Take the Atheist Challenge!!!

Ok, you're on. I will do what you proposed. I will be as objective as I can be. Unfortunately, I have finals. I will get back to you about a week from now. Oh, and you have my word that I will be as impartial as I can possibly be.

---

The Laminator

​

Have I ever mentioned the fact that I was a devout catholic that prayed everyday and read the bible everyday up until junior year in high school?You may not believe me, Mike, but my faith in God was unshakable until I realized that I'd been talking to myself all my life everytime I prayed.However, I will still do that experiment you proposed. You know damn well that there's no "divinity" in a non-mysterious being. That's why God works in mysterious ways. It's like Darth Vader and Darth Sidius. They always covered their faces so they could be mysterious and, somehow, that makes other people have high regards for them. I think people would stop holding God in such a high regard if it starts talking out loud to people.This message has been edited by Lam, 05-07-2004 03:36 AM

---

The Laminator

​

Something I'd like to add while I'm writing this stupid paper that I have to do. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I'm lazy. I go to church every Sunday morning and I pray almost everyday. Why? A few years ago my parents made me promise to do all those things. Unfortunately, I'm one of those that keeps my promises no matter what.After a few years of church goings and prayings, I still haven't seen any "personal evidence" that you people claim to exist. Oh well, perhaps another 10 years of this will make it sink in and make me insane

---

The Laminator

​

And this has what to do with the thread's topic?

---

The Laminator

​

I'm not even going to try to respond to this claim, because I know that either you are too brainwashed to know any better or you are too ignorant of ToE to know any better.What I am going to say to you is that you need to find out about something first before you make such an assertion. You are beginning to sound like desdamona and her breed.By the way, just do a search on desdamona's posts and you will see what I mean. To put it in simple term, desdamona was someone that did not know the speed of light was finite and she really thought falling stars are actually falling stars. Despite all the ignorance she showed, she still maintained that the ToE was the devil's hoax even though she admitted a number of times that she didn't know anything about it.This message has been edited by Lam, 05-10-2004 12:23 AM

---

The Laminator

​

That's the whole damn point of science, to be able to admit that the current theory is wrong if there is sufficient evidence to disprove it. That is why science is not dogmatic, like what you have been implying. I still don't see what your point is. You are picking at one of the strongest part of science and claiming to be its weakest.By the way, please use the reply button with the red arrow. Perhaps you don't care, but it makes it a lot easier for the rest of us to read your posts.

---

The Laminator

​

You are very close to commiting the fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority.By the way, please everyone get back to the subject at hand.

---

The Laminator

​

I'm beginning to think that you don't know jack about science. Either that, or you've had some very bad teachers.For one thing, creationism had spent 2,000 years on the top. It is science's turn.Again, you are pointing out one of the strongest points of science as if it is the weakest. That is probably the only reason why I have dedicated myself to science. If something turn out to be wrong, it's wrong. Better than being dogmatic about it. This is the statement that really convinced me that you don't know jack about science. I have news for you. Science doesn't care why you are here. Stop trying to make yourself important... unless you feel the need to be important. I think you meant to put a question mark at the end there. Anyway, science tries to explain how we got here by collecting data and propose theories. It is the human curiosity that keeps us wondering how we got here.However, I know that many people such as yourself are satisfied with "goddunit" answer for everything, so I'll leave you be if you stop trying to preach your faith here. Wanna back this statement up with some evidence that we haven't seen before? You've just lost me. You need to write your thoughts more clearly! You'd be surprised to how big a book can get regarding the simplest life on Earth.I know that I am wasting my time with you... Anyway, it's only a matter of time before an admin gets involved and probably kick my arse.This message has been edited by Lam, 05-10-2004 04:31 AM

---

The Laminator

​

That's because creationism AIN'T science. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. It's called oversimplification. I have noticed that some teachers just don't want to go through the trouble explaining why scientists believe in certain things. The explanations are rather complicated.Take the quadratic formula for example. Most teachers in pre-algebra would make the students memorize it and never show the students how they came up with the formula. However, after spending years studying math (my last level was differential equation) I can show you off the top of my head how they arrived at the quadratic formula. Some things you just have to take their words on it and then, when you are old enough, you can choose to accept it or not based on empirical evidence. This is where I get a little cranky. Theories can never be proven. Get your freaking facts straight. Noone claims to know it all. In fact, if you ask a physicist enough question about gravity, he will admit to you that he doesn't know. No scientist in his right mind would say that he knows all. Only you dogmatic people claim such a thing. Science is very interested in finding out how we got here. But as to assigning a purpose, it's a philosophical question. Science doesn't care if there is a purpose or not. It only cares about the how and the when.Read the strawmen thread. Trying to say that evolution has a purpose or direction is one of the creationist straw man. I'm very afraid. I think I'll try to buy a bullet proof vest now.

