Remember me
▼ Content

Count Dracula, Christmas, Batman and global warming


Count Dracula, Christmas, Batman and global warming24-12-2019 12:28
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Today, as every December 24, a part of humanity celebrates the birth of a mythical character made at the convenience of the Roman elite, to control the rebellion of the slaves of the Empire.

The idea was that 'when they hit you on one cheek, then put the other one', and that 'you should endured everything so that in the other life you will be rewarded'.

The choreographers responsible for this Roman fantasy, had a relative success: in principle they controlled the slaves, but finally they generated a religion and a bestseller.

We could still celebrate at the birth of Batman in Gothic City or that of Count Dracula in Transylvania, whose books and films are sold more than the bibles today.

The fact that Christianity has become popular does not make it true, as is the case of - also made by choreographers - global warming, another religion based on myths and absurd beliefs.

Anyway: dine turkey with your families, smile and have a good time, because with climate change we do not know if there will be another Christmas.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
24-12-2019 12:56
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(108)
The Greek special warrior is known as the hoplite. They carry small daggers with which they jab at the enemy in short and small bursts.

Merry Christmas Dude!! I'm with you all the way to Dunbar Cliff!!
24-12-2019 19:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Third world guy wrote:
Today, as every December 24, a part of humanity celebrates the birth of a mythical character made at the convenience of the Roman elite,

Jesus Christ was not born in Rome. He was born in Israel. The Roman government tolerated him up to a point, but eventually executed him as a threat to the emperor.
Third world guy wrote:
to control the rebellion of the slaves of the Empire.

Are you confusing Spartacus with Jesus Christ?? They were 300 years apart!
Third world guy wrote:
The idea was that 'when they hit you on one cheek, then put the other one', and that 'you should endured everything so that in the other life you will be rewarded'.

That idea came from the Catholic Church, not from Jesus Christ.
Third world guy wrote:
The choreographers responsible for this Roman fantasy, had a relative success: in principle they controlled the slaves, but finally they generated a religion and a bestseller.

It's certainly not a Roman fantasy. If you want to blame anyone for a fantasy, blame Israel.

You do not know if Jesus Christ existed or not. You cannot prove it either way.

Third world guy wrote:
We could still celebrate at the birth of Batman in Gothic City or that of Count Dracula in Transylvania, whose books and films are sold more than the bibles today.

I will call this argument 1). Here you are stating that Christianity is not popular.
Third world guy wrote:
The fact that Christianity has become popular does not make it true, as is the case of - also made by choreographers - global warming, another religion based on myths and absurd beliefs.

I will call this argument 2). You are now in paradox. Which is it, dude? You cannot argue both sides of a paradox and remain rational.
Third world guy wrote:
Anyway: dine turkey with your families, smile and have a good time, because with climate change we do not know if there will be another Christmas.

Define 'climate change'. How does it affect the orbit of Earth?


The Parrot Killer
24-12-2019 20:41
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Into the Night:

1) Jesus Christ was not born in Rome nor in Israel: he simply did not exist.

There is no scientific evidence of his existence. There are only a few later myths made by Roman choreographers.

2) Spartacus was real, and constituted a lousy experience about the potential risk of the slaves of the Empire. He was the main reason for the Roman coreagraphers for inventing Jesus Christ.

3) Spartacus lived 100 years before the Christian era (113bc -71bc)

4) The Catholic Church was generated after Roman choreographers invented Jesus Christ, and began in Rome, not in Israel, unless you want to talk about apocryphal myths and gospels, which in fact all are.

5) I have repeatedly proven in religious forums that there is no physical or scientific evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ. Those that appear in later books were previously altered by Christians, in their eagerness to make us believe in him.

6) Nowhere do I say that christianism is not popular. They are more than 35% of the human population. But as in the case of the supposed 97% of those who believe in global warming, the truth is not demonstrated by majorities.

7) In this thread we talk about the similarity of Jesus with Dracula and Batman. It is no place to talk about the definition of climate change.

8) I have noticed that you have no capacity to understand sarcasms. Do you want me to put emoticons to understand them?



There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
Edited on 24-12-2019 21:06
24-12-2019 21:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
Third world guy wrote: 5) I have repeatedly proven in religious forums that there is no physical or scientific evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ.

So, to the best of your understanding, the nonexistence of evidence is evidence of nonexistence?

I have no evidence whatsoever that I went to summer camp when I was eleven years old. Should I assume that I never went?

