Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[Brian37]

KNOCK IT OFF.

Evolution is the scientific explanation as to how life changes over long periods. DNA proves it.

Now sorry, but you do not get to shit on that just because you don't like it not needing your pet deity.

Don't talk to us about laws of logic while defending a book with bullshit fantastic claims that have no basis in science and especially after agreeing that the book is not a science textbook.

Do men pop out of dirt? NO!
Do women pop out of men's ribs? NO!
Do snakes talk? NO!
Do donkeys talk? NO!
Do bushes talk? NO!

And no, there is no such thing as invisible god sperm that magically without a second set of DNA knocks a girl up to give birth to himself in human form. There is no such thing as holy ghost sperm, or invisible god sperm. 

AND NO, if you were to in real life, murder someone like the death myth claims, the person dies and stays dead. 

So unless you have scientific proof that those claims are even remotely plausible and all your going to respond with is "poof" and "God did it", no I cannot take you seriously.

I also would not take you seriously if you claimed Apollo was real. FOR THE SAME FUCKING REASON.

That was then, this is now.

It was understandable humans worldwide in antiquity made those things up, because the didn't know any better. You are getting pissed because I refuse to give your pet claim any special treatment.

You lecturing us on logic is laughable.

Yet again: All totally irrelevant to the question of value judgements (right and wrong) from an evolutionary point of view.

Try again.

Hint: try talking about your own position as that is what I am asking about.

I get that starting with the presupposition that God doesn't exists, your arguments against the Bible make logical sense. Those things do, however, follow logically when you start with my presuppositions (God exists and the Bible is the Word of God) (at least I think they follow logically and nobody here has said otherwise).

I am trying to find out if your worldview is logically consistent internally. If not, it seems to me that it would be irrational to hold to that position.

So I am trying to use your presuppositions to argue that they lead to illogical conclusions. If you want to discredit my point of view, start with my presuppositions and show that they result in illogical conclusions.

So...beginning with your presuppositions, explain how value judgements (right and wrong) come into being and have any sort of objective meaning. Beginning with your presuppositions, explain how the laws of logic (intangible concepts) come into being. Let's see how it falls out.

And please don't go into other religions and their beliefs as it is irrelevant to our discussion. However, should you, after our discussion, give up your position and go to one of the other religion positions, I would be happy then to discuss those.

---

KNOCK IT OFF.

Evolution is the scientific explanation as to how life changes over long periods. DNA proves it.

Now sorry, but you do not get to shit on that just because you don't like it not needing your pet deity.

Don't talk to us about laws of logic while defending a book with bullshit fantastic claims that have no basis in science and especially after agreeing that the book is not a science textbook.

Do men pop out of dirt? NO!
Do women pop out of men's ribs? NO!
Do snakes talk? NO!
Do donkeys talk? NO!
Do bushes talk? NO!

And no, there is no such thing as invisible god sperm that magically without a second set of DNA knocks a girl up to give birth to himself in human form. There is no such thing as holy ghost sperm, or invisible god sperm. 

AND NO, if you were to in real life, murder someone like the death myth claims, the person dies and stays dead. 

So unless you have scientific proof that those claims are even remotely plausible and all your going to respond with is "poof" and "God did it", no I cannot take you seriously.

I also would not take you seriously if you claimed Apollo was real. FOR THE SAME FUCKING REASON.

That was then, this is now.

It was understandable humans worldwide in antiquity made those things up, because the didn't know any better. You are getting pissed because I refuse to give your pet claim any special treatment.

You lecturing us on logic is laughable.

---

No it is not you idiot!

Value claims are human constructs and highly subjective from point of view. Evolution addresses survival from adaptation which includes BOTH cooperation and cruelty. 

EVOLUTION YOU TWIT, explains both the good and bad that happen in nature. It explains why a lion will kill it's prey, and even the offspring of rivals. Evolution explains how cockroaches breed far more efficiently than humans and have been around far longer. EVOLUTION explains how we even share DNA with bacteria and grass and whales and jellyfish.

You keep missing the fucking point that when it comes to our species evolution, it is still up to us what we do in interaction with each other.

Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine EXPLAIN HOW life evolved over billions of years.

Your comic book was written in an age when nobody had any damned fucking clue what DNA was.

You do not get to blame us for what we were not around to write. merely because we point out the absurdity of that book.

Wrong again. Word like "good" and "bad" imply value. That is how those words are used and are understood.

To the extent that they are highly subjective they tend to be meaningless. If killing another human being extends the survival of the killer, how can it be viewed as "bad" from an evolutionary point of view. Isn't it "good" from the evolutionary point of view of the killer and "bad" from the evolutionary point of view of the victim? If so, you would be arguing that there is then no real meaning to "good" and "bad", i.e., they are merely relativistic terms that only have meaning from a particular point of view. Seems like an irrational position to me and contrary to the accepted meaning and use of the words.

To a lion "good" is when they reproduce. To a lion "good" is when they kill and eat. To a lion "good" is even when they kill rival's cubs. To a lioness, "bad" is when their cub is killed by a lion. 

"Good" and "bad" as far as humans use it in laypersons terms outside how evolutionary science uses the same words is completely different. 

This is the same stupid bullshit theists pull when using the word "theory".

No sorry, when evolution talks in scientific terms using "good" and "bad" it is referring to that individual in any species or even that species itself, strictly meaning "good" is when you get to the point of reproducing, and "bad" is when you don't reproduce.

You are trying to pull some old bullshit trying to claim "Without my pet deity, we'd all murder each other".

Without your deity murder would still happen in humans so? You are stupidly assuming or ignoring that even without your particular pet deity claim, even humans have learned to cooperate without violence. 

 I have been an atheist since the mid 90s. I have no violent felonies haven't even had a speeding ticket since 1999.

If your argument is that our species morality comes from your pet deity claim, sorry, not buying it. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate, to use empathy or brutality is in our genes, not our labels.

Your personal pet deity does not explain human morality anymore than the Egyptian sun god Ra explains our species morality.

If you feel you need your pet deity to prevent you from murdering others, by all means keep it. But don't dare try to argue others need it because you like yours.