Internet atheist reviews God and Science

[Proinsias]

Mariolee, nobody thinks that looks good..... People wear things to get attention. When a person pierces half their face, wears hot pink liberty spikes and wears black drag all day they are not doing it to look good, they do it to get attention.

And that guys beard, I can't imagine that he thinks it looks good, if he does, somebody should say something to him for the sake of being nice....

Struggling to maintain a semblance of moderation in my reply but really, this is just armchair psychology nonsense. I'm saying this for the sake of being nice Murray. May I suggest to you that you haven't much of clue why people grow 'silly beards', dress in drag, pierce themselves or a multitude of other things you don't consider 'normal'.

Perhaps we could indulge in some armchair psychology as to why Murray mocks the appearance of other people online and feels justified in doing so?

Scummy beard? was there really a need to describe his beard as scummy in the same post as declaring you are not degrading him?

[Murray]

what is the point of constantly dragging this on?


No pro, I do not think pointing out that his beard looks scummy is degrading, if somebody said that about my beard (if i had one like that), i'd probably just shave it....

To be honest with you I could care less whether he continues to wear it or not, and really I don't care enough about his beard to debate with you about whether I degraded and demeaned him or not.

I'm sure if I sent him a message telling him how i do not like his beard he wouldn't care because he seems to enjoy having it located on his chin.

That's fine, but I have a hard time taking people who do things to get attention seriously.

And yes pro, people who wear black drag, pink liberty spikes, and multiple body and face piercings fall outside my cruel, hurtful, demeaning, degrading view of "normal" because that's exactly what I said. I definitely did not say that they wear it to get attention or anything like...

They wear that stuff to be noticed pro, don't kid yourself.

Doesn't affect what kind of people they are at all, they just feel the need to be different, and honestly I could care less.

The fact the I actually continue to even talk about this amazes me...

[Murray]

what is the point of constantly dragging this on?


No pro, I do not think pointing out that his beard looks scummy is degrading, if somebody said that about my beard (if i had one like that), i'd probably just shave it....

To be honest with you I could care less whether he continues to wear it or not, and really I don't care enough about his beard to debate with you about whether I degraded and demeaned him or not.

I'm sure if I sent him a message telling him how i do not like his beard he wouldn't care because he seems to enjoy having it located on his chin.

That's fine, but I have a hard time taking people who do things to get attention seriously.

And yes pro, people who wear black drag, pink liberty spikes, and multiple body and face piercings fall outside my cruel, hurtful, demeaning, degrading view of "normal" because that's exactly what I said. I definitely did not say that they wear it to get attention or anything like...

They wear that stuff to be noticed pro, don't kid yourself.

Doesn't affect what kind of people they are at all, they just feel the need to be different, and honestly I could care less.

The fact the I actually continue to even talk about this amazes me...

[sandy_mcd]

TOO BAD ITS STILL JUST A THEORY MOUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!

I hope this "just a theory" viewpoint will go away. In general, the scientific meaning of "theory" is quite different from the common usage of "theory" (which I presume you and Reactionary are using). A scientific theory is a well-documented explanation which explains and predicts many phenomena.



From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... escription and prediction
Echoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic.


http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_la ... ndixe.html
IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

[La Volpe]

I really hope someone responds to this guy..

[DannyM]

Guys, can we get off the man's appearance please. That’s enough now.

[Murray]

I'm going to send a PM to him on Youtube and ask him to come here.

[Murray]

I feel like he won't even respond to my message

[Katabole]

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:
TOO BAD ITS STILL JUST A THEORY MOUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!

I hope this "just a theory" viewpoint will go away. In general, the scientific meaning of "theory" is quite different from the common usage of "theory" (which I presume you and Reactionary are using). A scientific theory is a well-documented explanation which explains and predicts many phenomena.

Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. And as we have seen, the atheistic evolutionists’ ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God altogether and thereby do away with moral accountability.

