40 Sikh lads defend themselves against Muslim sex predators?

[The Doctor]

Of course you're going to see a cross, a star of David, a crescent moon and the sort during your life. About 4 or 5 billion people believe in one or other religion. What do you expect?

Do you want them all to hide? How about they are banned?

I cannot remember the last time somebody tried to force their religion on me. However, every time I turn on the tele there is some fundamentalist atheist crap being spewed from some loons mouth. And those loons get taken seriously by so called 'bright' tv 'personalities'!

Think you're going over the top.

I have no intent of going over why the whole "fundamentalist atheist" idea is utterly ridiculous - so here is a couple of pictures explaining it for me:

And I see far more crap being spewed from the big name religious figures (Kent Hovind, William Lane Craig and the other assortments of ****tards) than I do from the more popular atheists (Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins, DeGrasse Tyson, Dennett etc,) - mostly because the popular atheists don't resort to strawmanning like creationists, nor to they rely on logical fallacies and repeatedly denbunked arguments.

[BoneDog]

Oh, I get it.

You just assert that I'm wrong and don't provide the evidence I requested or refute the evidence I referred to.

Loving your work.

Not really influenced by it yet, though.

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything in that post. I was simply saying what I thought, which is what I do with most of my posts. Only in a few of my posts am I trying to convince somebody of anything, and the one you quoted was not one of them. So, I'm not surprised you weren't really influenced by it.

Now, this morning I decided to take a look at this Sam Harris guy and the 'evidence' you suggested that you've provided. Never heard of him before, which is shocking now I've seen the kind of stuff he waffles on about.

All I can say is, WOW, you've surprised me Vacman. Very easily led aren't you. I can't believe that you follow that guys train of thought on the subjects of religion and terrorism etc. He obviously knows nothing of the matter. Oh so obviously. It's really very easy to prove that the man is full of shit. He's worse than Dawkins with his lack of knowledge on the matter, and his skewing of facts. He's a blatant fraud on the subject (and also seems to be some sort of New Age charlatan, although that's for another day). But the man sure does stir it up, and you love it!

I thought, from previous posts, that you had your head screwed on more than that. I'm very disappointed.

That said, I'm sure you'll have plenty of fun over the next few years. There'll be plenty more fundamentalist atheist types to whip you up and call for pre-emptive nuke attacks and such like. FA ftw.

4 to 5 billion are practicing religious? Bollocks.

Shat ap you Welsh tart.

No offence, I've got Only Fools and Horses on in the background.

[BoneDog]

I have no intent of going over why the whole "fundamentalist atheist" idea is utterly ridiculous - so here is a couple of pictures explaining it for me:

And I see far more crap being spewed from the big name religious figures (Kent Hovind, William Lane Craig and the other assortments of ****tards) than I do from the more popular atheists (Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins, DeGrasse Tyson, Dennett etc,) - mostly because the popular atheists don't resort to strawmanning like creationists, nor to they rely on logical fallacies and repeatedly denbunked arguments.

Your 'religion/atheist' pictures are very tiresome. Most of them are not even based in reality. I normally let it slide though, as it's no big deal.

I could pull up plenty of stuff from Hitchins and the rest of their mouths that proves you totally wrong. Real awful stuff that I'm surprised you've missed.

[Rincewind]

Scientist proof of evolution. Studies rocks stars genes experiment, experiment again tests, experiment reads books tests.

Religious proof of creation. Open Bible. God did it.

[The Doctor]

Your 'religion/atheist' pictures are very tiresome. Most of them are not even based in reality. I normally let it slide though, as it's no big deal.

I could pull up plenty of stuff from Hitchins and the rest of their mouths that proves you totally wrong. Real awful stuff that I'm surprised you've missed.

Oh, sorry - but when you've gone over why the idea of militant/fundamentalist atheism is so poor, you kinda tend to lose the interest in typing out the argument, so instead just use pre-made images explaining it, however if you'd prefer:

When you talk about militant/fundamentalist atheists, you usually refer to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens etc., no? So, in other words you put chaps who write books and give talks on the same level as people who kill abortion doctors, who bomb planned parenthood clinics, who threaten and kill people who speak ill of their beliefs, who disown and even kill their own children for not agreeing with them, who fly planes into buildings... Once atheists start killing other people in the name of atheism, start suppressing the rights of other people in the name of atheism - then you might have a point, until then you're putting writing a book on the same level as murder so you can go "see, you're just as bad as us. seee!"