Third world guy wrote: Those that appear in later books were previously altered by Christians, in their eagerness to make us believe in him.

This renders invalid those datasets. Nonetheless, is there still not the altered evidence that you claim does not exist?

Third world guy wrote: It is no place to talk about the definition of climate change.

Wait a minute. I thought we WERE talking about myths. When did that change?

Third world guy wrote: 8) I have noticed that you have no capacity to understand sarcasms. Do you want me to put emoticons to understand them?

No, not at all. Just improve your writing style so that your facetiousness is funny ... and there won't be any problems.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-12-2019 21:21
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
IBDaMann:

1) Your argument that the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of non-existence, is consistent with your recurring positions on climate change that you always put in this forum.

You deny climate change for lack of elements to prove it. Not having elements to demonstrate climate change, is it proof of its absence?

2) I would like to see you participate in forums outside your language. How many languages do you speak?

3) Why do I notice so many similarities between you and Into The Night? Are you little brothers who defend each other?


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
24-12-2019 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Third world guy wrote:
Into the Night:

1) Jesus Christ was not born in Rome nor in Israel: he simply did not exist.

There is no scientific evidence of his existence.

Science isn't evidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no such thing as 'scientific evidence'.

Science is purely agnostic. It does not prove Jesus Christ did not exist, and it does not prove Jesus Christ did exist. It simply doesn't go there.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Third world guy wrote:
There are only a few later myths made by Roman choreographers.

How do you know this?
Third world guy wrote:
2) Spartacus was real,

How do you know this?
Third world guy wrote:
and constituted a lousy experience about the potential risk of the slaves of the Empire. He was the main reason for the Roman coreagraphers for inventing Jesus Christ.

How do you know this?
Third world guy wrote:
3) Spartacus lived 100 years before the Christian era (113bc -71bc)

How do you know this?
Third world guy wrote:
4) The Catholic Church was generated after Roman choreographers invented Jesus Christ, and began in Rome, not in Israel, unless you want to talk about apocryphal myths and gospels, which in fact all are.

Not a fact. A circular argument. Learn what the word 'fact' means. It does not mean Universal Truth or 'proof'.
Third world guy wrote:
5) I have repeatedly proven in religious forums that there is no physical or scientific evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ.
Argument of ignorance fallacy. No evidence is not a proof. There is no such thing as 'scientific evidence'. Buzzword fallacy.
Third world guy wrote:
Those that appear in later books were previously altered by Christians, in their eagerness to make us believe in him.
How do you know this?
Third world guy wrote:
6) Nowhere do I say that christianism is not popular.
They are more than 35% of the human population.

You did. Do not lie. You are still being irrational. You must clear your paradox.
Third world guy wrote:
But as in the case of the supposed 97% of those who believe in global warming, the truth is not demonstrated by majorities.

Correct, but what is truth?
Third world guy wrote:
7) In this thread we talk about the similarity of Jesus with Dracula and Batman.

Both Dracula and Batman were declared fictional characters by their authors. That is not the case with Jesus Christ. False equivalence fallacy.
Third world guy wrote:
It is no place to talk about the definition of climate change.

This is exactly the place to talk about it. This is a climate debate forum. Define 'climate change'.
Third world guy wrote:
8) I have noticed that you have no capacity to understand sarcasms. Do you want me to put emoticons to understand them?


I do admittedly sometimes miss them, but what sarcasms are you referring to here?


The Parrot Killer
24-12-2019 21:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Third world guy wrote:
IBDaMann:

1) Your argument that the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of non-existence, is consistent with your recurring positions on climate change that you always put in this forum.

Attempting to conduct a proof of a negative is in and of itself a fallacy known as the Argument of Ignorance fallacy.

Define 'climate change'.

Third world guy wrote:
You deny climate change for lack of elements to prove it. Not having elements to demonstrate climate change, is it proof of its absence?

Define 'climate change'.
Third world guy wrote:
2) I would like to see you participate in forums outside your language.

He does.
Third world guy wrote:
3) Why do I notice so many similarities between you and Into The Night? Are you little brothers who defend each other?

The logic does not change. The laws of physics involved has not changed. The mathematics does not change. Now you call people socks because they are using the same laws of physics???

Yet Another Lame Sock Accusation (YALSA)


The Parrot Killer
25-12-2019 15:46
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Into the Night and IBDaMann:

After misrepresenting everything that can be misrepresented in this thread, I ask if you believe that once there was a special human being, son of God and capable of doing miracles.

Yes, no or probably?

Into the Night, do not worry: there are no sarcasms around.

IBDaMann: answer by yourself this question without supporting your little brother.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
25-12-2019 20:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Third world guy wrote:
Into the Night and IBDaMann:

After misrepresenting everything that can be misrepresented in this thread,

Lie.
Third world guy wrote:
I ask if you believe that once there was a special human being, son of God and capable of doing miracles.

Yes, no or probably?

Yes.
Third world guy wrote:
Into the Night, do not worry: there are no sarcasms around.

IBDaMann: answer by yourself this question without supporting your little brother.

YALSA


The Parrot Killer
26-12-2019 21:45
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Into the Night:

I really appreciate the honesty of your response. I am not a believer but I respect those who are.

Faith for believers is a blessing, but from my point of view of formation, being a believer does not allow you to apply the scientific method 100%.

You can be an excellent connoisseur of science, but never a scientist, and that is important.

Now I ask you: according to the scientific method, how do you explain that a human was born of a virgin through the Holy Spirit, and how was he capable of doing miracles?

The same question is for those who believe that a cow is a sacred animal, and for those who are convinced of Muhammad's conversations with the archangel.

I am not questioning beliefs, but the way in which they can be made congruent with science.

In this forum I have read you and IBDaMann calling 'religious' to people that defends global warming.

Do you think that is congruent?


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
Edited on 26-12-2019 21:46
26-12-2019 22:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Third world guy wrote:
Into the Night:

I really appreciate the honesty of your response. I am not a believer but I respect those who are.

Appreciated. However, I do not respect fundamentalists of any religion.
Third world guy wrote:
Faith for believers is a blessing, but from my point of view of formation, being a believer does not allow you to apply the scientific method 100%.

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. There is no 'method' or 'procedure' in science.
Third world guy wrote:
You can be an excellent connoisseur of science, but never a scientist, and that is important.

Science isn't a scientist or group of scientists. It is not credentials. It is not people at all. It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.
Third world guy wrote:
Now I ask you: according to the scientific method, how do you explain that a human was born of a virgin through the Holy Spirit, and how was he capable of doing miracles?

There is no theory of science to explain this, but there are philosophical arguments about it.

All people are born as virgins. These kids haven't had sex yet.
Mary was a virgin. Every women was a virgin until they had their first child.
The father was not Joseph, but God himself (as described in the Bible).

Miracles are simply unexplainable phenomena. Imagine taking a modern flashlight and amazing the primitive people with it. To them, that thing is a miracle. Light with no fire???

I do not think God violates any law of science. Science does not have a theory for everything. Indeed, in this case, science doesn't even go there.
Third world guy wrote:
The same question is for those who believe that a cow is a sacred animal, and for those who are convinced of Muhammad's conversations with the archangel.

A cow is a useful animal. I don't think cow worship accomplishes much. Personally, I don't think Muhammad ever had a conversation with Michael, the archangel. I think he used that to start a religion based on himself as supreme prophet of the world to justify his plans for world conquest.
Third world guy wrote:
I am not questioning beliefs, but the way in which they can be made congruent with science.

There really is no conflict with science for Christianity. Belief that Christ exists, that He walked this Earth, and that He was able to perform actions that we cannot explain has no conflict with science at all.
Third world guy wrote:
In this forum I have read you and IBDaMann calling 'religious' to people that defends global warming.

That is correct. The Church of Global Warming is inherently a fundamentalist style religion.
Third world guy wrote:
Do you think that is congruent?

As far as fundamentalism in any religion is concerned, yes. Fundamentalism is inherently a logical fallacy known as the circular argument fallacy. It is the attempt to use a circular argument as a proof.


The Parrot Killer
27-12-2019 13:53
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Into the Night:

It's nice to talk with you about religion, but without moving away from the objective of this forum, the supposed climate change.

You talk about fundamentalism in religions. Where is the limit between being a moderate believer and being a fundamentalist? Just above where you think you are?

When do people begin to be considered by you climate fundamentalists? When skeptics, moderates or non-believers consider it?


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
27-12-2019 18:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Third world guy wrote:
Into the Night:

It's nice to talk with you about religion, but without moving away from the objective of this forum, the supposed climate change.

The Church of Global Warming is a religion. Define 'climate change'.
Third world guy wrote:
You talk about fundamentalism in religions. Where is the limit between being a moderate believer and being a fundamentalist? Just above where you think you are?

Repetitive question already answered (RQAA).
Third world guy wrote:
When do people begin to be considered by you climate fundamentalists? When skeptics, moderates or non-believers consider it?

RQAA


The Parrot Killer
28-12-2019 18:56
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Into the Night:

Your RQAA are a rigged way to avoid answering what you are asked.

Nowhere do I see that my questions have been answered.

It is possible that I am a little bad to read what a foreign language is to me, so I apologize for that and ask you to treat me like a quasi illiterate.

That would be the way to enrich our unfinished dialogue and move forward on the subject of this thread.

Again:

When does a believer become a fundamentalist? Is there a rule about it, or is it simply your opinion?

I remain focused on the supposed climate change and those whom you consider victims of their fundamentalist religion.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
28-12-2019 20:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Third world guy wrote:
Into the Night:

Your RQAA are a rigged way to avoid answering what you are asked.

WRONG. RQAA is an acronym.
Third world guy wrote:
Nowhere do I see that my questions have been answered.

But they have. You keep asking the same questions that have already been answered.
Third world guy wrote:
It is possible that I am a little bad to read what a foreign language is to me, so I apologize for that and ask you to treat me like a quasi illiterate.

Okay.
Third world guy wrote:
That would be the way to enrich our unfinished dialogue and move forward on the subject of this thread.

You are not moving forward. You are asking repetitive questions already answered (RQAA).
Third world guy wrote:
Again:

When does a believer become a fundamentalist? Is there a rule about it, or is it simply your opinion?

RQAA. A fundamentalist is one that tries to prove a circular argument or use a circular argument in a proof.


The Parrot Killer
28-12-2019 20:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
Third world guy wrote: I ask if you believe that once there was a special human being, son of God and capable of doing miracles.

I do not. I am an atheist, i.e. I have no theism.

What you should take from this is that I view The Bible and Wikipedia as texts whose passages tow a certain ideological party line, that change over time, that are often quoted (or even underlined) by worshipers, and that are viewed by some worshipers as "inerrant" when in fact they are awash in errors, inconsistencies, contradictions and in the case of Wikipedia, grammatical errors and poor writing. If anyone quotes either The Bible or Wikipedia as some sort of authoritative support for an argument, I dismiss it out of hand.

I believe that both of those texts can be useful, even for non-worshipers in the same way that Aesop's Fables can be educational without having to take everything on face value. One must realize the author's intent, discern the core message, and then look in authoritative sources for more detailed/factual information.

You used the word "miracles" above. This is the term Christians use for violations of physics performed by God/Jesus/The Holy Ghost. In Global Warming and Climate Change, the equivalent term is forcings, i.e. violations of physics performed by Climate/ Global Warming / Greenhouse Effect, with the most popular forcings being feedbacks, e.g. radiative, thermal, climate, electromagnetic, etc...

I am an atheist and I do not believe in any physics-defying deities.

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2019 21:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
Third world guy wrote: I am not a believer but I respect those who are.

I think you are a believer. Do you subscribe to "Greenhouse Effect" as ultimately increasing earth's average global temperature?

Third world guy wrote: Faith for believers is a blessing,

A faith in a particular theism is a blessing when it brings comfort such as that brought to many Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.. On the other hand it is a curse when it brings discomfort, confusion, hatred, anger and mental servitude to others as we see inflicted by Marxism, Global Warming, Climate Change, etc..

Third world guy wrote: being a believer does not allow you to apply the scientific method 100%.

Well, in the specific case of Global Warming and Climate Change, yes. This is why warmizombies avoid science and the scientific method at all costs. This is why those who are targetted for recruitment by the Global Warming Church are among the most scientifically illiterate yet who believe they are fugging scientific geniuses. However, I will tell you that I work with some fundamentalist Christians who are among the best in the world at applying the scientific method, ergo you are in error.

Third world guy wrote:You can be an excellent connoisseur of science, but never a scientist, and that is important.

I have freed myself from all theism to focus exclusively on the scientific method. What do you want to know?

Third world guy wrote: Now I ask you: according to the scientific method, how do you explain that a human was born of a virgin through the Holy Spirit, and how was he capable of doing miracles?

That's too easy. Are you telling me that you don't know the answer to that question yourself?

I take it that science isn't your strong suit.

Third world guy wrote: The same question is for those who believe that a cow is a sacred animal,

I take it that you have zero understanding of Hinduism and that you don't know what the scientific method is or why it is irrelevant in this case.


Third world guy wrote: I am not questioning beliefs, but the way in which they can be made congruent with science.

Which tells me that you don't know what science is.

