Do you believe in God?

Do you believe in God?

  • Yes

    Votes: 71 34.6%

  • No

    Votes: 122 59.5%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 12 5.9%
  • Total voters
    205
callitgood said:
It was a very weak troll, seems to me it was you doing the trolling though, not I.
You can't accept the fact that someone has a different opinion, it's either your belief or you try to discredit them.
I'll take a guess here and say you consider yourself progessive liberal.
Click to expand...

When posting in public forums (or sub-forums) that include science or philosophy, one needs to be prepared to be be called on their shit, i.e. be ready to support their positive claims via credible sources, logic and reason. You came into this sub-forum making such claims - evolution hasn't been proven, many credible scientists are against the theory, and that it is actually impossible for it to work the way the theory states it does, etc.. Huge, ballsy claims, indeed. You are then asked to support said claims, not an unreasonable request, and what do you offer up? Poorly sourced creationist videos from decades ago obviously made by biased hacks with an agenda of misinformation. Pad simply asks for a handful of these MANY scientists you claim to have discredited the theory, and you respond with a red herrings and strawmen. You are attempting to side step the issue that you need to show support for your positive claims. If you cannot do this, we have to conclude that there is no such support, and that you are a poser. No one here sets out to discredit anyone, but when you behave like this, you are only discrediting yourself...
 
callitgood said:
You can't accept the fact that someone has a different opinion, it's either your belief or you try to discredit them.
Click to expand...

You can't accept that science isn't about your beliefs or opinions;

science-doesnt-care-about-your-beliefs-Women-s-T-Shirts.jpg


callitgood said:
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

You asked for 5, I'll give you over 800 scientists who diccent from Darwins theory of evolution.
Discussion over unless you feel the urge to argue with them.
Click to expand...

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (or Dissent From Darwinism) is a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, US, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism


What a moron..
 
callitgood said:
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660


You asked for 5, I'll give you over 800 scientists who diccent from Darwins theory of evolution.
Discussion over unless you feel the urge to argue with them.
Click to expand...

Could you please let me know how to open your file? It isn't working for me...

Edit - never mind, I just saw pad's post. More creationist bullshit...
 
tyler.durden said:
When posting in public forums (or sub-forums) that include science or philosophy, one needs to be prepared to be be called on their shit, i.e. be ready to support their positive claims via credible sources, logic and reason. You came into this sub-forum making such claims - evolution hasn't been proven, many credible scientists are against the theory, and that it is actually impossible for it to work the way the theory states it does, etc.. Huge, ballsy claims, indeed. You are then asked to support said claims, not an unreasonable request, and what do you offer up? Poorly sourced creationist videos from decades ago obviously made by biased hacks with an agenda of misinformation. Pad simply asks for a handful of these MANY scientists you claim to have discredited the theory, and you respond with a red herrings and strawmen. You are attempting to side step the issue that you need to show support for your positive claims. If you cannot do this, we have to conclude that there is no such support, and that you are a poser. No one here sets out to discredit anyone, but when you behave like this, you are only discrediting yourself...
Click to expand...
Sounds about right to me, the only problem with you assertion is, you are not arguing with me, you are challenging scientists who happen to disagree with you, I listed over 800 scientists who do not support evolution, it's very simple, take it up with them.

Why is it you attack me for their analysis is beyond me, is it because I have to believe what you think is fact?
 
Padawanbater2 said:
You can't accept that science isn't about your beliefs or opinions;

science-doesnt-care-about-your-beliefs-Women-s-T-Shirts.jpg




"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (or Dissent From Darwinism) is a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, US, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism


What a moron..
Click to expand...
You asked for 5 scientists, I gave you over 800.
Now you see why I called your close minded partisanship a game.
 
callitgood said:
Sounds about right to me, the only problem with you assertion is, you are not arguing with me, you are challenging scientists who happen to disagree with you, I listed over 800 scientists who do not support evolution, it's very simple, take it up with them.

Why is it you attack me for their analysis is beyond me, is it because I have to believe what you think is fact?
Click to expand...

That was a survey conducted by the Discovery Institute, in no way is it scientific at all. They push a right wing, Christian agenda for intelligent design.

You're doing exactly what the "scientists" who argued tobacco was healthy for the tobacco companies did in the '60's & '70's

Your failure to acknowledge or address that point shows everybody reading this how dishonest you are
 
tyler.durden said:
Could you please let me know how to open your file? It isn't working for me...

Edit - never mind, I just saw pad's post. More creationist bullshit...
Click to expand...
Here is how close minded you are.
If a scientist believes in god, which all of them on the list do not, you immediately discredit them as a scientist because they don't fit your agenda, quite immature reasoning if you ask me.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
You gave me a survey conducted by a right wing Christian group that advocates for intelligent design

That's not scientific in the least, doofus
Click to expand...
It's not a right wing website, lying only discredits you further.
I guess I could say all your citations come from left wing atheist websites.
Now where are we?
 
callitgood said:
Here is how close minded you are.
If a scientist believes in god, which all of them on the list do not, you immediately discredit them as a scientist because they don't fit your agenda, quite immature reasoning if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Nobody who denies evolution is a credible scientist, that's the thing..

Credible scientists accept evolution, if you don't, you're not a credible scientist

See how that works?
 
Here is a good book for you two close minded left wing nuts to read.


Atheists attack Darwinian evolution in new book.

"All critics of Darwin are raving lunatics, fundamentalist Creationists or Right-wing zealots...

...or so many people are led to believe.

But is this actually true? Jerry Fodor, professor of philosophy and cognitive sciences at Rutgers University, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a professor of cognitive science at the University of Arizona, are living proof that this is a false stereotype. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, both atheist, co-authored the book "What Darwin God Wrong" and were recently interviewed about it. The following excerpt is particularly interesting:"
http://www.examiner.com/article/atheists-attack-darwinian-evolution-new-book
 
callitgood said:
It's not a right wing website, lying only discredits you further.
I guess I could say all your citations come from left wing atheist websites.
Now where are we?
Click to expand...

The Discovery Institute isn't a right wing group???

LOL!

The Discovery Institute on religion;

"Religion and Public Life. The worldview of scientific materialism has been pitted against traditional beliefs in the existence of God, Judeo-Christian ethics and the intrinsic dignity and freedom of man. Because it denies the reality of God, the idea of the Imago Dei in man, and an objective moral order, it also denies the relevance of religion to public life and policy. Our program on Religion and Civic Life defends the continuing relevance of traditional religious faith to public life within a pluralistic democracy. Specifically, it seeks to defend the importance of Judeo-Christian conceptions of the rule of law, the nature of man and the necessity of limiting the power of government. Thus, it also seeks to protect religious liberty, including its public expression in pluralistic democracies."

LOL!

The Discovery Institute's founders Bruce Chapman;

"From 1988 to 1990, Chapman was a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. In 1990, he left Hudson and founded the Discovery Institute. The institute is best known as the hub of the Intelligent Design movement, and also focuses on a broad range of issues, including transportation and international cooperation in the Cascadia region.

And George Gilder;

"He helped found the Discovery Institute with Bruce Chapman. The organization started as a moderate group which aimed to privatize and modernize Seattle's transit systems but it later became the leading think tank of the intelligent design movement, with Gilder writing many articles in favor of ID and opposing the theory of evolution. He, like others at the institute, denies that the Shannon information measure alone provides a good measure for biological information, because that measure ignores the actual function or meaning in the code. Gilder contends that Shannon information theory actually shows that evolution cannot be explained by unintelligent physical causes, because it focuses on "the medium, not the message"."

LOL!


Weakest troll I've ever come across, step your game up, son!
 
Padawanbater2 said:
You can't accept that science isn't about your beliefs or opinions;

science-doesnt-care-about-your-beliefs-Women-s-T-Shirts.jpg




"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (or Dissent From Darwinism) is a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, US, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism


What a moron..
Click to expand...
So your citation is from the far left liberal wikipedia, what a joke you are.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
The Discovery Institute isn't a right wing group???

LOL!

The Discovery Institute on religion;

"Religion and Public Life. The worldview of scientific materialism has been pitted against traditional beliefs in the existence of God, Judeo-Christian ethics and the intrinsic dignity and freedom of man. Because it denies the reality of God, the idea of the Imago Dei in man, and an objective moral order, it also denies the relevance of religion to public life and policy. Our program on Religion and Civic Life defends the continuing relevance of traditional religious faith to public life within a pluralistic democracy. Specifically, it seeks to defend the importance of Judeo-Christian conceptions of the rule of law, the nature of man and the necessity of limiting the power of government. Thus, it also seeks to protect religious liberty, including its public expression in pluralistic democracies."

LOL!

The Discovery Institute's founders Bruce Chapman;

"From 1988 to 1990, Chapman was a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. In 1990, he left Hudson and founded the Discovery Institute. The institute is best known as the hub of the Intelligent Design movement, and also focuses on a broad range of issues, including transportation and international cooperation in the Cascadia region.

And George Gilder;

"He helped found the Discovery Institute with Bruce Chapman. The organization started as a moderate group which aimed to privatize and modernize Seattle's transit systems but it later became the leading think tank of the intelligent design movement, with Gilder writing many articles in favor of ID and opposing the theory of evolution. He, like others at the institute, denies that the Shannon information measure alone provides a good measure for biological information, because that measure ignores the actual function or meaning in the code. Gilder contends that Shannon information theory actually shows that evolution cannot be explained by unintelligent physical causes, because it focuses on "the medium, not the message"."

LOL!

Weakest troll I've ever come across, step your game up, son!
Click to expand...
So you never answered my question, do you have a science degree, do you have the credentials to debate with scientists?

Simple question, yes or no?
 
callitgood said:
Here is how close minded you are.
If a scientist believes in god, which all of them on the list do not, you immediately discredit them as a scientist because they don't fit your agenda, quite immature reasoning if you ask me.
Click to expand...

callitgood said:
Sounds about right to me, the only problem with you assertion is, you are not arguing with me, you are challenging scientists who happen to disagree with you, I listed over 800 scientists who do not support evolution, it's very simple, take it up with them.

Why is it you attack me for their analysis is beyond me, is it because I have to believe what you think is fact?
Click to expand...

I know that you are intelligent enough to understand what I'm conveying to you. Your sources thus far have an agenda and a bias against the rock solid theory of evolution by natural selection. It cannot be considered science under these conditions, I know that you know this. To find the truth about objective reality, one has to go in with as few assumptions as possible. Assuming that deities not only exist but created everything in the cosmos are GIGANTIC assumptions. I've already shown you (in very lengthy, thoughtful and well written posts) how these 'scientists' deceive, leave out critical facts, and knowingly spread misinformation in order to conceal the truth to further their agenda. I've proved this to you, it is time to accept it. Do 800 of these people who do not agree exist in the world? Perhaps. But they do not come to that conclusion through the scientific method, they come to it by faith. You need to learn to recognize what info is credible from what isn't, and why people with an admitted agenda state things that are not true. My mind is very open, that is why I didn't dismiss you or your sources out of hand, but instead spent hours listening to, analyzing then verifying what they all had to say. Can you say the same? Have you spent time and effort in an attempt to understand this theory that you are trying to discredit? Do you know what the opposing side knows? Because I do. You need to find out what our side knows before you can honestly debate it. Please look through my prior posts for the easily verifiable information that clearly shows why the theory is solid and how exactly it works. I think you'll find it fascinating. Please quit trying to prop up a bunch of deceptive charlatans because they agree with you, that isn't the way to truth, and it is dishonest...
 
Last edited:
tyler.durden said:
I know that you are intelligent enough to understand what I'm conveying to you. Your sources thus far have an agenda and a bias against the rock solid theory of evolution by natural selection. It cannot be considered science under these conditions, I know that you know this. To find the truth about objective reality, one has to go in with as few assumptions as possible. Assuming that deities not only exist but created everything in the cosmos are GIGANTIC assumptions. I've already shown you (in very lengthy, thoughtful and well written posts) how these 'scientists' deceive, leave out critical facts, and knowingly spread misinformation in order to conceal the truth to further their agenda. I've proved this to you, it is time to accept it. Do 800 of these people who do not agree exist in the world? Perhaps. But they do not come to that conclusion through the scientific method, they come to it by faith. You need to learn to recognize what is info is credible from what isn't, and why people with an admitted agenda state things that are not true. My mind is very open, that is why I didn't dismiss you or your sources out of hand, but instead spent hours listening to, analyzing then verifying what they all had to say. Can you say the same? Have you spent time and effort in an attempt to understand this theory that you are trying to discredit? Do you know what the opposing side knows? Because I do. You need to find out what our side knows before you can honestly debate it. Please look through my prior posts for the easily verifiable information that clearly shows why the theory is solid and how exactly it works. I think you'll find it fascinating. Please quit trying to prompt up a bunch of dishonest charlatans because they agree with you, that isn't the way to truth, and it is dishonest...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top