Nonsensical Atheists? Agobot?

But this is blank statement. Do they agree on the existence of God?What does science have to do with God? And what does "matters of science" have to do with religion or God? What agreement are you talking about? Such a gross generalisation about scientists(which scientists??) carries no distinct, definite meaning.Let's start one by one. Why does this utter nonsense get a free pass, if religion and atheism are on equal footing on EvC:From "Confidence in evolutionary science" thread, post 31, discussing emergent properties:"How many atoms are in that bridge I mentioned above? Does not each of them have to "constantly move and interact in an organised fashion" just as surely and predictably as the atoms in your body? Is it your impression that bridge atoms behave differently than cell atoms?"Percy, people say you are a deist? but in message 290 in "Why so friggin' confident?" you said this:"He's not saying that higher confidence should be placed in his incomplete evidence than in yours. What it boils down to is that you don't have any evidence related to the key question, whether there's any such phenomenon as God at all."If you believe there is no such a phenomenon as God, what kind of a deist could you be? And why would being an atheist necessarily be a bad thing or a negative label?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

No, it's not nonsense. It's nonsense beyond nonsense. He is clearly saying that the atoms in whatever molecules there are in the bridge, behave in the same way as the atoms in the molecules of your body. Which is the same as denouncing the existence of emergent properties. And which of course is idiotic, but it's no surprise that nobody from your camp notices it.I know most you of you would like to think of atheists as intellectuals. While this may be the case with certain individuals, as whole, most of you don't fare much better than creationists. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

You are not confused only because you are floating in a sea of ignorance and you believe you know everything(LOL). That's why you are confident and you are not confused if God exists or not. When you are past puberty(your language gives you away at every 2nd sentence), you'll see how little in fact you knew, Mr.IknowEverything.

Rhetorical question?? What "rhetorical" question? Here is the thread(please cite it):http://EvC Forum: Confidence in evolutionary science -->EvC Forum: Confidence in evolutionary scienceNow where in my quote below: did i "imply" this: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep, he spouted even more BS. If a dead human body floats in water and a living human body floats in the water, does this mean they are both somehow alive?(although one is obviously dead?). They both float, but one has emergent properties and the other clearly doesn't. This is his ridiculous quote: Is this how an atheist with blinders thinks about emergent properties? Are they really that simple to "explain" as an example with a bath tub floating in water, or is it because the blinders are set too tight and some of you don't see very well past a pre-conceived notion? It's ok with me. If 10 YEC's agreed that the Earth is 6000 years old, would this agreement between them lend credibility to their claims? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I never said because it(the bridge) was alive that it didn't have emergent properties. I never implied the word because, that's a Lie what you are putting into my mouth. I merely said: BTW, what are these magical emergent properties of the bridge that you are talking about?? If this was supposed to have been a rhetorical question, it's got to be the dumbest 'rhetorical' question on Earth. Ha ha ha, here is another rhetorical question:Is the Earth not flat? (asked by a flat earth society member)Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

You have no idea how wrong you are here. In fact, this is by far the dumbest thing I've seen posted here. IMO this beats the 6000 year old Earth, the talking serpent and is on par with the idea of a flat Earth. So you don't have blood, enzymes, DNA, hormones, etc. etc. all made of atoms? Are your internals made of stationary parts? Do you take food and drinks? I don't even want to get involved any further in this thing.Here is the smallest bacteria - Mycoplasma. It is constructed of roughly 10 billion atoms. It's alive. Change the positions of 10% of the atoms in the molecules, and it will be dead. While in a specific configuration, those 10 bln. atoms "come alive" and have new , radically new, unseen properties.Mycoplasma - Wikipedia There is strong and weak emergence, but we were obviously discussing life, which is strong emergence and cannot be explained. Well, i see that some of you are 'aware' of ways to explain life's emergence from atoms. It's the same as in bridges. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Nice try. Do you believe your atoms are behaving in the same manner as the atoms in a bridge? Does the bridge have DNA? Is there a brain in the bridge that can send individual atoms to a certain location that is in need of such an atom(in the bridge)?Is everyone gone mad already?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Out of the last 3 or 4 days, yes, it's the best example and atheists are still fighting to upkeep this nonsense.I can dig more, but this is not a good tactic to sweep some nonsense under the rug, as if it didn't exist, or as if it wasn't that much of a nonsense. If i had posted more quotes with stupidity from the past, it would only serve to distract me from the debate by going back and forth between a dozen topics, its details, its wording, its dictionary definitions, semantics, etc. all into oblivion. I've been a member of this camp long enough to know well this "confuse your opponent" tactic. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Imagine that life is a water molecule? How about imagine that the Moon is cheese or that Obama is a mouse. We have 'proof' that Obama eats moons. No they don't. Not in any way remotely similar to the bridge. For starters, here is how the atoms in the molecules of your body are communicating: Page Not Found - Site Help - Mayo Clinic This is how the sensation of touch is transferred between atoms, through electrical signaling. This is offtopic but we are much closer to being an electromagnetic phenomenon, than a body of solid matter, despite the illusion created by your brain.

No, this isn't true. It's quite obvious that you'd be dead if the atoms in your body didn't behave in a radically new way, supposedly because of their configuration. Life at the molecular and atomic level is not simple, it's not even complex, it's mind-bogglingly complex.I posit that there is a difference between a dead and a living human being. The difference is visible at the atomic level, easily. I have no idea why certain individuals omit to consider that your body is mostly liqiud, and most of the communication between the atoms of the molecules are talking place through these liquids(which are excited atoms whose outer electrons at times have the ability to 'fly off'), and through electrical signaling, which is instantaneous. Of course our atomic structure and it's mind-boggling abilities is in absolutely no way similar to that of any bridge. But the nonsense is ongoing and protracting. It wasn't my desire to raise hell, i was dragged into it and quite frankly i am wasting my time(i don't stand to gain anything from threads like this one). The only thing i hoped to gain was that maybe someone would think out of the box and maybe take a interesting guess about the nature of those atoms' 'properties' in living organisms.This is again offtopic, but some scientists have gone as far as to claim that atoms are conscious. While i don't claim this, i see no way to disprove this either.