Originally posted by stuff1
If one doesn’t accept causality, then one can’t rightly accept any scientific fact

I am a pretty hard determinist. I accept causality in spades.

In this universe.



I notice without surprise that you didn't even try to address the second argument.

And when we cut and paste stuff from other sites, we use these tags

What immortal hand or eye
Framed thy awful symmetry?

to let everyone know we're posting others' work, rather than our own.

Originally posted by stuff1
You can't see that you are personifying the "Tao" You are playing with words when you say you "fund of Taoist philosophy" . Whether you "worship" or "fund" either way you identify yourself with a philosophy that is easily invalidated by the second law of thermodynamics. Can you argue that point?

I really do not see how this acher stuff conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics.

If you are agnostic this means you think there is no way for anyone to know. However, I get to say "How do YOU know there is no way to know" which of course is a self refuting statement. On the other hand I am absolutely sure there is an absolute truth!!

Above all I'm an atheist. I do not think (lack of observation/evidence/logic) that there are any deities. I'm agnostic only to the point that I can't say that I know that there are no deities. Your definition of agnosticism is not mine, but let's move on..

I will answer you wolf vs tiger argument. I like how you are trying to invalidate me as a witness. I respect that you are trying to attack my science or logic. Most people on this board can only quote philosophy arguements. However, I first must ask why you have not attempted to argue against my many anti-evolutionary claims when I started this thread?. If you do not answer those I will assume you accept them.

I haven't even checked the first page of this thread. Anyways I'll do that after this post

The answer is I do not know which came first the wolf or the tiger! I could look it up but I will be honest about it. If you want to claim a small victory over that fact than so be it. However, how far must one travel through the fairy tale when one realizes that the first 10 chapters of a book are a farce (evolution of stars, big bang and organic evolution etc) before I can put the book down? But I can't give you that much credit. Most Evolutionist don't even know the answer to those questions, as they are not as pertinent to the evolution of man as birds, monkeys etc.

The answer to this question about which, wolf or tiger is further away from us in number of ancestors (great-great-great..-great-grandparent) is.. They're exactly as far away when we go downstream. Horses, pigs, tapirs, rhinos, hippos, bats, whales and dolphins and lots of others are too. All Laurasiatheres are. We and them were the same shrew -like species about 85 million years ago (about 25-million-greats-grandparent). For example rodents and rabbits are way closer to us. You couldn't have googled it. At least I think you couldn't have, not if you had no idea what you were looking for. See all you needed to do was to understand that they both belong to Carnivora.. well anyways this just goes to prove that you don't understand modern evolutionary synthesis. If you were an evolutionist in the past, then you forsake it for wrong reasons. You didn't understand the theory. Btw. Oran Gutans are exactly as far away from us and chimpanzees when we count down their ancestry.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by stuff1

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang concluded that there was NOTHING then there was SOMETHING. Once the steady state model of an infinite universe was debunked the only logical conclusion is that something / someone outside of space time created the universe. To believe that a singularity was created out of nothing means you believe in miracles, just like creationist do.

I've already addressed this.

Stellar and Planetary Evolution - Evolution of the stars is also based on faith. Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with [e.g. a shock wave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud]. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can’t account for the origin of stars in the first place.

I'm not a physicist. However I've seen models of planetary system evolution. All you need is gravity. Don't really see a problem here.

Organic Evolution - The odds of life forming from the warm primordial soup are beyond 10 to the power of 50. Meaning they would never happen randomly (like dropping red, white and blue from an airplane would never paint an American Flag on a field) no matter how much time is given. Oh did I mention that according to cosmological evolution the earth would have been negative 28 degrees on average during the time the primordial ooze supposedly existed?

First of all negative 28 degrees what? Kelvin? That would go well with the absurdity of the rest of this claim.

Macro Evolution - The changing of one kind to another. According to evolution you are from a rock which eroded into the primordial ooze, became a "simple" cell, a simple amphibian, fish, bird, monkey etc blah, blah to you. If Macro Evolution where true you need to show that new information was created in the DNA. Yet there is not one example of clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations. Mutations that are expressed virtually always result in loss of information or corruption of the gene. People can mutate to be immune to malaria but that is because they have sickle cell anemia. Bacteria can mutate to be resistant to antibiotics but that is because the pouch that holds the antibiotic is gone, kind of like saying a human is immune to handcuffs because his hands are gone. While it may be beneficial "in that environment" the organism is actually weaker. This is evidence of de-evolution.

Gene duplication + mutation = new information. That's how your RGB colour vision for example came to be. Be thankful, not ignorant.

Micro Evolution - Everybody can easily observe changes within a kind. Great, this does not prove Macro Evolution

Lots of micro = macro

[edit on 28-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

I never realized how much Religion encourages research of Science. Even if it is used to reinforce a certain belief system it is still being used. Baby steps.

