Comments on: This part of your website

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:28:00 +0000

Mother nature is just a metaphor and is not representing an intelligent being… The organism themselves make the changes after their DNA adjusts itself to survive and it is a lengthy process with errors produced.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: releaa

releaa — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:02:35 +0000

This hate mail was just so stupid that I couldn’t help comment.
First of all, I just have to point out this, “everything that exists stems from his will and this is why we see so much purpose and logic in our world.” I have no words for how ridiculous I think that sounds, probably because it causes my mind to go in circles of ‘God is the reason why the world makes sense. Science explains why the world makes sense. Science disproves several key points in his religion and shows no evidence for his existence.’
Next, I’d like to mention that ‘immaculate conception’ means ‘to be born without original sin.’ I didn’t know we were arguing about the sinfulness of the universe. If I know that as an atheist and the one defending the Christian religion doesn’t…
Evolution isn’t a religion. And ‘natural selection’ doesn’t claim the existence of an intelligent force driving the evolution of plants and animals. ‘Natural selection’ is when those plants or animals die before they can reproduce, because they didn’t have the right adaptation to keep them alive.
“My suggestion? Get all of this bullshit out of the schools, when you can prove something, you can teach it, until then, behave yourself.” Hey, we can see the evolution of a peppered moth population. We can see the vestigial structures left behind in living creatures. We can see the smallest differences in amino acid sequences. That is data. That is observable. And we can see it again and again and again. Intelligent design doesn’t have anything even close.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Garrick McElroy

Garrick McElroy — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:17:09 +0000

“Science says there is a system called “natural selection”, so here science is claiming that there is actually an intelligent force driving the evolution of plants and animals on this planet. So in fact there is a creator, its called “mother nature”.”

Dear sweet FSM, do you people listen to yourselves? That is not saying there is ANY intelligent omniscient being guiding it. Albeit this theory is SILLY, I mean, based on overwhelming observable natural evidence aside, it’s silly. What it IS saying, is that the strongest, fastest, smartest animals survived and canoodled, making the next generation faster, stronger, and smarter than the generation preceding it. Research what you’re talking about before you do.

Here’s to Hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you
-GM
RAmen

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Aristotle

Aristotle — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 05:40:37 +0000

“Are you really trying to make the argument that while creationism theories require absolute faith and have no scientific evidence behind them,(which I wouldnt argue) belief in the Big Bang theory of creation does not require equal or even greater faith? I think that is a very foolish, ignorant, and hypocritical standpoint, especially coming from someone who screams so loudly about impartiality.”
.
Note Big Bang *theory*
.
theory
– “a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done”
– “implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena”
.
belief
– “implies mental acceptance of something as true, even though absolute certainty may be absent”
.
No one said the Big Bang belief.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Jon888

Jon888 — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:02:03 +0000

This guy wasnt lying but it is where his degrees come from that worries me.

Ph.D., Religion and Social Ethics1
University of Pittsburgh

Master of Arts, History and Education1
Columbia University

Bachelor of Arts, History1
University of Pennsylvania

Yeah it took me a second to look this up but the Ph.D is in Religion and social ethics….

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Lamna

Lamna — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:24:30 +0000

Funny how Evolution has evidence backing up. But i would have to agree with Spencer Reesman Lets get the bullshit out of schools (ID) and teach only what we can prove (Evolution). And ive never heard anyone talk about mother nature like a god, it just a way of saying nature provides stuff for people life mother do. Why cant you at least find out what Evolution is about before you deniy it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Werefox Alchemist

Werefox Alchemist — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 05:23:37 +0000

So, in other words, nothing should be taught in schools on the subject of how everything came into being. Because Creationism is a faith too. So fuck off. And you, Sean, already sent in your hate mail. You had your say. So shut up.

Like or Dislike: 1 0

By: Sean O'Leary

Sean O'Leary — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 03:26:18 +0000

Evolution is a fraud. I refer you to “Shattering the Myth of Darwinism” by Richard Milton.

While one may correctly say that evolution is a fraud, that is not to say that that same person “believes in” Creation as it is literally set forth in Genesis.

The answer is: We don’t know where we came from. Let’s find out.

Evolution is as much, if not more, of an irrational religion than what any Creationist spouts.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:24:26 +0000

As a thoroughgoing skeptic myself I’ve enjoyed lurking here but not responding (so many other people do it better). I do need to de-lurk now so I can ask what exactly was the content of Alexander F. C. Webster’s Ph D.

It certainly wasn’t science or philosophy and the poor literary standard precludes English (despite using the word “jejune” which is the sort of pretentious word second-rate English Literature graduates like to use).

I’m beginning to think that possibly it was basket-weaving. Something that occupies the hands but doesn’t really engage the brain too much. Probably from one of those backwater “Universities” in the more Southerly regions where all the staff are related to the students and there are some interesting genetic principles on display…

Or perhaps he bought it for $35 and a letter detailing his “life experience”!

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Alexa Mancha

Alexa Mancha — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:58:01 +0000

Whatever. the issue here is that religion should only be taught maybe in a religion class if it is a must to teach it in schools, but NOT in science classes.

Like or Dislike: 0 0