So let me ask you: How do you believe that someone can use the scientific method to show that a particular man did not come back to life from death or that there exists a non-sacred cow?

Third world guy wrote: In this forum I have read you and IBDaMann calling 'religious' to people that defends global warming.

What is surprising about religious people defending their faith?

By the way, unlike you, I know what science is. Unlike you, I am smart enough to recognize a religion when it is right in front of me. I suggest that if you wish to continue this discussion without being thoroughly mocked that you drop this pretense that you are somehow "on the side of science." You are not. You are defending your religious dogma and if you want respect then you need to start being honest and respectful. Again, it's just a suggestion.




.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-12-2019 16:39
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
IBdaMann wrote:
I am an atheist, i.e. I have no theism.

I see you recognize being an atheist (and a scientist). That is a great risk!

I suppose that means that you deny the participation of some form of entity or instance in the conformation of the universe.

You can see that I do not use the term 'God', but entity or instance.

OK?

How do you explain the fact that about 14 billion years ago, there was a sphere that contained all the matter in the universe? How could it happen?

How do you explain how all the protons of the universe could be gathered without generating electromagnetic repulsion between them?

How do you explain that suddenly the electromagnetic repulsion appeared and that sphere exploded becoming the Big Bang? Who opened the switch?

How do you explain the fact that all chemical elements follow precise rules as if they were programmed (potassium always reacts as potassium and chlorine as chlorine, and both suffer gravity)?

How do you explain that matter was from the beginning regulated to form proteins and DNA?

How do you explain the evolution of species from DNA?

Without the presence of an entity, an instance or a Principle of Order, the universe is meaningless. Again, I am not using the term 'God'.

Atheism is based on the fact that the entire conformation of the universe was made by itself, and that is a DOGMA!


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
29-12-2019 21:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Third world guy wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I am an atheist, i.e. I have no theism.

I see you recognize being an atheist (and a scientist). That is a great risk!

Why? The two have nothing to do with each other.
Third world guy wrote:
I suppose that means that you deny the participation of some form of entity or instance in the conformation of the universe.

You can see that I do not use the term 'God', but entity or instance.

OK?

I never saw him use any such term.
Third world guy wrote:
How do you explain the fact that about 14 billion years ago, there was a sphere that contained all the matter in the universe? How could it happen?

Not a fact. A religion. No one knows what it was like 14 billion years ago. No one knows whether all the matter in the universe was gathered into a sphere of any size.
Third world guy wrote:
How do you explain how all the protons of the universe could be gathered without generating electromagnetic repulsion between them?

Why should he?
Third world guy wrote:
How do you explain that suddenly the electromagnetic repulsion appeared and that sphere exploded becoming the Big Bang?

I see you are a member of the Church of the Big Bang. That is a religion, not a fact.
Third world guy wrote:
Who opened the switch?

The Big Bang had a switch??? Was it wall mounted?
Third world guy wrote:
How do you explain the fact that all chemical elements follow precise rules as if they were programmed (potassium always reacts as potassium and chlorine as chlorine, and both suffer gravity)?

You might go study up on the periodic table and quantum physics as well as chemistry.
Third world guy wrote:
How do you explain that matter was from the beginning regulated to form proteins and DNA?

Please describe this 'regulation'.
Third world guy wrote:
How do you explain the evolution of species from DNA?

I see you belong to the Church of Evolution as well. This is yet another religion. It is a very old one.
Third world guy wrote:
Without the presence of an entity, an instance or a Principle of Order, the universe is meaningless. Again, I am not using the term 'God'.

Why is the universe is required to have a meaning at all?
Third world guy wrote:
Atheism is based on the fact that the entire conformation of the universe was made by itself, and that is a DOGMA!

No. It is simply based on the belief that no god or gods exist. As far as the Theory of Abiogenesis (that life originated on Earth due to random unspecified events), that is again another religion. It is often confused with the Church of the Big Bang for some reason. So is the Theory of Creation (that life arrived on Earth due through the act of an intelligence), a conflicting religion.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Theories that are not falsifiable are not science. Such theories remain circular arguments, and often develop into religions.

All theories, scientific or otherwise, begin as circular arguments. It is the test of falsifiability, and ONLY the test of falsifiability, that take a theory beyond a simple circular argument. Science has no theory about any past unobserved event.

The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-12-2019 21:43




Join the debate Count Dracula, Christmas, Batman and global warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
It's Going to Be the Warmest Christmas at the North Pole Ever628-12-2016 18:53
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact