Um, Why Was "If you believe in God, You're a retard" Locked?

[queenofnines]

anyone else think it's kinda ironic that the op locked the topic over there and then came here to post on this one?  I think that kind of behavior has re-defined the word "retard". 

Heh, well, she butts in on pretty much every discussion...this is nothing new.   

[queenofnines]

Really how? By Cloning? That is not NEW!

No, not by cloning.  So far, scientists have been able to create very early stages of life by combining amino acids.

[queenofnines]

Do you have any sources for your claim?

It was in a video I watched with Richard Dawkins.

[jordandog]

marieelissa, I am asking this seriously. Would ya please stop with all the STFU? It is totally unnecessary, no matter how ticked off you are. I would expect that from some punk who was 15, not a woman who is 28.

[amyrouse]

Now why is it always a atheist thing when someone may not believe?? Cannot not just be hmm logical thinking or umm searching??

Very good question there, ButterflyWings, and I don't know. It just seems easier to compartmentalize any of us who question, whether we say we ARE atheist or agnostic or don't say it. We also get portrayed as if we don't each have different ways of interpreting or looking at things and I don't agree with that. I don't agree with it because while all Christians believe in the bible, I don't try to lump all sects of christianity into one, they are all different. And I don't lump all believers into christianity, because many are are of different faiths altogether. I'll use amyrouse as an example - she happens to be of the Jewish faith, but anyone who doesn't know that and reads some of her posts automatically labels her as christian. It's akin to saying all scientists are biologists.

Haha...I've been labeled as atheist on here, too.  I also had someone say that since I was Jewish I was anti-Christian.  I don't think I come across as anti-anybody, really...  LOL

[jcribb16]

Now why is it always a atheist thing when someone may not believe?? Cannot not just be hmm logical thinking or umm searching??

Very good question there, ButterflyWings, and I don't know. It just seems easier to compartmentalize any of us who question, whether we say we ARE atheist or agnostic or don't say it. We also get portrayed as if we don't each have different ways of interpreting or looking at things and I don't agree with that. I don't agree with it because while all Christians believe in the bible, I don't try to lump all sects of christianity into one, they are all different. And I don't lump all believers into christianity, because many are are of different faiths altogether. I'll use amyrouse as an example - she happens to be of the Jewish faith, but anyone who doesn't know that and reads some of her posts automatically labels her as christian. It's akin to saying all scientists are biologists.

Good point, jordandog and amy.

[shernajwine]

Using the beliefs from the bible to try and point out how someone believes something that is nonsense, that's ridiculous coming from someone who believes that we are here because of some chemical reaction in some primordial soup WITH NO EVIDENCE (here we are at that again).

Those reactions have successfully been demonstrated in experiments though and therefore there is enough viable evidence to hold it together as a sustained theory. Basic life grew naturally in these experiments. But, of course, the model has holes. For instance we don't have a timescale of 4 billion years to work with, so we don't know how some peices of the puzzle work. Could this be proven false? Sure. But until all the natural evidence is for certain, we can't dismiss it. That's science for ya.[/quote]

Funny how those experiments were guided by human intelligence, and even then no experiment has been good enough to be termed as evidence. All those experiments have done is strengthen the ID platform! You might consider the evidence viable but even scientists don't deem it viable enough to hold any weight. The materialist scientists don't infer ID in the absence of evidence but they are smart enough not to assert the horrible evidence they do have to solidify their theory.

the belief we came from soup is no better supported through evidence from science than the bible account of creation!

Soooo you're taking a proven myth involving dust-man and rib-woman and putting it on the same mantel as natural? Let's do an experiment- Take some dirt and dust, mix it with a human rib, and get back to me with your results. Remember that you have 1 day to prove this proposition-- no beating around the bush with christian "1 day for god = 1 billion years for us" stuff. If you-know-what happens, you've got my undying support for your creationist theory. Involve the supernatural, mythical, delusional, etc. and you automatically have shown there's a massive difference as far as evidence goes.
[/quote]

I'm not putting in the same mantel as natural. Creation was a supernatural event, but the theory of chemical evolution has no evidence so it's ridiculous to try and insinuate somebody else is wrong to believe something when the only alternative has as much evidence as the former.

