Abortion Is Against Science And Common Sense, Its Murder

Quag · Jul 14, 2019

Re: Thumb off the scales, please

marke said:
I have inconvenient news for you. There is 0 evidence that some unknown miraculous freak accident in a foreign atmosphere sparked original life on earth.

Last time I checked science hasn't claimed to know how life originated, there has been speculation but unlike fundi militant non thinking lemming Christians science doesn't claim to know

Still diverting from answering my questions, so ill try again

Why isn't FSM taught?
Why isn't the Sumerian version of An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga creating the Sumerians and comfortable conditions for the animals to live and procreate taught?
Why isn't the idea they the universe was created when the great walnut took a dump taught?

Quag · Jul 14, 2019

Re: Modern society is not going to go backwards in time

marke said:
I left out your favor origin of life theory? Why not list it and show why it should be called science while creationist theories should not be included in scientific speculations?

You seem confused on what science and religion
There is no scientific theory on the origins of life.
There is also no evidence for creationism and most Christians know its 100% pure BS by non thinking militant fundies

Quag · Jul 14, 2019

marke said:
Putting up a manger scene in public is not forcing Christianity on anyone. Demanding it be taken down is forcing atheism on religious people who have a Constitutional right to the free exercise of their religion.

Not getting to display your religious beliefs on public property is not forcing atheism on anything
You are unable to do logic which is probably why your are a militant fundie lemming.

marke · Jul 14, 2019

year2late said:
You are free to have your observances. Who is stopping you? If you feel this way....perhaps you need to stop blaming sodomites and atheists and your boogeyman dejour and start look internally.

This is not about me putting up manger scenes or holding sodomites at gunpoint in an effort to take away their rights to commit filthy sodomy. This is about defending the religious rights of all Americans to worship and serve God as their conscience dictates, without interference from atheistic whiners who don't want others to express their religious beliefs in public.

marke · Jul 14, 2019

Quag said:
There may be a few militant atheists out there, they are far outnumbered b the militant fundies like you however.
Most atheists like most Christians are not militants.
That doesn't change the fact that placing one religious groups symbols up on public property is promoting that religion.

Christian sects are not "placing sect symbols" on public property. Atheists are demanding that Christian symbols and references be removed from public buildings where they have caused no problem for decades. Disgruntled atheists need to recognize the fact that just because they hate God does not mean they get to crush every American's right to serve God as his conscience dictates.

Quag · Jul 14, 2019

marke said:
Christian sects are not "placing sect symbols" on public property. Atheists are demanding that Christian symbols and references be removed from public buildings where they have caused no problem for decades. Disgruntled atheists need to recognize the fact that just because they hate God does not mean they get to crush every American's right to serve God as his conscience dictates.

marke · Jul 14, 2019

minnie616 said:
We still have a national Christmas tree each year.

National Christmas Tree Lighting |

And Christmas trees are decorated in the Whte house each year.

White House Christmas tree - Wikipedia

I'm fine with that. What I'm not OK with is bullying atheistic tyrants demanding Christians withdraw their exercise of religious beliefs from public.

marke · Jul 14, 2019

Re: Thumb off the scales, please

Quag said:
Last time I checked science hasn't claimed to know how life originated, there has been speculation but unlike fundi militant non thinking lemming Christians science doesn't claim to know

Since science does not know how life began on earth how can Darwinists claim ungodly theories backed by speculations are science while creationism backed by logic and data is not science?

Still diverting from answering my questions, so ill try again

Why isn't FSM taught?

Because there is no widespread consensus that such a theory has any basis for consideration whatsoever.

Why isn't the Sumerian version of An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga creating the Sumerians and comfortable conditions for the animals to live and procreate taught?
Why isn't the idea they the universe was created when the great walnut took a dump taught?

Because foolishness is not worthy of consideration, whereas creationism, backed by logic and date and believed by tens of millions of reasonable people worldwide, is worthy of consideration.

Somerville · Jul 14, 2019

marke said:
I'm fine with that. What I'm not OK with is bullying atheistic tyrants demanding Christians withdraw their exercise of religious beliefs from public.

Why are you refusing to accept that removing a religious (Christian) display from public property is not the same as removing a display from public view? One location belongs to all citizens, many of whom may have opposing views to your religious (Christian) display, the other location is any site belonging to a non-governmental entity, whether corporate or individual.

marke · Jul 14, 2019

Re: Modern society is not going to go backwards in time

Quag said:
You seem confused on what science and religion
There is no scientific theory on the origins of life.
There is also no evidence for creationism and most Christians know its 100% pure BS by non thinking militant fundies

I was asking for a scientific point of view, not some irrational random rant against religion.

marke · Jul 14, 2019

Quag said:
Not getting to display your religious beliefs on public property is not forcing atheism on anything
You are unable to do logic which is probably why your are a militant fundie lemming.

