Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[robvalue]

Science. More science.

The thing about science is that, in its simplest form, it attempts to remove errors that an individual can make. If one guy does something, or experiences something we don't know if he is telling the truth. Even if he is telling the truth, we don't know if he is mistaken. (Sticking point here for some, I know.)

But once this guy (let's call him M. Bison) is able to demonstrate repeatedly what he thought he saw, others are able to verify it. And then to reduce the possibility that him and his mates concoct a little story, the details get released so that anyone can reproduce it. Wait, let's call him Emporer Nero. So then the whole of the scientific community, and even the general public who bother to learn about it, become witness to its robustness.

[snowtracks]

Your 'chip-on-the-shoulder' atheistic style has been completely kicked-to-the-curb. I previously commented that Dawkins' attitude, articles, books were looking 'clownish' which this article points out, So much for the militant atheist movement.  http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885...w-atheism/

---

The only clown in this thread is you, Krusty. Telling me i've got a chip on my solider might be true, but it doesn't detract from the fact you are still and continually talking 'shit'.

---

Atheism has precisely fuck all to do with science, so again, stop talking shit about things you haven't got the foggiest clue about. Dawkins was/is a brilliant evolutionary biologist above and beyond an atheist talking head.

---

What the spectator (as if you've ever heard of the Spectator. Google search for cherry picking much?) thinks about his articles/attitudes means fuck all to me. Maybe you should actually engage in learning about science instead of simply trashing it? After all, you reap the benefits of scientific discovery and inquiry every day of your life. You're no better than a parasite if all you do is leach off it's discoveries and give nothing but contempt and ignorance back.

Until you can demonstrate that you know what the fuck you're talking about, and about what the above article has to do with science and this 'subliminal belief in god' you can jog right the fuck on.

---

A ‘brilliant evolutionist biologist”, well not exactly. When asked what was the Origin of Life his answer is ‘was the first replicating molecule’,* then the question: how did that happen? Answer he doesn’t know. (could have originated from another civilization somewhere in the universe). --- it’s those stupid aliens again. To have replication capabilities, complex systems need to be operational with DNA coding completely functional. *time 2:55

[dyresand]

---

The only clown in this thread is you, Krusty. Telling me i've got a chip on my solider might be true, but it doesn't detract from the fact you are still and continually talking 'shit'.

---

Atheism has precisely fuck all to do with science, so again, stop talking shit about things you haven't got the foggiest clue about. Dawkins was/is a brilliant evolutionary biologist above and beyond an atheist talking head.

---

What the spectator (as if you've ever heard of the Spectator. Google search for cherry picking much?) thinks about his articles/attitudes means fuck all to me. Maybe you should actually engage in learning about science instead of simply trashing it? After all, you reap the benefits of scientific discovery and inquiry every day of your life. You're no better than a parasite if all you do is leach off it's discoveries and give nothing but contempt and ignorance back.

Until you can demonstrate that you know what the fuck you're talking about, and about what the above article has to do with science and this 'subliminal belief in god' you can jog right the fuck on.

---

A ‘brilliant evolutionist biologist”, well not exactly. When asked what was the Origin of Life his answer is ‘was the first replicating molecule’,* then the question: how did that happen? Answer he doesn’t know. (could have originated from another civilization somewhere in the universe). --- it’s those stupid aliens again. To have replication capabilities, complex systems need to be operational with DNA coding completely functional. *time 2:55

No one yet how the first life forms on earth came to be yet one that is answered god is thrown out the window like he was with the creation of the universe and 
the creation of anything for that matter. Science works because science unlike religion when is proven wrong its a good thing that means there is better science.
Unlike with religion people will needlessly try to defend even when it is wrong and do nothing about it or even try to fix their own bible.

[Jackalope]

Horse feathers?

Dunno what he meant, but in my family that was a nice way to say "bullshit". These days we just call it bullshit.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

---

The only clown in this thread is you, Krusty. Telling me i've got a chip on my solider might be true, but it doesn't detract from the fact you are still and continually talking 'shit'.

---

Atheism has precisely fuck all to do with science, so again, stop talking shit about things you haven't got the foggiest clue about. Dawkins was/is a brilliant evolutionary biologist above and beyond an atheist talking head.

---

What the spectator (as if you've ever heard of the Spectator. Google search for cherry picking much?) thinks about his articles/attitudes means fuck all to me. Maybe you should actually engage in learning about science instead of simply trashing it? After all, you reap the benefits of scientific discovery and inquiry every day of your life. You're no better than a parasite if all you do is leach off it's discoveries and give nothing but contempt and ignorance back.

