Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

[Tiassa]

Could you be more vague? Grasping at straws?

I documented a question you sorted out in cherry-picking for your fallacious complaint.

Lol. This coming from a guy who has never contributed anything outside of an internet forum.

So, we'll just take that as a no?

 

[(Q)]

I documented a question you sorted out in cherry-picking for your fallacious complaint.

I see now, you're saying that you're not following along, but are pretending that you are.

So, we'll just take that as a no?

Take it for whatever you want. Are you through trolling me now?

 

[billvon]

Who has invented or imagined, a powerful deity that brought it into existence?

North Korea.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

This is all Jan does, asks the same question and then provides his own dishonest, disingenuous answer, over and over and over...

I know there's a term for this behavior, but I just can't remember...

Another deflection!
Shut me up once and for all, by responding to my questions.
If you can.

 

[(Q)]

Another deflection!
Shut me up once and for all, by responding to my questions.
If you can.

Your questions have been answered by a number of people here several times, but you just keep repeating the same denials from ignorance over and over. You don't want answers, you just want to troll.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your questions have been answered by a number of people here several times, but you just keep repeating the same denials from ignorance over and over. You don't want answers, you just want to troll.

The questions I put to Alex, have not been answered. Repeating “there is abundant evidence for darwinism “ is not evidence.
The fossil record is an interpretation of the available evidence.
Showing drawings, or coming up with elaborate math, while may be evidence, is still an interpretation, or can’t be understood by the everyday people. A lot of who think darwinism is scientific fact. This means they take it on trust.
Just saying it occurs over billions of years, and therefore cannot be seen directly, cannot be classed as a real fact, because it has not been observed. Again it has to be taken on trust.
So look at those question again, and try to answer them honestly. If not to me, then at least to yourself.

 

[(Q)]

The questions I put to Alex, have not been answered. Repeating “there is abundant evidence for darwinism “ is not evidence.
The fossil record is an interpretation of the available evidence.
Showing drawings, or coming up with elaborate math, while may be evidence, is still an interpretation, or can’t be understood by the everyday people. A lot of who think darwinism is scientific fact. This means they take it on trust.
Just saying it occurs over billions of years, and therefore cannot be seen directly, cannot be classed as a real fact, because it has not been observed. Again it has to be taken on trust.
So look at those question again, and try to answer them honestly. If not to me, then at least to yourself.

You keep showing you have no understanding of evolution and don't want to understand it. The fact that evolution "can't be understood" is not an excuse, it can be understood by anyone who wishes to do so, but that's not you.

There is no getting through to a hardcore creationist like yourself who refuses to educate themselves. You talk about answering honestly, but you cannot honestly even bother to learn the theory yourself, so for you to even mention the word, "honesty" to any of us is hypocritical in the extreme. Your ongoing misguided misrepresentations are thinly veiled. We who understand the theory can see right through your bs. And, until you do bother to educate yourself on the theory, then you're just trolling.

 

[paddoboy]

Your questions have been answered by a number of people here several times, but you just keep repeating the same denials from ignorance over and over. You don't want answers, you just want to troll.

Hit the nail fair square on the head!!

Some would say that hot dense state, the point of singularity, represents the beginning.

When informed previously of his ignorance.....

Again your ignorance shows you as a silly billy. The BB is only applicable to the observable universe, and in fact cosmologists cannot be certain whether the universe is infinite or finite, as was explained to you previously.

God isn’t defined as a Spaghetti Monster, but we all get the drift.

A reference to any notion of an IDer as a magical spaghetti monster, simply is a derisive term that applies to unsupported and unscientific claims of supernatural and paranormal events, eg: Any deity.

I can reject on the basis that there is no evidence that points exclusively to darwinism.
That the majority of people believe in it, as no facts have shown to date, that is not based on just-so stories.

More examples of the dishonesty, confusion and obtuseness of this poster.
Darwinism, the theory of evolution is a scientific fact, that is backed and supported by the mountains of evidence and fossil records, obtained by the professionals in the associated fields, and it does not matter how many pulpits you climb into trying to deride this fact, it still stands as is.

 

[paddoboy]

I don't know Jan's exact position as I can not recall him ever presenting me with specifics...

You would be totally correct on that score. I believe in his cunning and attempted manipulative ways, he avoids expressing his exact position, to avoid the proper scientific scrutiny that would follow invalidating that position. In his eyes, he can then manipulate, misinterpret, and deny any proper scientific scrutiny as non applicable to him.
The only thing for certain we can say re his position, is that he denies the undeniable fact that Darwinism and the theory of evolution is fact, and he will automatically keep denying that fact, with dishonest assessments and obtuseness to defend his silly indefensible position.

 

[paddoboy]

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner...tion/a/charles-darwins-evidence-for-evolution

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/evidence.html


The argument is not evolution v's creationism: Its observation, logic and reason, v's ignorance, superstition and stubborness.

 

[davewhite04]

You would be totally correct on that score. I believe in his cunning and attempted manipulative ways, he avoids expressing his exact position, to avoid the proper scientific scrutiny that would follow invalidating that position. In his eyes, he can then manipulate, misinterpret, and deny any proper scientific scrutiny as non applicable to him.
The only thing for certain we can say re his position, is that he denies the undeniable fact that Darwinism and the theory of evolution is fact, and he will automatically keep denying that fact, with dishonest assessments and obtuseness to defend his silly indefensible position.

She is a Christian.

EDIT: More in the sense of following Christ's teaching, as best she can. No one is perfect or more perfect whatever then anyone else. Is the bottomline.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You keep showing you have no understanding of evolution and don't want to understand it.

Thats neither true, nor relevant.

The fact that evolution "can't be understood" is not an excuse, it can be understood by anyone who wishes to do so, but that's not you.

Most people who believe in darwinism do not understand it, to point where they can explain what it is about the evidence, that make them accept it as a scientific fact. I’m betting you’re one of those people.

There is no getting through to a hardcore creationist like yourself who refuses to educate themselves.

Attacks!
Deflections!
That’s all you’ve got.
Why don’t you actually respond?

You talk about answering honestly, but you cannot honestly even bother to learn the theory yourself, so for you to even mention the word, "honesty" to any of us is hypocritical in the extreme. Your ongoing misguided

Nonsense.
You’re using me as a deflection, so you don’t have to respond. How long do you think you can keep this up for?
Aren’t you embarrassed?

We who understand the theory can see right through your bs. And, until you do bother to educate yourself on the theory, then you're just trolling.

Why don’t you “ who understand the theory, answer questions that are put to you?
Still waiting.
You’re not going to weasel out of this one.

 

[Jan Ardena]

defend his silly indefensible position.

What’s my position?

 

[davewhite04]

What’s my position?

Midfield playmaker(Soccer).

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Some would say that hot dense state, the point of singularity, represents the beginning.

Some say that however a singularity is a region where the math admits that it breaks down such that we can say we just don't know however just prior the theory points to a hot dense something and to suppose that came from nothing is more unsupported speculation.

Similar to the point of where all the ingredients of bread have been put together. And now we just put the bread in the oven, and wait for it to expand. The point at which bread begins to expand, marking the point where we can understand what as taken place.

Religion may need to employ simple metaphors but BBT can manage without.

Have you seen fossil records?

I have not held them in my hand if that is what you mean.

How is the example of a crocoduck, any worse than Fido —->Whilly?

It's is no worse but unlike Darwin opponents I was joking.

Thanks for the like Jan.

Especially as there is no evidence anyone can easily cite.

My point and that of so many tolerant folk here is ...the evidence is there for you if you care to look..science does not and can not make simple statements of proof we find from your side such as.."God is..."
The evidence is available read it or not I really don't care.

How does extinction show that darwinism took place?

I tried to make it simple...just think deeply upon the proposition that I set out.

Why invoke darwinism?

To explain the evidence.

But why invoke darwinism?

See above.

You saw when I asked Paddoboy for evidence of darwinism. He came back with more folk claiming it.

I did see that and honestly I did think "Paddo you are wasting your time Jan will sidestep that for sure"...and you did predictably. I suppose Paddo thought as you are happy to rely upon un named ancients you may be fully assured of validity if he provided the names of established experts confirming the huge body of work.

Rather than generalise perhaps point out which of the experts cited, for you, can be so casually dismissed.

Those are known as Biblical Young Earth Creationists. Most creationists don’t buy into that. But I can see why it is important for you to, kind of put it out there.

Those silly Biblical Young Earth Creationists taking the good book literally..don't they know it means whatever you want it to mean?

Nothing changes.

True.

What was the evidence, for you, that meant darwinism is a scientific fact?

I have covered this.

Do you believe the eye has evolved, or do you have scientific evidence?

Yes and yes.

Again, how do you know this?

It's what I read in some good books.

I don’t think you’ve given it much thought.

You could be right.

If this assertion is the same thinking process which you assert darwinism,

Silly me looking for reality in the wrong books no doubt. Guilty as charged.

No I don’t.

But you do ... But not if you don't want to..but rejection and offering no alternative is not productive.. imagine if we threw out religions before we had science. However if you have no alternatives that will stand scrutiny I am not particularly concerned.

I don't have to think about it at all.

That the majority of people believe in it, as no facts have shown to date, that is not based on just-so stories.
As there is no exclusive evidence, it makes no difference whether or not we believe in it?

OK let's not believe it...
That does not prove God.

Alex

 

[(Q)]

Thats neither true, nor relevant.