I don't do public displays but I will defend to the death the right of Americans to continue freely exercising their right to worship God in public like they have been doing for centuries.

marke · Jul 14, 2019

Somerville said:
Why are you refusing to accept that removing a religious (Christian) display from public property is not the same as removing a display from public view? One location belongs to all citizens, many of whom may have opposing views to your religious (Christian) display, the other location is any site belonging to a non-governmental entity, whether corporate or individual.

You say public property belongs to all citizens and I agree. If the citizens of a community want to put up a manger scene on their public property or hang pictures of Jesus in their buildings or carve the ten commandments in their facades, then who do the atheist bullies from out of town think they are to try to stop them?

Quag · Jul 14, 2019

Re: Thumb off the scales, please

marke said:
Since science does not know how life began on earth how can Darwinists claim ungodly theories backed by speculations are science while creationism backed by logic and data is not science?

Creationism isn't backed by logic or data, there is 0 evidence for it

Because there is no widespread consensus that such a theory has any basis for consideration whatsoever.

There is no widespread consensus on creationism moist Christians reject it. However consensus on something that's is nothing more than a belief without any evidence doesn't make it any more true than no one believing it.

Because foolishness is not worthy of consideration, whereas creationism, backed by logic and date and believed by tens of millions of reasonable people worldwide, is worthy of consideration.

Exactly creationism is foolishness as there is 0 evidence or logical reason to believe it

Quag · Jul 14, 2019

Re: Modern society is not going to go backwards in time

marke said:
I was asking for a scientific point of view, not some irrational random rant against religion.

Science accepts that it doesn't know all the answers. The scientific method is a means to try and learn actual and true answers to questions
Non thinking militant fundie lemmings falsely believe they know all the answers and refuse to look at evidence or even contemplate the notion that their beliefs might not be 100% true

Somerville · Jul 14, 2019

People should try, I know it's difficult for some but still they should try, to continue learning as they age.

Popular use and understanding of the word "theory" is not the same as the meaning when applied to a scientific discussion.

Wikipedia:

Scientific Theory

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

NOTES

National Academy of Sciences (US) (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (2nd ed.). National Academies Press. p. 2. doi:10.17226/6024. ISBN 978-0-309-06406-4. PMID 25101403.

The Structure of Scientific Theories. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2016.

Schafersman, Steven D. "An Introduction to Science".

"Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?". National Academy of Sciences. 2008.

The concept known as "Creationism" doesn't even comply with the definition of "hypothesis" as used in scientific research since there is zero data supporting the concept.

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research,[1] in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.[2]

Notes

Hilborn, Ray; Mangel, Marc (1997). The ecological detective: confronting models with data. Princeton University Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-691-03497-3. Retrieved 22 August 2011.

"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. ...", —Richard Feynman (1965) The Character of Physical Law p.156

marke · Jul 14, 2019

Re: Thumb off the scales, please

Quag said:
Creationism isn't backed by logic or data, there is 0 evidence for it

Don't be ridiculous. Life could not possibly have begun without massive help from some intelligent cause. Scientific consensus supports that reasonable conclusion.

There is no widespread consensus on creationism moist Christians reject it. However consensus on something that's is nothing more than a belief without any evidence doesn't make it any more true than no one believing it.

You are right. Widespread acceptance of error does not somehow miraculously transform that error into a scientific fact.

Exactly creationism is foolishness as there is 0 evidence or logical reason to believe it

Except that reasonable people know that life could not have invented itself. That theory is dumber than dirt.

Somerville · Jul 14, 2019

marke said:
You say public property belongs to all citizens and I agree. If the citizens of a community want to put up a manger scene on their public property or hang pictures of Jesus in their buildings or carve the ten commandments in their facades, then who do the atheist bullies from out of town think they are to try to stop them?

Citizens with equal rights to those claimed by the religious fanatics.

Now if your town will allow the Temple of Satan, Odinists, Native American pagans, Hindus, Muslims, witches and others to place displays along with those supported by people who believe as you believe, THEN everything is hunky-dory.

Public property must be available for use by all citizens with the exception of those areas required for security and safety of citizens.

marke · Jul 14, 2019

Re: Modern society is not going to go backwards in time

Quag said:
Science accepts that it doesn't know all the answers. The scientific method is a means to try and learn actual and true answers to questions
Non thinking militant fundie lemmings falsely believe they know all the answers and refuse to look at evidence or even contemplate the notion that their beliefs might not be 100% true

Facts: Life could not possibly have begun as one strand of DNA. Life could not possibly have begun in an oxygenated environment like we have on earth today. Life could not have been sustained unless multiple life forms originated at the same or nearly the same time. The origin of life was not a freak accident of nature.

Atheistic Darwinian conclusion derived from the facts: God did not create original life on earth.

marke · Jul 14, 2019

Somerville said:
People should try, I know it's difficult for some but still they should try, to continue learning as they age.

Popular use and understanding of the word "theory" is not the same as the meaning when applied to a scientific discussion.
Wikipedia:
The concept known as "Creationism" doesn't even comply with the definition of "hypothesis" as used in scientific research since there is zero data supporting the concept.

Crafting terms and definitions as a means to banish creationist theories from science is not scientific, it is an atheistically biased attempt to irrationally ban some scientific possibilities from being considered in scientific research.

Somerville · Jul 14, 2019

Re: Thumb off the scales, please

THE basic claim of the creationists: Life could not possibly have begun without massive help from some intelligent cause. A claim based solely on an interpretation of a single ancient text written by a few people influenced by the older cultures that surrounded them - back in the day.

It is not "reasonable people (who) know that life could not have invented itself, instead it is people who though intelligent and educated simply refuse to acknowledge or accept that tales created by ancient peoples seldom provide good history, never mind scientific knowledge.

marke · Jul 14, 2019

Somerville said:
Citizens with equal rights to those claimed by the religious fanatics.

Now if your town will allow the Temple of Satan, Odinists, Native American pagans, Hindus, Muslims, witches and others to place displays along with those supported by people who believe as you believe, THEN everything is hunky-dory.

Public property must be available for use by all citizens with the exception of those areas required for security and safety of citizens.

Nevertheless if 1% of the townspeople don't want the 99% of the rest of the people to put up Christmas decorations then the 1% will just have to grow up and join the rest of a tolerant society, and drop their minority objections. That is how freedom works in a democratic society.

Somerville · Jul 14, 2019

marke said:
Crafting terms and definitions as a means to banish creationist theories from science is not scientific, it is an atheistically biased attempt to irrationally ban some scientific possibilities from being considered in scientific research.

Gee, this is kinda fun - drawing out these statements showing the world that you know little about the subject under discussion. I provided simple definitions for the words "theory" and "hypothesis", yet you refuse to accept those simple definitions. It caused me to remember the words attributed to G. Bernard Shaw, "The English and the Americans are two peoples divided by a common language."
Here we have multiple examples of two people using one language to 'debate', in which one person refuses to accept any understanding of various words that fail to comply with his personal beliefs.

marke · Jul 14, 2019

Re: Thumb off the scales, please

Somerville said:
THE basic claim of the creationists: Life could not possibly have begun without massive help from some intelligent cause. A claim based solely on an interpretation of a single ancient text written by a few people influenced by the older cultures that surrounded them - back in the day.
It is not "reasonable people (who) know that life could not have invented itself, instead it is people who though intelligent and educated simply refuse to acknowledge or accept that tales created by ancient peoples seldom provide good history, never mind scientific knowledge.

You show a definite bias against the possibility that God was involved in the creation of life on earth, but you seem ignorant of the problems with your position. Not knowing how life got its start on earth is not justification for claiming God was not involved. Believing God was involved is not contradicted by the fact that the origin of life involved millions specific arrangements of chemicals that had to have been arranged somehow in the proper unique combinations and then rapidly joined by trillions more such arrangements.

How is the possibility of God's involvement refuted by the facts?

Quag · Jul 14, 2019

Re: Thumb off the scales, please

marke said:
Don't be ridiculous. Life could not possibly have begun without massive help from some intelligent cause. Scientific consensus supports that reasonable conclusion.

Incredulity is not evidence and there I s no scientific consensus on your fantasy

You are right. Widespread acceptance of error does not somehow miraculously transform that error into a scientific fact.

Good and there isn't even any widespread consensus on creationism, it is believed by a minority of Christians and Christianity is not what the majority of humanity believe in

Except that reasonable people know that life could not have invented itself. That theory is dumber than dirt.

No one knows that. There are some who believe that. Again incredulity is not evidence of anything
There remains 0 evidence for creationism nonsense and all the evidence

Quag · Jul 14, 2019

Re: Modern society is not going to go backwards in time

marke said:
Facts: Life could not possibly have begun as one strand of DNA. Life could not possibly have begun in an oxygenated environment like we have on earth today. Life could not have been sustained unless multiple life forms originated at the same or nearly the same time. The origin of life was not a freak accident of nature.

Atheistic Darwinian conclusion derived from the facts: God did not create original life on earth.

Fact your facts are nothing more than your belief
Fact no one knows how life began
Fact militant fundie lemmings are unable to provide any evidence to support their fantasies