Electric Bubble Car - Would You Buy One?
Motoring2 mins ago
Do I Have to Believe Evolution?
350 Answers
Well,For 116 years it graced the halls of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff—the fossilised skeleton of a 200m[illion]-year-old predator that once cruised the Jurassic seas,” says Britain’s newspaper The Guardian. “Then curators at Cardiff decided the remains of the ocean-going carnivore ichthyosaurus needed a brush up—and realised that they had been taken in.” “When we stripped off five layers of paint we found it was an elaborate forgery,” said conservator Caroline Buttler. “It was an amalgam of two types of ichthyosaurus plus a clever attempt at fake parts.” Instead of disposing of it, the museum will put it on display as an example of a fake fossil.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Elderman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Elderman - “... Anyway, I don’t see why I should do all the leg work. You have the internet and its resources just as I have...”
Indeed we do. However, I specifically asked you where you got the above quotes from that I repeated above in my post of 01:46 on Saturday, 3rd December 2011. The fact that you have completely ignored my very simple request speaks volumes. These rather important 'quotes' from 'scientists' do not exist do they? You've just made them up (or copied and pasted them from someone else who's made them up) in a rather pathetic attempt to help bolster your flimsy argument.
Nice try, but no cigar I'm afraid.
By the way, your link provided at 10:12 on Saturday, 3rd December 2011 doesn't seem to work.
Indeed we do. However, I specifically asked you where you got the above quotes from that I repeated above in my post of 01:46 on Saturday, 3rd December 2011. The fact that you have completely ignored my very simple request speaks volumes. These rather important 'quotes' from 'scientists' do not exist do they? You've just made them up (or copied and pasted them from someone else who's made them up) in a rather pathetic attempt to help bolster your flimsy argument.
Nice try, but no cigar I'm afraid.
By the way, your link provided at 10:12 on Saturday, 3rd December 2011 doesn't seem to work.
Elderman -
I've found the source of your above quotes...
http://en.wikipedia.o...7_Warning_to_Humanity
You didn't make them up after all! I stand corrected.
However, nothing of this has got anything whatsoever to do with evolution. You also seem to be attempting to changing the argument. You're now saying that, “... If some scientists are willing to speculate that life came from an extraterrestrial source, what is the basis for ruling out God as that source?”. Some scientists are indeed saying this but they're not suggesting that biologically complex bipedal mammals came from outer space. They're talking about micro-organisms and hence, evolution.
This argument has already been made by others on this thread but you started by saying that, “... the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact...” when, in fact, it is.
You seem to be back-peddling dramatically into a corner. Not surprisingly, this is common behaviour for theists when confronted with scientific facts. They cannot reasonably argue against observed evidence and logical deduction and so continue to pull back and retreat until they find a question that science cannot yet provide an answer for. In the case of evolution, it is the unknown mechanism that caused the primordial 'soup' to create self-replicating biomolecules.
This is apparently where god comes in – in the gaps of current scientific knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
I've found the source of your above quotes...
http://en.wikipedia.o...7_Warning_to_Humanity
You didn't make them up after all! I stand corrected.
However, nothing of this has got anything whatsoever to do with evolution. You also seem to be attempting to changing the argument. You're now saying that, “... If some scientists are willing to speculate that life came from an extraterrestrial source, what is the basis for ruling out God as that source?”. Some scientists are indeed saying this but they're not suggesting that biologically complex bipedal mammals came from outer space. They're talking about micro-organisms and hence, evolution.
This argument has already been made by others on this thread but you started by saying that, “... the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact...” when, in fact, it is.
You seem to be back-peddling dramatically into a corner. Not surprisingly, this is common behaviour for theists when confronted with scientific facts. They cannot reasonably argue against observed evidence and logical deduction and so continue to pull back and retreat until they find a question that science cannot yet provide an answer for. In the case of evolution, it is the unknown mechanism that caused the primordial 'soup' to create self-replicating biomolecules.
This is apparently where god comes in – in the gaps of current scientific knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
No, I have good reasons for my beliefs. To examining the basis consider If ultimate meaning in life were nonexistent, then you would have no purpose in living other than to try to do some measure of good and perhaps pass on your genetic traits to the next generation. At death, you would cease to exist forever. Your brain, with its ability to think, reason, and meditate on the meaning of life, would simply be an accident of nature.
