Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[Daldolma]

i like when atheists argue against respecting the democratic process and then complain about other people forcing things on them

[GnashingOfTeeth]

PIE>

[Lojik]

I think Daldoma hit the nail on the head earlier. Also, what's the difference between a "creator" and the laws of physics/probability/etc? If you can't provide a substantial differentiation then you might as well argue about whether it should be called soda or pop.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Lojik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think Daldoma hit the nail on the head earlier. Also, what's the difference between a "creator" and the laws of physics/probability/etc? If you can't provide a substantial differentiation then you might as well argue about whether it should be called soda or pop.

Coke!! The only correct answer is Coke!!!

[Rellapse40]

what do you expect from a dick sucking fgt

[Glenzig]

You have no idea who that guy is do you. If he was so opposed to 99.9% of the "scientific community", they sure never picked up on that themselves. Seems to me that he could be considered a major player in the scientific community, and especially among evolutionary scientists.

A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology, such as gel electrophoresis, to questions of genetic variation and evolution.

In a pair of 1966 papers co-authored with J.L. Hubby in the journal Genetics,[3][4] Lewontin helped set the stage for the modern field of molecular evolution. In 1979 he and Stephen Jay Gould introduced the term "spandrel" into evolutionary theory. From 1973 to 1998, he held an endowed chair in zoology and biology at Harvard University, and since 2003 has been a research professor there.

He's actually still a professor.

[r00t]

Why is it scientifically impossible to prove the existence of a creator? You guys "proved" evolution with major gaps in the evidence.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why is it scientifically impossible to prove the existence of a creator? You guys "proved" evolution with major gaps in the evidence.

the materialistic requirements. there's a lot of physical evidence that is used to make the line of evolution (using human evolution for a model), and where there are missing fossils the changes can be traced using older fossils in comparison to younger ones. that argument banks on the a priori model for disproof, but when the a priori is applied to a notion of a creative deity it also refutes that notion. aquinas did that (paraphrase: God is the uncaused cause) and it has been the argument perpetuated by the early church and subsequent churches since the 1200's.

[r00t]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the materialistic requirements. there's a lot of physical evidence that is used to make the line of evolution (using human evolution for a model), and where there are missing fossils the changes can be traced using older fossils in comparison to younger ones. that argument banks on the a priori model for disproof, but when the a priori is applied to a notion of a creative deity it also refutes that notion. aquinas did that (paraphrase: God is the uncaused cause) and it has been the argument perpetuated by the early church and subsequent churches since the 1200's.

So what about when the rapture happens and Jesus returns to reign in blood, will it still be scientifically unprovable to you atheists?

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So what about when the rapture happens and Jesus returns to reign in blood, will it still be scientifically unprovable to you atheists?

depends on your interpretation of the Revelation of St. John. 144k, 12k from the 12 tribes, is in there, so are you one of the lucky chosen? at that point it becomes pascal's wager which is also his folly because if you cannot know the mind of god then how does one know that god won't punish you for being superstitious, having a lack in one's faith essentially. if your interpretation of Revelation is looser than that then the question of a potential stance of contradiction comes into play in regards to interpreting the text. it's a muddy situation, and if it is all true and comes to fruition it would be a grandiose eschatological enactment; i have a good idea of what would happen to me though.