Evolution is a hoax

[protokol]

Evolution in action is simply change. All change, including evolution, is programmed into the univese through cause and effect.

Evolution by random, beneficial mutation does not exist.

OK, I've tried to talk to you (as have others on this forum) about your strange ideas that "cause and effect" and "probability math" somehow scientifically disprove evolution without any doubt. And we never get anywhere, so I'm not gonna go down that road again right now.

But I do have a few questions for you:

1. You say that all change, including evolution, is "programmed" into the universe through cause and effect. Now this is a valid philosophical position, which I believe means you view the universe as "deterministic". However, if all change is programmed, then this means that we have no free will, because everything we do is a result of cause and effect, and not our own decisions. Didn't god gift us with free will? If so, how do you resolve this problem?

2. Put all ideas of faith in deities or science aside for a moment. Don't you think it's strange that although you say evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible, the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians disagree with you? Are they lying, or do you know more about science and maths than them? Or do you have another explanation?

[1714844435]

1714844435

[1714844435]

1714844435

[popcorn1]

Nature = god

I can definitely accept this.

Two big points against this idea are:

1. Nature doesn't show us a reason or method for making the complexity.

2. There is way too much variety of intelligent-looking complexities right along side seeming lack of intelligence to blame the universe for only one, but not the other.

1. Why does there need to be a reason? The whole theory is that evolution is an random process, it has no consciousness or reason for the way it shapes organisms. It is simply down to random mutations. When a star goes supernova, is there a reason it does so (other than the physical processes ocurring in its core)? If not, could those same physical processes not be responsible for mutations in DNA?

2. If you believe there is too much variety of intelligent life, alongside organisms with seeming lack of intelligence, then what are you measuring this data against? It doesn't make sense to compare life on Earth to any other data set, because we haven't ever observed any other form of life.

So when you say "too much variety", what are you comparing this variety to?

When a star goes supernova, is there a reason it does so ..Yes

What Is A Supernova? - YouTube
Video for why a supernova youtube▶ 2:09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfNqBKAvkpw

Always a reason ..
Why does someone have blue eyes ..

Why Do You Have Blue Eyes? - YouTube
Video for why do people have blue eyes youtube▶ 2:28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfSfNIzN7q8


 It doesn't make sense to compare life on Earth to any other data set, because we haven't ever observed any other form of life.

7 amazing new species discovered in 2016 - YouTube
Video for new species found on earth youtube▶ 1:58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G9rRpTYVtk


New species found 2017 - YouTube
Video for new species found on earth youtube▶ 2:53
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YLZ9jeTyjM..


Butterfly species evolution in action - YouTube
Video for evolution in action▶ 3:03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKZ_25q01AE
15 Jun 2011 - Uploaded by National Science Foundation
Scientists have found a population of tropical butterflies that may be on its way to splitting into two distinct ..


Evolution in Action: Ring Species - YouTube
Video for evolution in action▶ 3:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjcFSy1KCTI
17 Sep 2007 - Uploaded by phoenixshade3
This video presents to the layman an example of evolution as an ongoing process: The Ensatina salamanders ...

@popcorn dude, you're preaching to the choir. Evolution is obviously real (until some overwhelming evidence to the contrary appears, which doesn't seem likely).

I was just pointing out the flaws in BADecker's "two big points".

@criptix, yeah "Nature = God" is an interesting idea, "pantheism" is one form of what you're talking about I believe.

It certainly makes a lot more sense to me that "God" is for example, the four fundamental forces of the universe, than some sort of conscious, anthropomorphised man in the sky.

No i am saying that god never made this earth..
And you even made up your own god..So who or what is it..
And if you say you don't know then why a god?..

[popcorn1]

Did you quote this?..

I could teach you about evolution and biology as much as I want (since it's my major), but to save some time I'll give you one more example to show how flawed your logic is.
Teleostei are the largest group of vertebrates by numbers and most of them fall pray to other animals or themselves, which shows your logic behind an apex predator (crocodile) quite stupid. Same story on the other hand, Placodermi (among other extinct animals) were fierce and huge predators that faced extinction because of many other factors.                 So it's not about whether you eat or are eaten.

So it's not about whether you eat or are eaten.<YOUR QUOTE ..

So i said why does a tortoise have a shell?.. So why does a tortoise have a shell ^^^^^

Why as an anteater got a long nose with a long sticky tongue?..