Until you can demonstrate that you know what the fuck you're talking about, and about what the above article has to do with science and this 'subliminal belief in god' you can jog right the fuck on.

---

A ‘brilliant evolutionist biologist”, well not exactly. When asked what was the Origin of Life his answer is ‘was the first replicating molecule’,* then the question: how did that happen? Answer he doesn’t know. (could have originated from another civilization somewhere in the universe). --- it’s those stupid aliens again. To have replication capabilities, complex systems need to be operational with DNA coding completely functional. *time 2:55

More tripe. I'd be willing to listen to your critique of Dawkins (who is a brilliant evolutionary biologist), however, as demonstrated through this thread, you're about as literate in scientific discourse and education as I am in Klingon. Listening to you would be the equivalent of asking a 2 year old her opinion on the use of the gold standard. And whilst illiteracy on a subject doesn't of course detract from the points made, you have continually failed to make any points worthy of critique.

Case in point. Intellectual honesty appears to be something that has sailed you by through your formative years in education. "I don't know" is the only honest answer when asked a question you can't give a valid and evidenced answer to. Speculation can only get you so far.

Oh, and just in case you were any under illusion that anyone here is taking you seriously, I'd like to point out another blunder in your attempted but obvious equivocation to evolution and abiogensis/origin of life. Either try reading up on the subjects you're talking about, or stay silent. Oh, and let's not even forget that you still haven't answered any of the critiques about your bizarre thesis about atheism and science, a s though they are entities and are somehow in cahoots.

P 'tak

[Cyberman]

Not this shit again.

Snowman, for sheer lack of originality, I'm going to ctrl V my last response to this lie:

"Professor Dawkins has written and spoken at length about the experience and how Ben Stein's question, of what scenario Dawkins could imagine in which so-called 'intelligent design' might conceivably be possible, was curiously omitted in order to make him sound as though he believes in aliens. For the record, he doesn't now and didn't then think that aliens seeded life on this planet; and further, went on to say that even granting the possibility, at some point there must have been something like Darwinian evolution to bring about the original lifeforms in the first place."

I don't credit you with enough nous other than reflexively to propagate the lie without even bothering to fact check, but I do ask that you stop insulting the intelligence of your audience.

[IATIA]

To have replication capabilities, complex systems need to be operational with DNA coding completely functional.

There are self replicating molecules with no DNA and no RNA.

[snowtracks]

A ‘brilliant evolutionist biologist”, well not exactly. When asked what was the Origin of Life his answer is ‘was the first replicating molecule’,* then the question: how did that happen? Answer he doesn’t know. (could have originated from another civilization somewhere in the universe). --- it’s those stupid aliens again. To have replication capabilities, complex systems need to be operational with DNA coding completely functional. *time 2:55

More tripe. I'd be willing to listen to your critique of Dawkins (who is a brilliant evolutionary biologist), however, as demonstrated through this thread, you're about as literate in scientific discourse and education as I am in Klingon. Listening to you would be the equivalent of asking a 2 year old her opinion on the use of the gold standard. And whilst illiteracy on a subject doesn't of course detract from the points made, you have continually failed to make any points worthy of critique.

Case in point. Intellectual honesty appears to be something that has sailed you by through your formative years in education. "I don't know" is the only honest answer when asked a question you can't give a valid and evidenced answer to. Speculation can only get you so far.

Oh, and just in case you were any under illusion that anyone here is taking you seriously, I'd like to point out another blunder in your attempted but obvious equivocation to evolution and abiogensis/origin of life. Either try reading up on the subjects you're talking about, or stay silent. Oh, and let's not even forget that you still haven't answered any of the critiques about your bizarre thesis about atheism and science, a s though they are entities and are somehow in cahoots.

P 'tak

Not one iota of a scientific counterpoint which again re-enforces my contention that atheists (at least posting atheists) really don't know science, yet they think it's so wonderful (well, after all, science is actually the study of how God did it). So here's a question: Why don't the atheists that know science post? My conclusion: once they know science, they are no longer atheists.
PS - Many take me seriously and can't wait for me to post again or wouldn't post in response, so don't be under a false illusion, and some don't. Either way, it has nothing to do with the price of apples.

[TheRealJoeFish]

YAY! Snowy's back! Just ahead of the necropost prohibition too!

[TheRealJoeFish]

Also,

So here's a question: Why don't the atheists that know science post? My conclusion: once they know science, they are no longer atheists.

That's dumb. That's dumb.