Questions for the Atheists

[KlaytoN]

---

Plagiarism.. tsk! tsk! tsk!...

Is that all you can say? Tsk.. Tsk.. Tsk..

"The argument is central or the core of Intelligent Design, and is rejected by the scientific community, which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience." One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science - Wikisource

There you go aron dili ta ma-charge plagiarism kuno..

[nowpress*]

Is that all you can say? Tsk.. Tsk.. Tsk..

"The argument is central or the core of Intelligent Design, and is rejected by the scientific community, which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience." One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science - Wikisource

There you go aron dili ta ma-charge plagiarism kuno..

that's because there is suppression of theistic worldview. mao ng di jud na nila dawaton.

‘Most scientists are only dimly aware of the various “anti-science” systems of belief now widespread [including] … politically dangerous movements such as creationism … . We protect ourselves by never letting these mutually exclusive beliefs surface at the same time. For example, the constellation of religious fundamentalism and creationism is often combined with a high regard for high tech. Many creationists’ tracts are tapped out on extremely expensive personal computers. Creationists are able to accept and reject the physics that makes these machines possible as the occasion demands. There is no God, and Mary is His mother.’

Source: Hull, D.L., Science and the modern world view, The Quarterly Review of Biology, p. 491, December 1994.

[badjaw]

mao lagi na, haha. sila sigeg sulti nga naay evidence kono lagi nya kong hisgutan na ang evidence molihay kay hadlok ma refute. tan-awa ng sample ni yanong_banikanhon. kong maghsigut ta og evidence nya atong e scrutinize makita jud ang tinood og mao ng gilikayan ani nila, hadlok sila ma refute ilang evidence.

sa pagkatinood lang I am in doubt kong kasabot pa gyud ni sila sa ilang evolution, duda ko wa ni sila kasabot. by faith man gud pod ng ilaha.

unsa nga evolution man imong gi.argue? ang origin of life or origin of species? charles darwin didn't create the theory to explain origin of life but origin of species.. through evolution for millions of years, one specie becomes another through mutations due to environmental changes. so if mo.argue mo about the origin of life, i tell you daghan attempts but dili pa jud acceptable sa scientific community. again, naa moy deadline sa inyong mga questions? kay if dili mo.kahulat sa answer ana, it is ok to say that -- AHH, WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, THEREFORE GOD DID IT. very funny lang nga concept.

[nowpress*]

unsa nga evolution man imong gi.argue? ang origin of life or origin of species? charles darwin didn't create the theory to explain origin of life but origin of species.. through evolution for millions of years, one specie becomes another through mutations due to environmental changes. so if mo.argue mo about the origin of life, i tell you daghan attempts but dili pa jud acceptable sa scientific community. again, naa moy deadline sa inyong mga questions? kay if dili mo.kahulat sa answer ana, it is ok to say that -- AHH, WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, THEREFORE GOD DID IT. very funny lang nga concept.

sakto ng explanations bai, evidence among gi pangita.

kinsa man diay...dumb chemicals ang source aning intelligent life? samot ka magical kong mao na.


then also...kong at the middle of the desert kita ka og laptop mo ingon diay ka nga it was by random chance nga na invent ang laptop or would you say , kinsa kahay ga invent ani nga laptop sa?

see, your common sense is there to guide you kong onsay dapat buhaton. ayko ingna nga maghuwat pa ka og Millions of years para makuha nimo ang tobag kong nganong naay laptop diha, hahaha. ga sayang sayang lang ka sa imong oras. and tho wa ka kita sa gahimo sa laptop di diay ta puede maghisgut sa tao nga gabuhat sa laptop? haha.

[Devian]

i believe kamo ang wa kasabot sa evolution.

ex evidence:
Dogs, Fox, Wolf --- share 99.8% genes

Different specie pero ga share ug common genes.

Karon, ang mga pangutana gud ninyo is related to "how" it happened. Ngano, gi-unsa pagkahitabo nga naay dog, fox ug wolf. Well, i dont know ug naa nay answer ana inyo mga klase sa question but i wont look for it just to answer you. Di sab ko ka answer ana kay di ko scientist.

If science has all the answer to the "how" question then wala na ta ga discuss ani.

Now, give me evidence nga ang tawo gikan sa abo. I wont refute or ask you how it happened. Just give me evidence that i can evaluate.

[badjaw]

kong kabalo ka bai onsay required for a statement to be true then you will comply to give us proof. ang problema ninyo is wa mo kasabot sige mo og ramblings pero wa moy ika soporta sa inyong position, di na sakto. sama gud ani mo ingon ka nako nga naay iring sa imong kuarto nya akong sopakon og mo ingon ko nga way iring sa imong kuarto, karon onsaon man nako pag support sa akong statement nga way iring sa imong kuarto? by evidence and proof. mao nay sakto onta ninyong buhaton. we say there is God you say...WALA, then support it with evidence, dili kay poro lang mo yawyaw. nya nganong maglisod man mo og hatag sa evidence, wa gyud sigoroy evidence sa.

pasensya na bai ,wa ra ba mi nag apas sa standard sa Atheism, kon di ang Logic og Laws sa investigation among gisunod, so bahalag di mo motoo we could care less kay di man kamo among standard.

well that's because wa ka kasabot. mo ingon gani ta og design pasabot created, now by definition God is the uncaused cause, uncreated creator. kong maghisgut ta og bachelor ang mosolod sa atong huna huna is DILI MINYO, therefore it's wrong to ask kong kinsay asawa sa bachelor. Now by definition God is the uncaused cause so its wrong to ask kong kinsay ga create niya.

infinite regression is impossible.

whose definition? is that an accepted definition? inyo ra na nga mugna nga definition. that's up to you na if you stick with such argument. para lang nako, putting a god sa mga unexplainable events is not helpful. i can also put zeus, krishna, osiris, santa claus, santo nino or my fairy in the backyard as the uncaused cause. how's that?

