AJ Philips>>Leaving open the possibility is very different to attributing an equal probability to each scenario. We already sorted this idiocy of yours out at<<

Yes AJ, I recall that thread, it went long and hard did it not?

AJ>>I thought, too, that david f had adequately explained to you that the origins of matter have nothing to do with evolution.<<

Well AJ, for one as astute and imperious on the origins of matter your myopic mania for witch hunts deceives your eye as it scrolls down the text of your interlocutor. What I said regarding evolution was, “Runner I respect your view, although evolution or adaptation to an environment and the subsequent changes or mutations in DNA is fact”.

AJ>>Heck, you could disprove abiogenesis (you’ll have to look that one up, I presume, given how scientifically illiterate you are)<<

Once again AJ, you formulate a myopic synopsis to feed your intellectual insecurity. I never stated that we are anything but the consequence of matter. I never suggested that a “god” gave dust life by his or her breath.

AJ>> Perhaps. You just never know, do you? But it still doesn’t suggest that a god may exist.<<

You are certainly a simple soul AJ running down a single track laid by your limited understanding and others input.......your intellectual insecurity and your need for extolment causes me to laugh.

AJ>> By trying to shoehorn a god into the unknowns of the universe, you only demonstrate yourself to be an idiot with very little in the way of brain matter.<<

Is that it AJ, "an idiot". Do you feel intellectually placated now you have stooped to insults sport, should I send you some rotten tomatoes to throw at the poor wretch in the stocks.............lolololololol

David f>> Religion can lead us astray. We create gods and other mumbojumbo. We are encouraged to look down on those who subscribe to a different mumbojumbo. Some wise people have realised the folly of religion.<<

David, I never use the term “god” in association with life. Given our cumulative knowledge stops at the singularity of the big bang, a term we use for a one off occurrence that we do not understand, I find it naive to discount anything.

So “wise” people have realized the folly of religion David.......have they? That’s a simplistic statement given your resource is the accumulated knowledge of mankind thus far. Let me remind you of other folly’s that the majority of intellectuals have embraced down the ages.

The discovery of Vulcan
The expanding earth
The phlogiston theory
Luminiferous aether
The blank state theory
Einstein’s static Universe
Fleischmann and Pons cold theory
Emission theory of vision
Laws of refraction
Contact tension
Emitter theory
Classical elements
Rutherford model
Electron cloud

David, I could go on and on and on..........when it comes to knowledge our gratest tool is to be unsure of what we are sure of.
Carl Marx described religion as the opium of the masses, and he was right. Organized religion has always been a tool to empower the few and control the majority. But at its genesis religion and ritual have been a social tool to curb the wilfulness of mankind’s character for the greater good of the society it encompasses.

Re the astute “mumbojumbo” comment, like AJ, should I send you some rotten tomatoes to throw at your detractors?

Dear sonofgloin,

When you wrote, "Runner I respect your view, although evolution or adaptation to an environment and the subsequent changes or mutations in DNA is fact." you were being kind to runner.

Perhaps I could learn from you and also be kinder. We are all human and, in the passion of the moment, are not always kind.

Dear sonofgloin,

You wrote:

“So “wise” people have realized the folly of religion David.......have they? That’s a simplistic statement given your resource is the accumulated knowledge of mankind thus far. Let me remind you of other folly’s that the majority of intellectuals have embraced down the ages.

The discovery of Vulcan
The expanding earth
The phlogiston theory
Luminiferous aether
The blank state theory
Einstein’s static Universe
Fleischmann and Pons cold theory
Emission theory of vision
Laws of refraction
Contact tension
Emitter theory
Classical elements
Rutherford model
Electron cloud”

I repeat my remark from a previous post.

“Science can also be wrong, but there is a corrective. The scientific method incorporates the idea of the reproducibility of results. A scientific theory may be questioned by observation and experiment and proven false. There is no corrective for the mumbojumbo of religion. Doubt is heresy and condemned.”

David F>> There is no corrective for the mumbojumbo of religion. Doubt is heresy and condemned.”<<

Thanks for your reply David, we are not poles apart. The only fact I can give you about the scriptures of any faith is that they were penned by the hand of man. They have never been unequivocal to me.

Hi DAVID F...

So you'd rid us of ANZAC Day would you, because it was a 'military cock-up' was what you said? From my understanding it's quite true most of the strategic and tactical planning associated with the attack on the Gallipoli peninsula, proved to be poorly planned, resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.

The importance of the day itself (25th April, each and every year) symbolises every war, action, or campaign Australia has been involved, where casualties had been sustained, therefore should be retained for that reason alone, if for no other. Nothing whatsoever to do with Charles DARWIN either DAVID F ?