The Big Bang and Evolution

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Why would any self-respecting atheist WANT to enter heaven though?

Indeed. As another moral philosopher once quipped, 'you can hardly get people to attend church for barely an hour once a week... what makes you think they will be content in heaven, which by all accounts is just an infinite extension of church.'

To which I add: heaven, as described, is just one long church service, only without any of the salacious (and therefore interesting) parts.

And harp music-- apparently this is non-stop.. forever and ever... WHEN was the last time anyone willingly downloaded harp music? And that was from professional musicians!

Heaven, by all accounts, will be staffed by... amateurs...!

Think of it: infinite, non-stop amateur harp music....! To each end of the place.... meaning you cannot get away from it...!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Why would any self-respecting atheist WANT to enter heaven though?

But wait... it gets worse: No Free Will in Heaven.

This is a must-- for I have been informed in No Uncertain Terms, that Once In Heaven, Always In Heaven.

And let's be honest here-- forever? Nobody but nobody is that good!

Even Jesus had a hissy-fit once, because a poor fig tree was barren... in the winter!

So if even Jesus cannot maintain self-control over 30 years? What hope have mere humans?

Conclusion: after sufficient time, everyone--bar none-- will be kicked out of heaven, and down into hell.

Which, considering all the really bad harp music? May be something of a blessing....

... besides... hell is where all the really clever Engineers and Scientists are. And by the time everyone is kicked out of heaven?

Hell will have air conditioning, hot tubs, dance halls, Rock Music, the works...

 

[Thumper]

Why would any self-respecting atheist WANT to enter heaven though?

“Heaven, as conventionally conceived, is a place so inane, so dull, so useless, so miserable that nobody has ever ventured to describe a whole day in heaven, though plenty of people have described a day at the seaside.” ~ George Bernard Shaw

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Oh, and Facebook and Computers will only be in hell... because all the Principle Inventors were nasty atheists...

If there were computers in heaven? They would all be stuck in Blue Screen, for lack of Tech Support.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Because science doesn't prove things?
The ToE is the only scientific explanation. That's why it "has a monopoly." Come up with another credible explanation -- and goddidit is not an explanation-- and it will be taught.

We teach things that have some evidence backing them up, not all possibilities. There are endless possibilities. Creationism is not evidence based and, therefore, has no place in a science classroom.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Creationism is not about any of those things, It is about HOW the things we have in the universe came into being.l

Tell us how God did it. Saying "Let there be light" isn't very explanatory.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are you serious?

Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed (BBC)

Here is the paper:-

The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element (Nature)

A favor, please: Translate ∃x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(y ∈ x ⇒ y ∪ {y} ∈ x)) into plain English: "There exists ... "

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

He's telling you [omega] that your objections are irrelevant in the face of the fruits of science and the sterility of religious faith. No number of words that you can muster make that go away.

You simply cannot convince pragmatic rational skeptics to abandon a theory with an explanatory mechanism that is self-evidently in play and unifies a mountain range of data, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found that have never been contradicted by any finding, and has practical application that has borne fruit for a faith based idea that can't do any of those things with words.

We know which idea is correct and which is wrong because of that difference.

Bring us the fruits of creationism and we can begin to talk.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I quoted someone far more intelligent than anyone in the forum. If you don't beliveh him that is fine with me.

Pascal? He gave us Pascal's Wager, a horribly flawed argument.

Also, no intelligence is involved in believing anything by faith. Faith is not a virtue. It is a logical error.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Natural selection CAN'T be proved.

It already has been.

Natural selection is a self-evident fact of nature like birth and death. It's the name for the fact that the first zebra that the lion can take down was selected against. It's the name for the fact that the insect that blends into its surrounding best is least likely to be the victim of the bird or snake.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why are you afraid to cut and paste?

Why are you afraid to click and read?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Any one can be happy for a time.

You keep moving the goalpost. Your quote said I was foolish and unhappy.

Wait until the grim reaper knocks on your door.

Your religion is so dark.

IMO true happiness is spiritual happiness and I think that is what Pascal was referring to. .

I think Pascal meant what he said. He said that those who live not seeking or finding God are foolish and unhappy. I know what unhappy means.

In any case I ha glad you are happy and content with your life.

Thank you. I hope that you are happy as well.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Why are you afraid to click and read?

Weak faith? In that he dare not expose himself to anything that might shatter it's fragile existence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If someone ask me to prove something, I would the evidence or admit I couldn't.

Prove creationism and the existence of the Christian god.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is the reason you are not willing to cut and paste some evidence from link you think supports evolution? You would if you could, but you can't.

Nope. The main reason I won't produce evidence for you is that I've repeatedly seen how you treat it. You dismiss it out of hand with a handful of comments that you cannot support, never actually addressing the evidence. There's actually no evidence that you've read it. Your answers are of the form, "That's not evolution," "You don't have proof of evolution," or "Macroevolution is impossible." Those aren't arguments, and they don't address the evidence.

I also told you that I cannot prove anything to anybody without their impartial and open-minded participation. I told you that you need to be cooperative in the effort and meet me half-way.

You told me that you didn't. My effort to help you understand science ended that moment. I can't do it without your good faith effort to learn. As I have said, nobody can force a man to understand what he has a stake in not understanding.

You have also shown no interest in finding evidence, just having it shuttled to you so that you can say that it's not evidence. People that really want evidence seek it. You won't even click on a provided link.

What's in that game for me?

 

[ChristineM]

Again, most theologians would beg to differ,

No need for the personal attacks, insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat as they say

I don't trust the opinion of paranormal investigators, astrologers, darwinists, cryptozoologists or climastrologers for the same reason, they all deal in inherently speculative fields.

As do most 'scientists' by definition, if they were not basing their opinions on subjective interpretation, they wouldn't have a job would they?

Again, you have no comprehension of my qualifications, and please show me one theologian who will not admit that their field of expertise is in any way not based on evidence.

What personal attack's?

Once again i may remind you that observation and evidence separate science from charlatans. Add to that the scientific method and peer review.

Observation and evidence are not exactly what normal people call speculative but each to their own eh?

 

[ChristineM]

Prove creationism and the existence of the Christian god.

I've asked him that several times, he ignores the question for some reason

 

[ChristineM]

Darwinism was conceived before quantum mechanics, it was a logical extension of classical physics.

I just noticed your last paragraph in your earlier post. Please be aware that quantum mechanics was not a logical extension of classical physics, it is for the most part in opposition to classical physics, ask Einstein.


Here is Wikipedia's take on the fundimental contentions

Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum and other quantities are often restricted to discrete values (quantization), objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave-particle duality), and there are limits to the precision with which quantities can be known (Uncertainty principle).

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

 

[Thumper]

 

[ChristineM]

I just marked that as funny, funny does not do it justice, i thought it was hilarious, unfortunately my husband who "was" peacefully sleeping is no longer in that blissful state.