A Creationists View of Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution

[Pray To Jesus]

Atheists claims that God doesn't exists, and that they know this with absolute certainty. Most atheists espouse ideas taken from works done by prominent atheist authorities. They believe their view is correct using their own faulty personal application of logic and reason.

When someone challenges the atheists' world view, they would often throw away the use of logic and reasoning in their rebuttal. With religious fervor, atheists will gladly ignore the errors and logical fallacies behind their claims.

 

[Juddog]

Atheists claims that God doesn't exists, and that they know this with absolute certainty. They believe their view is correct through their own personal application of logic and reason. Most atheists would espouse athletics ideas taken from works done by prominent atheist authorities.

What I find perplexing is that they often fail to follow their own standards. When someone challenges the atheists' world view, they would often throw away the use of logic and reasoning in their rebuttal. With religious fervor, atheists will gladly ignore the errors and logical fallacies behind their claims.

Athletics? What? There are no prominent atheist authorities, that's the part you don't seem to understand.

 

[WelshBloke]

I would disagree; a number of his problems can be directly solved with Calculus. I believe that they hit a point in their philosophies where they reached a sort of "brick wall" with how far they could go given their existing math system; since they didn't have a system in place to explain what happens after that wall was hit, they thought the wall was the limit.

It's similar to those that used to think the speed of sound was an absolute limit that planes couldn't cross, until it was finally crossed and it was shown the limit could be broken.

On a similar note, I believe at some point in the next hundred years or so, we'll figure out how to cross the barriers of the speed of light and fix the problems with General Relativity as far as why it doesn't jive with Quantum Mechanics.

Zeno didn't actually believe that an arrow would never hit the tortoise though, there would of been plenty of bow owning plebs to set him straight there! They were just pointing out errors in their understanding of things and trying to work out where they were wrong by seeing where their understanding took them and noting that it was obviously bullshit.

Plus they just liked being argumentative given that the weather was nice and other people provided them food and shelter. Bunch of bloody freeloading hippies that they were!



:sneaky:

 

[BudAshes]

Atheists claims that God doesn't exists, and that they know this with absolute certainty. They believe their view is correct through their own personal application of logic and reason. Most atheists would espouse athletics ideas taken from works done by prominent atheist authorities.

What I find perplexing is that they often fail to follow their own standards. When someone challenges the atheists' world view, they would often throw away the use of logic and reasoning in their rebuttal. With religious fervor, atheists will gladly ignore the errors and logical fallacies behind their claims.

This post is sponsored by the Wake and Bakery.

 

[WelshBloke]

Athletics? What? There are no prominent atheist authorities, that's the part you don't seem to understand.

Yep, this.

Keep the PLOT quite. I'll send our ninja Atheist reeducation squad round "to have a word" with him.

 

[alkemyst]

I would disagree; a number of his problems can be directly solved with Calculus. I believe that they hit a point in their philosophies where they reached a sort of "brick wall" with how far they could go given their existing math system; since they didn't have a system in place to explain what happens after that wall was hit, they thought the wall was the limit.

It's similar to those that used to think the speed of sound was an absolute limit that planes couldn't cross, until it was finally crossed and it was shown the limit could be broken.

On a similar note, I believe at some point in the next hundred years or so, we'll figure out how to cross the barriers of the speed of light and fix the problems with General Relativity as far as why it doesn't jive with Quantum Mechanics.

You don't need Calclus. He probably knew he was wrong and others didn't believe him as well.

All someone needs to do is do some psuedo-math/science and speak well enough to earn ignorant followers that don't know better especially if your rival stepped on those followers toes in some way.

Back early on, whenever a new leader came to power the first thing they did was destory the books and kill the wise people in the new area. They'd then re-teach their 'people' and often times it was all a farce only to promote the leader's power.

 

[BudAshes]

You don't need Calclus. He probably knew he was wrong and others didn't believe him as well.

All someone needs to do is do some psuedo-math/science and speak well enough to earn ignorant followers that don't know better especially if your rival stepped on those followers toes in some way.

Back early on, whenever a new leader came to power the first thing they did was destory the books and kill the wise people in the new area. They'd then re-teach their 'people' and often times it was all a farce only to promote the leader's power.

Hey alky, I've been meaning to ask you something.

How is babby formed?

 

[WelshBloke]

Hey alky, I've been meaning to ask you something.

How is babby formed?

Oh FFS!

And then you complain about Alky turning threads into being about him.

How about you keep the Alky trolling to the innumerable other threads already being used for that?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I know, right? I mean, I probably make a fraction of what them preachers on the television earn.

Oh, geez. I was just making a joke... but damn, you're almost certainly correct, and that makes me a very sad ailuropoda melanoleuca. :'(

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Oh, geez. I was just making a joke... but damn, you're almost certainly correct, and that makes me a very sad ailuropoda melanoleuca. :'(

Haha, I know, and, ugh, I know.

 

[alkemyst]

Hey alky, I've been meaning to ask you something.

How is babby formed?

Mods have forbidden me to discuss this anymore here.

 

[alkemyst]

Oh FFS!

And then you complain about Alky turning threads into being about him.

How about you keep the Alky trolling to the innumerable other threads already being used for that?

Zip it skippy.

 

[Retro Rob]

I hold a PhD in physical anthropology (the study of human evolution) and am an anatomy professor at a medical school. I've dissected hundreds of humans. The human body is far from an amazing machine. There are so many imperfections, so many less than optimal structures, and so many parts that just flat out make no sense that the miracle is that we even work at all. If we're the products of design, the designer was far from intelligent.

No disrespect, for a very long time, very smart people like yourself thought the appendix was superfluous and had no function, but it does:

But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix’s job is to reboot the digestive system in that case.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21153898/ns/health-health_care/t/scientists-may-have-found-appendixs-purpose/#.Ulba3VAU_NU


I'm no PhD, but I think we're all to ready to dismiss a function/part of the human body when we don't yet fully understand it. Sometimes, we find a use for something when something happens which causes us to need it.

 

[WelshBloke]

Zip it skippy.

You really are your own worst fucking enemy sometimes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Athletics? What? There are no prominent atheist authorities, that's the part you don't seem to understand.

Oh I'd have to disagree. See any Dawkins threads? He certainly sets himself up as an authority and if one disagrees then the AT inquisition steps in

 

[Gibsons]

No disrespect, for a very long time, very smart people like yourself thought the appendix was superfluous and had no function, but it does:





http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21153898/ns/health-health_care/t/scientists-may-have-found-appendixs-purpose/#.Ulba3VAU_NU


I'm no PhD, but I think we're all to ready to dismiss a function/part of the human body when we don't yet fully understand it. Sometimes, we find a use for something when something happens which causes us to need it.

Are you arguing that human beings are anatomically perfect creatures then? Being the product of a perfect designer and all that.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Oh I'd have to disagree. See any Dawkins threads? He certainly sets himself up as an authority and if one disagrees then the AT inquisition steps in

Dawkins is the voice of authority for atheists in the same way that Fred Phelps is the voice of authority for Christians. Which is to say, he isn't, except for a tiny group of bigots who have no respect for any viewpoints which contradict their own. Granted, Dawkins does slightly less gay bashing, but he's still a fringe element of atheism, not some de facto leader.

 

[Paul98]

It's similar to those that used to think the speed of sound was an absolute limit that planes couldn't cross, until it was finally crossed and it was shown the limit could be broken.

On a similar note, I believe at some point in the next hundred years or so, we'll figure out how to cross the barriers of the speed of light and fix the problems with General Relativity as far as why it doesn't jive with Quantum Mechanics.

We will never be able to accelerate to faster than light. No matter how long you accelerate you will always see light moving away from you at the speed of light. Though we may find some other way around the speed of light so we don't have to go faster than the speed of light.

 

[Retro Rob]

Are you arguing that human beings are anatomically perfect creatures then? Being the product of a perfect designer and all that.

No, I am saying that we simply may have a flawed understanding of why we are made the way we are.

After all, "PhD"s were studying the appendix for generations, and failed at seeing its use until it was needed when we were hit with certain sicknesses.

 

[alkemyst]

No, I am saying that we simply may have a flawed understanding of why we are made the way we are.

After all, "PhD"s were studying the appendix for generations, and failed at seeing its use until it was needed when we were hit with certain sicknesses.

QFT, I also don't see how Gibsons saw your comments as a Perfect Designer promotion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dawkins is the voice of authority for atheists in the same way that Fred Phelps is the voice of authority for Christians. Which is to say, he isn't, except for a tiny group of bigots who have no respect for any viewpoints which contradict their own. Granted, Dawkins does slightly less gay bashing, but he's still a fringe element of atheism, not some de facto leader.

