bible is correct".

Why?

a reply to: Raggedyman

you listen to a man in a white coat with a few dug up bones maybe thousands or as you believe millions of years old with no evidence telling you what he thinks you should believe

More ignorance of how science works. He can't just dig up a bone and claim that it's millions of years old and have people believe him. Creationist "scientists" try to pull this kind of malarkey constantly and the only people who accept them are other creationists suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias. Scientists who practice actual science have to present the evidence for their conclusions. You can try and find fault with their conclusions, but do it by refuting the science. Sorry, Raggedy, but "dirt plus water don't make no sense to me hyuck hyuck hyuck" isn't a refutation. It's just ignorance.

YES!

Its a idea spread by the devil through his agents the atheisits and communists!

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: Raggedyman

you listen to a man in a white coat with a few dug up bones maybe thousands or as you believe millions of years old with no evidence telling you what he thinks you should believe

More ignorance of how science works. He can't just dig up a bone and claim that it's millions of years old and have people believe him. Creationist "scientists" try to pull this kind of malarkey constantly and the only people who accept them are other creationists suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias. Scientists who practice actual science have to present the evidence for their conclusions. You can try and find fault with their conclusions, but do it by refuting the science. Sorry, Raggedy, but "dirt plus water don't make no sense to me hyuck hyuck hyuck" isn't a refutation. It's just ignorance.

Ignorance

Are you for real, they date fossils by the rocks they find them in and the rocks by the fossils in them
It's called circular reasoning

How about you show me my ignorance, how about you get the evidence to shut me up

It's just ignorance

Evidence or turn tail and run, run quick, nobody likes to be seen as a failure

Any malarkey can be shut down with evidence

I don't expect you to do anything more than talk opinion, assumption and yourself up

a reply to: Raggedyman

And back to the strange pathology you have, where you fixate on earth and water.....

You also really seem to be inheriting others inability to read and retain. I don't claim faith needs proof. I am comfortable with my religious gnoses, I just do not expect others to have to believe them. Now my eidein (intellectual knowledge) that requires proof. That would be the science I work in

So cliff notes for you, as you seem to function at that level:

Gnosis is spiritual knowledge, and that requires belief
Eidein it is intellectual knowledge, it requires evidence.

They are different. Just as my spiritual practice (nDraíocht) is different from my Science.

slán leat

originally posted by: Raggedyman


Ignorance

Are you for real, they date fossils by the rocks they find them in and the rocks by the fossils in them

No, they don't date fossils by the strata in which they are found and then subsequently date the strata by the fossils found. Certainly there are what we refer to as 'index fossils' but no one method of dating is ever utilized to obtain dates for fossilized remains.

It's called circular reasoning

That's much more your forte

How about you show me my ignorance, how about you get the evidence to shut me up

Why would any sane individual continue to entertain your tantrums when you either refuse to read the data given to you, are incapable of understanding or carry on with baseless ad hominems? It's ridiculous that you post page after page in thread after thread the same BS lies, refuse to support your own willfully ignorant garbage and then continue to demand what has been given ad infinitum.

It's just ignorance

In your case, the ignorance is entirely willful. You don't want evidence. You're just a cheer leader for scientific illiteracy.

Evidence or turn tail and run, run quick, nobody likes to be seen as a failure

You're doing just fine all on your own with that.

Any malarkey can be shut down with evidence

Then please demonstrate some.

I don't expect you to do anything more than talk opinion, assumption and yourself up

,
And likewise nobody expects you to be honest or literate at this point.