YOUR QUOTE BELOW..
I could teach you about evolution and biology as much as I want (since it's my major), but to save some time I'll give you one more example to show how flawed your logic is.

So why does a tortoise have a shell?..

YOUR QUOTE BELOW..
So it's not about whether you eat or are eaten.  <TORTOISE as a shell WHY

So it's not about whether you eat or are eaten.< ANTEATER as a long nose with a long sticky tongue why..

Some things wont change because they might have many numbers so if a few die it means nothing
to that specie ..

But you will find most changes will happen to eat or not to be eaten or the weather ..
All will make you change..

Even a birds wings change because of the wind..
Some like to ride the wind some like to cut through the wind..

All changes because of your need to live..

So it's not about whether you eat or are eaten.<YOU SAID IT not me ..

It's OK i pardon you

What I meant to say was it's not only whether you eat or are eaten. If you actually read the rest of the paragraph you would get the context of it and notice that I said "faced extinction because of many other factors", meaning that "eat or get eaten" rule still applies, but it's not the only rule.

The only reason I felt like explaining that to you is because of your poor grammar and lousy sentence construction. "We change because we need to eat or the weather or not to be eaten" this sentence makes you believe that you meant "whether or not to be eaten", so I thought you didn't put climate in the story.

Like I said, if you want to have a decent exchange of words, try constructing your sentences a bit better and not throw one liners at me.

We already went through where I understood you wrong and where you understood me wrong. I took blame for my part, but you're just acting like a little kid who wants more and more, without ever admitting he might be wrong.

You're not wrong when it comes to evolution, but you're just weak minded in general and cannot grasp that you're repeating the same thing over and over again for no reason.

How can you mean what you say if you cannot say what you mean..

So it's not about whether you eat or are eaten.You said it .

but you're just acting like a little kid  ..Oh got you knickers in a twist because you got a major and i
proved you wrong ..

[criptix]

@popcorn

Ugh... we are talking on a philosophical level about a god entity.
In this case i stated i could accept a god entity which equals our nature/universe/physical principles etc pp.

Im not atheist per se, because i have an open minded personality, it is more i guess in direction of an agnostic.
But overall this is not an important factor of my life it is just more of a though experiment.


/edit

Who made the earth? Obviously nature and its physical principles.
If nature and its physical principles = god then obviously god made the earth.

[popcorn1]

@popcorn

Ugh... we are talking on a philosophical level about a god entity.
In this case i stated i could accept a god entity which equals our nature/universe/phisycal principles etc pp.

Im not atheist per se, because i have an open minded personality, it is more i guess in direction of an agnostic.
But overall this is not an important factor of my life it is just more of a though experiment.

No but why a god ..Why the need for something more powerful than your self?..

Why not it's just science simple science..?

Something went bang because of blah blah blah blah..

Why oh it went bang because of a god or some type of god..

[protokol]

@popcorn dude, you're preaching to the choir. Evolution is obviously real (until some overwhelming evidence to the contrary appears, which doesn't seem likely).

I was just pointing out the flaws in BADecker's "two big points".

@criptix, yeah "Nature = God" is an interesting idea, "pantheism" is one form of what you're talking about I believe.

It certainly makes a lot more sense to me that "God" is for example, the four fundamental forces of the universe, than some sort of conscious, anthropomorphised man in the sky.

No i am saying that god never made this earth..
And you even made up your own god..So who or what is it..
And if you say you don't know then why a god?..

Are you replying to me? I think you might be confused. I agree that a "god" in the conventional sense did not create the Earth - The idea that a supernatural deity clicked its fingers and popped the world into existence is a highly flawed argument with zero evidence to support it.

I didn't say I believed in a god at all. I just meant that I can relate to a pantheist idea of god far more easily than, for example, the Abrahamic god.

Some of it comes down to semantics - what is the definition of a god? One could argue that the force of gravity has many of the attributes of a god. While it is not conscious, it is not fully understood and seems to defy quantum mechanics as we know it. It also, in a way, created Earth and all of the planets and stars, and consequentially all life as we know it.

After all, I don't think even BADecker could tell us exactly who or what his god is. Is the idea of a Christian god that different from the idea that god is the force of gravity?

[swogerino]

I don't believe in evolution too, not because I am religious at all but because it is impossible. It is funny too that we are successors of the monkey race. How can that be when monkeys cannot speak, and we can speak. The brain and our own free will is what differs us the human race from other creatures. Other creatures have only instincts and not free will. We the human race are a perfect creation that even the scientist are being marveled from. Our brain is very difficult to decipher and in fact no cure yet for multiply sclerosis. This should be enough that evolution is just a fairy tale.