Go ahead - pull up where Hitchens, Dawkins et al have just used the same, debunked arguments (liike the cosmological argument, moral argument etc.) over and over again, where they've resorted to really poor logic (like special pleading, arguments from ignorance...). You'll have a far harder time than I would in pulling up nonsense from the other side of the table.

[BoneDog]

Oh, sorry - but when you've gone over why the idea of militant/fundamentalist atheism is so poor, you kinda tend to lose the interest in typing out the argument, so instead just use pre-made images explaining it, however if you'd prefer:

When you talk about militant/fundamentalist atheists, you usually refer to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens etc., no? So, in other words you put chaps who write books and give talks on the same level as people who kill abortion doctors, who bomb planned parenthood clinics, who threaten and kill people who speak ill of their beliefs, who disown and even kill their own children for not agreeing with them, who fly planes into buildings... Once atheists start killing other people in the name of atheism, start suppressing the rights of other people in the name of atheism - then you might have a point, until then you're putting writing a book on the same level as murder so you can go "see, you're just as bad as us. seee!"

No I don't.

But like I said, I could pull up plenty of stuff from the people you admire, that is basically calling for the same thing. Random killing and destruction on large scales. And revelling in it.

[BoneDog]

Scientist proof of evolution. Studies rocks stars genes experiment, experiment again tests, experiment reads books tests.

Religious proof of creation. Open Bible. God did it.

There is no proof of evolution though Ken. Not the kind where one species turns into another at least. The other kinds of 'evolution' are more likely 'variation' and 'mutations' that take place in an already existing species. Those variations don't actually create a new species, or new information. So I, and many other people don't consider it to be evolution.

When people like the fundo atheists shout about evolution they are trying to have us believe that the 'one species turning into another' type is true.

I think that those scientists who spend time on this subject should do the world a favour and move on to a real science.

[Rincewind]

I do not see logic and reason as being militant.

[flowwolf]

Your 'religion/atheist' pictures are very tiresome. Most of them are not even based in reality. I normally let it slide though, as it's no big deal.

I could pull up plenty of stuff from Hitchins and the rest of their mouths that proves you totally wrong. Real awful stuff that I'm surprised you've missed.

Empty by name and empty by nature. You only have to read any major religions blue print book you know Bible ect to realise they were written a long tome ago by people who could not comprehend all the things we know today in terms of science and our advancement.

Yet religious people still cling to those absurd stories and comandments as if they have relevance to the world we now live in. The so called miracles and dictats laid down by so called prophets. Don't be afraid to go through life without religion you don't need it .

[Rincewind]

proof

[The Doctor]

No I don't.

But like I said, I could pull up plenty of stuff from the people you admire, that is basically calling for the same thing. Random killing and destruction on large scales. And revelling in it.

You do - when you describe atheists as militant or fundamentalist, you equate their behaviour with that of militant/fundamentalist christians, muslims, whatever religion you want to talk about. You equate writing books with murder and terrorism.

Go on then, do it.

There is no proof of evolution though Ken. Not the kind where one species turns into another at least. The other kinds of 'evolution' are more likely 'variation' and 'mutations' that take place in an already existing species. Those variations don't actually create a new species, or new information. So I, and many other people don't consider it to be evolution.

When people like the fundo atheists shout about evolution they are trying to have us believe that the 'one species turning into another' type is true.

I think that those scientists who spend time on this subject should do the world a favour and move on to a real science.

No proof for evolution you say?

Evidence for common ancestry is irrefutable, unless you don't believe DNA tests work: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10773466?dopt=Abstract

The paper shows from experimentation that 100% of humans and 100% of chimpanzees share at least 7 endogenous retroviruses. Now then, endogenous retroviruses make up 1%-8% of the human genome, and are the remnants of viral infections. The size of the genome means that it is statistically impossible for ERV's to insert in the same location in 2 people unless they share a common ancestor - this is how DNA tests work. That 100% of Humans and of Chimps share these ERV's mean we must also have common ancestors. Meaning us and chimps must have come from a common ancestor species.

