How come Atheists are against anti blasphemy laws but are OK with bashing other .....

joseph brand wrote: »

@Zombrex: I thoroughly enjoyed reading your well laid out post. You refrained from being condescending or angry, which would have been so easy (what I would have done). You must have the patience of a saint patient person.

CiaranMT wrote: »

Like I said, just downright confusing.

Oranage2 wrote: »

As Northclare has said, I would rather you not bring your own insecurities out in this thread, the fact that you'd be angry or condescending over somebody opinions shows me that you are a weak and immature person, probably the oldest child though under achieved compared to your other siblings yet still looking for the admiration from a parent that what you do just isnt good enough for.

Now Zombrex has wrote a lot so I'll address his/her post soon.

Northclare wrote: »

That's the easy way out Robin banning people.

Robin your lack of understanding the opposite side to your arguments is your lack of esotheric knowledge,or spiritual input,when you choose to ignore me or Orange its a sure sign of fear of the unknown.

Robin you told me you could trust a chief who cant change a light bulb.

I would prefer to eat what I can see rather than eat in the dark.

Northclare wrote: »

I believe in science I also believe in spirituality it gives me a double edged sword.

If it was a sword fight I would be able to adapt to the situation fairly fast,but when one side has no edge to his sword he is in a dilemma

MagicMarker wrote: »

Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? If so then why? Serious question.

Zombrex wrote: »

Well imagining the entire process in one go is impossible, it is like trying to imagine how a river can make the Grand Canon or how the Alps can be pushed up by sliding plates. These processes take millions of years, and trillions upon trillions upon trillions of localised events.

Same is true with evolution. It would be impossible to visualise in your head all the mutations required to go from a single proto-cell to a human. But luckily you don't have to.

Just like you can study the effect of a single rain fall on some rock (where only a tiny amount of material is removed) and then extrapolate that out over the entire length of time required to form the Grand Canon, you can look at the individual mutations that happen to an animals DNA.

Well to be honest I think your only problem is ignorance with what the theory says, the evidence for it and what it explains. It is not really a question of how your brain works.

I would educate yourself to the theory and then see if you still don't accept it or cannot imagine how it can work.

Firstly the great thing about science is you don't have to trust scientists. You can trust scientists if you couldn't be bothered to research what they are saying, and to be honest that is what most of us do most of the time. I don't independently research Steven Hawkin's work on black holes, I'm happy to trust that others in his field have done that and if there they are happy I'm happy. I don't independently research how my solid state hard drive works, the theories that go into it, I'm happy that the engineers at Cosair know what they are doing and that I haven't bought a 150 euro paper weight.

But the point is that if you were so inclined you could. Science is an open enterprise. Scientific research is published and it expected that others will independently verify the work.

If a scientist got up and said "I've made this amazing discovery but you can't see it you are all going to just have to trust me" he would be laughed out of where ever he was giving such a ridiculous statement. In fact a chief motivator (other than money which we will get to in a sec) for scientists is showing up other scientists, demonstrating that they have missed something or that they have measured something wrong. This competition is healthy and expected in science. While lay people who couldn't be bothered doing the research themselves might trust scientists, scientists don't trust other scientists.

The second point is that there is in fact tons of money to be made in evolutionary biology. And not just in the "Oh we got a research grant from the local university" kind of way, though there are of course those types of funding. Bio-engineering and genetic engineering are massive industries, and they all rely on the theory of evolution being sound. If it isn't they are in a lot of trouble, pouring billions into an areas that is ultimately a dead end. But of course it isn't a dead end because they wouldn't be putting this money into if it was. It is a bit like solar power. We might be still arguing about the details over what is the best way to get the energy from the sun light. But no one seriously thinks any more that there is no energy in the sun light to begin with.

So there is a lot of money to be made. But also each individual scientist will be motivated both by money (do good research get a better salary) and by prestige. A scientist who making interesting and relevant discoveries is going to do well. It is not in a scientists interest to make stuff up, since as we saw above other scientists will not simply take their word for it. Make stuff up and others will expose you for doing so, and your career (and earnings) will be seriously effected.

What do you mean you don't care too much for it? You seem to know very little about it (which again is fair enough, there are lots of things I've very little interest in), so how do you know you don't care too much for it.

I could say I know very little about the Higgs Boson. But it would be a bit silly for me to follow that up by saying I don't care for it that much.

Pace2008 wrote: »

Star-nosed mole, I choose you!



No, he's right on this one. Language is an entirely human faculty, distinct from simple communication, that contains a syntax and is capable of forming an infinite (in practical terms) number of combinations from a finite number of discrete elements. To the extent of human knowledge, no other species is capable of producing language.

Northclare wrote: »

What do you feed that thing ?