[KlaytoN]

that's because there is suppression of theistic worldview. mao ng di jud na nila dawaton.

I didn't expect that religious superstition and conspiracy theories are apples that came from the same tree..

People here may accuse me of plagiarism but this won't stop me from spreading the voice of the scientific community. I will be posting a series of statements or scientific opinion as given by scientific bodies of international standing in response to the "intelligent design" agenda.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the world's largest general scientific society. The AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving around 10 million individuals.

--2002 statement says: "The lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education."

Source: AAAS - AAAS News Release

--2006 statement on the teaching of evolution: "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific “alternatives” to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."

Source: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20...dstatement.pdf

--Q & A on Evolution and Intelligent Design: Is intelligent design a scientific alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory? No. Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory.

Source: AAAS - Evolution Resources

I'm copy pasting parts of the statement only so as to prevent accusations of plagiarism kuno from believers who do anything just to discredit science. I want istoryans to read the source page to fully understand the issue.

The scientific community has spoken. So it's up to you to decide whom to believe: The ID or Creationism proponents like Kent Hovind or Michael Behe? or the Scientific Community as a whole? You be the judge. End of debate.

[nowpress*]

i believe kamo ang wa kasabot sa evolution.

ex evidence:
Dogs, Fox, Wolf --- share 99.8% genes

Different specie pero ga share ug common genes.

Karon, ang mga pangutana gud ninyo is related to "how" it happened. Ngano, gi-unsa pagkahitabo nga naay dog, fox ug wolf. Well, i dont know ug naa nay answer ana inyo mga klase sa question but i wont look for it just to answer you. Di sab ko ka answer ana kay di ko scientist.

If science has all the answer to the "how" question then wala na ta ga discuss ani.

Now, give me evidence nga ang tawo gikan sa abo. I wont refute or ask you how it happened. Just give me evidence that i can evaluate.

when it dies it returns to where it belongs.

they all belong to the same family bai. tan-awa na ilang feature pare pareho. what we are looking for is kanang iro nga nahimong kabayo kay kanang duha do not belong to the same family.

so ato pa, wa kay ikatubag pasabot wa ka kasabot. then by faith pod diay ni imong pag accept sa theory sa evolution. Never happened bai ,way evidence for a step up evolution meaning ang iro nahimong kabayo o snake nahimong langgam(bird).

[nowpress*]

whose definition? is that an accepted definition? inyo ra na nga mugna nga definition. that's up to you na if you stick with such argument. para lang nako, putting a god sa mga unexplainable events is not helpful. i can also put zeus, krishna, osiris, santa claus, santo nino or my fairy in the backyard as the uncaused cause. how's that?

we are arguing kong naa bay ginoo and not kong kinsa ang ginoo. spot the difference bai. kong gosto ka makabalo kong si Zeus ba na o Krsna lahi na pod na nga topic.

nganong di man helpful. kita ka og awto mo ingon diay ka nga gikan na sa bacteria nya nahimong awto o gikan na sa chemicals nya nikilat nahimo dayung awto. mao diay na imong isulti? sayop na ka.

inig kita nimo sa awto og tungod sa kanindot sa iyang makina maka ingon ka nga naa jud ga imbento sa awto altho di nimo makita pero your logic will tell you nga naa jud inventor sa awto. mohowat pa diay ka og millions of years para makuha nimo ang tobag?

[nowpress*]

I didn't expect that religious superstition and conspiracy theories are apples that came from the same tree..

People here may accuse me of plagiarism but this won't stop me from spreading the voice of the scientific community. I will be posting a series of statements or scientific opinion as given by scientific bodies of international standing in response to the "intelligent design" agenda.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the world's largest general scientific society. The AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving around 10 million individuals.

--2002 statement says: "The lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education."

Source: AAAS - AAAS News Release

--2006 statement on the teaching of evolution: "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific “alternatives” to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."

Source: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20...dstatement.pdf

--Q & A on Evolution and Intelligent Design: Is intelligent design a scientific alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory? No. Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory.

Source: AAAS - Evolution Resources

I'm copy pasting parts of the statement only so as to prevent accusations of plagiarism kuno from believers who do anything just to discredit science. I want istoryans to read the source page to fully understand the issue.

The scientific community has spoken. So it's up to you to decide which to believe: The ID or Creationism proponents like Kent Hovind or Michael Behe? or the Scientific Community as a whole? You be the judge. End of debate.

mora ra pod og circular reasoning sa. haha

kadaghang scientists ang motoo og creationism bai. Creation scientists