Do you see what you're doing? You are asserting a theory that has no evidence (with experiments guided by intelligence to get a desired result) and calling someone, who believes that intelligence created life, delusional.

And you can no longer equate the supernatural with delusional. I don't care what context someone is using supernatural, if you leave open the option for supernatural cosmic origins, you can't decide where and when the supernatural is possible. HA! You can say it isn't God, but if you want to lump people into a category of delusion for believing in the supernatural then you put yourself in that category since you don't deny the possibility.

[Falconer02]

Funny how those experiments were guided by human intelligence,

As opposed to...? Please, share with me your deity. I would like to chat with him and ask him. Oh wait, he's invisible, untestable, etc. and can only be heard through faith. What a major cop-out when it comes to arguing for...anything. "I have no evidence at all for the concept but it's still 100% true."

and even then no experiment has been good enough to be termed as evidence. All those experiments have done is strengthen the ID platform. The materialist scientists don't infer ID in the absence of evidence but they are smart enough not to assert the horrible evidence they do have to solidify their theory.

It gives the theory plausibility-- it is evidence by definition! You're conveniently jumping over scientific method here. "Even scientists are still skeptical of the idea! It has holes! Therefore ID is more supported!" It's not. Again, no proof = cannot argue for such a claim. If you have nothing and bring nothing to the table, nobody is going to eat your nothing despite how well you say it tastes. And then when you go around arguing over the "materialist/real" food on the table? This is why ID is labelled psuedoscience.

I'm not putting in the same mantel as natural. Creation was a supernatural event, but the theory of chemical evolution has no evidence

Again, there is evidence. It's just not irrefutable due to the reasons given earlier. Creation was not a supernatural event unless you can put proof on the table for it. Without it, your argument is empty. I can replace ID with any wacko supernatural concept and it would hold the same grounds as ID. Speculation is not proof.

Do you see what you're doing? You are asserting a theory that has no evidence (with experiments guided by intelligence to get a desired result) and calling someone, who believes that intelligence created life, delusional.

AGAIN- It has evidence. And you can see the results. But it's not fool-proof because of the reasons I have already stated. It has problems, but that does not immediatly kill it. Edison didn't find the correct filament after a few tries. Does that mean he should have just thrown the whole lightbulb concept in the garbage? I don't understand why it's so hard to understand this! And yes, I'm sorry but guarding Christian beliefs this close without saying there are massive problems is very delusional and or/irrational.

if you leave open the option for supernatural cosmic origins, you can't decide where and when the supernatural is possible. HA! You can say it isn't God, but if you want to lump people into a category of delusion for believing in the supernatural then you put yourself in that category since you don't deny the possibility.

Epic fail award! Lol c'mon...you've done exactly what I said not to do. It's exactly what everyone else did that couldn't grasp the concept. There's a difference between speculation and belief. Speculation allows for anything without grasping to it-- this is what I do. Remember I said a Zues, a lego man, or harrison ford could be behind it all? Speculation-- it's just as correct as thinking Yahweh did it. Belief puts confidence in the idea of something. I don't believe that these things are actually out there because, again, there is no proof for it. If I put my belief in a legoman designing all of this, I'd be delusional (or highly irrational if you wish) for thinking so. And considering you believe in an imperfect and angry jealous deity, a phony man-made story of mankinds creation, and other absolutely crazy mythology...you see where I'm going? Besides! We all know Cthulhu is the real designer *folds arms*

[shernajwine]

As opposed to...?

There is nothing else in this world that "appears" to be designed that wasn't actually designed. It is not delusional to think that a creative intelligence designed the universe and life in it.

It gives the theory plausibility

What experiment do you know of that gave chemical evolution plausibility because one that I know of didn't do anything but make me laugh.

The Miller Experiment:
Was conducted in an environment that did not correctly represent the atmospheric conditions of the primitive earth. If the experiment were to be conducted under correct atmospheric conditions you would not get amino acids (necessary for life to exist) but you would still get organic molecules. What are these promising organic molecules?? Formaldehyde and Cyanide. It's true that formaldehyde and cyanide can be turned into biological molecules....but it's a joke to think that they could give you the right substrate for the origin of life.....because what it produces is embalming fluid. (taken from the case for a creator thread)

Again, there is evidence. It's just not irrefutable due to the reasons given earlier. Creation was not a supernatural event unless you can put proof on the table for it

Where is the proof on the table for chemical evolution? Where is the proof on the table for any mechanism of evolution to create information? Where is the proof on the table for this naturalistic explanation of life to be considered evidence?

AGAIN- It has evidence. And you can see the results

There are two possibilities for the existence of life
   1.  Spontaneous assembly of life from chemicals
   2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

If you deny the existence of a Creator, scientific studies demonstrate that you must believe each of the following things about the origin of life:

Scientific Fact
Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and  amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy).

Solution   
reject the second law of thermodynamics

Scientific Fact
Chemical reactions in prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication

Solution
discard chemistry data "science of the gaps"

Scientific Fact
Pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) do not form under prebiotic conditions and only purine (adenine and guanine) nucleosides are found in carbonaceous meteorites (i.e primidine nucleosides don't form in outer space either)

Solution
discard chemistry data "science of the gaps"

Scientific Fact
Even if a method for formation of primidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication.

Solution
discard chemistry data "science of the gaps"

This is only a small portion of the evidence AGAINST chemical, spontaneous explanations of origins!
For the rest of the list and about 100 other pages authored by scientists visit http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Speculation allows for anything without grasping to it

So you think you have the right to say someone is delusional for grasping an idea YOU think is impossible, even though you admit that ANYTHING is possible and you are open to it?? Just because you have not "grasped" any particular idea, you are given higher intelligent status to those who have grasped an idea? That is arrogant and preposterous in light of the BAD evidence for the alternative! Don't "grasp" an idea to assert is as truth, that's your choice but don't walk around telling people that what they HAVE grasped as truth is delusional! You can't have an opinion about what is delusional when you don't believe ANYTHING.

[Falconer02]

It is not delusional to think that a creative intelligence designed the universe and life in it.

Speculatively, no. It's not delusional. Even to say the supernatural (just higher undefined nature-- no god or anything) is just as well. But believing what Christians do is ridiculously irrational.

What experiment do you know of that gave chemical evolution plausibility because one that I know of didn't do anything but make me laugh.

Maybe you should look at your own beliefs before laughing at people who are trying to grasp the universe with an open and skeptical mind.

The Miller Experiment:

I smell Answers in Genesis all over this...but it's the God and Science website!? It sounds like you're going to need some better scientific sources. Anyway, isolated systems have problems with the 2nd law because they are closed systems. Blocks in a natural system will have a decrease of entropy. It only applies to closed systems. Open systems can exchange energy and increase order. All organisms (past and present) run the risk of death. But they manage to avoid this by taking in energy from the world- eating, drinking, grouping, etc. When you put someone in a vault with none of these, of course they'll die in time. But you'll still collect some viable data. This breaks apart your whole fact/solution tower from the first one. That, and I'm too tired to go on refutting something from a creationist website.
http://entropysite.oxy.edu/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lABiuUt-OT4

So you think you have the right to say someone is delusional for grasping an idea YOU think is impossible, even though you admit that ANYTHING is possible and you are open to it??  
Just because you have not "grasped" any particular idea, you are given higher intelligent status to those who have grasped an idea?

That's just what the purple gnome in my car told me to say though. He also told me to tell you that Yahweh says hi. lol okay okay I admit it. that was uncalled for! The major problem here isn't judging what's possible and impossible. It's presenting the truth of the matter with evidence. For instance let's say we're both cavemen. We see lightening strike a tree and it creates fire. I would say "perhaps there were natural causes to this. The lightening, which looks very hot, ignited the tree and caused it to burn. I could be wrong though-- I'm only a caveman and have very little to work with here to prove my point!" and you would go "And there's you problem! Where'd the lightening come from? Because of that, it's completely 100% obvious that god struck that tree for us!" and then I go "wut". Of course this is a recurring theme throughout history.

