a href="http://www.lancasterarchery.com/archery-classic-register/#header">
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 320

Thread: This Guy Proves Itís Crazy to Be Atheist With One Simple and Hilarious Question - Tod

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northern IA
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by PAdorn View Post
    Well if atheists weren't offended they wouldn't care about a cross being here or their or a football team praying together. By filing lawsuit after lawsuit shows that yes they are offended by something they don't even believe in
    I think you mistake being offended, for wanted the law to apply to everyone equally. If laws/statues/rules state that a teacher or coach cannot lead a prayer, and they are leading a prayer, am I offended? No, but that doesn't mean that they should just get to continue to disregard the laws/statues/rules. You don't think they should have to stop what they are doing because they are leading a Christian prayer, if the coach was a devout Muslim, would you still be fine with it? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, but its become perfectly clear that Christians can give it, but not take it. Case in point: The Satanic Monument that Christians freaked out about in Oklahoma, even though they got their 10 Commandments statue. Or what about the school that recited the pledge of allegiance in Arabic? Instead of "God" the children said "Allah" and holy cow its the end of the world...



    If nobody was trying to legislate their religion into our government, you wouldn't hear very much from atheists about religion.
    Obsession Evolution 70# Stormy Hardwoods
    K-Tech Tech 6 Stabilizer
    Limbdriver Pro
    HHA OL 5510
    Gold Tip XT Hunters, 452 Grains, Rage Hypodermic


  2. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Arden Hills, MN
    Posts
    9,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Stick12 View Post
    I think you mistake being offended, for wanted the law to apply to everyone equally. If laws/statues/rules state that a teacher or coach cannot lead a prayer, and they are leading a prayer, am I offended? No, but that doesn't mean that they should just get to continue to disregard the laws/statues/rules. You don't think they should have to stop what they are doing because they are leading a Christian prayer, if the coach was a devout Muslim, would you still be fine with it? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, but its become perfectly clear that Christians can give it, but not take it. Case in point: The Satanic Monument that Christians freaked out about in Oklahoma, even though they got their 10 Commandments statue. Or what about the school that recited the pledge of allegiance in Arabic? Instead of "God" the children said "Allah" and holy cow its the end of the world...

    If nobody was trying to legislate their religion into our government, you wouldn't hear very much from atheists about religion.
    Exactly. Christians don't actually want freedom of religion. They want religious primacy for Christians.
    The beginning of wisdom is admitting "I don't know"

  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by PAdorn View Post
    Well if atheists weren't offended they wouldn't care about a cross being here or their or a football team praying together. By filing lawsuit after lawsuit shows that yes they are offended by something they don't even believe in
    Sounds kind of stupid dont it?
    proud member of the treelimb assassians
    excuses are words to justify failure
    sword sights and treelimb quivers pro staff

  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by PAdorn View Post
    Well if atheists weren't offended they wouldn't care about a cross being here or their or a football team praying together. By filing lawsuit after lawsuit shows that yes they are offended by something they don't even believe in
    Thats how the
    cross being here or their or a football team praying together
    happened up to now because people kept their mouths shut for fear of the vengeful christians ruining their lives.

    Times are changing. Own it or move out of the country.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    14,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Soocom1 View Post
    This is hallarious..
    As the guy said..
    How can athiests be offended by something they don't believe in?


    Oh that's right..
    Because they fear they might get Christian cooties or something.
    No, because I want no part of your particular delusion but you simply won't stop trying to explain to me just how much I really need it. If you and yours would stfu about this stuff you'd never hear another peep out of me. As long as deranged religiopaths such as anybody named Robertson or Reed or Schlafley or Falwell are continuing to harangue and assault the innocent airwaves with their mindless idiocy, I'll keep doing this.
    "Brew your own beer, blow up your TV, kill your own beef, build your own cabin and piss off the front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it." -Edward Abbey

  6. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by JimBlake View Post
    Your scientific ignorance is astounding. Things do not have to be observable to align with the the scientific method. We've never actually seen a star formed, or a planet, or even moon, but we see evidence of what we suspect are the various stages of these things being formed. We use science to determine the composition of these astrological bodies to try and determine where they are on the timelines that we theorize through science, having not ever directly observed the process from start to finish since it would span thousands of years.

    Observation is a component of the scientific method. It has to be present at some point either prior to, during or at the conclusion of the experiment.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimBlake View Post
    Science forms a hypothesis (an educated guess) of how something could have happened and then compares that with the physical evidence to see if the hypothesis could still hold true, the process does not require direct observation. In many cases, it takes a very long time to even find the evidence that you believe you will find based on the hypothesis and the other supporting evidence.
    By "physical evidence" you are referring to is something that can be observed. It does not have to be direct.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimBlake View Post
    Take the Higgs Boson for example; it wasn't observable for many years and billions had to be spent in search of evidence.
    Here is an example of an experiment that didn't require direct observation. We were actually seeking to substantiate the Higgs Field. It was theorized that if this field existed then it would produce a particle called the Higgs Boson. If the Higgs field did not exist it would call the standard model of physics into question.