The statement was made that there aren't any leaders of atheism with which I disagree. For someone who isn't a leader he get's a fair amount of press and I guarantee that if I post a thread "Dawkins is an abusive dolt- Discuss" thread there will be pages of angst over it.

Truth is that most people who are atheist and those who are not have little time for the crap that others find valuable. They aren't much impressed by anyone.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, I am saying that we simply may have a flawed understanding of why we are made the way we are.

After all, "PhD"s were studying the appendix for generations, and failed at seeing its use until it was needed when we were hit with certain sicknesses.

What I think you are missing is that when looking at functionality something has to appear as functional to get that tag. The appendix was not seen as having utility and therefore the term "useless" was applied by those who have a basic misunderstanding of the process of science. Even medical and science types fall into that category. If you were to ask someone who was more critical of thought and particular in choice of words you would have learned that it had no known use and its removal caused no observed ill effect. That is distinctly different from saying something cannot have some function. There is also a process where understanding changes over time, and it's often ugly and brutal, but in the end understanding is improved. No one I know who is a serious researcher holds that all knowledge is correct, but reflects what we know at this point in time. The Big Bang can be completely wrong but we accept it (or some variant) as being "correct" with the understanding that it comes about based on what we know at this time. If at some later date a challenger comes around that fits observation better then we'll move towards that. Unfortunately the popular press is a culprit which in its ignorance spreads more ignorance and disinformation. "junk DNA" is a good example of that. Because something has no known purpose at a time in history does not mean that it has no use, but it may be interpreted that way.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The statement was made that there aren't any leaders of atheism with which I disagree. For someone who isn't a leader he get's a fair amount of press and I guarantee that if I post a thread "Dawkins is an abusive dolt- Discuss" thread there will be pages of angst over it.

Truth is that most people who are atheist and those who are not have little time for the crap that others find valuable. They aren't much impressed by anyone.

The specific quote was "prominent leaders of atheism," and even though you could argue that Dawkins is somewhat prominent, he's still not a "leader" in some collective atheist movement. The vast majority of atheists or agnostic atheists don't follow anyone. The vast majority of religious people do; one merely needs to point to a priest or bishop or imam or rabbi or ayatollah or pope or lama or whatever. Trying to compare religion to a lack of religion makes no sense in this regard, and I'm not fully sure why people do it.

 

[Gibsons]

No, I am saying that we simply may have a flawed understanding of why we are made the way we are.

After all, "PhD"s were studying the appendix for generations, and failed at seeing its use until it was needed when we were hit with certain sicknesses.

I don't think you're supporting your earlier statement "I would even argue that the more I learn about biology, the more I believe we were created."

As I molecular guy, I would agree with Gigantopithecus's opinion that said creator was some mixture of insane or cruel.

No, I don't think I or we know everything.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The specific quote was "prominent leaders of atheism," and even though you could argue that Dawkins is somewhat prominent, he's still not a "leader" in some collective atheist movement. The vast majority of atheists or agnostic atheists don't follow anyone. The vast majority of religious people do; one merely needs to point to a priest or bishop or imam or rabbi or ayatollah or pope or lama or whatever. Trying to compare religion to a lack of religion makes no sense in this regard, and I'm not fully sure why people do it.

As I said most atheists don't really care. Likewise in Christian circles there are people who are recognized as being leaders in the sense of being knowledgeable and express the views many hold. Some create the views. Harold Camping is a prime example. Nevertheless in Christians at least the leaders aren't those who are in charge of their religion, Catholicism being the major exception. Ultimately to be a christian means to follow Christ and there are many many interpretations of what that means. I would readily agree that the inherent complexity of religion and related issues creates a situation where there is more organization and "leaders" are a resultant, although I'm not sure I'm sure what a "leader" in that context means. Likewise those who are active correspond to leaders in their movements. Someone is going to rally the troops so to speak.

Nevertheless I hold that Dawkins is often cited by vocal atheists and if they aren't looking at him as some authority there's a mighty good imitation of one right there. I'll revise and extend my remarks if you like and say that in the subset of atheists who are active in an agenda Dawkins would be seen as a prominent leader. For those who don't care he's immaterial.