Do you treat atheist like second class citizens?

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Bud Lee, Dec 7, 2010.

Page 15 of 34
  1. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    i apologize to my loyal readers. i tried to make this dude say something interesting, it just didnt happen.
     
    martin, Dec 12, 2010
    #141
  2. kluke

    kluke Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,665
    Likes Received:
    3,357
    Still can't open up. Well let me help - -just type 3L or 4R to indicate your position in the picture is third from the left or 4th from the right or whatever.
    [​IMG]
     
    kluke, Dec 12, 2010
    #142
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I did so in Post 82, why won't you read it, you sad, lazy nutjob. :insane:

    Refusal to accept that you have already been answered just makes you look foolish.

    Wow. You're like a child who has discovered a number past 10. Let me explain something, Huckleberry. Scientists deal with really big numbers all of the time. All of the time. Ever heard of exponential notation? Big numbers are no big deal. It doesn't mean squat in terms of disproving evolution.

    Please, explain to us how it disproves evolution. Not even the authors you failed to cite properly have suggested this. You're making a huge leap in the abyss.

    So what? Go ahead. Explain why this is so insidious. Science is full of big numbers. Where did you go to school?

    Here is something else National Geographic Says.


    A truther . . . I knew it.

    OK, Fine. Please note for us the peer-reviewed scientific studies these gentlemen have written in which they have scientifically documented these miracles and articles of faith. Good luck with that. :lol:

    Like I said earlier . . . there are plenty of scientists who are religious and will tell you of their faith. There are few who have managed to scientifically document any of these articles of faith. I challenge you to find one.
     
    red55, Dec 12, 2010
    #143
  4. gumborue

    gumborue Throwin Ched

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    577
    jumping in way late on this thread, but i think the touchiness is only regarding relatives. at least that is my case and it makes sense.

    the topic is broached in one way or another by a relative a few times a year. one of the more recent episodes is my mom telling me to fake christianity for my son's sake. one of many mind-numbing examples.
     
    gumborue, Dec 12, 2010
    #144
  5. kluke

    kluke Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,665
    Likes Received:
    3,357
    I would disagree with her on that. You shouldn't fake anything with your kids. But you should give them the open space to make up their mind on this type of subject.
     
    kluke, Dec 12, 2010
    #145
  6. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    family members will shun your for being atheist, no doubt about it. but yunno atheists are just too touchy and sensitive. and of course we have no chance to have anyone who believes the way we do to get elected to any significant office, but yunno we are too touchy.
     
    martin, Dec 12, 2010
    #146
  7. TUSKtimes

    TUSKtimes Riding the Wave

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    3,704
    Likes Received:
    733

    These are not men of religious conviction. They are evolutionist who are honest enough in their research to admit that the overwhelming Data of astronomical proportions concerning the "complex living cell," is more than problematic to this theory. Science is making the argument. They bought the microscope, they did the research, they crunched the numbers, they published the reports. Not me. I have made no conclusion regarding the religious faithful nor have I stated any. You continue to make the implication not only for myself but apparently for these noted evolutionist as well. Indeed another "theory."

    I just think it's interesting that science keeps proving what I keep saying about biology. There is NO "simple cell."

    Can your soup do this?

    There are many stubborn problems that confront evolutionary theory in the micro world of biology. There are over 100 amino acids but only 20 are needed for life's proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes, some of the molecules are "right handed" and others are "left handed." should they be formed at random, as in a "theoretical organic soup," it would stand to reason that half would be right handed and half left handed. And there is no known reason why either would be preferred in living things. Yet of the 20 amino acids used in producing life's proteins, ALL are left handed.

    How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup?

    Physicist J.D.Bernal acknowledges: "it must be admitted that the explanation still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain." He concluded: "We may never be able to explain it."

    Now that's some smart, complicated, organic soup. I salute you. "Left handed," of course.
     
    TUSKtimes, Dec 13, 2010
    #147
  8. Bud Lee

    Bud Lee Call me buttercup

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    168

    Yeah...y'all are persecuted for your beliefs. :rolleye33:


    Agreed. My mom did not force her religious beliefs on us. Every Sunday she gave us the choice to go or not. It is a personal choice, which is why it should be RESPECTED….even though the smartest person on Tigerfan disagrees.
     
    Bud Lee, Dec 13, 2010
    #148
  9. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    do you think i wasnt serious? you do get shunned by your family. would the loss of family count as something to be upset over, or would it make one "too touchy"?
     
    martin, Dec 13, 2010
    #149
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    NO SCIENCE ISN'T. Creationism is making the argument. Simply invoking the word "science" does not make fables into science.

    I've asked you three times . . . Where are these reports? Where were they published? Are they real, peer-reviewed technical papers in established scientific journals? Or are they popular magazine articles. I await your list. It's time to produce your evidence or quit pretending that your argument has merit.

    What nonsense. You cite a single controversial report and claims that it invalidates all of the tens of thousands of reports that have verified evolution time and time again. You don't understand how scientific publishing works.

    Geez, now you are just talking to hear yourself. What soup. I've mentioned no soup. What I have done is challenge you to document your claims by producing some real scientific evidence that invalidates evolution. You have declined.

    I have posted data from National Geographic that validates my position. You have not commented.

    I have asked you to explain why you think that big numbers somehow invalidate evolution. You have not.

    Actually there are few. Look, evolution science evolves, as do all natural systems. We learn more and more each day. We question certain pieces of it, prove some things and disprove others and thus refine the science all the time. This is natural. It is how science works.

    What you are trying to do is to take one critique and say that it is proof that evolution is wrong. You couldn't be further from the truth. You ignore all evidence to the contrary. Well, science does not.

    So what?

    Any scientific analysis that uses the phrase "it would stand to reason" is questionable. It must establish whether a thing is reasonable or not. I must ask you once again. Cite the scientific paper where you got this information so that it may be read in context and addressed properly. Or did you just copy it from a creationism web site and expect that no one would ever check it out?

    I've debunked dozens of psuedo-scientific claims on evolution around here. There are about a dozen threads, you should read some of them.

    Are you really citing physicist J.D. Bernal? He did some fine scientific work as a young man but is more widely recognized for being a member of the communist party and a Stalinist and working with Soviet scientists to promote Stalin-approved policies. Here is what Wikipedia says about him.


    So tell me . . . is the Bernal statement that you submitted part of the official Stalin-approved Soviet orthodox "bogus theory of plant genetics"?
     
    red55, Dec 13, 2010
    #150
Page 15 of 34

Share This Page