Common ancestry means that speciation has to be the case, because it involves divergence of multiple species from a single one.

Evolution is a valid area of science, and in terms of the respective theories, it is on better ground than gravity. Anyone who denies it has to be one of 3 things - Stupid, ignorant or insane.

[BoneDog]

Piffle.

They've created a conclusion and taken a massive jump over the starting line because they have absolutely no proof, and absolutely no idea, how it happened. That is not science.

I think what they'll probably find is that we're all made from similar stock, but that we didn't all come from one organism which had a selfish gene.

[Rincewind]

It amazes me that people dismiss centries of research and studies as rubbish yet believe that a big man in the sky wave a hand to create everything.. Myths and legends are so yesterday.

[The Doctor]

Piffle.

They've created a conclusion and taken a massive jump over the starting line because they have absolutely no proof, and absolutely no idea, how it happened. That is not science.

I think what they'll probably find is that we're all made from similar stock, but that we didn't all come from one organism which had a selfish gene.

Bullshit. They've collected evidence, created a hypothesis, tested the hypothesis and reached a conclusion - which is the very basics of science. As I've said, evolution is possibly the theory with the strongest basis in science (germ theory might just be ahead of it).

So then, in addition to common ancestry -

Observed occurrences of speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Immunology showing levels of relation: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/158/3805/1200

DNA study showing relation: http://144.206.159.178/FT/162/86495/1463628.pdf

Dating of divergence via DNA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1235277/

Origins and evolution of the cell: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/

And finally a cool little infographic:

I'm not even joking here, if you can falsify evolution, you will win a nobel prize - it has stood rigorous testing for over a century and a half. To still reject it is to be a fool.

[BoneDog]

Empty by name and empty by nature. You only have to read any major religions blue print book you know Bible ect to realise they were written a long tome ago by people who could not comprehend all the things we know today in terms of science and our advancement.

Yet religious people still cling to those absurd stories and comandments as if they have relevance to the world we now live in. The so called miracles and dictats laid down by so called prophets. Don't be afraid to go through life without religion you don't need it .

When did you actually last study the Bible? And which dodgy version or translation did you read? What about the Koran? Or one of the many ancient Indian books for example?

If you had read and half understood any of them, you would not be calling them a 'people who could not comprehend'. The composers were just as bright, perhaps brighter than any of the best we've got around nowadays. They may not have had the modern technology, but that doesn't say anything about their intelligence and knowledge of their surroundings.

Science is not frowned upon by religion, and the religions I know of encourage scientific thought and action, which is the opposite of what you seem to think.

[BoneDog]

It amazes me that people dismiss centries of research and studies as rubbish yet believe that a big man in the sky wave a hand to create everything.. Myths and legends are so yesterday.

I don't believe in a big man in the sky waving a hand. Myths and legends are real history, not fiction. Modern translations and interpretations are way off mark, so I understand. You have to wonder about the intentions of the skewers.

[purpleronnie]

There is no proof of evolution though Ken. Not the kind where one species turns into another at least. The other kinds of 'evolution' are more likely 'variation' and 'mutations' that take place in an already existing species. Those variations don't actually create a new species, or new information. So I, and many other people don't consider it to be evolution.

When people like the fundo atheists shout about evolution they are trying to have us believe that the 'one species turning into another' type is true.

I think that those scientists who spend time on this subject should do the world a favour and move on to a real science.

You don't believe in Speciation?...if not what do you believe?

[BoneDog]

I'm not even joking here, if you can falsify evolution, you will win a nobel prize - it has stood rigorous testing for over a century and a half. To still reject it is to be a fool.

To reject that an ape turned into a human is to be a fool? Don't think so. You've got no proof. When you get a fruit fly to advance itself into some other form come back and tell me about it.

I'm not denying that all living creatures might be 'related' as you say. It's been said for thousands of years that we're all made of the same, or similar, stock. Science can't show how one creature evolved into another, because it has never happened.

