Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[Versch]

Originally Posted by Faron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

46 pages of fats trying to sound enlightened.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Willfully ignorant of the fact that there is a nonzero amount of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence in favor of one theory, and none in favor of the other. That's all I've been saying the whole time. One of them is clearly the more rational, logical, and plausible explanation behind how we came to be here. In my opinion, at least.

You can try to argue semantics all you want (i.e. the bible is scientific vs. unscientific), but at the end of the day there is no simply no evidence to conclusively prove, for people like you, that things happened one way or the other. We must choose for ourselves which beliefs to hold, and I simply choose to hold those that stand up to scientific scrutiny. You're free to do whatever you want, because you're a human being and you have free will and the agency to exercise it.

I agree with you completely on the freedom of choice. Couldn't be more correct.

[moklianne]

wtf, all of you need jobs...

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If evolutionary theory and genetics hold true how come we can not reproduce life? We can put all of the building blocks together in optimal environment and poof nothing. Cloning or changing one gene is not the same as creating life.

Shouldn't this be something very basic and testable? Like the Miller-Urey experiment and that was ages ago. We supposedly have these mountains of evidence indicating evolutionary theory might be true yet when they take these basic building blocks and try to reproduce this they get nada. Then they play a game of moving goal post with the introduction of unprovable time scales =/

We do experiments with fruit flies and none of the mutations witnessed have been favorable. If anything evolution should lead to nothing but dead ends. Mutations are not typically passed on through reproduction. So say I have my mutated pig with wings on his back. When he reproduces his offspring will not have wings nor will it be a new species. No new genetic code is introduced to express new traits. The DNA is self correcting and the parents no matter how badly mutated are still only going to give birth to another pig.

I am being very basic here with these examples but it just illustrates the massive gaps in the theory that have not been hammered out.

Hey look. Another person who keeps shoving abiogenesis into the evolution debate.

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You have examples like the stomach. How did the stomach evolve to hold acid? You cant have the acid without the stomach.

Do you know what a lysosome is? I suggest you start there.

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean the stomach and the eye should be enough to show the theory does not work. The eye only functions with all of its parts. You mean separately all of the parts formed over millions of years creating nothing but a useless place where an eye should be until one day a working eye? Never mind all of the neurological stuff that is related to sight which is merely a holographic representation of observed light replaying in your "mind".

There are also many single celled organisms that have rudimentary photoreceptors.

Do you even science?

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

radiocarbon dating has nothing to do with a fossil or the process of weathering

Well without rc dating there is no way to establish the age of a fossil, so it is relevant.

[Barkingturtle]

I misread the title of this thread as "Freedom from Autism Foundation".

Boy was I mistaken.

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well without rc dating there is no way to establish the age of a fossil, so it is relevant.

Radio carbon dating is not the only way to date a fossil or the surrounding rocks.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Willfully ignorant of the fact that there is a nonzero amount of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence in favor of one theory, and none in favor of the other. That's all I've been saying the whole time. One of them is clearly the more rational, logical, and plausible explanation behind how we came to be here. In my opinion, at least.

You can try to argue semantics all you want (i.e. the bible is scientific vs. unscientific), but at the end of the day there is no simply no evidence to conclusively prove, for people like you, that things happened one way or the other. We must choose for ourselves which beliefs to hold, and I simply choose to hold those that stand up to scientific scrutiny. You're free to do whatever you want, because you're a human being and you have free will and the agency to exercise it.

what about questions that don't stand up to scientific scrutiny one way or the other?

for instance, do you believe in extraterrestrial life? the exhaustion of all modern science has failed to discover even an extraterrestrial microbe. but a good deal of respected scientific thought concerns the existence of alien life. belief and nonbelief are both perfectly consistent with "science"

the "big bang" is similarly unproven. as a scientific theory, it isn't superior to a prime mover. choosing one over the other isn't scientific, it's a personal belief

the idea that science and religion are inherently opposed to one another just doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. these are questions without answers, scientific or otherwise. religion is faith. faith is not inconsistent with science. it is a hypothesis that we are ill-equipped to test. science doesn't speak on the untestable. some of the most brilliant scientists in history have been devout theists

most of the supposed science touched on in the bible is essentially biblical dicta. the text clearly isn't advanced as a scroll unveiling a divine method for dating the earth. you're seizing on non-essential language that is appropriate to the audience of the time to attack core tenets that are, as of yet, wholly unscientific in nature

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I misread the title of this thread as "Freedom from Autism Foundation".

Boy was I mistaken.

Were you? Were you really?