Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Sushi Re:Myk
Hey, thanks for the update. Glad to hear he is doing well. Give the ol' bastard a big wet sloppy kiss for me. lol
Wow, Thanks fpr that Sushi, hes remaining silent with me...and I do miss his "Geronimo" style of debate. Give him a very homo erotic toungey from me when you see him..that should cause his blood pressure to rise, coupled with the strictly hetero clankers clasp from TM it should bring him back!
John Breezy "My objections to macroevolution, which included three known mechanism which limit and prevent mutations stood firm"
PMLMAO etc...stood fucking firm, what on earth is that supposed to mean? You're dancing around your laptop in your pants patting yourself on the back because you think you've won a discussion in an atheist forum on evolution?
...and you had the temerity to claim I don't understand how science works. Fair play John you don't disappoint mate...that's hilarious.
I'm looking at the BBC world news and nary a mention of your b.s. claims John? Sky news, CNN, they've all missed the story, whatever can this mean??
I think I've injured myself laughing, "held fucking firm" indeed.
If I thought I won anything I would have said I won. But what I did do was not lose, my objections and comments are still standing.
Another straw man well done, as I never said you thought you'd won, I asked if that was what you were implying, hence the question mark at the end of my sentence.
---------------------------------------------
All you're doing is posturing in an atheist chatroom that you are right, and every scientists from from Darwin to Dawkins is wrong, but by all means congratulate yourself that you have "not lost" something apparently.
As I said this is fucking hilarious.
"congratulate yourself"
*whispering gesture*....told yah.. he's self proclaim straw man. ssshhhh....don't tell anyone shelly..ayytt??
*leaving tip-toeing*.....best of luck shelly with johnny boy...just don't breake him.
I've never seen someone call a response to their question a strawman, for no other reason than because they're asking and not saying. Goes to show answering Sheldon's questions is an exercise in futility.
How would you know, you haven't the integrity to answer questions. You misrepresented my question as if it was a claim, in order to respond to a straw man argument I had not made. So I shall let others decide if that makes my original question futile or not, though we all duly note no answer is forthcoming from you yet again.
At this point I suppose deflection is all you have left. Still nothing on any news network to suggest your denials of evolution have "stood up" to anything beyond your own grandiloquent appraisals.
Never mind as long as you know you're a genius, that's the main thing.
"You misrepresented my question as if it was a claim"
You asked if I thought I won the discussion, I said that if I thought so I would have said so, and for that you now feel I misrepresented your question as a claim lol.
So when you tried to validate your own claims by boasting you thought they had "stood firm" you meant they had achieved absolutely nothing. I could have told you that on the first page, only a delusional crackpot could believe they can offer valid objections to a scientific fact like evolution in an internet chatroom.
By stood firm, I meant that the closest anyone has come to discrediting my points, has been to argue against straw versions of them.
No one needs to discredit them, they're denials of known scientific facts, claiming to know better than the entire scientific world from Darwin to Dawkins, posted on an atheist forum. It's sad you think this represents anything at all.
So, for example. Cognostic stated the there is no micro or macro evolution, that it is a false dichotomy. I responded by stating that they are not a false dichotomy; and that understanding the bridge between microevolution and macroevolution is essential to the whole theory.
Nobody in the subsequent eleven pages demonstrated that I was wrong. But they tried; they tried very hard, by erecting the prettiest of strawman's and burning them down. But my claims remained safe and unscathed, why? Because microevolution and macroevolution are not false dichotomies, and because understanding the bridge between them, that mystery of mysteries as it has been called, is essential to the whole theory.
Yeah nothing on any news channel anywhere, so I'm going to stick with the entire scientific world, not some Billy no name creationist who thinks he knows better.
How's that list of scientific facts you deny that don't in ANY WAY refute any part of your religious beliefs?
Can we assume there are none then?
Thought so, quelle surprise. For someone who is so strident about his superior grasp of science your lack of objectivity is quite telling.
Tell me John, do you think the creation institute is a scientific organisation, or a religious organisation that is making unscientific claims based on religious beliefs?
Do try and give a candid answer for once.
