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

[Jan Ardena]

Just because you have no clue how this work gets done, Jan, it doesn't mean there's nobody else who can do it.

Not saying they can’t do it.
But from Humphrey the Hippo to Willy the whale, is a stretch. Don’t you think?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Intelligent design.

Intelligent design is not a theory...it doesn't even reach the status of hypothesis.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

So what now?

You come back to your senses.

I’m disappointed that they didn’t put music to this.

 

[James R]

Maybe you didn’t understand the question.
How is it an attack?

You're aware that the people you are talking about it are, in effect, right here in front of you, are you not?

There is no discussion with these guys.
Either they are deluded, or they are being paid to spit these lyrics.
​

Calling people deluded and accusing them of being paid shills - to their face - is not insulting?

You may as well just have some fun, and see how many ways you can let them witness their delusion, then watch how they try to get out of it, by any means necessary. Watch as they carry on as though it never existed. It’s amazing!​

Implying that people are unscupulous and will use "any means necessary" to "get out of it" - to their face - is not insulting?

One day this mindset will be in power. A very chilling thought? I know.
​

Saying that people with "this mindset" are dangerous - to their face - is not an insult?

These guys represent the entropy of the mind.
​

Saying people's intellect is degrading - to their face - is not an insult?

Watch any futuristic movie where freedoms of minds are suppressed?
​

Accusing people of trying to suppress free thought - to their face - is not an insult?

Is this what your religion has taught you, Jan? Are these your standards?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Intelligent design is not a theory...it doesn't even reach the status of hypothesis.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.
You need to calm down, take a deep breath, and look at things properly. Drink if you must, but do so in moderation.

The mood here seems to be pretty good thus far. Peeps in my neighbourhood appear to respecting the government guidelines. And the supermarkets are being replenished after the initial panic.

 

[James R]

Probably very disappointed darwinist palaeontologists

"Probably"?

You mean you don't actually know who you were referring to? Are you making "they" up, Jan?

You’re actually correct.
People often get second opinions.

What? More experts? What's the good of more experts? I thought you were anti-expert, Jan.

Likewise.

That's where you're wrong. You're unable to spot an expert. It probably goes a long way to explaining why you buy the creationist bullshit.

You are correct, again.

Pay attention. I'm usually correct.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

But from Humphrey the Hippo to Willy the whale, is a stretch.

No given that is what the fossil record tells us.

You seem incapable of understanding even though you have had the process spoon fed to you and even after all that you still sprout your nonsense...
The evidence is available and you reject it in favour of the ramblings of ancient folk who had no idea...you are running on empty...you are unable to prove anything you support ...doesn't that tell you something? Clearly evidence can't win against your stubbornness to believe myths.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Calling people deluded and accusing them of being paid shills - to their face - is not insulting?

Not in relation to how these guys converse.
You wouldn’t bring a knife to a gunfight. Would you?

Saying people's intellect is degrading - to their face - is not an insult?

Not if they openly display it.
And the above analogy still stands.
In fact it stands for all the points you bring up.
Why don’t you pull them up publicly for their behaviour?

The idea of such minds become the powerfully dominant, is a very frightening prospect. It will be the end of reason. They will have no remorse, just as they constantly display here. Truth will be a patented commodity.
I may just create a new thread going into more detail of this hypothetical phantasmagoric future.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You mean you don't actually know who you were referring to? Are you making "they" up,

“They” is whoever “they” are.

What? More experts? What's the good of more experts? I thought you were anti-expert, Jan.

You have to stop making stuff up James.
Try and listen/read carefully.

That's where you're wrong. You're unable to spot an expert. It probably goes a long way to explaining why you buy the creationist bullshit.

A bias moderator.
Entropy of the mind, man.

Pay attention. I'm usually correct.

You are when it comes to superficial data.
I’ll give you that.
But when it comes to religion, or God, Jude of character...
You’re usually incorrect.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Clearly evidence can't win against your stubbornness to believe myths.

Alex!
Why do you accept that as sci-fact?

 

[James R]

Tell me, what makes you think I’m convinced?

Why post it as if it were a fact, if you don't believe it? Are you trolling?

Do you accept abiogenesis as a scientific fact?

I'm very wary of your repeated use of the term "scientific fact", given that I've carefully described the interaction of fact and theory in science to you not long ago and yet you don't seem to have absorbed any of what I wrote.

Abiogenesis is the idea that life developed from non-living things via natural processes. All the available evidence points towards that being very likely, but it has not been established beyond doubt. There is not yet a single, dominant theory of abiogenesis. So, I'd say that its status is more like a very likely hypothesis, right now.

On the other hand, if abiogenesis did not occur then we're left only with the supernatural, and none of the evidence points us that way. So maybe rate abiogenesis as 99.999% and supernatural God starting life as a 0.001% possibility, or something like that.

What do you think? Is abiogenesis a scientific fact?

It seems as though you’re saying that the evolution of the animals proved that they evolved? Sounds circular to me.

No. I said that a series of fossils shows us gradual variation in the anatomy of related species, which is evidence of common ancestry.

You would say that a full set of foot bones in a flipper is some kind of accident or caprice of your God, but there's a more sensible explanation outside your dark room.

About as pointless as, all cars are designed with wheels.

Too fast for you? Okay, let's break it down into simpler chunks.

Do cars need wheels, Jan?
Do whales need finger bones?

Now, brain on. Think.

Off the top of my head, it predicted dna previously thought of as junk, actually isn’t junk at all.

Who predicted that? When? Was it "they"?

Now we have darwinists back-pedalling, say we didn’t mean it was useless...blah! blah!

Probably you're referring to science self-correcting an error.

Do you think it is bad that science is able to change and grow?

What does darwinism predict?

Where to start? Nah, I haven't had dinner yet, Jan. I've wasted enough time on you tonight.

Yes.
Intelligent design. Duh!

What does intelligent design predict?

I don’t know who made it.
It has been said the US created in a lab.

Does your version of microevolution allow for evolution in viruses, Jan? Or do all viruses have to be created by a Designer?

But from Humphrey the Hippo to Willy the whale, is a stretch. Don’t you think?

Not at all. It's a prediction of evolution.

Oh, look what you made me do!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is this what your religion has taught you, Jan? Are these your standards?

What do you mean by “standards”?

 

[James R]

While I'm gone, Jan, why don't you work on a reply to this post:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...retend-to-discuss.160197/page-61#post-3627746

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Again projecting your flaws onto others...it is clear you don't even understand a simple term such as theory...look up scientific theory and bath in your ignorance...seriously if you want to rail against science at least learn the meaning of theory...Google scientific theory and I promise you will be miles ahead.

You need to calm down, take a deep breath, and look at things properly. Drink if you must, but do so in moderation.

What? I say what are you talking about?

I have been laughing for the last hour reading nonsense on that creationist site.

The lengths your mob will go in an effort to make the myths real are extrodinary.

As James said the site is full of lies, transparent lies, any lie will do to somehow make the myth real...news flash..it's a myth..the creation account is a myth...and yet you favour myth over science, you favour make believe over reality....they don't even rate plants as life..just green things.

Anyways believe what you want, you are high on the opiate of the people an addiction you are unable to kick...poor you.

The mood here seems to be pretty good thus far. Peeps in my neighbourhood appear to respecting the government guidelines. And the supermarkets are being replenished after the initial panic.

That's good. I expect your church goers are doing the right thing but it's real bad news from the US it would be laughable if the stakes were not so high.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Alex!
Why do you accept that as sci-fact?

Are you asking why I have confidence in The Theory of Evolution?
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

What do you think? Is abiogenesis a scientific fact?

No.
It’s a desperate attempt to take God out of the picture. I find it childish and silly.

No. I said that a series of fossils shows us gradual variation in the anatomy of related species, which is evidence of common ancestry.

Why is it?

Why post it as if it were a fact, if you don't believe it? Are you trolling?

Who said I posted it as fact?
What if I were requested to post it?
By you? Let’s say!
Why would you accuse me trolling?
Just as a thought.

Do cars need wheels, Jan?
Do whales need finger bones?

While they may look like finger bones, I wouldn’t assume they are finger bones, as they don’t have hands. To do that would be jumping the gun in my opinion.
But to answer your question (without darwinian inference), yes and yes

Who predicted that? When? Was it "they"?

The Intelligent design people.
It doesn’t matter “when”.

Does your version of microevolution allow for evolution in viruses, Jan?

I don’t have a version of microevolution.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Are you asking why I have confidence in The Theory of Evolution?
Alex

No.
The question is there.

 

[Write4U]

Apparently jan has no knowledge of biogenetics at all. Let alone being able to have an informed dicussion on the subject of abiogenesis.

Viruses, including the Coronavirus are perfect examples of abiogenesis. A virus is not a living thing, yet it behaves as if it is a living thing, it is a bio-chemical quasi-living thing. The very definition of the in-between stage of abiogenesis!

Are Viruses Alive?
Although viruses challenge our concept of what "living" means, they are vital members of the web of life.

For about 100 years, the scientifi c community has repeatedly changed its collective mind over what viruses are. First seen as poisons, then as life-forms, then biological chemicals, viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonliving: they cannot replicate on their own but can do so in truly living cells and can also affect the behavior of their hosts profoundly.

The categorization of viruses as nonliving during much of the modern era of biological science has had an unintended consequence: it has led most researchers to ignore viruses in the study of evolution. Finally, however, scientists are beginning to appreciate viruses as fundamental players in the history of life.

Their demotion to inert chemicals came after 1935, when Wendell M. Stanley and his colleagues, at what is now the Rockefeller University in New York City, crystallized a virus— tobacco mosaic virus—for the first time. They saw that it consisted of a package of complex biochemicals. But it lacked essential systems necessary for metabolic functions, the biochemical activity of life. Stanley shared the 1946 Nobel Prize— in chemistry, not in physiology or medicine—for this work.

Molecular biologists went on to crystallize most of the essential components of cells and are today accustomed to thinking about cellular constituents—for example, ribosomes, mitochondria, membranes, DNA and proteins—as either chemical machinery or the stuff that the machinery uses or produces.

This exposure to multiple complex chemical structures that carry out the processes of life is probably a reason that most molecular biologists do not spend a lot of time puzzling over whether viruses are alive. For them, that exercise might seem equivalent to pondering whether those individual subcellular constituents are alive on their own. This myopic view allows them to see only how viruses co-opt cells or cause disease. The more sweeping question of viral contributions to the history of life on earth, which I will address shortly, remains for the most part unanswered and even unasked.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/

 

[Jan Ardena]

Again projecting your flaws onto others...it is clear you don't even understand a simple term such as theory...look up scientific theory and bath in your ignorance...seriously if you want to rail against science at least learn the meaning of theory...Google scientific theory and I promise you will be miles ahead.

You sound like a stuck record.
What is it like to not have a mind of your own?

Anyways believe what you want, you are high on the opiate of the people an addiction you are unable to kick...poor you.

I already told you. You can’t believe what you want. You can accept what you want, then in time you may to believe what you accept.
You believe in stuff you have no idea of, and stuff that isn’t true, because you reject your creator, God. You need to keep accepting it, so you can eventually believe it, so you don’t have to believe in God.
You hate God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A virus is not a living thing, yet it behaves as if it is a living thing, it is a bio-chemical quasi-living thing. The very definition of the in-between stage of abiogenesis!

No one knows if it is a living thing or not.