[popcorn1]

@popcorn dude, you're preaching to the choir. Evolution is obviously real (until some overwhelming evidence to the contrary appears, which doesn't seem likely).

I was just pointing out the flaws in BADecker's "two big points".

@criptix, yeah "Nature = God" is an interesting idea, "pantheism" is one form of what you're talking about I believe.

It certainly makes a lot more sense to me that "God" is for example, the four fundamental forces of the universe, than some sort of conscious, anthropomorphised man in the sky.

No i am saying that god never made this earth..
And you even made up your own god..So who or what is it..
And if you say you don't know then why a god?..

Are you replying to me? I think you might be confused. I agree that a "god" in the conventional sense did not create the Earth - The idea that a supernatural deity clicked its fingers and popped the world into existence is a highly flawed argument with zero evidence to support it.

I didn't say I believed in a god at all. I just meant that I can relate to a pantheist idea of god far more easily than, for example, the Abrahamic god.

Some of it comes down to semantics - what is the definition of a god? One could argue that the force of gravity has many of the attributes of a god. While it is not conscious, it is not fully understood and seems to defy quantum mechanics as we know it. It also, in a way, created Earth and all of the planets and stars, and consequentially all life as we know it.

After all, I don't think even BADecker could tell us exactly who or what his god is. Is the idea of a Christian god that different from the idea that god is the force of gravity?

So your god is falling ?..

i would think more of your god if we had anti gravity..

Doesn't take much to impress you..A falling god..

[criptix]

@popcorn

Ugh... we are talking on a philosophical level about a god entity.
In this case i stated i could accept a god entity which equals our nature/universe/phisycal principles etc pp.

Im not atheist per se, because i have an open minded personality, it is more i guess in direction of an agnostic.
But overall this is not an important factor of my life it is just more of a though experiment.

No but why a god ..Why the need for something more powerful than your self?..

Why not it's just science simple science..?

Something went bang because of blah blah blah blah..

Why oh it went bang because of a god or some type of god..

This is just semantics now.
You could just call it nature if you dont like the word god.

Check out the topics about pantheism and spinozism.

[protokol]

@popcorn dude, you're preaching to the choir. Evolution is obviously real (until some overwhelming evidence to the contrary appears, which doesn't seem likely).

I was just pointing out the flaws in BADecker's "two big points".

@criptix, yeah "Nature = God" is an interesting idea, "pantheism" is one form of what you're talking about I believe.

It certainly makes a lot more sense to me that "God" is for example, the four fundamental forces of the universe, than some sort of conscious, anthropomorphised man in the sky.

No i am saying that god never made this earth..
And you even made up your own god..So who or what is it..
And if you say you don't know then why a god?..

Are you replying to me? I think you might be confused. I agree that a "god" in the conventional sense did not create the Earth - The idea that a supernatural deity clicked its fingers and popped the world into existence is a highly flawed argument with zero evidence to support it.

I didn't say I believed in a god at all. I just meant that I can relate to a pantheist idea of god far more easily than, for example, the Abrahamic god.

Some of it comes down to semantics - what is the definition of a god? One could argue that the force of gravity has many of the attributes of a god. While it is not conscious, it is not fully understood and seems to defy quantum mechanics as we know it. It also, in a way, created Earth and all of the planets and stars, and consequentially all life as we know it.

After all, I don't think even BADecker could tell us exactly who or what his god is. Is the idea of a Christian god that different from the idea that god is the force of gravity?

So your god is falling ?..

i would think more of your god if we had anti gravity..

Doesn't take much to impress you..A falling god..

Haha OK so you're trolling, I get it. Your last line did make me chuckle actually  

No, firstly it's not my god. Secondly, the god that I speculated is not falling, it makes things fall. There's a difference.

Thirdly, if I was impressed by the idea that god was the force of gravity, then think of my reaction when I saw magnets defy the force of gravity!

If God = Gravity, then Magnets = Satan  

[Okurkabinladin]

@popcorn dude, you're preaching to the choir. Evolution is obviously real (until some overwhelming evidence to the contrary appears, which doesn't seem likely).

I was just pointing out the flaws in BADecker's "two big points".

@criptix, yeah "Nature = God" is an interesting idea, "pantheism" is one form of what you're talking about I believe.

It certainly makes a lot more sense to me that "God" is for example, the four fundamental forces of the universe, than some sort of conscious, anthropomorphised man in the sky.

No i am saying that god never made this earth..
And you even made up your own god..So who or what is it..
And if you say you don't know then why a god?..

Are you replying to me? I think you might be confused. I agree that a "god" in the conventional sense did not create the Earth - The idea that a supernatural deity clicked its fingers and popped the world into existence is a highly flawed argument with zero evidence to support it.

I didn't say I believed in a god at all. I just meant that I can relate to a pantheist idea of god far more easily than, for example, the Abrahamic god.

Some of it comes down to semantics - what is the definition of a god? One could argue that the force of gravity has many of the attributes of a god. While it is not conscious, it is not fully understood and seems to defy quantum mechanics as we know it. It also, in a way, created Earth and all of the planets and stars, and consequentially all life as we know it.

After all, I don't think even BADecker could tell us exactly who or what his god is. Is the idea of a Christian god that different from the idea that god is the force of gravity?

So your god is falling ?..

i would think more of your god if we had anti gravity..

Doesn't take much to impress you..A falling god..

Haha OK so you're trolling, I get it. Your last line did make me chuckle actually  

No, firstly it's not my god. Secondly, the god that I speculated is not falling, it makes things fall. There's a difference.

Thirdly, if I was impressed by the idea that god was the force of gravity, then think of my reaction when I saw magnets defy the force of gravity!

If God = Gravity, then Magnets = Satan  

Its funny, that when "atheists" try to explain natural phenomena to each other, they quickly fall back to christian iconography 

And where is the rest? The antimatter? The source of life? The source of energy? The source of time? You might end up with full blown hinduistic pantheon of bigger and lesser gods like this. Good luck with your sophistic exercise, though. Mind should be busy.

[protokol]

@popcorn dude, you're preaching to the choir. Evolution is obviously real (until some overwhelming evidence to the contrary appears, which doesn't seem likely).

I was just pointing out the flaws in BADecker's "two big points".

@criptix, yeah "Nature = God" is an interesting idea, "pantheism" is one form of what you're talking about I believe.

It certainly makes a lot more sense to me that "God" is for example, the four fundamental forces of the universe, than some sort of conscious, anthropomorphised man in the sky.

No i am saying that god never made this earth..
And you even made up your own god..So who or what is it..
And if you say you don't know then why a god?..

Are you replying to me? I think you might be confused. I agree that a "god" in the conventional sense did not create the Earth - The idea that a supernatural deity clicked its fingers and popped the world into existence is a highly flawed argument with zero evidence to support it.

I didn't say I believed in a god at all. I just meant that I can relate to a pantheist idea of god far more easily than, for example, the Abrahamic god.

Some of it comes down to semantics - what is the definition of a god? One could argue that the force of gravity has many of the attributes of a god. While it is not conscious, it is not fully understood and seems to defy quantum mechanics as we know it. It also, in a way, created Earth and all of the planets and stars, and consequentially all life as we know it.

After all, I don't think even BADecker could tell us exactly who or what his god is. Is the idea of a Christian god that different from the idea that god is the force of gravity?

So your god is falling ?..

i would think more of your god if we had anti gravity..

Doesn't take much to impress you..A falling god..

Haha OK so you're trolling, I get it. Your last line did make me chuckle actually  

No, firstly it's not my god. Secondly, the god that I speculated is not falling, it makes things fall. There's a difference.

Thirdly, if I was impressed by the idea that god was the force of gravity, then think of my reaction when I saw magnets defy the force of gravity!

If God = Gravity, then Magnets = Satan  

Its funny, that when "atheists" try to explain natural phenomena to each other, they quickly fall back to christian iconography 

And where is the rest? The antimatter? The source of life? The source of energy? The source of time? You might end up with full blown hinduistic pantheon of bigger and lesser gods like this. Good luck with your sophistic exercise, though. Mind should be busy.

I was using Christian iconography as a metaphorical joke. If I use theism as a metaphor, is that evidence for a god? I think not.

Do you have an explanation for the things you speak of? Antimatter, the source of life, the source of energy?

If you have an explanation, do you have evidence for it?

Atheists may not be able to explain everything, but they do not make the fallacy of formulating explanations for that which is unexplained. Especially when those explanations are based on flimsy evidence.

What do you think about evolution, Okur?

[popcorn1]

@popcorn

Ugh... we are talking on a philosophical level about a god entity.
In this case i stated i could accept a god entity which equals our nature/universe/phisycal principles etc pp.

Im not atheist per se, because i have an open minded personality, it is more i guess in direction of an agnostic.
But overall this is not an important factor of my life it is just more of a though experiment.

No but why a god ..Why the need for something more powerful than your self?..

Why not it's just science simple science..?

Something went bang because of blah blah blah blah..

Why oh it went bang because of a god or some type of god..

This is just semantics now.
You could just call it nature if you dont like the word god.

Check out the topics about pantheism and spinozism.

Spinozism (also spelled Spinoza-ism or Spinozaism) is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

In a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[1] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") Spinoza meant God was Natura naturans not Natura naturata, that is, "a dynamic nature in action, growing and changing, not a passive or static thing

Did god tell him this OR did he make this up?..God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world..

You see i find it strange why people need a god..
Is it the need to be loved no matter what we do?.
Are you scared to die?


 thunder was the start of gods to tell stories to children to make them scared ..
Pack it in jack or the thunder god will get you ..<Then the stories   no tv you see..

And thousands of years later we come to this point were people blow themselves up for make believe stories that all started from THUNDER..

And because of this thunder we have people not blaming the thunder but blaming something that they don't even know what it is ..

So how did we get here ..Well i don't know but something put us here ..NO SHIT ..

Even a reason why things explode..

before the Big bang ..
A black hole sucks all the matter in and the matter gets to heavy for the black hole .
Then because it's to heavy it explodes ripping a new part of the universe to release all it's matter..
Creating new galaxies and solar systems .

And because it's a collapsed black hole you can travel down them into a new part of the universe..
MAYBE ^^.. And that's how aliens travel vast distances MAYBE ..

No that's not what happened a man like being or an unknown thing went zap and then there was a bang..

Just please tell me what you think your gods look like describe it or him..

Nature so a tree is god?..
So dogs piss on god?..

[BADecker]

@popcorn

Ugh... we are talking on a philosophical level about a god entity.
In this case i stated i could accept a god entity which equals our nature/universe/phisycal principles etc pp.

Im not atheist per se, because i have an open minded personality, it is more i guess in direction of an agnostic.
But overall this is not an important factor of my life it is just more of a though experiment.

No but why a god ..Why the need for something more powerful than your self?..

Why not it's just science simple science..?

Something went bang because of blah blah blah blah..

Why oh it went bang because of a god or some type of god..

This is just semantics now.
You could just call it nature if you dont like the word god.

Check out the topics about pantheism and spinozism.

Spinozism (also spelled Spinoza-ism or Spinozaism) is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

In a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[1] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") Spinoza meant God was Natura naturans not Natura naturata, that is, "a dynamic nature in action, growing and changing, not a passive or static thing

Did god tell him this OR did he make this up?..God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world..

You see i find it strange why people need a god..
Is it the need to be loved no matter what we do?.
Are you scared to die?


 thunder was the start of gods to tell stories to children to make them scared ..
Pack it in jack or the thunder god will get you ..<Then the stories   no tv you see..

And thousands of years later we come to this point were people blow themselves up for make believe stories that all started from THUNDER..

And because of this thunder we have people not blaming the thunder but blaming something that they don't even know what it is ..

So how did we get here ..Well i don't know but something put us here ..NO SHIT ..

Even a reason why things explode..

before the Big bang ..
A black hole sucks all the matter in and the matter gets to heavy for the black hole .
Then because it's to heavy it explodes ripping a new part of the universe to release all it's matter..
Creating new galaxies and solar systems .

And because it's a collapsed black hole you can travel down them into a new part of the universe..
MAYBE ^^.. And that's how aliens travel vast distances MAYBE ..

No that's not what happened a man like being or an unknown thing went zap and then there was a bang..

Just please tell me what you think your gods look like describe it or him..

Nature so a tree is god?..
So dogs piss on god?..

The fact that popcorn1 responds in favor of evolution, shows way beyond any proof that evolution is definitely a hoax.

 

[bikihabana]

@popcorn dude, you're preaching to the choir. Evolution is obviously real (until some overwhelming evidence to the contrary appears, which doesn't seem likely).

I was just pointing out the flaws in BADecker's "two big points".

@criptix, yeah "Nature = God" is an interesting idea, "pantheism" is one form of what you're talking about I believe.