"Nobody in the subsequent eleven pages demonstrated that I was wrong. "
I disagree, but that's irrelevant as your claims have no meaning until you submit them for proper scientific scrutiny. You can posture in an atheist chat room all You want, but species evolution through natural selection remains a scientific fact. You even acknowledged the text you cited as the foremost in biology accepts it as such.
Perhaps folks could have demonstrated he was wrong if he had answered their questions....
The only questions I ignored on purpose where those asking for alternative theories. Surely you can see how nothing would have been proven wrong that way.
John "The only questions I ignored on purpose where those asking for alternative theories. "
What a shocking lie, even by your standards.
Which other questions did I ignore? Keep in mind I explained to you that yours were no more possible to answer than it is to divide 2 by 0.
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ
"The only questions I ignored on purpose where those asking for alternative theories."
Ahem! Well you ignored this one for a start.
Tell me John, do you think the creation institute is a scientific organisation, or a religious organisation that is making unscientific claims based on religious beliefs?
Do try and give a candid answer for once.
Never heard of it.
Of course you haven't, well luckily I have a link handy for you.
http://www.icr.org/who-we-are
"After more than four decades of ministry, the Institute for Creation Research remains a leader in scientific research within the context of biblical creation. Founded by Dr. Henry Morris in 1970, ICR exists to conduct scientific research within the realms of origins and Earth history, and then to educate the public both formally and informally through graduate and professional training programs, through conferences and seminars around the country, and through books, magazines, and media presentations."
He's an engineer with zero qualifications in biology by the way, hilarious isn't the word.
How about that list of scientific facts you deny that don't refute any part of your religious beliefs, are you able to cite even one?
How many experts on evolution have you submitted your claims to, have any of the validated your claims?
Do you believe a diety created all life? Do you believe a deity created all life IN ITS CURRENT FORM?
How old do you believe the earth is?
What am I supposed to do with this link?
Educate yourself and learn what the creation institute is, then point and laugh at their dishonest stupidity.
So you're just going to ignore the questions then, after just lying to Cyber you didn't ignore questions?
I'm not prepared to concede him that much. Since the entire scientific world maintains species evolution through natural selection is a scientific fact he is ipso facto wrong in his denials until they are validated and accepted by the entire scientific world. Using the same methods of validation the scientific theory he's denying has satisfied for almost 160 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny.
He can be as sententuous as he likes about my lack of scientific credentials, as it's not me he's claiming to know better than.
My feelings are not easily hurt, nor am I easily offended, and John is not the first person I've encountered who claims they know what all other scientists from Darwin to Dawkins don't.
I always find it amusing, as they (creationists) never fail in the end to resort to ad hominem and tell me how stupid, ignorant or intellectually lazy I am, as if that would in anyway validate their claims.
Breezy,
When you talk about a "bridge" between microevolution and macroevolution the only thing that stands is your ignorance on the matter. That bridge is a problem only for creationists or people who do not understand evolution. There is no bridge, there is no need for a bridge. I told you about horizontal gen transfer, chromosomal mutations, etc. All additional observed mechanisms that are part of evolution and allow both small and rather large changes to happen relatively fast, and you ignored them.
You are a case of delusional self- aggrandizement as I have never seen before.
I substantiated my bridge reference; and you brought no counter to it. How can I not feel aggrandized, when you keep using creationism and ignorance as your best argument against my position lol?
Breezy
There was no substantiation of anyhting. I clearly explained the continuum between "micro" and "macro" and gave you examples but it probably flew over your head given your tunnel vision. You chose to ignore te explanations.
Which explanations? Like your codon degeneracy explanation which pretends that its a boost for evolution, even though it makes the codon tolerant to mutations lol?
Breezy,
Instead of grandiloquently saying " my objections to evolution" as if you were an evolutionary scientist, it would look much better for you to say " What I do not understand about evolution" , because that is the reality.
I explained how degeneracy means redundancy. If a codon mutates and starts producing a different amino acid or non at all, there are other codons that can take over the production, so the animal, though a mutant, does not dies. We all have mutations and we all function rather well, in part due to this fact of codon degeneracy. If the mutated codon causes the production of a new protein, or the start of a new function, then the organism has a new function without losing the old one. The old codon mutated but its function is not lost to the organism. I do not now how can anybody not understand this.
You can lol all you want but instead you should be reading serious sources on evolution because, as of now, the joke is on you.
Pages