Pure Trollery: Homosexuals actually prove God's existence [Trollville]

Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Pure Trollery: Homosexuals actually prove God's existence [Trollville]

Bare with me. I was watching a show called 30 days, I guess the same fellow who wrote "Super-Size me" is the writer/director of this show. Anyway they had this straight guy live with a gay guy in the SF are for a month. After watching the show I had an epiphany. If natural selection is driven by survival of the fittest, that would have to mean that only healthy males that were capable of reproducing(and did) would survive. right? I've heard from many atheists say that homosexuality is natural and doesn't violate natural laws since animals have also been known to exhibit homosexual behavior. Now, if our only purpose in the world is to reproduce and promote our offspring, and we are merely "selfish genes" how can one validate Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with regards to homosexuality? This would have to mean that Evolution, to some degree, is wrong. To say I'm wrong in my assertion would mean that homosexuality is a genetic-mutation, or some illness or flaw. Now, this doens't really mean that this proves God is real, but it doesn't help Darwinists at all.  

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
or it might mean you are

or it might mean you are moronic and have made a fallacy of composition associated with the replicators and the organisms...since homosexuality is not a hereditary trait, its wax and wane associated with the normal variation in any generation (F) is not due to selection, but rather the variation associated with any biological population, of course, of multicellular Eukaryota, specifically animals, who have genes capable of undergoing vertical transfer. After all, the percentage of homosexual organisms in a population tends to remain quite constant, the reason for this is simply that the endocrine differences associated with organisms exists for reasons of variation. The variation does not wane because it is not hereditary variation, which by definition, is the necessary process of evolution, the inhereting of variation. If it was hereditary it would be eliminated very quickly, which is where you confusion lies and the reason you should think before you post.

Physiologists and developmental biologists have established that homosexuality plays a critical part in the struggle for resources in animals. Children struggling for resources from their parents in this case. According to prenatal endocrine theory the bearing of first children underlies fundamental bioendocrinology changes in the mother's sex hormones which make it more likely that the next child will be homosexual, and so on with the next child. This gives the eldest children a leg-up in the struggle for existence. The formula derived from the theory, however, has problems since if we take it to its logical extension, the 12th male child of a single mother has a 100% chance of being homosexual due to the successive in utero alterations associated with the evo-devo mechanics that change the in utero endocrine patterns which make the next child more likely to be homosexual. The existence of such organisms, then, plays a critical role in the struggle for resources, since it gives the first children a greater advantage in gleaning resources from their parents. However, this is merely an intrinsic in uter function of animals, not a hereditary trait, so your thinking is violently false.

Or you could learn about evolutionary bio first:

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


thormos
thormos's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Since evolution senters

Since evolution senters around genes and not individuals your "theory" fals flat on its arse...

A non reproducing adult that helps care for his brothers and sisters are actively increasing their chance of survival and hence his own genes. And besides its not like a homosecsual cant have kids...the tools are intact.

The fact of the matter is homosexuality is hardly against evolution in fact there are good reasons for sutch behaviour to develop, especially in social animals like ourselves. 

"Everyone knows that God drives a Plymouth: "And He drove Adam And Eve from the Garden of Eden in His Fury."
And that Moses liked British cars: "The roar of Moses' Triumph was heard throughout the hills."
On the other hand, Jesus humbly drove a Honda but didn't brag about it, because in his own words: "I did not speak of my own Accord." "


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Concrete example:  There's

Concrete example:  There's a famous pair of gay penguins in the Central Park Zoo (they've since broken up, but they were together for years).  A straight penguin pair had an extra egg one time, so the keepers gave the extra egg, which would have died otherwise, to the gay penguin pair.  The gay penguins adopted the egg and raised the penguin chick to maturity, thus adding a breeding female to their population who would have otherwise died.

The very fact that the population of non-straight individuals is more or less constant across populations of different animals (including humans) is evidence that it has an adaptive function in evolutionary terms. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I think my IQ just went

I think my IQ just went down after reading this post.

Is it too much to ask that people actually educate themselves before they start making up theories?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   I think my IQ

Quote:

 

I think my IQ just went down after reading this post.

You have to get used to it. Do you know how many fucking idiots, vacuous, empty idiots and morons and I have to argue against? 98 percent of people I "argue" with about evolution cannot even tell me the three principles of evolution. You learn that in grade school. To those people I simply say: Don't argue. You'll end up hurting yourself, also you should hire someone to supervise you in case you undo the child lock on the gate at the top of the stairs, or something of that like".

These people make my inner misanthrope give a Sisphyean laugh. We are pushing a rock up a steel hill of religious moronicism, people who have no ability to think, who sound so sure of themselves despite not having a clue what they talk about. Ever noticed there is an inverse relationship between how sure people are and how little they know?


 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
    um if you haven't

    um if you haven't read some of Lux's posts recently, this is just one of many moronic posts, most of them are grade school rants and insults. Lux seems to be quite ignorant.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Ever noticed there

Quote:
Ever noticed there is an inverse relationship between how sure people are and how little they know?

