Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: The speed of light, stars, and YEC?
December 14, 2011 at 4:32 pm
My mother was a school psychologist so I know something about children with mental disabilities from her stories from work. I would never use the term "retard" because it effectively insults people who were born with mental handicaps through no fault of their own.
I prefer "fucktard". I define that term as being willfully ignorant. Fucktards have a brain every bit as functional as you or I but they just choose not to use it. They prefer to believe stupid things and refuse to listen to reason.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 2966
Threads: 124
Joined: May 12, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The speed of light, stars, and YEC?
December 14, 2011 at 4:48 pm
PC, great.
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: The speed of light, stars, and YEC?
December 15, 2011 at 8:29 am
(This post was last modified: December 15, 2011 at 8:43 am by Zen Badger.)
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 1985
Threads: 12
Joined: October 12, 2010
Reputation:
24
RE: The speed of light, stars, and YEC?
December 16, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Posts: 69270
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: The speed of light, stars, and YEC?
December 16, 2011 at 7:14 pm
(This post was last modified: December 16, 2011 at 7:29 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Repetition doesn't add weight to any given claim Stat. Maybe you should slow down and demonstrate the veracity of any single claim before moving on the the next? If it was bullshit the first time, it's going to bullshit the next time. Unless you have some modifications to make to any of these claims that would give us reason to reassess them? Or, you could stop complaining about science and do science. Be the man who closes the book, so to speak.
Late edit: Just to be clear. It may be that you've happened upon a factually accurate explanation for everything in existence. It's not beyond the realm of possibility even if it stretches plausibility. What you've offered up thusfar in any thread; about any subject, doesn't fit the the evidence. So, if you're correct in your assumptions it isn't for the reasons you've given. Everything we know is wrong. Science is a blank slate for you to work your magic upon. Now, find some evidence, build a better argument, and stop repeating yourself. The things you offer up must be able to withstand criticism to a higher degree than most or any of us here are capable of offering. Nothing in your beliefs-as-science line of argumentation has managed to do this yet. There's a word for people who peddle things like this; charlatan. Whatever you feel you gain by repeatedly pushing this garbage is illusory, you've probably gained the opposite. The particular brand of belief you peddle is a disservice to belief as a whole. You make the bible, and by extension christianity an easy target. It would be much more difficult to criticize faith if people didn't advocate positions such as yours.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: The speed of light, stars, and YEC?
December 16, 2011 at 7:37 pm
(December 16, 2011 at 1:52 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This sounds an awful lot like….well you to be honest. Mr. I can’t rationally account for anything that I believe, but God is a big meanie-face!
We've already been down this road. I have fully explained what I believe and why. Just because you pretend I haven't doesn't mean that I haven't. It only says something about your intellectual honesty.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 69246
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
258
RE: The speed of light, stars, and YEC?
December 16, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Quote:but God is a big meanie-face!
No, god is a figment of your rather fucked up imagination. A fact true of all gods everywhere since the dawn of time which was not 6,000 years ago.[/code]
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: The speed of light, stars, and YEC?
December 17, 2011 at 8:09 am
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 83
Threads: 0
Joined: December 17, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: The speed of light, stars, and YEC?
December 17, 2011 at 8:31 am
Posts: 83
Threads: 0
Joined: December 17, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: The speed of light, stars, and YEC?
December 17, 2011 at 11:51 am
(December 9, 2011 at 4:35 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: (December 8, 2011 at 11:11 pm)Chuck Wrote: The problem of scientific nature is what neurological malfunction could it be for there to still be "theology" after the bronze age.
That’s actually kind of funny, if you’re an Evolutionist you’d have to believe that Humans developed a belief in God because it provided some sort of survival advantage. So being an atheist would actually make you a bit of an evolutionary throw back. 
Nope. Common but fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.
Evolution is a process without set goals (apart from survival for species as a whole - or more precisely the gene). As such, not every hereditary trait needs a clear reason to exist. Some traits may have provided an advantage in the past, some might be remnants of reduced traits and still others might simply be side-effects of other useful traits developed.
The idea that every trait _must_ have some sort of survival advantage is patently false. As long as the trait does not pose (too great) a disadvantage to the survival rate of the species it can arise and persist.
My personal belief is that religion is a side-effect of several useful psychological traits developed; including the tendency of humans to believe what father figures tell us and our capacity to find causality and intent in everything that happens in the world around us. Children who do not listen to their father when he says "don't play near that tiger" are clearly at a disadvantage when it comes to survival; as are those who cannot connect the rustling of grass with the approach of said tiger.
Some of the time daddy and rustling grass might be wrong, and there is no tiger (or God, for that matter). But better to err on the side of caution and believe His every word.
In this view, theists are simply suffering from the some of the side-effects of the evolution of our species. How ironic.
|
