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

[Xelasnave.1947]

Let’s see if Q, Alex, and Paddoboy, can give their reasons why darwinism is a scientific fact

I can't speak for the others but my main reason is because you reject it. You are wrong so often I figured the opposite of what you thought would be a safe bet.

Honestly Jan do you read anything I post?

I have given you my reasons on a couple of occasions but of course you know that...you are just trying to promote yourself as forgetful to gain an advantage you sneaky bastard.

It is this sort of repetative nonsense from you that does become tiresome but I see thru that tactic....look I will tell you again...it's because the scientists tell me it is a good theory and because they are scientists I believe them...now you couldn't get a better reason than that...but it was your cartoon that really convinced me..did I thank you? Well even if I did you deserve at least another thank you..so thank you for that fantastic cartoon showing how a dog evolved into a whale.

versus Xelo “the jello” Snave.

I like that but you spell it "HERO" in English short for "The humble" so humble that I will not mention all my wins against Jan "The crab" Ardena.
My only losses relate to loss of respect for folk using dishonest arguement.

I’m still waiting for a response.

No you are not waiting for a response you are waiting for the second coming.

Playing you Jan is like playing a fish using a lite rig...you run for a while against the drag, stop exhausted, so I reel you in..you run again and I reel you in but each time you run you lose some puff and now each run is shorter than the last and you are almost at the side of the boat ready for the net...you are lucky it's catch and release game.

You know it's now hard for me to eat fish knowing we are related, well that's what the scientists say and I can only believe them, they are scientists after all...and we can thank that Genius Charles Dawin for taking us forward and past the previous fairey tales that we were made from mud.

I can see why you would, out of respect no doubt, call science a religion and I admit when you first said that I thought you were taking a poke but you meant it as a compliment. And I suppose it is really the new religion given it has replaced the old one that was based on gods of human invention.

The virus seems to be settling a little here but in USA it seems to be running hot so clearly more prayers are needed over there..no wonder folk are flocking to services.

Alex

 

[James R]

You don’t need to know who the designer is, is understand that there has been a design.

How do you recognise that natural things are designed? How can you tell the difference between designer and no designer, in nature?

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

You're telling lies now, Jan. Natural forces act on chemicals and produce living organisms all the time. Every time a baby is conceived and is born, that's what's going on.

If something is designed, we know it.

How do we (you) know it? Is this one of those things you "just know"? Should we add this to the list of your magical knowledge?

The cell is obviously designed.

What makes you say that? How can you tell it's designed?

 

[James R]

There is no solid evidence that confirms whale evolution, or any such type of evolution.

Yes there is. The fossil record, genetic markers, comparative anatomy, supported by geology, paleontology, radioactive dating, etc. etc. But you know all this. So, time to stop telling lies, Jan.

I will probably be banned at some point.

Knowingly telling lies is grounds for an official warning, at least.

There is no solid evidence that confirms whale evolution, or any such type of evolution.

How do you account for the fossil record that shows a sequence of fossils progressing from land-dwelling animals to whales, with a clear sequence of small adaptations? Do you just wave it away? Or did God fake it to make it look as if whales evolved?

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.

I thought you knew something about the scientific method. I guess I was wrong. Maybe start by researching what science is.

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”.

What do you think this means?

Science cannot determine who the designer is.

What designer?

I am aware of the explanation of whale evolution, and the numerous reasons as to why it is not science.

Tell me your objections to the explanation, and explain to me why it is not science.

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

Define "Darwinism", please. You keep using that term. Let's find out what you mean by it.

It cannot account for complexity in the cell.

How do you know?

It is hopelessly outdated.

Are Newton's laws of motion hopelessly outdated too? (Newton 1610, Darwin 1880.)

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

Subconscious assertions make people fools now? Interesting.

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

What's the evidence for intelligent design in nature? Can you present any?

The complexity in the cell is obviously the product of a mind.

Not obviously. Nothing it obvious until you make it so.

Show me why the complexity of the cell is a product of a mind. Show me how you know this is true.

But if you can’t see design in any Biological structure, then you must be asleep.

Please provide an example of design in a biological structure, and tell me how you know it was designed.

Complex, specified, information in the cell, will blow your socks off, when you wake up.

You're parroting the creationist dogma again, Jan. Careful - you give yourself away.

What is compex, specified information?
Why does it require a designer?
What does it consist of in the cell?
How do you know that evolution by natural selection cannot produce complex, specified information?

Children are being taught darwinism, which cannot be verified by the scientific method, as though it is true.

Children are taught accepted science, except when creationist liars get their hooks into the education system.

 

[paddoboy]

This is why I want to know how you personally know it is a scientific fact.

While at this stage we are all familiar with the lies and lack of credibility in Jan's boring replies, there is so much more that can be learnt about him, from the many links and comments he does not answer and simply ignores.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You have convinced yourself there is no God.

Only with your help Jan, only with your help.

I look up to you as you know and I thought if anyone can show that a god exists it's this guy..well as you haven't.. that seals it really as if anyone could establish a god it would be you.

I read between the lines too Jan and what you are saying is you can't come straight out and say there is no God and no proof because with your mates watching this thread they may kick you out of the cult which I expect is a fun place for you as you get some sort of social life that you wouldn't otherwise get.

You have convinced yourself darwinism as a a scientific fact because it backs up your idea that God does not exist.

No it's because so many scientists say it's a fact and we both know scientists are never wrong because that is what the scientific method produces...infalability Jan.

You don’t pity them.

Just a little bit, but not so much that I would send them money like you do.

Maybe you could star a new thread, seeing as that is an entirely different topic.

So I will take that as you support them 100%.

What is it that makes you personally accept darwinism as a scientific fact?

Everyone else thinks it's true so I don't want to seem like the odd one out ..you know how it is for you in your cult..you have to agree..I mean I certainly have done my own reading but to know that is what the rest of the gang thinks really makes it solid for me.

Alex

 

[James R]

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

So, whale flippers contain bones that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with similar bones in fingers (let's say). There is a string of fossils where the same bones are seen to exhibit small steps of variation, including intermediate forms between obviously land-dwelling animals and sea-dwelling whales.

How do you account for these observed variations and the apparent sequence of variation leading from one to the other? Accident? God fakery? Or what?

As to your other point, you appear to be saying that you think that whales have finger bones for a reason. What is your reason why they need all those separate bones in their flippers, Jan?

 

[James R]

How do you observe pakicetus eventually turning into a whale? By drawing pictures, and making kiddie cartoons. Really?

You were pulled up on this previously, this thing where you talk about one animal "turning into" another. No animals turns into another type of animal, and you know that evolution claims no such thing. Evolution is not a process by which individual animals turn into other kinds of animals.

You are like your mother. Your mother is like your grandmother. Your grandmother is like your great grandmother, etc. etc. But your great grandmother is less like you than your mother. Your great great great great grandmother is even less like you.

Trace it back far enough and you'd eventually discover that your grandmother 40,000 generations ago was an ape. Some generations before that, your grandmother was most likely a small mouse-like creature. Generations before that, your grandmother was a fish-like thing. Generations before that, your grandmother was more like an amoeba.

You've already been told how we know that whales evolved from creatures like pakicetus. The fossil record. Comparative anatomy. Radioactive dating. Geology. Biology. Genetics. All of the evidence converges on only one conclusion, and there's not a single God in sight.

 

[James R]

Another example was the spontaneous generation theory. It was picked by one of you, I can’t remember who. It was never something to put forward initially as blow for darwinism, although it is, as it stands.

What are you talking about? Are you saying you believe "spontaneous generation" occurs?

I never berated Schweitzer for her views.
But later on I did say she has to be careful how she disseminates the news of her find, if she cares about her career, which obviously she does. We all know if she said anything about it contradicting darwinism, she would come under serious fire.

Did you read any of the articles about her work? She doesn't think that it contradicts "darwinism".

What puzzles me is why you think it contradicts "darwinism". Please explain.

 

[James R]

These guys are heat up because they believe that darwinism, specifically macro evolution is a scientific fact, because they have been told so.

Yes and no. Everybody has been "told so" about just about everything they believe. You don't find out about stuff outside your direct experience unless you're "told so".'

Speaking for myself, however, I do not accept that evolution is a fact just because somebody told me that. Probably you are used to accepting dogma on the basis of some kind of heirarchy of assumed religious authority. That isn't how we scientists do things. You should learn some science. Seriously, it might open the window to your dark room and let in some light.

So I put a test to them, to explain what makes them personally accept darwinism as a scientific fact, rather than a materialistic philosophy. And the best they could do was come up with those, similar type pictures, and assertions that they were fact.

Part of the problem is that you don't know what kind of knowledge can be gleaned from a careful, expert study of fossils and anatomy. This is why anatomical drawings are equivalent to kiddy drawings as far as you're concerned. Zero expertise or experience, yet you still have this arrogant confidence that you can dismiss it all without ever bothering to learn anything.

It's a sad indictment on how religious indoctrination has messed you up, Jan.

They are mad as hell at me, because I dare to tell them that darwinism, is their religion, and their “fury” as you put it, is due to the fact that they cannot hurt me enough. They are now in, what I have dubbed “the atheist yee-haw” mode, where they absolutely refuse to have a reasonable discussion with me, about their beliefs. It really is amazing.

What evidence are you bringing to the table in support of your claims? None, as far as I can see. All of your posts these days are bereft of any actually content. Your only aim seems to be to insult, which you try to do by making baseless claims about science.

You'd make a better fist of it if you are least tried to bring some evidence or substantive arguments to the table, but you don't. It seems the best you can do is attempt disproof by ridicule. It isn't working for you. All the science is against you and your creationist buddies. Meanwhile, you have an empty theory of your own with zero utility, predictive or explanatory power, built out of documented lies.

As if that wasn’t enough, they have dated quite a few dinosaur bones, and soft, very pliable, tissue, which based on what everyone was taught, became extinct between 65 and 200 or so million years ago, shouldn’t exist.

Are you upset because science has made a new, unexpected discovery?

Has consistently shown to between 20000 to 40,000 years old.

What? The dinosaur bones?

Got a link?

But my darwinist chums have happily kept their head in the sand about that one, and pretend they didn’t know about it, like it was some kind of pseudoscience, or something.

The thing about pseudoscience is that quite often it tries to piggyback on legitimate science.

Are you willing to dig into this honesty, or are you afraid of what you might find if you look too hard?

So while I appreciate your pity, it is, like many a fossil, wrongly placed.

Another allusion to absent data. Ho hum.

I probably won’t be here for much longer.

Planning on going out with a blaze of glorious lies and insults? If so, you won't be the first.

 

[James R]

I find it funny that atheists will always conclude that Einstein didn’t really mean what he said.
I’m sorry but “God doesn’t play dice...”, means God doesn’t play dice. Get over it.

Once again, you are ignorant of the actual scholarship on the matter. Numerous biographers have combed through Einstein's statements about God and religion, but you can just ignore all those. You've never read a biography of Einstein, so you can remain blissfully ignorant.

He had mad respect for Jesus.
Get over it.

Your source for this claim is ... what?

He wasn’t an atheist.

How do you know?

He didn’t accept the idea of God which were promoted by religions. Neither do a lot of theists.

And so...?

He was an impersonalist, similar to Spinoza. That is still theism.

Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and certainly not an individual entity or creator”[5]. Spinoza attempts to prove that God is just the substance of the universe by first stating that substances do not share attributes or essences, and then demonstrating that God is a “substance” with an infinite number of attributes, thus the attributes possessed by any other substances must also be possessed by God. Therefore, God is just the sum of all the substances of the universe[6]. God is the only substance in the universe, and everything is a part of God. “Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God”[3]. [wikipedia]
​

These days, people would dispute that "just the sum of all the substances in the universe" amounts to a God.

 

[James R]

Einstein was then asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, to which he replied, "Unquestionably!"

So what? Did Einstein say Jesus was God? Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that he did. Then what? Does that prove that Jesus is God and God is real?

Are you deferring to Einstein's authority on religious matters now, Jan?

Also, there's this (source: wikipedia):

Einstein, in a one-and-a-half-page hand-written German-language letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, dated Princeton, New Jersey, 3 January 1954, a year and three and a half months before his death, wrote: "The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. [...] For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. [...] I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them [the Jewish people]."​

 

[James R]

Jan:

Another post to add to the list of posts you have dishonestly avoided. This is the second little reminder I have posted.

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

 

[James R]

I’m asking you.

But I already showed you my evidence. You dismissed it. So, what more do you need, given that comparative anatomy, fossils, genetics, geology, radioactive dating and all those things are insufficient to convince you?

What kind of evidence would convince you that whales evolved from land animals?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I can't speak for the others but my main reason is because you reject it.

To paraphrase: ... but my main reason is because it doesn’t include God, because I currently hate Him.

I have given you my reasons on a couple of occasions but of course you know that...

Since you backed out of a discussion, I can only conclude, and posts since then. I conclude you accept it because there is no need to include God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No it's because so many scientists say it's a fact

Okay.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So, whale flippers contain bones that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with similar bones in fingers (let's say). There is a string of fossils where the same bones are seen to exhibit small steps of variation, including intermediate forms between obviously land-dwelling animals and sea-dwelling whales.

How do you account for these observed variations and the apparent sequence of variation leading from one to the other? Accident? God fakery? Or what?

As to your other point, you appear to be saying that you think that whales have finger bones for a reason. What is your reason why they need all those separate bones in their flippers, Jan?

The first fossil found consisted of an incomplete skull with a skull cap and a broken mandible with some teeth. (Wiki)
How do you draw the conclusion that it had finger type bone structure?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

To paraphrase: ... but my main reason is because it doesn’t include God, because I currently hate Him.

Since you backed out of a discussion, I can only conclude, and posts since then. I conclude you accept it because there is no need to include God.

Why would you hate God?

You're obviously smarter than me so don't ask.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You were pulled up on this previously, this thing where you talk about one animal "turning into" another. No animals turns into another type of animal, and you know that evolution claims no such thing. Evolution is not a process by which individual animals turn into other kinds of animals.

You are like your mother. Your mother is like your grandmother. Your grandmother is like your great grandmother, etc. etc. But your great grandmother is less like you than your mother. Your great great great great grandmother is even less like you.

Trace it back far enough and you'd eventually discover that your grandmother 40,000 generations ago was an ape. Some generations before that, your grandmother was most likely a small mouse-like creature. Generations before that, your grandmother was a fish-like thing. Generations before that, your grandmother was more like an amoeba.

You've already been told how we know that whales evolved from creatures like pakicetus. The fossil record. Comparative anatomy. Radioactive dating. Geology. Biology. Genetics. All of the evidence converges on only one conclusion, and there's not a single God in sight.

I don’t see you object to the video I sent to Alex, who agrees we should use that to speed up indoctrination.

The whole mother, grandmother thing, is irrelevant, because we are all humans.
What reason do you have to think that at some point we weren’t human?
It seems evolutionist automatically make the assumption that at some point we weren’t.
Now we seem to find ourselves in a situation where that assumption is at the forefront of political debate. Whereas we needn’t be.
Where did the impetus come from, to trace it back 40,000 years, and conclude that we came from apes? Because now you have no scientific evidence to support that notion. You only think you have.

Pakicetus to whale, is an extravagant guess James. It is there to strengthen the materialist philosophy. There is realistically no way that can be a scientific fact.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why would you hate God?

You're obviously smarter than me so don't ask.

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

What are you talking about? Are you saying you believe "spontaneous generation" occurs?

No.

Did you read any of the articles about her work? She doesn't think that it contradicts "darwinism".

She probably has a family to feed.

What puzzles me is why you think it contradicts "darwinism". Please explain.

Lots of things contradict darwinism.
Namely everything that darwinists think support it. Like whale evolution.