Worse than that... I've noticed that there's a direct correlation between people who are sure that scientists are sure of their position and people who are sure that you have to be sure to say you are right.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:
Bare with me.

OK, shit-for-brains.

Lux wrote:
I was watching a show called 30 days, I guess the same fellow who wrote "Super-Size me" is the writer/director of this show. Anyway they had this straight guy live with a gay guy in the SF are for a month. After watching the show I had an epiphany.

Are you sure it was an epiphany? Judging by the rest of your post, I harbor suspicions it was a fart.

Lux wrote:
If natural selection is driven by survival of the fittest, that would have to mean that only healthy males that were capable of reproducing(and did) would survive. right? I've heard from many atheists say that homosexuality is natural and doesn't violate natural laws since animals have also been known to exhibit homosexual behavior. Now, if our only purpose in the world is to reproduce and promote our offspring, and we are merely "selfish genes" how can one validate Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with regards to homosexuality? This would have to mean that Evolution, to some degree, is wrong. To say I'm wrong in my assertion would mean that homosexuality is a genetic-mutation, or some illness or flaw. Now, this doens't really mean that this proves God is real, but it doesn't help Darwinists at all.

In the minute and forty-five seconds you apparently spent researching the theory of evolution, you could have been scratching your balls... for a minute and forty-five seconds. It would have been a more fruitful endeavor.

Fuck off. 


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: Bare with me. I

Lux wrote:
Bare with me. I was watching a show called 30 days, I guess the same fellow who wrote "Super-Size me" is the writer/director of this show. Anyway they had this straight guy live with a gay guy in the SF are for a month. After watching the show I had an epiphany. If natural selection is driven by survival of the fittest, that would have to mean that only healthy males that were capable of reproducing(and did) would survive. right? I've heard from many atheists say that homosexuality is natural and doesn't violate natural laws since animals have also been known to exhibit homosexual behavior. Now, if our only purpose in the world is to reproduce and promote our offspring, and we are merely "selfish genes" how can one validate Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with regards to homosexuality? This would have to mean that Evolution, to some degree, is wrong. To say I'm wrong in my assertion would mean that homosexuality is a genetic-mutation, or some illness or flaw. Now, this doens't really mean that this proves God is real, but it doesn't help Darwinists at all.

 Evolution, schmevolution.  What we're seeing here is the pathos of a man in leather pants trying to reconcile his theism with his alternative lifestyle.  Poor self-loather.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
    that ain't

    that ain't leather......it's PLEATHER...oh how sad.....could be latex but i doubt it.


Raki
Superfan
Raki's picture
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
I amazed that the thread

I amazed that the thread starter's paragraph had nothing to do with the name of the thread. Lux must think that everyone thinks the same as him. He should go read a book that isn't named the "Holy Bible". Then maybe he could actually think of dreaming about debating us with real knowledge.

Nero(in response to a Youth pastor) wrote:

You are afraid and should be thus.  We look to eradicate your god from everything but history books.  We bring rationality and clear thought to those who choose lives of ignorance.  We are the blazing, incandescent brand that will leave an "A" so livid, so scarlet on your mind that you will not go an hour without reflecting on reality.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Raki wrote: I amazed that

Raki wrote:
I amazed that the thread starter's paragraph had nothing to do with the name of the thread. Lux must think that everyone thinks the same as him. He should go read a book that isn't named the "Holy Bible". Then maybe he could actually think of dreaming about debating us with real knowledge.

For the majority of people, in the majority of technical discussions, their thought process can be articulated as, "Which talking head to I listen to?" To an extent, this is practical; it's always smart to get second opinions before going through a major procedure, for instance, but there's a certain point where you have to defer to things like expertise and reputation in deciding whether to listen to a doctor. They can give you a layman's description of the problem and their solution, but it's unlikely a real representation of it, and also unlikely you'll have much of a basis to argue with their reasoning (whether it's valid or not). The problem arises when we take the practical limits to our knowledge to be limits inherent to knowledge itself. Just because I don't understand why, from a technical standpoint, a course of antibiotics is supposed to help with an abscessed tooth, it doesn't mean there isn't something to know; that there isn't a very specific framework under which the process of its function can be explained from start to finish. Preachers and their ilk use the opaqueness of technical understanding to portray every belief as a blind deference to authority, because, well, in their case it probably is. I've never seen it demonstrated that there is some precise, consistent content to be understood about religion that really reconciles it with reality or substantiates its claims. There could be, but among vocal proponents of religion, I've seen no such thing.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Dang, Magilum.... yur purty

Dang, Magilum.... yur purty smart.

(cough.. cough... er...)

Dude.  Very well said.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh wrote:

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Evolution, schmevolution. What we're seeing here is the pathos of a man in leather pants trying to reconcile his theism with his alternative lifestyle. Poor self-loather.

Right on.  This Ted Haggard syndrome sure gets around.