Intuition suggests a series of questions to the human mind when we contemplate our origin: Who is in control of the universe? Is there something or Someone who is sovereign—a Lawgiver? Is there a universal Judge? Is there a transcendent moral standard to live by? Is there Someone to whom will we be accountable? Will there be a final assessment of how we live our lives? Will there be any final judgment?

Those are the very questions evolution was invented to avoid.
Evolution was devised to explain away the God of the Bible—not because evolutionists really believed a Creator was unnecessary to explain how things began, but because they did not want the God of Scripture as their Judge.

The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution. Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is clearly revealed through the doctrine of creation. Obviously, if a person is an atheist, it would be normal for them to also be an evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god they wish, as long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no absolute ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator, Sustainer, Savior, and Judge. All are responsible to him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of sinful humans. For man to be created in the image of God is very awesome. For God to be created in the image of man is very comfortable.

To put it simply, evolution was invented in order to eliminate the God of Genesis and thereby to oust the Lawgiver and obliterate the inviolability of His law. Evolution is simply the latest means our fallen race has devised in order to suppress our innate knowledge and the biblical testimony that there is a God and that we are accountable to Him. By embracing evolution, modern society aims to do away with morality, responsibility, and guilt. Society has embraced evolution with such enthusiasm because people imagine that it eliminates the Judge and leaves them free to do whatever they want without guilt and without consequences.The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But over the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals—perhaps it would even be fair to say most people who call themselves evangelicals today—have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.

So-called theistic evolutionists who try to marry humanistic theories of modern science with biblical theism may claim they are doing so because they love God, but the truth is that they love God a little and their academic reputations a lot. By undermining the historicity of Genesis they are undermining faith itself. Give evolutionary doctrine the throne and make the Bible its servant, and you have laid the foundation for spiritual disaster.

Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth. And the further evangelicalism gets from that conviction, the less evangelical and more humanistic it becomes. Science is limited and that's no insult to science.

Another way to imagine the impossibilities of evolution, (macro evolution specifically) is to think about what evolutionists claim... that the habitat of an animal (or person) will cause them to develop traits or functions that better suit them to that environment, through information-gaining mutations and natural selection of those added traits. For example, let’s take a man and his wife, and say they live by the ocean. They swim in the ocean all the time, and hold their breath and swim underwater every day. Then they have kids, which also swim all the time, and hold their breath to swim underwater, because they are all pearl divers. Generation after generation of this family stays by the ocean, each son and daughter marry other people who live by the ocean and swim all the time. How long will it take before one of the children has the ability to breath underwater? The correct answer is never, but evolutionists believe that in a situation like this, eventually one of the children will be born with gills, and will be able to breath underwater. A logical person would realize this is impossible; a human would never develop gills, because the capability to breath underwater is not in the human genome. Evolutionists pretend that fish grew legs and lungs not because there is scientific evidence to back up that claim but because for some reason “it was beneficial for them to leave water.”


Scripture cautions against false “knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20)—particularly so-called “scientific” knowledge that opposes the truth of Scripture. When what is being passed off as “science” turns out to be nothing more than a faith-based world-view that is hostile to the truth of Scripture, our duty to be on guard is magnified. And when naturalistic and atheistic presuppositions are being aggressively peddled as if they were established scientific fact, Christians ought to expose such lies for what they are and oppose them all the more vigorously. The abandonment of a biblical view of creation has already borne abundant evil fruit in modern society as in the Eugenics program in the 20th century. To weaken our commitment to the biblical view of creation would start a chain of disastrous moral, spiritual, and theological ramifications in the church that will greatly exacerbate the terrible moral chaos that already has begun the unravelling of secular society.

[Murray]

I really hope someone responds to this guy..

