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

[paddoboy]

That’s fine. But my question relates to why do you think that?
I would also like to know what why you have a problem with ID. A more serious approach please, if possible.

Why do I think the theory of evolution and Darwinism is fact?
Because it makes sense, because it is logical, because over 100 years of evidence continues to support it, because it is literally observed and tested everyday, because vast majority of the people educated in this discipline have reached that conclusion, based on the mounting overwhelming evidence. If there was any doubt, if there was any convincing evidence that invalidated Darwinism and evolution, then every young scientist/Paleontologist would be out making a name for him or herself and be in line for the Nobel prize in November.
That's your first question answered again....
Why I have a problem with ID? Firstly we have no evidence for it, secondly, science has reasonably explained the evolution of space/time/universe back to t+10-43 seconds, thirdly, if its so awkward and incredulous in your opinion to accept the fact of Darwinism and evolution, and as a consequence, the fact of Abiogenesis, how are you able to then sit there with a straight face, and ask me why I don't accept ID? Why would not your same conditions of incredulity then apply to this so called IDer? Who created the IDer? Logical, sensible and critical questions you and any other creationist or believer in ID can never answer.
And no doubt if an answer was forthcoming it would be dishonest and obtuse.

So it basically boils down to belief, not evidence. Whale evolution can only be accepted on faith, because I’m pretty sure none of you guys have seen any evidence. But you accept what you are told from Gingrich and other scientists. Is that a fair statement? If not can you explain how you come to accept it as a science fact?

Not at all, that is simply crazy dishonest creationist nonsense. We all, take on trust what experts tell us everyday...why? because Jan, you and I are just not educated enough, nor knowledgable enough to understand and explain the deeper intricacies. Acceptance on trust on something like Darwinism and the theory of evolution is based on the reputation of science and the scientists involved, and the evidence they find and present, and the valid predictions that some of this evidence makes that are borne out.
But you want me to forgo all that evidence, all that expertise, all that education, because of your deep seated need for comfort and that fuzzy feel good feeling that when you die you are going to heaven?

Firstly, there is no side. You don’t need to be a theist to understand that technically, there is no real way to verify something like whale evolution. And folk here certainly is not in a position to verify it. It has to be taken in faith.
We’re not even talking about full fossils here. We’re talking about fragments, which have to undergo serious reconstruction. Then on top of that you have to use your imagination to build a story. It’s not as simple as bilvon would have us believe.

Just because you lack the ability and the education to understand the workings, does not invalidate the fact.
It simply shows you are not capable to understand, partly due to your limited expertise and greatly due to the brainwashing that you received as a younger person.

Secondly, there’s no need to bring up creation, or creationist. We can talk about that separately. At the moment it just seems like you’re using it to avoid answering questions put to you. If you do not want me to ask the questions, just say so, and I will stop. No need to evade.

Stop trying to be a smart arse Jan. There is a difference between asking a genuine question to seek knowledge, to asking a question driven by your agenda, which you have no intention of accepting.

Thirdly, it seems like you’re the ones who need help. Otherwise you wouldn’t need to just post sites, unnecessarily accuse me of stuff. I don’t mind the disrespect toward God or religion, or my belief, because you could see my points as disrespectful to your beliefs.

You have been given proper answers from two that are professional, and of course links from myself and others that like you are not professional.

Well we can discuss creation. I don’t mind.
But right now we’re discussing darwinism. Is it fair to say that?

No, and I have told you why.
In summing, and for the umpteenth time, Darwinism and the theory of evolution are fact.
ID and/or any form of creationism is unsupported and unevidenced.
Any deity at best is a superfluous myth, and totally unscientific at worst.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So they didn’t see names like jan Ardena,

I expect they would not know that name.

. I was interested in the denia

Were they shown your denial?

I’ll bear that in mind when and if I decide to promote my belief.

But will you provide evidence at any point?

It is so nice here, at the dam, there is a little turtle peeking at me...a wonderful example of evolution...I wonder what their common ancestor was?
Thanks to science I can use my phone go on the net and visit a university of my choice or who ever has the answer..don't have to type it in just talk to the phone... That's science for you.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

From....
BRITANNICA

Origin And Evolution
The earliest turtles known date to the Late Permian Epoch (the Permian Period lasted from 298.9 million to about 251.9 million years ago). Whereas living turtles are toothless, many ancestral forms possessed teeth. Many of the oldest and most primitive forms not only lacked a shell but also lacked a plastron and a carapace. However, early turtles did possess precursors to these structures.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

From The Human Edge.

It took him years of searching in the Canadian Arctic, but in 2004, Neil Shubin found the fossilized remains of what he thinks is one of our most important ancestors.

Turns out, it's a fish.

Shubin says his find, which he named Tiktaalik, represents an important evolutionary step, because it has the structures that will ultimately become parts of our human bodies. Shoulders, elbows, legs, a neck, a wrist — they're all there in Tiktaalik.

"Everything that we have are versions of things that are seen in fish," says Shubin.

Of course, there are things that we have that Tiktaalik doesn't.

"We have a big brain, and portions of that big brain are not seen in Tiktaalik," says Shubin. "But the template, all the way down to the DNA that builds it, is already present in creatures like this."

Inside this fish, Shubin sees us.

"It's like peeling an onion," he says. "Layer after layer after layer is revealed to you. Like in a human body, the first layer is our primate history, the second layer is our mammal history, and on and on and on and on, until you get to the fundamental molecular and cellular machinery that makes our bodies and keeps are cells alive, and so forth."

Alex

 

[Write4U]

ID and/or any form of creationism is unsupported and unevidenced.

Actually it has been falsified, not only scientifically, but "legally" in a court of law. (see Kitzmiller).
ID is now legally "forbidden" to be taught as a scientific curriculum in public schools.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

From Live Science....

The ID movement is orchestrated by the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), a subdivision of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle.

The CSC strategy for countering evolution is twofold: challenge its soundness as a scientific theory, then replace it with ID.

The CSC is using a campaign called "Teach the Controversy" to carry out the first part of the strategy. The campaign is aimed at public schools and teachers are urged to expose students to the "scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory." It exploits disagreements among biologists, pointing out gaps in their understanding of evolution in order to portray evolution as a "theory in crisis."

Selling ID as a viable alternative to evolution, however, is proving more difficult. In modern science, a theory must first undergo the gauntlet of peer-review in a reputable scientific journal before it is widely accepted.

Measured by this standard, ID fails miserably. According to the National Center for Science Education, only one ID article by Stephen Meyers (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 2004) has passed this test and even then, the journal that published the article promptly retracted it. The journal also put out a statement that said "there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity."

Straddling the fence

The ID movement's greatest strength lies in its ambiguity. It makes no claims about who the designer is or the steps taken to create life. ID does not say whether the designer intervened in the history of life only once or multiple times or even whether the designer is still actively guiding the destiny of life on Earth.

The ambiguity is intentional and part of what Phillip Johnson, a retired law professor from the University of California, Berkeley and one of the ID movement's lead strategists, calls his "big tent" strategy.

By paring the origins debate down to its most essential question—"Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?"—Johnson has managed to create a tenuous alliance between various groups of skeptics and conservative Christians, including Young Earth Creationists—those who believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old—and Old Earth Creationists.

In front of mainstream audiences, ID proponents refuse to speculate about the precise nature of the designer. Regarding this crucial point, ID proponents are agnostic. It could be God, they say, but it could also be a superior alien race.

Even if an ID version of science were to prevail, the designer's true identity may still never be revealed, Minnich said.

"I think it's outside of the realm of science," Minnich said in a telephone interview. "You can infer design but the science isn't going to tell you who the designer is. It has theistic implications, and then its up to the individual to pursue that out of interest if they want."

When speaking or writing for Christian audiences, however, ID proponents are more candid. Some have openly speculated about who they think the wizard behind the curtain really is.

"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the nonexistence of God," Johnson wrote in a 1999 article for Church and State magazine. "From there, people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"

The 'Wedge'

Also in 1999, a fund raising document used by the Discovery Institute to promote the CSC was leaked to the public. Informally known as the "Wedge Document," it stated that the center's long-term goals were nothing less than the "overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies," and the replacement of "materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

The means for achieving these goals was explained using a simple metaphor: "If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points."

In a 1999 interview with Insight Magazine, Johnson explained why he singled out evolution when his real target was all of modern science: "Evolution is a creation story and as a creation story, it's the main prop of the materialist explanation for our existence."

After watching and analyzing the CSC's strategy for years, Barbara Forrest, a philosopher at Southeastern Louisiana University, was reminded of another metaphor, one she used for the title of her book, "Creationism's Trojan Horse."

Like the hollow wooden horse the Greeks used to enter the city of Troy, ID is being used as a vehicle to sneak Creationism into public schools.

"They know that if you can get [ID] into a school, you're going to have some teacher who's going to present it as religious creationism," Forrest told LiveScience. "They know that, but they can't admit that until they get their foot in the door of the classroom."

The writers of the Wedge Document laid out a comprehensive roadmap for the CSC that included 5- and 20-year goals and strategies to achieve them. To date, nearly all of those goals—including the publication of books, engaging evolutionary scientists in public debates and getting media coverage—have been achieved. All except for one.

"It was supposed to be their first goal and the foundation of the whole strategy and that's doing science," Forrest said. "They haven't done any because you can't do science in such a way as to test for the supernatural."


End but there is more if you visit the site.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

Actually it has been falsified, not only scientifically, but "legally" in a court of law. (see Kitzmiller).
ID is now legally "forbidden" to be taught as a scientific curriculum in public schools.

That's so bloody refreshing to hear!
I see it further moving in that direction in years to come, as science does its job.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Forget gravity waves, the James Webb NASA and fussion research funding... all funding should go to creating life from non living stuff or as Jan likes to call it "goo" and when we show that life is created by natural processes nationalise all churches etc size the wealth and human resources and give double funding to the aforementioned groups who were cut back and let's see what the human race can do having been released from the tyranny of religion.

I say build battle stars to protect us from the aliens who are visiting and look into which solar system we can colonize.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

"I think it's outside of the realm of science," Minnich said in a telephone interview. "You can infer design but the science isn't going to tell you who the designer is. It has theistic implications, and then its up to the individual to pursue that out of interest if they want."

You don’t need to know who the designer is, is understand that there has been a design.
The fact is there is design.
The idea of an undirected process of natural forces acting upon chemicals, manifesting a living organism, can not be observed.
If something is designed, we know it.
The cell is obviously designed.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic,

It is. As is abiogenesis.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In a 1999 interview with Insight Magazine, Johnson explained why he singled out evolution when his real target was all of modern science: "Evolution is a creation story and as a creation story, it's the main prop of the materialist explanation for our existence."

Amendment mine.
He is totally correct.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Like the hollow wooden horse the Greeks used to enter the city of Troy, ID is being used as a vehicle to sneak Creationism into public schools.

She’s just being paranoid.
Intelligent design teaches that there is intelligent design in nature. One doesn’t need to therefore indoctrinate children. They will have the freedom to form their own opinions.
Unlike the regime they are currently under.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"It was supposed to be their first goal and the foundation of the whole strategy and that's doing science," Forrest said. "They haven't done any because you can't do science in such a way as to test for the supernatural."

You can test for intelligence.
You can’t for undirected processes.

“Erm let’s step over this complexity, because e can’t explain it away...

...we’ll just not mention it, and maybe it will go away”

 

[Jan Ardena]

I will probably be banned at some point.
So, I will say it was not a bad experience talking to you all. Keep safe, and all the best for the future.

You are the only one that has the problem it seems.

There is no problems with them.

They just didn’t answer the questions.

Why? You have demonstrated you don't want dialogue.

That’s not true

I don't think you have as you seem oblivious to the errors etc that would cause you to become an atheist.

An atheist like you?

That kind of rhetoric shows that you are an atheist. Not that you become an atheist because you read something. Your atheism preceded everything thing.

The scientific method is rigorous such that it is reliable.

The method greatly reduces opportunity to get it wrong.

But not in the case of darwinism.

There is no solid evidence that confirms whale evolution, or any such type of evolution. It is based in belief. Which is why you or no one can answer my questions without using evasive tactics.

And in general everything around you is there because of science, the plastic cup, the porcelain cup, the computer, the phone, the fridge, the paint on the walls, the carpet, your clothes your food any thing you see is the result of science even Rays banana.

What’s that got to do with anything?

Darwinism isn’t the same thing as those.

Darwinism is obviously a philosophy dressed up as science, because the scientific method cannot be applied to it. If it could, there would be no dispute.

It masquerades as science when it is no where close to science.


It's proponents are dishonest in saying they can't suggest a designer when clearly their hidden agenda is not hidden at all.


Proponents propose it is taught in school as an alternate science which shows how ignorant of scientific method they actually are.


ID has absolutely nothing to make it a valid hypothesis let alone a scientific theory.

Those statements are either ignorant, or complete denial.


It is exactly the same type of scientific approach Charles Darwin used.

Fun fact; the complete title for “The Origin of Species” was...


TheOrigin of Speciesby means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.


Science cannot determine who the designer is. The evidence does not come with name tags. That kind of theatre belongs in theatrical science.



Teaching it in schools will help to stop some kids from being indoctrinated.