It certainly makes a lot more sense to me that "God" is for example, the four fundamental forces of the universe, than some sort of conscious, anthropomorphised man in the sky.

No i am saying that god never made this earth..
And you even made up your own god..So who or what is it..
And if you say you don't know then why a god?..

Are you replying to me? I think you might be confused. I agree that a "god" in the conventional sense did not create the Earth - The idea that a supernatural deity clicked its fingers and popped the world into existence is a highly flawed argument with zero evidence to support it.

I didn't say I believed in a god at all. I just meant that I can relate to a pantheist idea of god far more easily than, for example, the Abrahamic god.

Some of it comes down to semantics - what is the definition of a god? One could argue that the force of gravity has many of the attributes of a god. While it is not conscious, it is not fully understood and seems to defy quantum mechanics as we know it. It also, in a way, created Earth and all of the planets and stars, and consequentially all life as we know it.

After all, I don't think even BADecker could tell us exactly who or what his god is. Is the idea of a Christian god that different from the idea that god is the force of gravity?

So your god is falling ?..

i would think more of your god if we had anti gravity..

Doesn't take much to impress you..A falling god..

Haha OK so you're trolling, I get it. Your last line did make me chuckle actually  

No, firstly it's not my god. Secondly, the god that I speculated is not falling, it makes things fall. There's a difference.

Thirdly, if I was impressed by the idea that god was the force of gravity, then think of my reaction when I saw magnets defy the force of gravity!

If God = Gravity, then Magnets = Satan  

I've heard it said that opposites attract. This truth must be universal if you ask me.

No wonder truth seekers swarm this thread!

[merchantofzeny]

Thanks Criptyx.

Simple explanation of a complex theory.

But people saying evolution is a hoax are not able to process any cognitive thought. Don't lose too much time with them.

Yes we evolutionists are very intelligent and better people than others. We don't need to even discuss about anything because we already won.
This level of argumentation is a sign of real intelligence, unlike looking for evidence.

Did you notice how argumentation of some of these of atheists resemble that of muslims? I hope insecurity about their "beliefs" wont lead to more concentration camps.

Not like it would be the first or second time.

By the way I didn't understand that either.
First: we're not insecure, we're tired of pointing at you something completely obvious and proven by thousands of different scientists and studies. That's not insecuirty that's simply despair and loss of faith in humanity.
Second: Wtf are you talking about when claiming concentration camps are the fruits of atheists beliefs?
Third: What's the link between Muslims and atheists?

Fundamentalists of the latter are likely to shove arguments down your throat. Those of the former would simply slit it.

[Okurkabinladin]

Thanks Criptyx.

Simple explanation of a complex theory.

But people saying evolution is a hoax are not able to process any cognitive thought. Don't lose too much time with them.

Yes we evolutionists are very intelligent and better people than others. We don't need to even discuss about anything because we already won.
This level of argumentation is a sign of real intelligence, unlike looking for evidence.

Did you notice how argumentation of some of these of atheists resemble that of muslims? I hope insecurity about their "beliefs" wont lead to more concentration camps.

Not like it would be the first or second time.

By the way I didn't understand that either.
First: we're not insecure, we're tired of pointing at you something completely obvious and proven by thousands of different scientists and studies. That's not insecuirty that's simply despair and loss of faith in humanity.
Second: Wtf are you talking about when claiming concentration camps are the fruits of atheists beliefs?
Third: What's the link between Muslims and atheists?

Fundamentalists of the latter are likely to shove arguments down your throat. Those of the former would simply slit it.

Sure, and you have audicity to tell us we are misinformed? Industrial murder was not developed by religious people as faith itself forbids notion of collective guilt. Every single soul is gifted with free will.



You keep coming back here time and again and troll deeply faithful with your idea, that truth is somehow contained in scientific knowledge slowly accumulated by usually religious themselves over the past 500 years as if humanity before then (ie. all your ancestors, mister) were mere animals. Willfully ignorant, that explaining inner workings of natural phenomena doesnt give them meaning or teaches you how to properly treat other human beings.

You all mask ignorance with arrogance. You lack humility, thats why I called you out for being insecure and you are proving me right.

[BADecker]

Thanks Criptyx.

Simple explanation of a complex theory.

But people saying evolution is a hoax are not able to process any cognitive thought. Don't lose too much time with them.