You can't have an opinion about what is delusional when you don't believe ANYTHING

http://allotetraploid.se/wp-content/2007/08/christianity.JPG

Don't "grasp" an idea to assert is as truth, that's your choice but don't walk around telling people that what they HAVE grasped as truth is delusional!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_I2uQkGxIykM/SlndlswrCoI/AAAAAAAAFfE/1fJnSLISVGk/s400/agnosticism-explanation+mcs.jpg  
(btw I don't think you're retarded in the least. I do think you're entrenched in the creationist mindset wayyy too deep though. I'm just trying to get this very basic point of differences across)

[shernajwine]

But believing what Christians do is ridiculously irrational.

You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is not necessarily truth. So stop asserting is as though it is fact.

Maybe you should look at your own beliefs before laughing at people who are trying to grasp the universe with an open and skeptical mind.

Really? Me? Stop laughing at people?? For one thing, I laughed at the idea that an experiment, guided by intelligence by the way, was so publicized and even put in text books; when it was so clearly NOT good evidence! Thankfully, there were some who were not willing to turn a blind eye to the crap that was being asserted as truth and the crap was taken off the table as any type of worthwhile evidence for the proposed theory.

How about YOU stop laughing at people for having faith in something you just so happened to find irrational.

I smell Answers in Genesis all over this...but it's the God and Science website!? It sounds like you're going to need some better scientific sources

  Are you freaking kidding me?? Talk about closed minded! You automatically disregard my source because the author believes in God! Who cares that he is a legitimate scientist? Who cares about anything he has to say about science, he believes in God therefore he is not a good source for scientific information! 
 Un-fricken-believable! 

I'll remember that too.

That, and I'm too tired to go on refutting something from a creationist website.

Well that's good because you are not doing a very good job.

Anyway, isolated systems  have problems with the 2nd law because they are closed systems.

This argument has nothing to do with the closed/open system question. The  second law of thermodynamics states that heat flows from hot bodies to cold bodies. This law also affects the formation of enantiomers   (Either of a pair of optical compounds whose molecular structures have a mirror-image relationship to each other) in chemical reactions capable of producing stereoisomers (One enantiomer (left or right-handed form) of an optically active compound). Since the formation of both left- and right-handed  enantiomers requires the exact same amount of energy, both enantiomers are produced in identical amounts. Any deviation from this result is highly unlikely (much less likely than the scenario of starting your car on a hot California day and having freeze over while running).

Some researchers have cited the possibility of differential synthesis of one enantiomer over another in the presence of circularly polarized light. There are a couple problems with this theory. First, there is no source of this kind of light in the vicinity of our solar system. Second, the demonstration of circularly polarized light was found only in the infrared region of the spectrum. Light must be of much more energetic wavelengths (ultraviolet). Third, if stereoisomers were formed, the energy of the light would break them down within a short period of time.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html#n02

[Falconer02]

I'm just gonna answer these as quick as I can because I'm super tired.

You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is not necessarily truth. So stop asserting is as though it is fact.

In the past we've given you plenty of facts of why they're false. It is not an opinion. You've constantly demonstrated that you're armed to the teeth with technical work-arounds though.

I laughed at the idea that an experiment, guided by intelligence by the way, was so publicized and even put in text books; when it was so clearly NOT good evidence!

There's major reasons as to why it's in text books and ID is not. If you think ID is a better approach for text books and yet you cannot claim to know the designer(s) characteristics, nature, location, origin, goals, the means used, etc. you have nothing. And if you start defining it using your beliefs, you're pushing religious doctrine and that's not science. It's mythology. Non-progressive. Either way the argument for ID being science is screwed unless you're willing to shed your beliefs and admit it's a complete mystery. And, not to get too personal, but I don't think you could do that due to the emotional attachment you obviously have to creationist ideas.