That is not all. Many who believe in evolution assert that God does not exist or that he will not intervene in human affairs. In either case, our future would rest in the hands of political, academic, and religious leaders. Judging from the past record of such men, the chaos, conflict, and corruption that blight human society would continue. If, indeed, evolution were true, there would seem to be ample reason to live by the fatalistic motto: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”......1 Corinthians 15:32.
By contrast, the Bible teaches: “With [God] is the source of life.” (Psalm 36:9) Those words have profound implications.
That is not all. Many who believe in evolution assert that God does not exist or that he will not intervene in human affairs. In either case, our future would rest in the hands of political, academic, and religious leaders. Judging from the past record of such men, the chaos, conflict, and corruption that blight human society would continue. If, indeed, evolution were true, there would seem to be ample reason to live by the fatalistic motto: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”......1 Corinthians 15:32.
By contrast, the Bible teaches: “With [God] is the source of life.” (Psalm 36:9) Those words have profound implications.
Really, is that all there is to your life? Look where you will in the world, the system seems to be ailing badly. It has its energy crises and runaway inflation, food shortages and pollution of the environment, revolutions, cold and hot wars, stockpiling of nuclear weapons, racial problems and surging discontent among the masses of mankind. No part of the earth is free from problems that pose a threat to human life and survival!
The fake fossil still had some genuine parts though didn't it. Two types of ichthyosaurus. I suppose in answer to elderman's question, he can believe what he likes but the evidence is still there and my personal belief is in evolution. If I needed anything to worship (which I don't) I would choose the earth or perhaps the sun as the two givers of life.
Elderman.. once people like you start trying to use rational argument you have already lost the argument. If you understood how rational debate and logical deduction work you would never have believed in god in the first place.
If you want to debate the 'purpose of life' then start another thread as this one is cluttered enough already.
If you want to debate the 'purpose of life' then start another thread as this one is cluttered enough already.
It is good to know what one is worshiping.
It is high time that the peoples woke up as regards the value of their popular gods. Because persons are inclined to worship someone or something, even if it is to worship one’s own self. The person who sourly says, “I do not worship anybody or anything!” is really a worshiper of himself. He makes himself a human god, but due to his egotism he is unaware of that fact.
It is high time that the peoples woke up as regards the value of their popular gods. Because persons are inclined to worship someone or something, even if it is to worship one’s own self. The person who sourly says, “I do not worship anybody or anything!” is really a worshiper of himself. He makes himself a human god, but due to his egotism he is unaware of that fact.
Elderman - “... The person who sourly says, “I do not worship anybody or anything!” is really a worshiper of himself. He makes himself a human god, but due to his egotism he is unaware of that fact.”
That is one of the most stupid statements that I have ever read on AB and I've read a few. The idea that atheists somehow 'worship themselves' is quite laughable. You clearly misunderstand the very concept of atheism. What you're actually doing is taking a well know and well worn misconception and spinning it slightly differently.
The misconception I'm talking about is the rather idiotic and irrational idea that atheism is the reverse of theism and so it has been argued (by theists) that atheism is, in actual fact, a religion. The logical flaws in this argument are many and varied but that is essentially what you're saying: a person who claims to worship nothing actually secretly worships something.
How we atheists 'worship ourselves' is never elucidated upon.
I second 'jomifl' in asking you to explain how an atheist can worship themselves in any meaningful way.
That is one of the most stupid statements that I have ever read on AB and I've read a few. The idea that atheists somehow 'worship themselves' is quite laughable. You clearly misunderstand the very concept of atheism. What you're actually doing is taking a well know and well worn misconception and spinning it slightly differently.
The misconception I'm talking about is the rather idiotic and irrational idea that atheism is the reverse of theism and so it has been argued (by theists) that atheism is, in actual fact, a religion. The logical flaws in this argument are many and varied but that is essentially what you're saying: a person who claims to worship nothing actually secretly worships something.
How we atheists 'worship ourselves' is never elucidated upon.
I second 'jomifl' in asking you to explain how an atheist can worship themselves in any meaningful way.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Good Morning,Feathered Worm Seekers
ChatterBank25 mins ago
Music40 mins ago
