Why are you atheists so angry?

Presumably, that’s YOUR idea of a peer review. I suppose someone might be moved to go off and collect a lot of quotes from atheist scientists to show you, yet again, that none of this is proof or evidence of anything but, well, you obviously refuse to recognise the obvious and actually, I simply can’t be arsed.

EDIT (repeat).

someone might be moved to go off and collect a lot of quotes from atheist scientists to show you, yet again, that none of this is proof or evidence of anything

True. Although I don’t really know what the peer review remark is referring to, having only scanned the last page or two of comments.

Quotes by Christian scientists doesn’t “prove” God.
Neither do quotes from Atheist sicentists “disprove” God.

All it tells us is that some people conclude God exists, some don’t.

And that God and Science aren’t mutually exclusive.

Although I don’t really know what the peer review remark is referring to

Oh, FFS.

What’s the point of the post, then?

God and Science aren’t mutually exclusive.

big bang
Dinosaurs
age of the universe
Origin of the species

WOuld you lkike me to go on ?

You cannot argue that advancements in science [ which means us understanding the world in an ever mor eaccurate way] have all lead to evidence thet counters biblical and religious accounts of how we came to be.

And from pages ago as i have just readf rom where i left off

So either 81% of us are utterly wasting our time and energy by having faith/belief in a god, or the other 19% are ignoring something very significant
Is it reasonable to suggest that 81% of people are wrong in believing there is something more to life than just muddling along for 80 years with no real purpose, and that death is the end?

Well all 81 % don’t follow the same one so we can still safely assume the majority of these are wrong and wasting their time – perhaps you may wish to ask why so many people believe so passionately and with equal faith when they are wrong – you may wish to consider why it is so hard to work out which are “wrong” given it is evidence based.

Quotes by Christian scientists doesn’t “prove” God.
Neither do quotes from Atheist sicentists “disprove” God.

All it tells us is that some people conclude God exists, some don’t.

“God doesn’t exist” – some random on STW
“God exists” – some other random on STW

They also show that some people conclude God exists, some don’t – you seem to have gone to a lot of effort for the same result.

Though hang on a minute…

“Atheism is so senseless…” (Sir Isaac Newton)

Newton also said that direction of light propagation doesn’t get changed by a gravitational field – but observation shows it does. Why do you expect me to trust him on God when he got other stuff so wrong?

And that God and Science aren’t mutually exclusive.

Quite a lot of claims by religious people and science are though.

Newton also said that direction of light propagation doesn’t get changed by a gravitational field – but observation shows it does. Why do you expect me to trust him on God when he got other stuff so wrong?

True, he has since been proved wrong on at least one of his statements, such is the nature of science.

But as nobody’s yet categorically disproved God by observation then the books still open on that one?

Science is a dynamic thing, with theories constantly being proposed, refuted and refined as human understanding grows … the ultimate conclusion might be God … who knows … it wouldn’t be scientific for science to just ignore or reject ‘God’ just because it doesn’t agree with current understanding of stuff … “we don’t like the implications so we’ll assume it doesn’t exist” …

But as nobody’s yet categorically disproved God by observation then the books still open on that one?

Unicorns
Fairies
Trolls
Underpants Gnomes

Yeah. I see what you’re saying.

nobody’s yet categorically disproved God by observation then the books still open on that one

if that is your category of “truth” then everything that does not exist and is not real also meets that standard and anything invisible or undetectable etc

You cannot prove a negative which is why you are asked to prove god exists. The burden of proof is on you to support your assertion and you can produc eno objective evidence just faith and other stuff
If I make a claim can i just ask you to disprove it ?
It is not a good way to seek knowledge [ reduce error]

Newton also practicised alchemy FWIW – genius for sure but knowledge based on his time

Unicorns
Fairies
Trolls
Underpants Gnomes

You forgot the FSM

You cannot prove a negative which is why you are asked to prove god exists. The burden of proof is on you to support your assertion and you can produce no objective evidence just faith and other stuff

There’s two sides of the arguement, so it’s not just up to ‘my’ side to produce evidence for God’s existence. It’s equally up to the ‘other’ side to provide objective evidence to the contrary.

Either way, it’s a nice discussion but ultimately nobody can be argued into a belief in God.

origin of the species

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A Biology textbook puts it like this: “As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis.”

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life.

Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this.

There’s two sides of the arguement, so it’s not just up to ‘my’ side to produce evidence for God’s existence. It’s equally up to the ‘other’ side to provide objective evidence to the contrary.

Go on then. You believe in God, which presumably means you believe the FSM doesn’t exist. You prove he doesn’t.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism

Nope – it just required there to have been some very simple organism at the start which things evolved out of. The belief commonly held by evolutionists is that there was some spontaneous creation of very simple life, but the rest of evolution doesn’t depend on this.

Plenty of evidence for evolution after the existence of a simple organism, plenty of evidence against creationism.

What’s an FSM?

Anything like a Gruffalo?

It’s equally up to the ‘other’ side to provide objective evidence to the contrary.

again you cannot prove a negative and in your case possibly understand this concept

You are really controlled by an invisible and undectable green fish which lives in your ear

Now prove this is worng ?
Would you accpet this as true because you cannot or would you ignore it because I can produce no evidence to support this assertion

nobody can be argued into a belief in God

http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html

one wonders why you spend so much time trying to convince non believers by reposting stuff from here then.

As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis

Your account of god coming in to existence is what then ? Something came from nothing and at least we know we are here I cant see a reference for who sqaid that BTW any idea who the biologist was or the book it was in ?
Your answer also ignores common ancestor , shared DNA , Dinosaurs etc which all counter the creationist account and us in god image and is an equally good an argument against god.
There si some gap between the creationist account and evolution even if you wish to argue otherwise and argue [ rather speciously] that biology proves a creator.

What’s an FSM?

Anything like a Gruffalo?

yes those two like god are indeed man made and works of fiction
Flying Spaghetti Monster

What’s an FSM?

Flying Spaghetti Monster. His church is awesome.

So that just about wraps it up for god, then…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html

So there wasn’t a god, but there now is and his name is Craig?

That’s a bit of an anticlimax.

one wonders why you spend so much time trying to convince non believers by reposting stuff from here then

Just posting some stuff that explains what I believe, by way of discussion, which is what interwebs forums are for (?)

I’m not expecting anyone to go “oh yeh, I was wrong, God it is then”.

So that just about wraps it up for god, then…

mind out on the zebra crossings then.

I’m not expecting anyone to go “oh yeh, I was wrong, God it is then”.

Where’s your faith?

Mr Woppit – Member
So that just about wraps it up for god, then…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html

Can we get a comment from joao3v16 on this?

I’m not going to read all this thread, but I am going to comment that my kids spend more time learning about Christianity at school than they do about Science, and they/we have no choice in that.

I used to be (am?) a pretty hardcore atheist, however we will never be able to disprove the existence of a god so why bother? Maybe we are just a part of some meta-being’s science experiment?

However the God of The Bible loooooooool, the guy (for he is a guy) is a nutter, he doesn’t want worshiping he wants locking up.

I’m not going to read all this thread

Try the first post and the video there (listen in the background – you don’t need to watch).

I am going to comment that my kids spend more time learning about Christianity at school than they do about Science, and they/we have no choice in that

yep think this annoys many folks it should NOT be taught in schools.
The non faith school my child attends a teacher told him he was not allowed to not believe in god and he had to pick one – he refused.
Had to go into school to speak about this.
This has made him even more anti religous and now he thinks religious people are bullying morons and he hates the teacher.

kelvin – Member
I’m not going to read all this thread, but I am going to comment that my kids spend more time learning about Christianity at school than they do about Science, and they/we have no choice in that.

That’s appalling. Does Michael Gove know about this? Isn’t it against the law?

Are you not entitled to withdraw your child from religious indoctrination classes?

Thought of moving them to another school?

So there wasn’t a god, but there now is and his name is Craig?

awesome

mind out on the zebra crossings then

ISWYDT

edit

This has made him even more anti religous and now he thinks religious people are bullying morons and he hates the teacher.

awesome-er

No its actually tragic and bad …what worse is it has created a little friction between me and his Mum over how best to deal with this – imagine that friction between us two 😉

if you could harness the heat fromn that friction you could end fuel poverty in the UK.

😆

So that just about wraps it up for god, then…

So, the scientists created something out of nothing, did they? No, they didn’t, did they? They had to use something that already existed.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

So, far from doing owt new, they’re just replicating something that happenz in nature. something that’s happened for millions of years on this planet, and God knows how long in’t rest of he Universe.

And as amazing as it does indeed appear, it’s an incredibly basic ‘lifeform’ what they’ve ‘created’. I’ve no doubt this can and will lead to more complex forms (and probbly cloned beings to provided food/labour etc)

It’s hardly ‘playing God’ now is it, really?

Cos to do that, they’d have to create an entire universe with everything in it….

*peeps in*

Are we still arguing about this?

Coo. A 2000 thread!

BTW read up on Utts. Looks like her statistics were kosher but the experiment which handed her the figures to crunch had a few issues. So her work seems fine, the data is a bit suspect. Also a small sample size too.

For me to accept this would involve repetition of the experiment involving a couple of thousand subjects (minimum) and – more importantly – a double blind trial with more than just four pictures as a sample (say 10 or 50). If it shown then to be statistically significant then more experimentation and analysis.

That’s the scientific way. Look at cold fusion for example. You don’t just take one person’s word for things, you repeat the experiment.

And avoid ‘woo’. 😆

Hi Elf, here’s another quote:

AdamW, 1-2:23

Pints are quite nice, mince pies at certain times of year too.

This is a great game. Can we all play it?

Now I’m sodding off again. Things to do. Woo to avoid! 😀

Don’t like mince pies. As I was bitterly disappointed as a small child, to find they din’t in fact contain mincemeat, but some nasty squashed fruit mess. 😥

I blame Santa….

there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
(Sent from his iPhone)

😀

Mr Woppit – Member
So that just about wraps it up for god, then…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html

Can we get a comment from joao3v16 on this?

It appears they copied existing DNA from Mycoplasma Genitalium, then used a computer to artificially recreate the DNA.

So they didn’t “create” life, they just made their own copy.

They didn’t create their own raw materials first. Plagiarists. 🙂

…

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.”

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this, let’s say we have a man making contest.” To which the scientist replied, “OK, great!”

But God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”

The scientist said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!”

Don’t like mince pies. As I was bitterly disappointed as a small child, to find they din’t in fact contain mincemeat, but some nasty squashed fruit mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincemeat

So they didn’t “create” life, they just made their own copy.

You’d prefer it if they got a million or so monkeys to do random permutations until they come up with something which works?

“God” had a long, long time, and has lots and lots of worlds to experiment with to get those chemicals to randomly combine in the right way. I understand how tempting it is to think that something so complex as human life couldn’t possibly develop without a bit of a helping hand – but there are an awful lot of planets on which it didn’t. The fact we get to think about this means the survey is self-selecting.

Din’t have Wiki when I was a small child.

In fact, din’t have any internets at all.

We din’t even have a telly!