Talk about closed minded! You automatically disregard my source because the author believes in God!

Well sure it's got some good information! But seeing all these die-hard christian ideas on the left leaves me to believe that the author can easily taint their findings or leave important things out just as all creationist sites do. I disregard it because it's called "God and science". Might as well call it "How to argue the irrational ideas of religion with reality". It's hard to accept someone being rational when the person believes highly irrational defined deities, myths, etc.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.html   http://www.godandscience.org/love/outrageous.html   http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/heaven.html

Well that's good because you are not doing a very good job.

I'll get back to you on this. Too tired to go on.

[shernajwine]

In the past we've given you plenty of facts of why they're false

Nobody has given me any facts. All anyone has tried to do is give me misinterpretation of scripture, to which I have responded. If you choose to believe your garbled version of scripture to support a stance of unbelief in God, that's your choice but it doesn't make you're version of the bible correct. Therefore it is your opinion.

You can't tell me the universe wasn't caused by the supernatural, or you're inferring it had a natural cause without evidence...therefore implying you have faith by definition. You can't tell me it wasn't God, for a fact, because nothing has proved or disproved the existence of God 100%. You are not asserting fact to say Christianity is irrational, you are asserting an opinion.

There's major reasons as to why it's in text books and ID is not. If you think ID is a better approach for text books and yet you cannot claim to know the designer(s) characteristics, nature, location, origin, goals, the means used, etc. you have nothing. And if you start defining it using your beliefs, you're pushing religious doctrine and that's not science. It's mythology. Non-progressive. Either way the argument for ID being science is screwed unless you're willing to shed your beliefs and admit it's a complete mystery

Why would ID need to define the designer? I don't need to know WHO made my coffee pot to know it was designed. That's absurd and it's not science.

How about you focus on the fact that I asked you a direct question, where is the proof on the table for chemical evolution? Where is the proof on the table for any mechanism of evolution to create information? You know how many times I have asked that question? Queen says, I'm not a scientist, and you flat out ignore it. You know why? Because there isn't proof and there isn't any evidence. So don't talk about how ID needs to have proof on the table to be considered legitimate, when the alternative doesn't have proof on the table!

You continued to repeat "There is evidence". What is that evidence?

I disregard it because it's called "God and science"

Closed minded.

[jcribb16]

In the past we've given you plenty of facts of why they're false

Nobody has given me any facts. All anyone has tried to do is give me misinterpretation of scripture, to which I have responded. If you choose to believe your garbled version of scripture to support a stance of unbelief in God, that's your choice but it doesn't make you're version of the bible correct. Therefore it is your opinion.

You can't tell me the universe wasn't caused by the supernatural, or you're inferring it had a natural cause without evidence...therefore implying you have faith by definition. You can't tell me it wasn't God, for a fact, because nothing has proved or disproved the existence of God 100%. You are not asserting fact to say Christianity is irrational, you are asserting an opinion.

There's major reasons as to why it's in text books and ID is not. If you think ID is a better approach for text books and yet you cannot claim to know the designer(s) characteristics, nature, location, origin, goals, the means used, etc. you have nothing. And if you start defining it using your beliefs, you're pushing religious doctrine and that's not science. It's mythology. Non-progressive. Either way the argument for ID being science is screwed unless you're willing to shed your beliefs and admit it's a complete mystery

Why would ID need to define the designer? I don't need to know WHO made my coffee pot to know it was designed. That's absurd and it's not science.

How about you focus on the fact that I asked you a direct question, where is the proof on the table for chemical evolution? Where is the proof on the table for any mechanism of evolution to create information? You know how many times I have asked that question? Queen says, I'm not a scientist, and you flat out ignore it. You know why? Because there isn't proof and there isn't any evidence. So don't talk about how ID needs to have proof on the table to be considered legitimate, when the alternative doesn't have proof on the table!

You continued to repeat "There is evidence". What is that evidence?

I disregard it because it's called "God and science"

Closed minded.

Hang in there, you are doing great! 

[shernajwine]

Hang in there, you are doing great!

Thanks jcribb. I needed that