In America, atheists are still in the closet

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
8 Months of service
1 Offensive mission
Destroyed 4 days after it first engaged the enemy.
Might add that the combined effort to sink the Bismarck was enormous. They threw everything they could, save the kitchen sink, at her.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
I am sure the billions of people who know and have known that Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) lived on earth among us are comforted by knowing you concede he existed, Chubby.

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
We will create synthetic life in less than 2 decades. The first synthetic life has already been created, but from pieces of existing DNA. Since alternatives to DNA have now been found, I have no doubt that someone will begin trying to build a replicator based on those molecules.
After all that PhD would make you famous - within science - instantly.
<quoted text>
.

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Then don't believe it. We've moved on. You are obviously unwilling to join us. Have a nice fantasy.
Does any of this remind you of anybody? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_ev... :
"A common neo-creationist objection to evolution is that evolution does not adhere to normal scientific standards—that it is not genuinely scientific. It is argued that evolutionary biology does not follow the scientific method"
"Creationists commonly argue against evolution on the grounds that "evolution is a religion; it is not a science". The purpose of this criticism is to undermine the higher ground biologists claim in debating creationists, and to reframe the debate from being between science (evolution) and religion (creationism) to being between two equally religious beliefs – or even to argue that evolution is religious while intelligent design is not. Those that oppose evolution frequently refer to supporters of evolution as "evolutionists" or "Darwinists"
"Examples of claims made in such arguments are statements that evolution is based on faith, that supporters of evolution revere Darwin as a prophet, and that supporters of evolution dogmatically reject alternative suggestions out-of-hand. These claims have become more popular in recent years as the neocreationist movement has sought to distance itself from religion, thus giving it more reason to make use of a seemingly anti-religious analogy."
That's you to a "T", HTS. Let's continue:
"Creationists ... have claimed that evolution is unfalsifiable. They claim that any observation can be fitted into the evolutionary framework, and that therefore it is impossible to demonstrate that evolution is wrong. As such, they claim that evolution is non-scientific."
"However, evolution is considered falsifiable by scientists because it can make predictions that, were they contradicted by the evidence, would falsify evolution. Several kinds of evidence have been proposed that could falsify evolution, such as the fossil record showing no change over time ... Despite this, creationism consists largely of unsubstantiated claims that evolution has been falsified."

HTS wrote:

God has been logically ruled out by your religion.

HTS wrote:

Logic is not necessarily "science".

HTS wrote:

I logically conclude that God exists.

HTS wrote:

We can argue back and forth, and all You can do is raise your voice and scream that you're right and I'm wrong.

RHill wrote:

<quoted text>
Well ... you might end up with a strain of mice who are more resistant to radiation damage than others. Defining which aspect of their anatomy that conferred the benefit (more robust livers, for instance) might teach us something.
As in nature, induced mutations would almost always be "bad" and get quickly weeded out. The very rare "good" mutation might get passed on to subsequent generations. That's the mutation-cog of the evolutionary machinery at work.
I think the major obstacle to your fullest understanding is one of scale. Your "thought experiment" can not even come close to simulating the planetary dimensions or millions of years that real evolution has worked on our biosphere. How could it?

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
How would *you* know, Chipmunk?

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
WAHHHHHH!
Have you stopped beating your wife?

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah... so you were given a Geiger counter but not trained on it?

water_nymph wrote:

I did not read past this last sentence above.
You are living in 1950? Humans evolved from a common ancestor, or more likely, several common ancestors. At this particular time, there is a trend to believe that there are about 100 basic types of human ancestry.
Maybe you should actually read and study before continuing to use science that is more than half a century old.
Science changes as new information is derived from many sources.
ID never changes. It is stuck in a 2000 year old concept.
I don't think anyone can help you understand until you are willing to take a wider view at what is available from which you can learn.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Humans are said to have evolved from extinct apes. I'm sure others such as HFY and IAN'S will validate what I'm saying. Don't embarrass yourself by accusing me of ignorance.

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
You first.
<quoted text>
On 1 May 1707, Scotland entered into an incorporating political union with England to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

RHill wrote:

<quoted text>
Well ... you might end up with a strain of mice who are more resistant to radiation damage than others. Defining which aspect of their anatomy that conferred the benefit (more robust livers, for instance) might teach us something.
As in nature, induced mutations would almost always be "bad" and get quickly weeded out. The very rare "good" mutation might get passed on to subsequent generations. That's the mutation-cog of the evolutionary machinery at work.
I think the major obstacle to your fullest understanding is one of scale. Your "thought experiment" can not even come close to simulating the planetary dimensions or millions of years that real evolution has worked on our biosphere. How could it?

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
That may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that as of right now, Scotland is a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and therefore Scots are British.

Hidingfromyou wrote:

You're really just making normal Christians look bad.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't seriously believe that there is any reason to believe that life could arise from inorganic matter without a belief in evolution? What properties of matter can you invoke to justify a belief in DNA self-organization?

Judged:

1

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Were you born and raised muslim or did you convert from christianity?

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
So where does YOUR morality come from?

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:

You will also need to explain why there is not one single morality that can be shown to have originated from your religion.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Natural selection cannot ossify weed out all the bad mutations. There are too many of them.