 I'm pretty sure "Bare with me" was a Freudian slip rather than a typo. 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


DrTerwilliker
DrTerwilliker's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2007-08-06
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: I'm

zarathustra wrote:

I'm pretty sure "Bare with me" was a Freudian slip rather than a typo.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is all. 


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
yeah yeah, I'm a dumbass

yeah yeah, I'm a dumbass Christian. But it's nice to get a good example of the scientific community and their monopoloy on science. You know, the way that darwinists cock block any competing theory with supreme arrogance. Not that I thought my little theory was worth a shit anyway, me being just a guy in pleather pants with no background in science. You people have become very good at giving christians a good beating, kinda like an atheist witch-hunt.

  It's a shame that dawrinism is pretty much an out dated theory still being protected by the majority of scientists out of fear of losing credibiltiy. One perfect example is of Guillermo Gonzalez being denied tenure because of his work with the Discovery institute even though he had a remarkable case for tenure. My theory that I posted was basically for fun, but what was more fun is to see the hatred and condecending attitude of people who are sooo much more intelligent than I am. pffftttt.  You guys are a perfect example of whats wrong with atheism and the science world in general.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

It's a shame that dawrinism is pretty much an out dated theory still being protected by the majority of scientists out of fear of losing credibiltiy.

Firstly, the word "Darwinist" is never used in the scientific lexicon. Second of all, the word "outdated" implies...well, it rather implies something is outdated. Evolution is not an outdated theory. Every discipline of science has building blocks, principles upon which the whole discipline is based, which, if overturned, produce paradigm shifts. Currently, in chemistry, these are atomic theory, moles, and periodicity, in physics, relativistic kinematics, quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, and in biology...genetics, cell theory, and evolution. Evolutionary biology is a cutting edge discpline which recombines developmental biology, genetics, ecology, proteomics, computational biology etc.

How were we supposed to know your post was just a joke? Just say it if that was the case. There is truly no way of knowing how serious your opponent is being in this regard, since the argument you put forth I am sure has actually been used by creationists, given the level of idiocy associated with those who propogate it. Given the arrogant and self-assured tone I have come to associate with one who has studied evolution for approximately 45 seconds, there was absolutely no way for me to tell the level of seriousness expressed therein. So I read it as I would any other associated argument against evolution, that of one who has studied the subject for 45 seconds. It is better to be arrogant for knowing, than to be arrogant for being ignorant. If you didn't want the OP to be taken so seriously, just say it. But you must understand that we do get arguments like that from people who are serious, so how could we possibly have known?

The frightening reality is that public understanding of this particular scientific discipline is so appalling that it is very difficult to tell what is satire and what is not, because people do amaze by coming up with incredibly stupid arguments. If someone told me that gravity was false and we need to replace it with intelligent falling theory, and that gravity leads to moral decay in schools, because it is a secular theory, I would recognize it quickly as satire. If someone told me that evolution is not true because Hitler used it as justification for the Holocaust...there would be no way to tell whether or not they were satirizing morons or actually were morons, so you can't blame us for assuming the worst, that you were serious...

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:

yeah yeah, I'm a dumbass Christian. But it's nice to get a good example of the scientific community and their monopoloy on science. You know, the way that darwinists cock block any competing theory with supreme arrogance. Not that I thought my little theory was worth a shit anyway, me being just a guy in pleather pants with no background in science. You people have become very good at giving christians a good beating, kinda like an atheist witch-hunt.

It's a shame that dawrinism is pretty much an out dated theory still being protected by the majority of scientists out of fear of losing credibiltiy. One perfect example is of Guillermo Gonzalez being denied tenure because of his work with the Discovery institute even though he had a remarkable case for tenure. My theory that I posted was basically for fun, but what was more fun is to see the hatred and condecending attitude of people who are sooo much more intelligent than I am. pffftttt. You guys are a perfect example of whats wrong with atheism and the science world in general.

Intelligiant design is a competing theory?

Even Behe said astrology had as much scientific credibility (in his view of science) as his precious ID. This is what you want to "compete" with the teaching of science?

Where's your proof that natural selection and/or evolution <those things you lump together as "Darwinism"> are outdated theories

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

It's a shame that dawrinism is pretty much an out dated theory still being protected by the majority of scientists out of fear of losing credibiltiy.

Firstly, the word "Darwinist" is never used in the scientific lexicon. Second of all, the word "outdated" implies...well, it rather implies something is outdated. Evolution is not an outdated theory. Every discipline of science has building blocks, principles upon which the whole discipline is based, which, if overturned, produce paradigm shifts. Currently, in chemistry, these are atomic theory, moles, and periodicity, in physics, relativistic kinematics, quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, and in biology...genetics, cell theory, and evolution. Evolutionary biology is a cutting edge discpline which recombines developmental biology, genetics, ecology, proteomics, computational biology etc.