Yes we evolutionists are very intelligent and better people than others. We don't need to even discuss about anything because we already won.
This level of argumentation is a sign of real intelligence, unlike looking for evidence.

Did you notice how argumentation of some of these of atheists resemble that of muslims? I hope insecurity about their "beliefs" wont lead to more concentration camps.

Not like it would be the first or second time.

By the way I didn't understand that either.
First: we're not insecure, we're tired of pointing at you something completely obvious and proven by thousands of different scientists and studies. That's not insecuirty that's simply despair and loss of faith in humanity.
Second: Wtf are you talking about when claiming concentration camps are the fruits of atheists beliefs?
Third: What's the link between Muslims and atheists?

Fundamentalists of the latter are likely to shove arguments down your throat. Those of the former would simply slit it.

Sure, and you have audicity to tell us we are misinformed? Industrial murder was not developed by religious people as faith itself forbids notion of collective guilt. Every single soul is gifted with free will.



You keep coming back here time and again and troll deeply faithful with your idea, that truth is somehow contained in scientific knowledge slowly accumulated by usually religious themselves over the past 500 years as if humanity before then (ie. all your ancestors, mister) were mere animals. Willfully ignorant, that explaining inner workings of natural phenomena doesnt give them meaning or teaches you how to properly treat other human beings.

You all mask ignorance with arrogance. You lack humility, thats why I called you out for being insecure and you are proving me right.

Right!

One only need examine the Great Pyramid, and how it is almost perfectly aligned north and south. Yet, it is not quite aligned N & S perfectly... but almost.

At the same time, the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, where the prime meridian is housed, is off by 13 degrees from true north/south. For more info: http://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/explore/prime-meridian-Greenwich and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Observatory,_Greenwich.

We aren't even as accurate, scientifically, as the ancient Egyptians of 5,000 years ago.

[bikihabana]

...
Sure, and you have audicity to tell us we are misinformed? Industrial murder was not developed by religious people as faith itself forbids notion of collective guilt. Every single soul is gifted with free will.
..
You keep coming back here time and again and troll deeply faithful with your idea, that truth is somehow contained in scientific knowledge slowly accumulated by usually religious themselves over the past 500 years as if humanity before then (ie. all your ancestors, mister) were mere animals. Willfully ignorant, that explaining inner workings of natural phenomena doesnt give them meaning or teaches you how to properly treat other human beings.
...

Who is it that knows best about information to say anything about what is misinformed and what not?

You would want to rethink whether industrial murder are not developed by religious people. Quote from ushmm. org:  "The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches."

Maybe faith is very effective in indoctrinating religious people with its indoctrinating notions of collective guilt: Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

If no thorough scientific explaining of any inner workings of natural phenomena are being done, there would be no advancement and betterment of societies. It is the only shining light in a otherwise dark world. It forms the base upon which upstanding moral codes and proper conduct are built. We humans ourselves are in fact, natural phenomena.

[BADecker]

...
Sure, and you have audicity to tell us we are misinformed? Industrial murder was not developed by religious people as faith itself forbids notion of collective guilt. Every single soul is gifted with free will.
..
You keep coming back here time and again and troll deeply faithful with your idea, that truth is somehow contained in scientific knowledge slowly accumulated by usually religious themselves over the past 500 years as if humanity before then (ie. all your ancestors, mister) were mere animals. Willfully ignorant, that explaining inner workings of natural phenomena doesnt give them meaning or teaches you how to properly treat other human beings.
...

Who is it that knows best about information to say anything about what is misinformed and what not?

You would want to rethink whether industrial murder are not developed by religious people. Quote from ushmm. org:  "The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches."

Maybe faith is very effective in indoctrinating religious people with its indoctrinating notions of collective guilt: Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

If no thorough scientific explaining of any inner workings of natural phenomena are being done, there would be no advancement and betterment of societies. It is the only shining light in a otherwise dark world. It forms the base upon which upstanding moral codes and proper conduct are built. We humans ourselves are in fact, natural phenomena.

If the printing press had not been invented, there would be almost no scientific work being done. The 25,000 ancient, hand-written copies of the Bible would still exist with the accuracy they have anyway. The number of new copies would have mushroomed, being checked for accuracy by the churches. But there wouldn't be any evolution theory, or any of the science theories that exist today. Everyone would be influenced far more by the Church and/or the Bible.

Bible laws are good. Spread Bible laws with New Testament love. And all this hinges on the simple printing press.