I think that this picture is hilarious, and am surprised that so many bright sparks don't seem to.

THIS PICS IN THE KIDS TEXTBOOKS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD

[The Doctor]

To reject that an ape turned into a human is to be a fool? Don't think so. You've got no proof. When you get a fruit fly to advance itself into some other form come back and tell me about it.

I'm not denying that all living creatures might be 'related' as you say. It's been said for thousands of years that we're all made of the same, or similar, stock. Science can't show how one creature evolved into another, because it has never happened.

I think that this picture is hilarious, and am surprised that so many bright sparks don't seem to.

THIS PICS IN THE KIDS TEXTBOOKS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD

Did you not read any of the links I posted? Apes and men are related, this is irrefutable - common descent has been proved conclusively with endogenous retroviruses, ****ing hell we've even been able to roughly date the point of divergence.

Speciation has been observed, repeatedly.

We've a ****-ton of proof that man came from a common ancestor with apes. ERV's, Genetic similarities, fossil records... As I have said - pound for pound, evolution is more certain than gravity. If you deny it, you are a fool.

As for that image, it's generally replace in favour of phylogenic trees nowadays, since while the basic idea is sound, it's far too simplified to provide any real help understanding things.

[purpleronnie]

To reject that an ape turned into a human is to be a fool? Don't think so. You've got no proof. When you get a fruit fly to advance itself into some other form come back and tell me about it.

I'm not denying that all living creatures might be 'related' as you say. It's been said for thousands of years that we're all made of the same, or similar, stock. Science can't show how one creature evolved into another, because it has never happened.

I think that this picture is hilarious, and am surprised that so many bright sparks don't seem to.

THIS PICS IN THE KIDS TEXTBOOKS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD

Out of interest el what proof do you want?...a photograph of a monkey giving birth to a human?

[Zingari]

Does anyone consider the possibility that we are here neither by a god creation nor evolution?

Yes we can prove that creatures have “evolved†due to external forces and the environmental changes , but this may only be a very small part of the masses of evolutionary changes that is required to change primordial soup into human beings.

Personally (and without any scientific evidence to back it up) I believe that the “blueprints for all forms of life†are always living with us.

With most forms of life lying dormant until their time to thrive appears or returns.

For instance, I believe that if circumstances were right, then dinosaurs would gradually reappear as if from nowhere.

They wouldn’t be starting from scratch and having to evolve from simple life forms, the blueprints are already there for use in the right circumstances.

How or where the storage of all life’s blueprints or how they are activated when the time is right is totally unknown to me though, so don’t fookin ask me , right !!

[The Doctor]

Does anyone consider the possibility that we are here neither by a god creation nor evolution?

Yes we can prove that creatures have “evolved†due to external forces and the environmental changes , but this may only be a very small part of the masses of evolutionary changes that is required to change primordial soup into human beings.

Personally (and without any scientific evidence to back it up) I believe that the “blueprints for all forms of life†are always living with us.

With most forms of life lying dormant until their time to thrive appears or returns.

For instance, I believe that if circumstances were right, then dinosaurs would gradually reappear as if from nowhere.

They wouldn’t be starting from scratch and having to evolve from simple life forms, the blueprints are already there for use in the right circumstances.

How or where the storage of all life’s blueprints or how they are activated when the time is right is totally unknown to me though, so don’t fookin ask me , right !!

Nope, the only dinosaurs left nowadays are birds, and modern reptiles have gone past the stage of their ancestors - you're talking about going down Mount Improbable, which is an impossible task.

[Zingari]

Nope, the only dinosaurs left nowadays are birds, and modern reptiles have gone past the stage of their ancestors - you're talking about going down Mount Improbable, which is an impossible task.

Yes OK , but what i'm saying is that these remnants of former life may somehow hold on to the bluprints in their gene pool .

We may not be able to locate them , but if the circumstances were right , they could possibly reappear more quickly than we now believe possible .

[Rincewind]

No one has claimed that humans evolved from apes. They are related by genetics.

[Dr The Singh]

What about the theory that evolution is a mechanism created by a superior entity / conciusness (god)