    The thing we were seeking to find has never been observed but we can say it's there because we have observed the Higgs Boson particle. Direct observation is not required. We can use the predictive properties of the hypothesis to substantiate the theory.



    Quote Originally Posted by JimBlake View Post
    There is plenty of evidence that has been found to support evolution. Fossils or preserved reliefs that are where we would expect them in the geological layering that are consistent with earlier ancestors of regional animals support the theory. The tracing of genes and DNA through samples support the theory. Lab studies on mutation support the theory. We can predict where we should find supporting fossils and dig in those locations based on prior evidence. This is very much science.
    The theory of evolution lacks an equivalent component to the Higgs field. There is nothing that we can use to predict an outcome and in fact there is no principle to even base a prediction on. That's why I keep saying that the mechanism by which macroevolution operates is not known.

    See the difference? It was hypothesized that if there was a Higgs field it would behave a certain way, in this case it would produce a particle called a Higgs Boson.

    If macroevolution was true we would have no way of knowing because so far no one has theorized how it would behave. That an essential problem for anyone invoking the scientific method.



    Quote Originally Posted by JimBlake View Post
    Here's a test of Bubba-Logic for you. Let's say that we find the crashed Malaysian airliner at the bottom of the Indian ocean. Do you believe that science can piece together how the plane crashed with the evidence at hand, or is that impossible because it was not directly observed?
    This is an example of the observation existing prior to the event. For instance it is known through observation that people that die of smoke inhalation have black lungs. We don't have to observe the victim inhaling the smoke to begin to know what happened.

  7. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by mattawamkeag View Post
    No, because I want no part of your particular delusion but you simply won't stop trying to explain to me just how much I really need it. If you and yours would stfu about this stuff you'd never hear another peep out of me. As long as deranged religiopaths such as anybody named Robertson or Reed or Schlafley or Falwell are continuing to harangue and assault the innocent airwaves with their mindless idiocy, I'll keep doing this.

    None of us will be able to control the airwaves.

  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by DougKMN View Post
    Exactly. Christians don't actually want freedom of religion. They want religious primacy for Christians.
    Aren't atheists angling for primacy?

    If no religious expression is allowed (violating the first amendment) then your wishes have become more important than any religious persons.

  9. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Stick12 View Post
    Who said anything about being offended?
    Stick you got a new bow!

  10. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Stick12 View Post
    If God created life all over the place, wouldn't that be a pretty big thing for the Bible to gloss over? Hundreds of pages talking about this one species, on this one planet, not a single mention of "hey by the way, when you guys get around to it take gander at the cool stuff I made on this planet"?
    We still don't really know that there is life on another planet and if there is how do we know that we'll ever come into contact with them?

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northern IA
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by loujo61 View Post
    Stick you got a new bow!
    Shes a beauty too. Absolutely in love with it
    Obsession Evolution 70# Stormy Hardwoods
    K-Tech Tech 6 Stabilizer
    Limbdriver Pro
    HHA OL 5510
    Gold Tip XT Hunters, 452 Grains, Rage Hypodermic

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northern IA
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenBubba View Post
    We still don't really know that there is life on another planet and if there is how do we know that we'll ever come into contact with them?
    We don't know either of those things. But if we did (find other life out there, whether it be intelligent or just some green goo), considering the Bible makes it fairly plain that humans are supposed to be unique little snowflakes, then I would say that's a pretty serious hit to Christianity.
    Obsession Evolution 70# Stormy Hardwoods
    K-Tech Tech 6 Stabilizer
    Limbdriver Pro
    HHA OL 5510
    Gold Tip XT Hunters, 452 Grains, Rage Hypodermic

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    437
    "Proves"????? Can't really "prove" an ideology.

  14. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Stick12 View Post
    We don't know either of those things. But if we did (find other life out there, whether it be intelligent or just some green goo), considering the Bible makes it fairly plain that humans are supposed to be unique little snowflakes, then I would say that's a pretty serious hit to Christianity.

    What Scripture makes it fairly plain?

  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Stick12 View Post
    Shes a beauty too. Absolutely in love with it
    Those binary cams and limb stops are sweet to shoot... Use it well.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northern IA
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenBubba View Post
    What Scripture makes it fairly plain?
    I'm paraphrasing but - God created the universe and everything in it, including the earth, so that he could create man in his own image and put him on specifically on Earth. Since nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about life outside of earth, that seems pretty concrete that Scripture is saying we are it for life in the universe
    Obsession Evolution 70# Stormy Hardwoods
    K-Tech Tech 6 Stabilizer
    Limbdriver Pro
    HHA OL 5510
    Gold Tip XT Hunters, 452 Grains, Rage Hypodermic

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    16,016
    Quote Originally Posted by mattawamkeag View Post
    No, because I want no part of your particular delusion but you simply won't stop trying to explain to me just how much I really need it. If you and yours would stfu about this stuff you'd never hear another peep out of me. As long as deranged religiopaths such as anybody named Robertson or Reed or Schlafley or Falwell are continuing to harangue and assault the innocent airwaves with their mindless idiocy, I'll keep doing this.
    Last week the tv channel wouldn't change, popped in a new battery into the remote and it flew through the channels, volume too. Knowing you're wise to something like that I reason yous must only have one tv channel upthataway. I wouldn't watch either, thank goodness for NPR.

    I didn't see that you'd gotten back to me about that seal, learned about him on pbs. Notice pbs has a few newage messiahs in their programing. I'd maybe watch if they paired them up with the crew you cited. that could be fun to gawk at.
    Walk Your Talk

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    16,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Stick12 View Post
    I'm paraphrasing but - God created the universe and everything in it, including the earth, so that he could create man in his own image and put him on specifically on Earth. Since nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about life outside of earth, that seems pretty concrete that Scripture is saying we are it for life in the universe
    If I only tell you about our dog does that mean I don't have a cat. Or if I only mention my wife does that mean I don't have an ex?

    Curious:
    You highlighted "in his own image", what significance is that suppose to note and what does that description mean to you?
    Walk Your Talk

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    14,848
    Quote Originally Posted by cobowhntr View Post
    Last week the tv channel wouldn't change, popped in a new battery into the remote and it flew through the channels, volume too. Knowing you're wise to something like that I reason yous must only have one tv channel upthataway. I wouldn't watch either, thank goodness for NPR.

    I didn't see that you'd gotten back to me about that seal, learned about him on pbs. Notice pbs has a few newage messiahs in their programing. I'd maybe watch if they paired them up with the crew you cited. that could be fun to gawk at.
    I don't watch anything anymore. I haven't turned a radio on in weeks. I walk all the way out to the end of the driveway every morning to retrieve the trusty Bangor Daily News, and on the way back to another cup of coffee I wave my hands over the front page and receive all the news I need via osmosis.

    ...what seal? Like, the seventh seal, or the barking mad kind?

    Alright, I lied. I watch the weather.
    "Brew your own beer, blow up your TV, kill your own beef, build your own cabin and piss off the front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it." -Edward Abbey

  20. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Stick12 View Post
    I'm paraphrasing but - God created the universe and everything in it, including the earth, so that he could create man in his own image and put him on specifically on Earth. Since nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about life outside of earth, that seems pretty concrete that Scripture is saying we are it for life in the universe

    I don't know of any Scripture that implies specifically that we are the only inhabitants of the universe or that we are not.

    If you are going to make claims about what the Bible says and means it seems like it would be a good idea to quote it.

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    2,619
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenBubba View Post
    Observation is a component of the scientific method. It has to be present at some point either prior to, during or at the conclusion of the experiment.
    One can observe the historical changes in animals in the fossil record. Real time observation is not required as you and Ken Ham seem to think.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenBubba View Post
    By "physical evidence" you are referring to is something that can be observed. It does not have to be direct.
    Physical evidence itself would indeed have to be observed directly. For example, DNA pulled out of a mammoth tusk is physical evidence that itself can be directly observed that supports an evolutionary change of long-dead species that can't be directly observed (on account of them no longer existing). For a theory to be valid, there would need to be observable physical evidence to support the theory even if the theory itself cannot [yet] be replicated entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenBubba View Post
    Here is an example of an experiment that didn't require direct observation. We were actually seeking to substantiate the Higgs Field. It was theorized that if this field existed then it would produce a particle called the Higgs Boson. If the Higgs field did not exist it would call the standard model of physics into question.
    Thus we spent over 6 billion dollars to directly observe the Higgs Boson to support the theory ...that's what makes it science. We didn't have faith that the theory was correct, we built a giant machine to produce observable evidence. Everything in science requires sound evidence to support the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenBubba View Post
    The theory of evolution lacks an equivalent component to the Higgs field. There is nothing that we can use to predict an outcome and in fact there is no principle to even base a prediction on. That's why I keep saying that the mechanism by which macroevolution operates is not known.
    We actually can more accurately predict what genes can be passed on through modern research, thus we can predict at what rate a specific trait will spread through a population via modeling. The same models can be used to go backwards to look for specific characteristics within the remains of a past population. These models however, need much improvement (maybe we might need a 6 billion dollar on better testing equipment) because the rates in which mutations proliferate are based on large scale ecological variables that cannot be controlled, thus it's not "one thing". I think that's where you keep getting confused, the mechanism of macro-evolution is well known (random mutations that proliferate over time in a population through reproductive advantage), though the rate of change is influenced by many different ecological factors that determine if a change is ultimately advantageous or not. There is no evolutionary biologist that does not believe that macroevolution occurs due to random mutations that proliferate over time in a population through reproductive advantage.

    As much as you like to pretend that this means there is no evidence, there is indeed strong supporting evidence of the theory of evolution with new information coming in all the time. In fact, they just discovered another humanoid in which we share common DNA as our ancestors cross-bred.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenBubba View Post
    If macroevolution was true we would have no way of knowing because so far no one has theorized how it would behave. That an essential problem for anyone invoking the scientific method.
    So, you're saying that it is impossible to test macroevolution and nobody in science has theories of how it would behave? With new information always coming on with regards to genetics, I think it's a field we will see a lot more evidence coming to light.


    Quote Originally Posted by ZenBubba View Post
    This is an example of the observation existing prior to the event. For instance it is known through observation that people that die of smoke inhalation have black lungs. We don't have to observe the victim inhaling the smoke to begin to know what happened.
    I do love how you waffle on "historical evidence" being allowed or not allowed depending on what theory is being tested. Science is blind, evidence is evidence regardless of what childhood fairy-tales might be crushed in the process.

  22. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by JimBlake View Post
    One can observe the historical changes in animals in the fossil record. Real time observation is not required as you and Ken Ham seem to think.
    You attempt to deceive by claiming my comments are the same as Ken Hams. I am explaining to you that real time observation isn't required and why. Can you not read?


    Quote Originally Posted by JimBlake View Post
    Physical evidence itself would indeed have to be observed directly. For example, DNA pulled out of a mammoth tusk is physical evidence that itself can be directly observed that supports an evolutionary change of long-dead species that can't be directly observed (on account of them no longer existing). For a theory to be valid, there would need to be observable physical evidence to support the theory even if the theory itself cannot [yet] be replicated entirely.
    You're getting off course again. You should try to use language more precisely. I think you get excited or something. Perhaps wait and few minutes before you publish what you write and reread checking for coherency.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimBlake View Post
    Thus we spent over 6 billion dollars to directly observe the Higgs Boson to support the theory ...that's what makes it science. We didn't have faith that the theory was correct, we built a giant machine to produce observable evidence. Everything in science requires sound evidence to support the theory.
    You are repeating what I said in a less articulate way.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimBlake View Post
    We actually can more accurately predict what genes can be passed on through modern research, thus we can predict at what rate a specific trait will spread through a population via modeling. The same models can be used to go backwards to look for specific characteristics within the remains of a past population. These models however, need much improvement (maybe we might need a 6 billion dollar on better testing equipment) because the rates in which mutations proliferate are based on large scale ecological variables that cannot be controlled, thus it's not "one thing". I think that's where you keep getting confused, the mechanism of macro-evolution is well known (random mutations that proliferate over time in a population through reproductive advantage), though the rate of change is influenced by many different ecological factors that determine if a change is ultimately advantageous or not. There is no evolutionary biologist that does not believe that macroevolution occurs due to random mutations that proliferate over time in a population through reproductive advantage.
    That's all BS we don't know what new species will be introduced or even how it would happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimBlake View Post
    As much as you like to pretend that this means there is no evidence, there is indeed strong supporting evidence of the theory of evolution with new information coming in all the time. In fact, they just discovered another humanoid in which we share common DNA as our ancestors cross-bred.
    The new evidence raises more questions than it answers.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimBlake View Post
    So, you're saying that it is impossible to test macroevolution and nobody in science has theories of how it would behave? With new information always coming on with regards to genetics, I think it's a field we will see a lot more evidence coming to light.
    Yes, that's correct Jim. Your links provide no evidence to the contrary.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimBlake View Post
    I do love how you waffle on "historical evidence" being allowed or not allowed depending on what theory is being tested. Science is blind, evidence is evidence regardless of what childhood fairy-tales might be crushed in the process.
    I don't waffle, you don't seem to understand what is being said.

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Concord, Ohio
    Posts
    950
    Roughly when did our conscience, or our sense of right and wrong evolve ??

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    south ga
    Posts
    1,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Stick12 View Post
    It's not a matter of opinion though. I don't get why people feel like they get to have an opinion on matters like, for example, the age of the universe, do you also have an "opinion" on the distance between LA and New York? The evidence clearly supports the universe beginning in an expansionary event. We call that event the Big Bang. The evidence also clearly shows that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

    Everything I said is just a simple statement of a fact. I'm not injecting opinion into any of this
    We need a dictionary. Let's define fact and opinion

  25. #100
    Just to break things up a little
    proud member of the treelimb assassians
    excuses are words to justify failure
    sword sights and treelimb quivers pro staff

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •