|
Evolution, religion, and ignorance.
|
 Quote:I don't understand why you'd come to a discussion forum, and then proceed to reap from visibility any voice that disagrees with you. If you're going to do that, why not just sit in front of a mirror and pat yourself on the back continuously?-Esquilax Evolution - Adapt or be eaten.  (May 13, 2014 at 9:04 pm)RDK Wrote: Are you serious? Intelligence is just as impossible to assemble as random atoms. This connection just doubles the impossibility! Another assertion without evidence. You seem to make a lot of these. Your incredulity is evidence only of your incredulity.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.  Evolution, religion, and ignorance.
May 13, 2014 at 9:41 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2014 at 9:41 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
Sweet Carpenter Christ. You're still appealing to evolution as a K'Nex set or Legos with existing fully formed parts.
As if there are fully formed human brains, eyeballs and sculls floating around in a vacuum, waiting to be assembled by a Guatemalan assembly line worker, for Homo Sapiens to be an evolved organism.  (May 13, 2014 at 9:34 pm)RDK Wrote: How did things really happen. There was no intelligence in the beginning. No rules to establish the mechanism of life. No parts floating around looking for some useful place to fasten onto. What good would a random strand of DNA do if the directions( which it did not yet have) not appear to direct the construction of something which as of yet did not exist. As opposed to magic sky wizard poofs everything into existence? Uh-huh! And without evolution we would not have modern biology, modern medicine and many other sciences. Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni: "You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"  (May 13, 2014 at 9:34 pm)RDK Wrote: Random creation and evolution is one of the biggest lies out there. False. Religion has always been the lie. There is no proof of any god, yet millions of people are conned into believing the fairy tale as though there was veritable evidence to support the claims religion presents. Faith is not evidence. Real evidence, after all, would negate the need for faith, because then everyone would believe without question or doubt. Using the apologist argument that one must forgo with logic for the sake of faith is nothing more than a ploy to insinuate no evidence is required. To which I state, that which is believed to exist without evidence can easily be dismissed without evidence.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter (May 13, 2014 at 9:34 pm)RDK Wrote: How did things really happen. There was no intelligence in the beginning. No rules to establish the mechanism of life. No parts floating around looking for some useful place to fasten onto. What good would a random strand of DNA do if the directions( which it did not yet have) not appear to direct the construction of something which as of yet did not exist. I urge you to read a science book. Until then, your ignorant protestations of impossibility are empty and meaningless.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.  (May 13, 2014 at 9:42 pm)Beccs Wrote:(May 13, 2014 at 9:34 pm)RDK Wrote: How did things really happen. There was no intelligence in the beginning. No rules to establish the mechanism of life. No parts floating around looking for some useful place to fasten onto. What good would a random strand of DNA do if the directions( which it did not yet have) not appear to direct the construction of something which as of yet did not exist. And it's no coincidence that the age of invention -- explosion in the growth of technology -- happened right on the heels of the theory of evolution. The TOE demonstrated the raw power of science, since we have run with it. Religion has not advanced so much. The earliest religion was about talking to the sky and pretending that you get answers when you know damn good and well that you don't. Today amidst our great technological advances, religion, is about talking to the sky and pretending you get answers when you know damn good and well that you don't. Not much progress in the religion department.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste -- don't pollute it with bullshit.
I suppose that I should have mentioned the absurdity of mating couples by accident. What was the male of every species on earth doing before his mate was constructed? You have a male with all of the capabilities of using his sexuality before there was even a mate. What are the odds of two different sexual beings being accidentally together at the same time with all of the necessary opposite parts being complete at the same time so an offspring could be created. No Possibility! Did the male have all of the female parts himself, and then share them with another man? You know where that one ends up.
Both creatures had to be built to be compatible in every way before a birth could even occur. Birth? What a monumentally problematic idea that had to be. A sole creature had been making offspring all by himself, then one day, an opposite and completely correct match was found accidentally that could provide life. Is this getting dumber by the moment? RE: Evolution, religion, and ignorance.
May 13, 2014 at 10:23 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2014 at 10:24 pm by Mr Greene.)
And now he moves onto male-male sexual relations? Obviously couldn't be bothered to do his own research on Funisia
What's he going to do next, give Cave Johnson lemons? Quote:I don't understand why you'd come to a discussion forum, and then proceed to reap from visibility any voice that disagrees with you. If you're going to do that, why not just sit in front of a mirror and pat yourself on the back continuously?-Esquilax Evolution - Adapt or be eaten. (May 13, 2014 at 9:54 pm)RDK Wrote: I suppose that I should have mentioned the absurdity of mating couples by accident. What was the male of every species on earth doing before his mate was constructed? You have a male with all of the capabilities of using his sexuality before there was even a mate. What are the odds of two different sexual beings being accidentally together at the same time with all of the necessary opposite parts being complete at the same time so an offspring could be created. No Possibility! Did the male have all of the female parts himself, and then share them with another man? You know where that one ends up. Can you POSSIBLY repeat any other creationist strawmen? Seriously, you've repeated so many I'm starting to think I'm at AiG or listening to Ray Comfort make shit up as he goes along. Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni: "You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???" |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