I'd say katabole did a good job on responding

[sandy_mcd]

Another way to imagine the impossibilities of evolution, (macro evolution specifically) is to think about what evolutionists claim... that the habitat of an animal (or person) will cause them to develop traits or functions that better suit them to that environment, through information-gaining mutations and natural selection of those added traits. For example, let’s take a man and his wife, and say they live by the ocean. They swim in the ocean all the time, and hold their breath and swim underwater every day. Then they have kids, which also swim all the time, and hold their breath to swim underwater, because they are all pearl divers. Generation after generation of this family stays by the ocean, each son and daughter marry other people who live by the ocean and swim all the time. How long will it take before one of the children has the ability to breath underwater? The correct answer is never, but evolutionists believe that in a situation like this, eventually one of the children will be born with gills, and will be able to breath underwater. A logical person would realize this is impossible; a human would never develop gills, because the capability to breath underwater is not in the human genome. Evolutionists pretend that fish grew legs and lungs not because there is scientific evidence to back up that claim but because for some reason “it was beneficial for them to leave water.”

How does a logical person realize that the correct answer is never? In fact, the return of land animals to the sea (e.g., whales) is touted as one of the better supported examples of evolution. [Note that whales do not have gills and that no one has proposed such a drastic change in one generation.]

[Reactionary]

I really hope someone responds to this guy..

I'd say katabole did a good job on responding

Indeed.

How does a logical person realize that the correct answer is never? In fact, the return of land animals to the sea (e.g., whales) is touted as one of the better supported examples of evolution.

Wait, I thought sea-to-land transition was considered evolution. So how can land-to-sea transition be evolution too?

By the way, your second sentence is one of the better supported examples of circular reasoning.

Note that whales do not have gills and that no one has proposed such a drastic change in one generation.

If the change is not drastic, then it should be gradual. We, however, don't see animals with half-lungs or half-gills. At least I'm not aware of such.

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

I agree. However, I'm still waiting for experimental demonstration of evolution.

[sandy_mcd]

By the way, your second sentence is one of the better supported examples of circular reasoning.

true, true

If the change is not drastic, then it should be gradual. We, however, don't see animals with half-lungs or half-gills. At least I'm not aware of such.

Neither am I. I don't know how the breathing change is supposed to have occurred. I suppose one possibility is that intermediate stages are no longer with us.

[neo-x]

So-called theistic evolutionists who try to marry humanistic theories of modern science with biblical theism may claim they are doing so because they love God, but the truth is that they love God a little and their academic reputations a lot. By undermining the historicity of Genesis they are undermining faith itself. Give evolutionary doctrine the throne and make the Bible its servant, and you have laid the foundation for spiritual disaster.

Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth. And the further evangelicalism gets from that conviction, the less evangelical and more humanistic it becomes. Science is limited and that's no insult to science.

Well, I would say you are wrong here. I am a theistic Evolutionist and I can tell you that I do not have any academic reputation to rake in or that I believe in theistic evolution because I wanted to be accepted in some science circle. I believe it because it makes more sense to me. Theistic evolution does not undermine the historicity of Genesis, it just believes in a different interpretation of it. You are saying this cuz you are assuming literal creationism as the default biblical view. Its like saying if you're not catholic, you're doomed with spiritual disaster. It is a matter of your assumptions.

There is much difference here:
Evolution is unguided, no force or intelligence behind it.
Theistic Evolution is evolution, guided by God at specific key points to create the outcome.

How does this undermines my faith? How does this makes me love God, a little? And when did creationism became a spiritual necessity?

While I agree that scripture is final truth, I don't see how it negates other information present around us.

My question, where does the Bible say that God can't and will not guide, evolution?

[KOGnition]

My question, where does the Bible say that God can't and will not guide, evolution?

Genesis 1:27

It certainly doesn't seem like The Bible says God cannot guide the theory of evolution. That I might agree on.
But at least for man (male and female), it would seem clear cut he did not guide any evolution towards our resulting forms.
I think when people see others talking about other animals "changing", it puts their hearts on guard and they think about the most popular (and ridiculous) theory of ape ---> man.