It's absolutely true and everyone, including yourself, knows it. It's also relevant because your denials are based on ignorance.

Most people who believe in darwinism do not understand it, to point where they can explain what it is about the evidence, that make them accept it as a scientific fact. I’m betting you’re one of those people.

If you and I sat for several hours talking face to face, I'd be happy to explain it to you.

Why don’t you actually respond?

Why don't you actually learn something?

Nonsense.
You’re using me as a deflection, so you don’t have to respond. How long do you think you can keep this up for?
Aren’t you embarrassed?

Why don’t you “ who understand the theory, answer questions that are put to you?
Still waiting.
You’re not going to weasel out of this one.

You've asked questions, I answered them, along with a host of others here. Your response? Denials based on ignorance.

So clearly, all you want to do is troll and make us waste our time trying to explain it to you so you can deny it, then sit back and have a jolly good laugh as you play your childish games.

 

[paddoboy]

What’s my position?

A denier of science, logic, evidence and facts.
A purveyor of unsupported myth, lies, obtuseness and nonsense.
Or as I said before, and the reason/s you hide your position as best you can...." I believe in his cunning and attempted manipulative ways, he avoids expressing his exact position, to avoid the proper scientific scrutiny that would follow invalidating that position. In his eyes, he can then manipulate, misinterpret, and deny any proper scientific scrutiny as non applicable to him.
The only thing for certain we can say re his position, is that he denies the undeniable fact that Darwinism and the theory of evolution is fact, and he will automatically keep denying that fact, with dishonest assessments and obtuseness to defend his silly indefensible position."

You saw when I asked Paddoboy for evidence of darwinism. He came back with more folk claiming it.

You mean the professional experts who have made this their career? So you want us all to accept your ID nonsense which you have no evidence for, over the professional experts? And no I certainly do not know the intricate methodologies of Darwinism and evolution, which means that I probably do take on faith what those experts tell me. The same reason I would take on faith if my local GP told me I had blood pressure problems or similar.
Yet you stupidly expect we all take the word of some nobody and his claims on a public science forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry...and even a Jan!

That the majority of people believe in it, as no facts have shown to date, that is not based on just-so stories.
As there is no exclusive evidence, it makes no difference whether or not we believe in it?

The majority of people are generally correct, particularly when that majority includes all the experts.
Trolls that use forums such as this for their pulpit, change nothing.

Most people who believe in darwinism do not understand it, to point where they can explain what it is about the evidence, that make them accept it as a scientific fact. I’m betting you’re one of those people.

No amount of lies, double meanings, obtuseness, and dishonesty will change the fact that you have been told by experts.
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner...tion/a/charles-darwins-evidence-for-evolution

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/evidence.html

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

What’s my position?

A little North West of where you think you are.
Alex

 

[Tiassa]

Click for a better distraction.​

Are you through trolling me now?

To the one, are you finished mucking up my thread, yet?

To the other, are you just about finished making my point for me, yet?

So, this was thirteen days ago↗:

The two weeks of the current revival comprise about sixty percent of its content (20 of 32 pages; 401 of 646 posts), and is such that nobody really seems to need to know anything in order to bicker their way through it.

Again, there is an underlying belief that some of our advocates of the supernatural are somehow dangerous. And, again, Jan Ardena has no flock but those who need him as an idol to lash against. And it is this priority that now constitutes sixty percent of this nearly two and a half year-old thread.​

Now, here we are, at 27 of 39 pages, and 535 of 780 posts, in excess of sixty-eight percent of the thread that boils down to an extraordinary demonstration of the risk in such attitudes as we saw early on, over two years ago↑, that, "there are some cases where you don't actually need to know a lot about something".

To wit, (Q), you're someone who redefines↗ religion↗ in order to lighten the burdens of your critique. In that context, honestly, watching two potsherds call each other broken is hardly an unexpected result of such cases when one doesn't need to know a lot about something in order to criticize and complain.

I will offer this piece of advice, though:

I see now, you're saying that you're not following along, but are pretending that you are.

You would probably make more sense if you actually made sense.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Alex

Natural selection
These are the key points of evolution by natural selection:

• Individuals in a species show a wide range of variation.
• Inherited variation is due to differences in their genes.
• Individuals with the features that are best suited to the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce.
• The genes that allow these individuals to be successful are passed to their offspring.
• Individuals that are poorly adapted to their environment are less likely to survive and reproduce. This means that their genes are less likely to be passed to the next generation.
• Over many generations these small differences add up to the new evolution of species.

Given enough time, a population may change so much it may even become a new species, unable to reproduce successfully with individuals of the original species.

————————————————————————

I agree with every point, bar the last bullet point (depending on what it means), and the conclusion.
Why do you accept the conclusion?