How were we supposed to know your post was just a joke? Just say it if that was the case. There is truly no way of knowing how serious your opponent is being in this regard, since the argument you put forth I am sure has actually been used by creationists, given the level of idiocy associated with those who propogate it. Given the arrogant and self-assured tone I have come to associate with one who has studied evolution for approximately 45 seconds, there was absolutely no way for me to tell the level of seriousness expressed therein. So I read it as I would any other associated argument against evolution, that of one who has studied the subject for 45 seconds. It is better to be arrogant for knowing, than to be arrogant for being ignorant. If you didn't want the OP to be taken so seriously, just say it. But you must understand that we do get arguments like that from people who are serious, so how could we possibly have known?

 

As ridiculous as the post was, I thought it was obvious, maybe only to me. I've never been that good at comedy. And I realize that "darwinist" isn't  scientific term, but it is a term used by the ID camp to describe evolutionists.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   As ridiculous

Quote:

 

As ridiculous as the post was, I thought it was obvious, maybe only to me. I've never been that good at comedy.

It was not for lack of trying on your part, merely that I think it would be very difficult to let your interlocutors know that it was satire without explicitly stating it. I certainly could not do it. The problem is, no matter how deliberatly mangled one crafts an argument...I guarantee you somewhere, somehow a creationist has used it. Hence the angry outbursts...they are merely the frustration of people who have for years dealt with mildly retarded individuals cordially informing us that evolution is false because life cannot come from rocks. Bear with us.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: deludedgod

Lux wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

It's a shame that dawrinism is pretty much an out dated theory still being protected by the majority of scientists out of fear of losing credibiltiy.

Firstly, the word "Darwinist" is never used in the scientific lexicon. Second of all, the word "outdated" implies...well, it rather implies something is outdated. Evolution is not an outdated theory. Every discipline of science has building blocks, principles upon which the whole discipline is based, which, if overturned, produce paradigm shifts. Currently, in chemistry, these are atomic theory, moles, and periodicity, in physics, relativistic kinematics, quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, and in biology...genetics, cell theory, and evolution. Evolutionary biology is a cutting edge discpline which recombines developmental biology, genetics, ecology, proteomics, computational biology etc.

How were we supposed to know your post was just a joke? Just say it if that was the case. There is truly no way of knowing how serious your opponent is being in this regard, since the argument you put forth I am sure has actually been used by creationists, given the level of idiocy associated with those who propogate it. Given the arrogant and self-assured tone I have come to associate with one who has studied evolution for approximately 45 seconds, there was absolutely no way for me to tell the level of seriousness expressed therein. So I read it as I would any other associated argument against evolution, that of one who has studied the subject for 45 seconds. It is better to be arrogant for knowing, than to be arrogant for being ignorant. If you didn't want the OP to be taken so seriously, just say it. But you must understand that we do get arguments like that from people who are serious, so how could we possibly have known?

 

As ridiculous as the post was, I thought it was obvious, maybe only to me. I've never been that good at comedy. And I realize that "darwinist" isn't scientific term, but it is a term used by the ID camp to describe evolutionists.

My apologies for being slow on the uptake.

I should remember to not post when the cold meds are kicking in. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: But it's nice

Lux wrote:

But it's nice to get a good example of the scientific community and their monopoloy on science.

This sentence makes no sense to me.  Who are we supposed to turn over our scientific studies to?  Those trained in food services?  Telemarketers?  Who do you suggest?

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Lux

pariahjane wrote:
Lux wrote:

But it's nice to get a good example of the scientific community and their monopoloy on science.

This sentence makes no sense to me.  Who are we supposed to turn over our scientific studies to?  Those trained in food services?  Telemarketers?  Who do you suggest?

 

No, do you realize just how many scientists have lost their jobs or tenure because there are certain aspects of evolution that they challenged? believe it or not, there are many scientists who believe in God, and believe that there is evidence in nature of a designer.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Lux

jcgadfly wrote:
Lux wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

It's a shame that dawrinism is pretty much an out dated theory still being protected by the majority of scientists out of fear of losing credibiltiy.

Firstly, the word "Darwinist" is never used in the scientific lexicon. Second of all, the word "outdated" implies...well, it rather implies something is outdated. Evolution is not an outdated theory. Every discipline of science has building blocks, principles upon which the whole discipline is based, which, if overturned, produce paradigm shifts. Currently, in chemistry, these are atomic theory, moles, and periodicity, in physics, relativistic kinematics, quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, and in biology...genetics, cell theory, and evolution. Evolutionary biology is a cutting edge discpline which recombines developmental biology, genetics, ecology, proteomics, computational biology etc.

How were we supposed to know your post was just a joke? Just say it if that was the case. There is truly no way of knowing how serious your opponent is being in this regard, since the argument you put forth I am sure has actually been used by creationists, given the level of idiocy associated with those who propogate it. Given the arrogant and self-assured tone I have come to associate with one who has studied evolution for approximately 45 seconds, there was absolutely no way for me to tell the level of seriousness expressed therein. So I read it as I would any other associated argument against evolution, that of one who has studied the subject for 45 seconds. It is better to be arrogant for knowing, than to be arrogant for being ignorant. If you didn't want the OP to be taken so seriously, just say it. But you must understand that we do get arguments like that from people who are serious, so how could we possibly have known?

 

As ridiculous as the post was, I thought it was obvious, maybe only to me. I've never been that good at comedy. And I realize that "darwinist" isn't scientific term, but it is a term used by the ID camp to describe evolutionists.

My apologies for being slow on the uptake.

I should remember to not post when the cold meds are kicking in. 

 

thats ok, i do most of my posting at night after the amitriptyline kicks in Smiling

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Steven
Bronze Member
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: yeah yeah, I'm

Lux wrote:

yeah yeah, I'm a dumbass Christian. But it's nice to get a good example of the scientific community and their monopoloy on science. You know, the way that darwinists cock block any competing theory with supreme arrogance.

 

The scientific community has a monopoly on science?  Is this another joke?

 

As far as I know ID is not a competing theory, its bullshit thats being forced down the throats of the U.S. public by radical religious people.

 

Lux wrote:
One perfect example is of Guillermo Gonzalez being denied tenure because of his work with the Discovery institute even though he had a remarkable case for tenure. 

 

A remarkably BAD case for tenure.  And then he got the ID camp to throw mass phone calls / E-mails at the university to try and strong arm his position.

 

This is why atheists in general seem so abrasive when it comes to discussing religion with the religious.  You believe what you want and disregard, or do not bother to obtain the facts.  The fact that he is an educated person and believes in ID is enough, in my opinion, to deny him tenure, but they have plenty of other legitimate reasons for denying him.

 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: pariahjane

Lux wrote:
pariahjane wrote:
Lux wrote:

But it's nice to get a good example of the scientific community and their monopoloy on science.

This sentence makes no sense to me.  Who are we supposed to turn over our scientific studies to?  Those trained in food services?  Telemarketers?  Who do you suggest?

No, do you realize just how many scientists have lost their jobs or tenure because there are certain aspects of evolution that they challenged? believe it or not, there are many scientists who believe in God, and believe that there is evidence in nature of a designer.

I'm aware of the fact that there are doctors and scientists out there who hold a belief in god.  I'm not aware of how many scientists have lost their jobs because of this belief, so please provide me with statistics or links.  Thanks.

 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: and believe that

Quote:

and believe that there is evidence in nature of a designer.

But If they are trained in the method of their field of employment...they will not be foolish enough to claim this evidence is "scientific". After all, nothing would be more embarassing for a scientist than to demonstrate not knowing the scientific method... 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: believe it or

Lux wrote:

believe it or not, there are many scientists who believe in God, and believe that there is evidence in nature of a designer.

Believe it or not, 9 out of 10 of those accept evolution and reject ID. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Here we go again... If

Here we go again...

If Creationism/ID is a competing scientific theory, what predictions does it make (future discoveries), and what applications does it have?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:

If Creationism/ID is a competing scientific theory, what predictions does it make (future discoveries), and what applications does it have?

Application: promoting ignorance and halting human progress.

Prediction: the son of the designer will come to earth before some of this generation have passed.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Two theories -- which is

Two theories -- which is more likely?

1. There is a conspiracy among all the scientists in the world. It crosses all national borders, all ethnicities, all religions. 99% of the scientists in the world are in on it. They got together one day and decided that they don't want the world to know about god, so they intentionally and deliberately squelch and suppress every experiment conducted by ID scientists, despite the fact that virtually all of these ID guys live in the U.S. and have free access to the internet, where they could post their entire experiments for public viewing.

Furthermore, they somehow publicly censure all of the intellligent scientists working on ID, such that the ones who do get into the public eye can't even answer a simple question like, "What kind of experiments do ID scientists do?"

Furthermore, all the scientists in the world have managed to come up with their own theory that is not evolution, yet allows all of the biological sciences to function, despite their reliance on the predictions of evolution for the last hundred years.

Oddly, there is not a single shred of evidence for this theory.  Not a single unshredded memo.  Not a voicemail.  Not one directive from whatever massively powerful underground organization would be required to pull off such an incredible act of worldwide sedition.  The U.S. government, which has been intent on passing religiously inspired laws for the past 30 years, has made no statements about this massive conspiracy.  No secret memos from congressmen have surfaced.  Nothing.  Not a scrap of evidence of a WORLD WIDE conspiracy involving HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

OR...

2. Prior to 9/11, there was a concerted effort between the U.S. government and several other governments, terrorist cell groups, and construction companies in the U.S. Without anybody in the whole building noticing, construction crews went in and selectively weakened the structural supports for both twin towers, despite 24 hour surveillance of the building. The surveillance companies, the night watchman, the surveillance companies and night watchmen for all neighboring buildings, several governments, and the entire FBI were in on the conspiracy. They did this so that when Saudi terrorists flew planes into the buildings, it wouldn't just blow up half the buildings -- the buildings would collapse. This whole conspiracy was concocted and executed despite the fact that the simple act of flying the planes into the buildings would be enough political justification for the subsequent U.S. led war.

 Oddly, I find it easier to believe number two, and I recognize what a bunch of hooey it is.  But, if you made me choose, two is less unlikely.   How's that for a little perspective?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and Lux, I notice that

Oh, and Lux, I notice that you put this post in AvT, not General Convo and Humor.  A quick review of your posts shows me that you are aware of the different forums, and that you know how to post in them.

I call bullshit.

 


 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
I guess that's the latest

I guess that's the latest strategy: Throw something out there; if it gets soundly refuted, say it was just a joke.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: I guess

zarathustra wrote:

I guess that's the latest strategy: Throw something out there; if it gets soundly refuted, say it was just a joke.

 Yes, it is a corollary to the strategy in which anytime a claim made in a religious text is soundly refuted by science, theists decide that it was either A) taken out of context, B) misinterpreted, or C) not meant to be taken literally

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh

Roisin Dubh wrote:
zarathustra wrote:

I guess that's the latest strategy: Throw something out there; if it gets soundly refuted, say it was just a joke.

Yes, it is a corollary to the strategy in which anytime a claim made in a religious text is soundly refuted by science, theists decide that it was either A) taken out of context, B) misinterpreted, or C) not meant to be taken literally

I think this is related to the "shifting the goalposts" fallacy. Let's call it the "I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin'" fallacy.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Raki
Superfan
Raki's picture
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:pariahjane

Lux wrote:
pariahjane wrote:
Lux wrote:

But it's nice to get a good example of the scientific community and their monopoloy on science.

This sentence makes no sense to me.  Who are we supposed to turn over our scientific studies to?  Those trained in food services?  Telemarketers?  Who do you suggest?

 

No, do you realize just how many scientists have lost their jobs or tenure because there are certain aspects of evolution that they challenged? believe it or not, there are many scientists who believe in God, and believe that there is evidence in nature of a designer.

  Since most of us are skeptics,please provide us with the names and stats of those scientists who challenged evolution, and were fired because of their actions.

Nero(in response to a Youth pastor) wrote:

You are afraid and should be thus.  We look to eradicate your god from everything but history books.  We bring rationality and clear thought to those who choose lives of ignorance.  We are the blazing, incandescent brand that will leave an "A" so livid, so scarlet on your mind that you will not go an hour without reflecting on reality.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
    Hmm let me give you

    Hmm let me give you this simple answer to the abrasiveness and atheists-witch hunt as you say.  Stupid statement like yours, in a forum of atheists vs theists not in general conversation and humor, should be and must be met with the strong retorts, absolute humilation and showing you, your complete ignorance on the topic and how stupid and very very little critical thinking went into making such a moronic statement. If you do not like it, stop saying/posting stupid things and use just a little bit more critical thinking, research and knowledge, than what you have shown. Otherwise most people will respond accordingly to such stupid statements....got it? very simple to understand.


Reality Fan
Reality Fan's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-08-14
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Lux

pariahjane wrote:
Lux wrote:

But it's nice to get a good example of the scientific community and their monopoloy on science.

This sentence makes no sense to me.  Who are we supposed to turn over our scientific studies to?  Those trained in food services?  Telemarketers?  Who do you suggest?

The people at my local hardware store are very knowledgable and quite helpful.  Let's give them a turn.

Susan


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: I guess

zarathustra wrote:

I guess that's the latest strategy: Throw something out there; if it gets soundly refuted, say it was just a joke.

 

That's my mom's favorite argument. Doesn't work for her either.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: I guess

zarathustra wrote:

I guess that's the latest strategy: Throw something out there; if it gets soundly refuted, say it was just a joke.

The other option is to say "aha!  what controversy" and then claim a massive anti-religious coverup. 


Sadistic Stalker
Sadistic Stalker's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wow...

When I first read this, i couldn't stop laughing. People CHOOSE to be gay. Just as i CHOOSE to go to say, McDonalds for lunch. It has nothing to do with evolution in any way as far as i see it. I belive that everyone finds someone that they get along with well. In some cases, that leads to homosexuality, but for fucks sake. Don't drag Evolution into your bullshit. Think about what your saying before you pollute our forum. Thank you.

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Sadistic Stalker

Sadistic Stalker wrote:
When I first read this, i couldn't stop laughing. People CHOOSE to be gay. Just as i CHOOSE to go to say, McDonalds for lunch. It has nothing to do with evolution in any way as far as i see it. I belive that everyone finds someone that they get along with well. In some cases, that leads to homosexuality, but for fucks sake. Don't drag Evolution into your bullshit. Think about what your saying before you pollute our forum. Thank you.

Sorry, brother, but that's bullshit. If it was a choice, and one as glib as you say it is, there wouldn't be organizations dedicated to "curing" homosexuality. Many gays agonize for much of their lives in conflict with their natural feelings, and risk being ostracized when they come out. I think there are even neurological studies showing differences in the brain; certainly different patterns of arousal, etc. No offense, but please disabuse yourself of the notion that it's a choice.


HumanisticJones
HumanisticJones's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote: As ridiculous as the

Quote:
As ridiculous as the post was, I thought it was obvious, maybe only to me. I've never been that good at comedy. And I realize that "darwinist" isn't scientific term, but it is a term used by the ID camp to describe evolutionists.

From another forum that I visited for a while, I reference Poe's Law.  Any attempt at parody in regards to creationism, ID, or Creation Science is indistinguishable from a possible serious claim by a creationism\ID\CS supporter.

Correlaries:

1) Evolution supporters and scientist will feel the need to refute said parody out of a need to promote understanding of science.

2) Some creationist will actually rally behind said parody as the greatest new argument for their cause.

 

I've seen it before, and it happens again. 

The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.


Steven
Bronze Member
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Sadistic Stalker

Sadistic Stalker wrote:
When I first read this, i couldn't stop laughing. People CHOOSE to be gay. Just as i CHOOSE to go to say, McDonalds for lunch. It has nothing to do with evolution in any way as far as i see it. I belive that everyone finds someone that they get along with well. In some cases, that leads to homosexuality, but for fucks sake. Don't drag Evolution into your bullshit. Think about what your saying before you pollute our forum. Thank you.

 

You are very misinformed.  I expect theists to come on here spouting nonsense they have no research or facts to back up, but I am very surprised to see this coming from a supporter of this website.

 

Are you making a conscious decison to be attracted to men?  Why do you not "choose" to have sexual relations with women?

 

Think about what you say before you polute our forum.


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: It was

deludedgod wrote:

It was not for lack of trying on your part, merely that I think it would be very difficult to let your interlocutors know that it was satire without explicitly stating it. I certainly could not do it.

Maybe the first person to respond to a theist's post should always have the responsibility of asking "Are you joking?"


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Sadistic Stalker

Sadistic Stalker wrote:
When I first read this, i couldn't stop laughing. People CHOOSE to be gay. Just as i CHOOSE to go to say, McDonalds for lunch. It has nothing to do with evolution in any way as far as i see it. I belive that everyone finds someone that they get along with well. In some cases, that leads to homosexuality, but for fucks sake. Don't drag Evolution into your bullshit. Think about what your saying before you pollute our forum. Thank you.

I expect to read outrageous and even insulting things from theists, but to read something like this written by someone without a theist tag who sports a rational responders badge in his avatar is somehow worse. I'll thank you not to pollute the forums either, as the sort of stupid shit you've written above is on par with what you consider polluting the forum.

Your decision to go to McDonalds for lunch is actually a choice; you could have gone somewhere else, or not eaten lunch at all. Homosexuality is not a choice. A person doesn't consider whether he/she would not rather like to have heterosexual sex or relationships or homosexual sex and relationships. There is no choice with which a person is faced upon... upon what exactly? Birth? Sexual maturity? The first time he/she sees a boy and a girl? With whom he/she gets along best with?... the decision of which results in the individual either being homosexual or heterosexual. There is, though deludedgod (and others?) might disagree, no definitive answer as to why there are homosexuals, but it is most certainly something over which no person has control and over which no person should desire to have control, for there is nothing 'wrong' with a homosexual person.

What you've written is analogous to the sort of stuff Atheists on this forum refute and correct constantly: lies, misconceptions, misrepresentations and ignorance. You really should be ashamed of yourself because for you to sport that badge in your avatar in representation of the Rational Responders while you write what you have about another marginalized minority is shameful.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


AngelEngine
AngelEngine's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-10-01
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: I expect

Thomathy wrote:

I expect to read outrageous and even insulting things from theists, but to read something like this written by someone without a theist tag who sports a rational responders badge in his avatar is somehow worse. I'll thank you not to pollute the forums either, as the sort of stupid shit you've written above is on par with what you consider polluting the forum.

Nor from you. Ill post why below.

Quote:
Your decision to go to McDonalds for lunch is actually a choice; you could have gone somewhere else, or not eaten lunch at all. Homosexuality is not a choice. A person doesn't consider whether he/she would not rather like to have heterosexual sex or relationships or homosexual sex and relationships.

You are suggesting that Homosexuality is a birth defect, or worse, a disease. When you say Homosexuality is not a choice, you are saying that people are "born" with it, and therefore, MUST adhere to the path they are born with, much like a debilitating disease, in which a person must live with it, without the choice of NOT having the debilitating disease.

 This is by far, worse. Why? Because youve just branded Homosexuals with the exact brand that they ABSOLUTELY hate to be branded with. Youve made the assumption that a choice does not exist, that they have no choice. They were born with it.

 Of course, the many homosexuals who have turned Straight, is a contradiction to your claims.

 

Quote:
There is no choice with which a person is faced upon... upon what exactly? Birth? Sexual maturity? The first time he/she sees a boy and a girl? With whom he/she gets along best with?... the decision of which results in the individual either being homosexual or heterosexual.

 Then what about Bisexuals? Were they born both homo and heterosexualy? Or perhaps they were born with it? Is this a pre-existing Condition? Is there a defect in their DNA structure? A disease? Virus? 

 

Quote:
There is, though deludedgod (and others?) might disagree, no definitive answer as to why there are homosexuals, but it is most certainly something over which no person has control and over which no person should desire to have control, for there is nothing 'wrong' with a homosexual person.

I completely agree. There is nothing wrong with a homosexual person. However, saying that the "choice" of being a homosexual or not is akin to sexual intolerance, is completely over the bounds.

Quote:
What you've written is analogous to the sort of stuff Atheists on this forum refute and correct constantly: lies, misconceptions, misrepresentations and ignorance. You really should be ashamed of yourself because for you to sport that badge in your avatar in representation of the Rational Responders while you write what you have about another marginalized minority is shameful.

And what youve written is analogous to the sort of stuff Theists on this forum use constantly: Ad hominem attacks and misconceptions. Homosexuality may be a choice, it may not. We dont have the conclusive evidence to say either way. If you knew that modern science has not found out the reason for Homosexuality, then you would also know that the debate is open. Although i am not saying that Homosexuality is definately an issue of choice, I am saying that it is completely possible that choice plays an important role in whether someone becomes a homosexual. 

I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.


DrTerwilliker
DrTerwilliker's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2007-08-06
User is offlineOffline
AngelEngine,

AngelEngine,

Homosexuality being natural or genetic does not make it a birth defect, any more than left-handedness being genetic makes it a birth defect. I think that's really condescending, to label that one possibly genetic trait as somehow negative. If I were homosexual, I'd want people to understand that I can't change my sexual preference and that, if a god exists, he meant me to be that way. It's not immoral, or deviant, or sick. It's just an inherent preference I'd have that I couldn't change, no more than a straight person could force himself to be attracted to members of the same sex.

I don't know how many gays have genuinely become straight, but I think it probably can happen occasionally. I think sexual preference is very much like taste in food. I hate onions. I may hate onions because of something that occurred in my childhood, or because of genetics, or any number of reasons, but the fact is, though I may be able to force myself to eat onions, I'm probably never going to enjoy the taste. I could never just choose to like onions and suddenly find them delicious. Now, people have hated a certain food in the past and later acquired a taste for it, far more often than people have switched sexual preference, but it's not something one can control. I'm sure that not all homosexuality is genetic, but I don't think that makes the non-genetic homosexuals any more capable of choosing whom they're attracted to.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
AngelEngine

AngelEngine wrote:
Thomathy wrote:

I expect to read outrageous and even insulting things from theists, but to read something like this written by someone without a theist tag who sports a rational responders badge in his avatar is somehow worse. I'll thank you not to pollute the forums either, as the sort of stupid shit you've written above is on par with what you consider polluting the forum.

Nor from you. Ill post why below.

Quote:
Your decision to go to McDonalds for lunch is actually a choice; you could have gone somewhere else, or not eaten lunch at all. Homosexuality is not a choice. A person doesn't consider whether he/she would not rather like to have heterosexual sex or relationships or homosexual sex and relationships.

You are suggesting that Homosexuality is a birth defect, or worse, a disease. When you say Homosexuality is not a choice, you are saying that people are "born" with it, and therefore, MUST adhere to the path they are born with, much like a debilitating disease, in which a person must live with it, without the choice of NOT having the debilitating disease.

 This is by far, worse. Why? Because youve just branded Homosexuals with the exact brand that they ABSOLUTELY hate to be branded with. Youve made the assumption that a choice does not exist, that they have no choice. They were born with it.

 Of course, the many homosexuals who have turned Straight, is a contradiction to your claims.

I see nothing in Thomathy's reply that makes a qualitative statement about the nature of the genetic feature. By your reasoning, anything that places one in the minority of genetic quirks could be called a birth defect: left-handedness, type O blood, perfect pitch, etc. In saying that a genetic cause implies a defect necessarily, you're making a qualitative statement yourself, though I don't think you intend to. And by your reasoning, I don't see how it's less offensive to call it a choice, once you've already made the determination that it would, if genetic, be something you'd view as negative.

To say that "homosexuals have turned heterosexual" glosses over a couple important points: the degree to which they were gay in the first place, and the degree to which they are sincere in a reversal of their previous lifestyle. There are people all over the map of sexual orientation, and even gender identity, so a black and white representation is ill-suited. Because of the immense stigma on homosexuality (and bisexuality) and gender dysphoria, there is far more pressure to "turn straight" than to "choose to be gay" (with all the issues it implies in many cultures), so it can't be considered by itself.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
wow, Disorder in the

wow, Disorder in the house....he he he he