You saw that video I sent, where RC was asking college students, studying various branches of science, why they accepted darwinism, and they had no real explanation of it. They could only spurt out the standard cliches.

If you go out into the street and ask random people who accept darwinism, you get the same thing.

You may not realise it But that is at best wrong at worst a big lie.


One has confidence as opposed to belief. Belief is associated with religion.

The evidence is available and you rejecting it or ignoring it does not make it go away.

Is that all you have to say? I’m wrong, I’m lying?

You may have confidence in darwinism, but you only have stories to back up that confidence. You cannot explain why you you personally think it is a scientific fact. That is well documented on here.

And you’re correct, belief is associated with religion. Thanks for making my point.

Whale evolution has been explained to you....

No it hasn’t. I am aware of the explanation of whale evolution, and the numerous reasons as to why it is not science. No one here as come close to explaining it.

I have..in Sydney at the museum they have a section where you can open the draws read the notes and examine the fossils.

So what?

You are now trolling.

Is your idea of dialogue to keep on sifting thru ashes?

No I’m not. I’m putting you on the spot.

If you cannot explain it as a fact, then you believe it. That’s not trolling in the real world.

But there is..the side of reason and scientific method and your side which is not only devoid of those ingredients but of honesty it seems.

Darwinism in the 21st century is a philosophy and a religion. It cannot account for complexity in the cell. It is hopelessly outdated. It is now politics, not science.

Stop trolling or I will report you...not that you will be banned

I’m not trolling, but go ahead if that’s what you have been reduced to.

I am all ears rather eyes..go ahead state your case, step by step. I think it's as simple as your cartoon in a funny way...but go ahead rather than just rant have a go mate,,,what have you got?

You’re not all ears. You’re in denial.

And I know you’re embarrassed at that cartoon, and so you should be.

We can not. If you were not committed to creationism there would be no problem.

You accept darwinism as a scientific fact. Your view of creation has to be warped, in order to maintain that idea.

Trolling...with a creationist agenda. I don't mind you being a sneaky bastard but but being a repetitious fool is just too much to bear..Stop it.

The fool is he who subconsciously asserts to himself, there is no God.

I Repeat you are doing nothing more than trolling.

Wrong!

I am in an environment of trolls.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You don’t need to know who the designer is

God or aliens are proposed so yes you, meaning we, meaning science..really need to know the designer if indeed there is one and that is u likely.

The fact is there is design.

That is not a fact only wishful thinking.

The idea of an undirected process of natural forces acting upon chemicals, manifesting a living organism, can not be observed.

True an idea can not be observed but it won't be long before we can take no living material and create life I expect ... now when we do that what will you say?

If something is designed, we know it.

Sure houses, clothes, cars etc but there is no evidence that a flower is designed or a dog or a whale..you can make a list..look at the eye..your mob say it is designed when clearly it evolved.

The cell is obviously designed.

If so obvious it should be easy to provide proof..off you go..impress me.

t is. As is abiogenesis.

Says you. Science and scientific hypothesis.

Amendment mine

Why ? You have no right to touch it I expect.

He is totally correct.

Nonsense. It is only part of what we are calling here science or if you wish in this instance materialist and we all know why evolution is being singled out ...fancy having to go to such dishonest lengths to hold the myth in place.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

. One doesn’t need to therefore indoctrinate children.

Sure but that is what your mob do.

Teach ID as an alternative..that is not how it works keep religion out of science classes..or will you deny it is not all about religion?

I will probably be banned at some point.

I very much doubt it...if you haven't be banned for trolling in how many years of trolling I would say you are reasonably safe.
Just don't troll. It's tiresome.

There is no problems with them.

That's what I implied.

They just didn’t answer the questions.

That is a lie.

That’s not true

That is a lie.

An atheist like you?

As you know I have moved to a higher level of enlightenment where what is must be and no bunny words for me.

That kind of rhetoric shows that you are an atheist. Not that you become an atheist because you read something. Your atheism preceded everythin

Stop babbling and try to make sense.

But not in the case of darwinism.

Stop talking nonsense.

There is no solid evidence that confirms whale evolution, or any such type of evolution. It is based in belief. Which is why you or no one can answer my questions without using evasive tactics.

Pure dribble and trolling mixed with a big fat lie.

What’s that got to do with anything?

Support that science delivers the goods...all the goods.

Darwinism is obviously a philosophy dressed up as science, because the scientific method cannot be applied to it. If it could, there would be no dispute.

There are none as blind as those who will not see and in the context of the replies you have been given is trolling.

It is exactly the same type of scientific approach Charles Darwin used.

Well why can't ID be accepted if it's good science...oh well ID it is not even a hypothesis.. it's not even a brain fart.

Just more creationist wishful thinking and total fantasy.

Darwinism is obviously a philosophy dressed up as science, because the scientific method cannot be applied to it

Rubbish.

there would be no dispute

You babbling nonsense is not a dispute.

Science cannot determine who the designer is.

Because there is no designer.

Teaching it in schools will help to stop some kids from being indoctrinated.

It won't be taught in science because it is religion...sorry science only deals with reality..take it to the literary section under myths and hoaxes.

students, studying various branches of science, why they accepted darwinism, and they had no real explanation of it.

Of course they are students and yet to learn.

If you go out into the street and ask random people who accept darwinism, you get the same thing.

Science is not a democracy. Theories don't get put to a popular vote because that would be just silly.

Is that all you have to say? I’m wrong, I’m lying

No I will add that you are trolling most of the time.

You may have confidence in darwinism, but you only have stories to back up that confidence. You cannot explain why you you personally think it is a scientific fact. That is well documented on here.

Repetitive trolling dribble.

And you’re correct, belief is associated with religion. Thanks for making my point

And religion needs a mythical god which you dishonestly left out...I did not make your point but you confirmed you will go to dishonest tactics.

No it hasn’t. I am aware of the explanation of whale evolution, and the numerous reasons as to why it is not science. No one here as come close to explaining it

Trolling again...tiresome and dishonest.

So what?

The relevance is lost on you..so predictable.

No I’m not.

You are..Trolling in championship fashion.

If you cannot explain it as a fact, then you believe it

I have even told you about my experience at the museum..you lose.

Darwinism in the 21st century is a philosophy and a religion.

Blatant lie and clumbsy trolling...you are repetative to the point of sickening.

I’m not trolling, but go ahead if that’s what you have been reduced to

OK if thats what you want.

You’re in denial

There is nothing to deny nothing you say has zip substance.

And I know you’re embarrassed at that cartoon, and so you should be.

I love the cartoon it condenses a long period of evolution ..you know what I think..it backfired on you and you know it.

You accept darwinism as a scientific fact. Your view of creation has to be warped, in order to maintain that idea.

I have told you enough times now that for you to post that reply is sufficient proof that you are dishonest and trolling to boot.

The fool is he who subconsciously asserts to himself, there is no God.

From how many thousands of years ago did you dig up that nonsense?

Wrong

right and the evidence is there for all to see.

I am in an environment of troll

So you have a multiple personality disorder you poor thing.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

God or aliens are proposed so yes you, meaning we, meaning science..really need to know the designer if indeed there is one and that is u likely.

No you don’t, you only need to know intelligence is associated with mind, and there is intelligent design in nature.

That is not a fact only wishful thinking.

No, it’s a fact (in comparison to what you accept as a fact). The complexity in the cell is obviously the product of a mind. Darwinism, unless it can be shown, is obviously not a candidate, unless you like impossible odds.

True an idea can not be observed but it won't be long before we can take no living material and create life I expect ... now when we do that what will you say?

Which is....
“Intelligent Design”

Sure houses, clothes, cars etc but there is no evidence that a flower is designed or a dog or a whale..you can make a list..look at the eye..your mob say it is designed when clearly it evolved.

You are funny, I’ll give you that.
But if you can’t see design in any Biological structure, then you must be asleep.

If so obvious it should be easy to provide proof..off you go..impress me.

Complex, specified, information in the cell, will blow your socks off, when you wake up. I only hope you wake up before you check out, At least give yourself the opportunity to see it.

Why ? You have no right to touch it I expect.

I can. But it is ethical that let it be known that it was my amendment.

Nonsense. It is only part of what we are calling here science or if you wish in this instance materialist and we all know why evolution is being singled out ...fancy having to go to such dishonest lengths to hold the myth in place.

Children are being taught darwinism, which cannot be verified by the scientific method, as though it is true. That’s indoctrination. Eventually they will lose their identification and become automatons. You and I were fortunate in that we had the freedom to find out who we were, and try to become who we wanted to be.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I have reported Jan for trolling due to his encouragement for me to do so.
Jan I told you that you can take me at my word.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Stop babbling and try to make sense.

You are an atheist!!!!
Is that clear enough for you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have reported Jan for trolling due to his encouragement for me to do so.
Jan I told you that you can take me at my word.
Alex

If you were a man of your word. you would have discussed your video link with me. So I think that boat has sailed mate.