I do not agree with you about your post but I am excited to see you questioning ideas and theories so enthusiastically. So AWESOME to have people using science to understand our Universe and our Planet.

Our plan is working.....pppppppperfectly. Soon we will have them ALL using Science.

MMMUUUUAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Our NWO Science Agenda, is in FULL EFFECT!

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
I never realized how much Religion encourages research of Science.

Too true. It's probably why I'm studying biology in a University now. It was interesting at school, but I never paid that much attention. I was too busy getting high Then around 2000 I started taking part in these ridiculous evolution vs. creationism debates and my knowledge in the field skyrocketed. Couldn't let them creationists win. Anyways thanks to that I got so easily into a University. Wasn't a total waste

I'm a total armchair physicist nowadays too. It's thanks to the very same debates

[edit on 28-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Quick facts guys:


The theory of evolution and the big bang are 2 different subjects.

The theory of evolution does have numerous holes but it has nothing to do with all religions.

Most religions based off the new and old testaments do have a problem with evolution

Atheists stick to evolution becuase it goes against their concept of religion (western religions)

There are religions that do not give 2 craps about evolution

Creationists theories have just as many holes as the evolution theory, excluding young earth theories. a 6,000 year old earth is retarded

Christians and Atheists are the two easiest groups to troll.

this thread reminds me so much of this article

Atheism is a religion for people who worship themselves instead of God. As a Christian will typically quote the Bible during an argument, most atheists will quote The God Delusion. Since nearly every forum on the series of tubes we call "Internets" has a 90 page long religion thread, it is clear that much drama and BAWWWWW is had with such a sensitive topic. In this article we'll take a look at the atheists' side of this eternal argument and attempt to glean important facts regarding their position. BEHOLD!

Atheists suffer from a rare, more aggressive form of unwarranted self-importance. Atheists typically think they are smarter then you no matter what. Just try to correct them on something and prepare to be blasted away with some SERIOUS LOGIC! Like furries, many exhibit very serious cases of a persecution complex, believing that Secret Christian Anonymous Terrorists (SCAT) are trying to eradicate them by putting the word "God" in things. A high priest of Atheism discovered last Thursday that should a fellow Atheist hear the "Under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance three times within an hour, they will instantly convert to Christianity and then die. Ultimately, they will all just end up burning in Hell.

Atheists are consumed by the delusion that religion somehow is the cause of all conflict and that it is directly responsible for every war and murder that has ever occurred in history, when in reality it is just a source of major lulz for their more temperate kin. Of course, most atheists fail to realize that, with or without religion, there will always be stupid people in the world who will fervently believe anything they read.

Originally posted by The Mack

The theory of evolution does have numerous holes but it has nothing to do with all religions.

Holes such as?

Originally posted by Daniem
You shun your god's own creation (and ironically call yourselves creationists) while obsessing with a man-made book which contradicts the reality you think god created.

Exactly.

Not believing in evolution is a bizarre politically driven occurrence.

Religious people capable of comprehending but continually denying observable science is truly a modern phenomenon.

Might be a good time to ban religious talk on ATS, then those here doing "The Lord's Work" to convert us will simply pick up and leave. I am sick of seeing this crap, even started a thread about it. For some bizarre reason ATS is becoming a site packed full of religious lunacy. I'm with Dawkins: "stop being so damned respectful".

Oh really, lets look at this.

"I have come to the following conclusion: Evolution is a conspiracy created by those who have philosophical objections to the God of the Bible."
Evolution does not disprove god, if he, she, or it is an all powerful being, he, she, or it should be able to make evolution happen easy.

"Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang"
the start of the universe has nothing to do with the big bang.

"Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang"
At first there was nothing, then god said let there be light. Try to make an argument that does not point to being creation.

"Stellar and Planetary Evolution"
still not on topic I see.

"negative 28 degrees on average during the time the primordial ooze supposedly existed? "
So you are saying that life could not exist that time. YOu are forgetting about the heat coming from the INSIDE of the earth, that has affected things greatly at that time.

"Macro Evolution - The changing of one kind to another"
It is made from several micro evolutions

"Micro Evolution - Everybody can easily observe changes within a kind. Great, this does not prove Macro Evolution "
see above comment sir.

"based on the overall body of evidence creationist and evolutionist bring to the table"
Creationist, proof, in the same sentence!! Show me one bit of proof for creation, "it's in the bible" doesn't count.

"people have philosophical objections to the God of the Bible and therefore will refuse to believe creation no matter what"
most evolutionist are theist and vise versa. Even the vatican can look at the evidence and say that it doesn't disprove god.

Your argument: fail