---

The Laminator

​

Two things.1) Can you list some?2) Science doesn't label them as miracles. It labels them as unknown for now. Nobody is claiming that he knows everything.By the way, just a friendly gesture. You are digging a hole for yourself. If you want to stay on this forum and be taken seriously by people, you need to clean up your act. Few people now believe anything you said about you being familiar with science.However, if you are another hit-and-run case, have fun digging.This message has been edited by Lam, 05-10-2004 01:11 PM

---

The Laminator

​

Since we all have contributed to this thread's demise, it is only a matter of time before an admin step in and kick our arses. You should really notice the hint that no creationist has rallied to your defense. Long term members on this forum who are creationists know better than to support bogus arguments.

---

The Laminator

​

No, it's just that it's hard to explain the technicality behind certain concepts to people who doesn't have the background.I have worked as a teacher's assistant in math class before. Even a simple thing such as the proof to the quadratic formula couldn't be understood by a lot of my students. I spent days going over and over step by step how you could arrive at the quadratic formula using AX2 + BX + C = 0. I thought it was better just to tell them to trust the formula at the time and the "why" will answer itself when they go on to a more advance class.Same thing with the theory of evolution. You couldn't even understand about the bacteria within a petri dish. I really don't expect you to understand what's behind all of it. For a starter, you could look up mitosis. Dodging the point. Dodging the point, again. Point dodging. Dodging the point. The point is dodged.

---

The Laminator

​

Good point. I was thinking about something else at the time.

---

The Laminator

​

The following are quotes I took from you in this thread. I'll respond to each one accordingly.

quote:

---

Science will never explain why we are here?

---

Of course not. The "why we are here" question is a philosophical question, not a scientific. It is like asking a man "do you still beat your wife?" and demand a "yes" or "no" answer, especially when the man never beat his wife before.Although this statement is true by itself, the way you used it implies dishonesty.

quote:

---

Theres no way it happened all by chance, think about it.

---

Unless you provide some kind of evidence to back up this statement, it is dishonesty on your part. Myself and one other person have asked you to clarify this point before. You've ignored us and I have no doubt that you will continue to ignore us.

quote:

---

The strongest points of science, are the things that have been proven. Even then, it could all change with new discoverys.

---

I'm going to take your word for it and assume that you really know what you were talking about in regards to science. In this case, this was a shameless lie on your part. Science doesn't prove anything. The best it could do is come up with theories (or models) that help us predict what is going to happen if we do this or that. Truth ain't what science is after.

quote:

---

Don't tell me that science isn't dying to find out why we are here.

---

Again, you stated a philosophical issue as if it's a scientific one. Either you were ignorant of the difference between the 2 or you were outright dishonest about it.

quote:

---

Sorry I don't find the fact that some bacteria can be immune to a plauge proof of evolution. How do we know it wasn't already designed to act that way? Can you prove that?

---

You stated this after Rrhain explained this to you in post 35: The fact that you chose to ignore Rrhain on this point shows that you selectively left out this explanation and continued to blabber your slogan.

quote:

---

Why should they all behave the same way? What law or theory proves that?

---

You were refering to the bacterial culture in which some survived the T4 phage and some didn't, despite the fact that they were all descendants of a single bacterium. Either you didn't know about mitosis or you just played dumb.

quote:

---

Did you actually extract DNA from each one of those bacteria, to see if they were exactly the same?

---

Again, you showed that you didn't know how mitosis work. Either ignorance of the mechanism or you just played dumb.

quote:

---

Me my brother and sister all came from my mother, but we act different.

---

That's because the process that involved making you and your sister out of your mom and dad was meiosis, not mitosis. Either you were ignorant of the fact or you were just playing dumb.If you want more examples of what you have said to be untrue, I'll be happy to continue to dig them up.This message has been edited by Lam, 05-10-2004 05:13 PM

---

The Laminator

​

Sorry, but I haven't had time to do what I promised I would. Been studying for finals and putting together a very long report and argumentive paper on sex crimes (I say we screw the sex offenders). I will start doing it once I'm done with finals, which will be next week.

---

The Laminator

​