The Francis Crick Institute - new super lab - Darwinism is a Bad Bet.

Zorro , the problem is that the chances of having a friend in the sky is that number squared.

plenty of proof there. 1948 israel a state again.
yesterday the sanhedrin chose a new high priest
for third temple.
a book called the bible. it out sells every other book
every year. booksellers stopped putting it on the
list as it would be there every week.
out sells darwin books every year.

I do not see what the creation of Israel has to do with the creation of life. This country created Israel, so that is easy.

Personally I wish we had not, because of the appalling loss of life this had led to.


Darwin showed how life adapts to its environment. When life reproduces small mutations can occur. These mutations are held in our DNA

(Darwin did not discover DNA that came later). By demonstrating this Darwin showed all life has been created by this process from very simple

beginnings, so no intelligent designer was needed.

He showed a tree of all life. He did not show how life started to begin with.


Crick is arguing that it is statistically impossible for DNA to have developed by chance, he shows this for the necessary amino acid

chains. Therefor he is arguing there must have an intelligent designer to have at least created DNA.

But life started somewhere???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????...

Since Crick is arguing how statistically improbable it was for life to have started at all,

then this could lead to a conclusion we may be the only life in the universe?

Rather kills off Start Trek and all those other wonderful Science Fiction we have created, that is sad

I will miss the Klingons

it is impossible for life to exist anywhere, that is not in doubt.

Animals adapt to their surroundings they do not evolve. A cat does not change into a dog. It grows long fur in the cold, short fur in the heat. It adapts.
We kill foxes, call them vermin. But if I went about shooting pet collies or yorkies I would be arrested. They are the same species. Because of a different shape idiots are calling them different. a man who's three feet tall is as much a man as usain bolt. But people ascribe value to people by what they do? Is Usain Bolt more evolved than Jesse Owens? It's all this false measuring of qualities that are artificial.

If I ingest snake poison in small quantities my body adapts and over time I become immune to snake bites. I might also get other benefits, I might not suffer from arthritis anymore. Did i evolve or adapt.

As Darwin admitted, he was "a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard of intellect ... I have no great quickness of apprehension ... My power to follow a long & purely abstract train of thought is very limited"

He joined the Navy as a last minute ditch & was basically an outcast, his job was to collect fossils wherever they landed

Darwinsim was basically promoted by the CIA

Man is basically 98% identical to an Ape or Chimp , but that 2% is HUGE & cannot simply be modified over time without 'intervention'

zorrostrikes  • September 2, 2016 1:17 AM BST 
Animals adapt to their surroundings they do not evolve

The process of EVOLUTION is adapting to their environment. If there was an intelligent designer then that designer would have to

work on the environment. Animals are not designed from scratch. EVOLUTION has been proved.

As to how life started nobody has a clue, or even where?

EVOLUTION is adaptation of a species. It is a mutation in reproduction. If this mutation offers an advantage it prospers, if it offers none

it wont.

it's been revised down to 95 percent - i looked it up.

A mouse is at 92 percent - so a mouse has a better chance to evolve into a chimp .

than a chimp into a man?

all mutation is degenerative - it destroys data - it does not add.

Disease is a mutation.

get an x-ray and you will get a mutation.
stay on the beach too long and you get a mutation.

stop watching x-men
stop watching car adverts that say - the renault upyerarse has evolved.

it's propaganda.

I went back to school and evolved?

it's inappropriate usage.

Not in evolutionary terms Zorro

Australopithecus the missing link between us and chimpanzee. A chimp that came down from the trees, because trees were reducing.

It gradually developed a straight neck because it needed to keep its head up to look for predators on the ground.

With a straight neck it could produce a wider range of sounds....so language starts to develop. Language drives our intelligence.

Australopithecus were replaced by hominids about 2 million years ago. Flat heads and still a bit hairy, but definitely us.

We are the winners, **** Sapiens.

All the variety of life is caused by mutation in reproduction.

H omo

Doesn't add up Gery

Chimps are still Chimps , put them in their natural habitat & they'll be straight off up the nearest tree !

They still Cannot Talk

mc moonbeam...............don't encourage that fruitcake zorro.............or are you a fruitcake as well

The chimp in question hasn't undergone natural selection because its habitat still exists.
If man were to wipe out all forests within a lifetime then that would be unnatural selection and hence the chimp wouldn't have had chance to adapt to a new environment.
You could argue that chimps have been kept in captivity for generations, how come we don't see evolution in action.
Well you probably are seeing it you just don't know what you are looking for.

Take for eg. The footage of a monkey collecting wood to start a fire and then roasting marshmallows on a stick.
Monkies couldn't light fires before man brought them down from the trees.

Monkeys

We have not evolved from Chimps...about 5 million years ago we were the same animal..

The significant development in hominids has all taken place since we were forced down from the trees.

The earth was covered with large forests but this changed.


The biggest difference between humans and all animals is our incredible communication ability.

We communicate concepts, this is magnitudes greater than any other living animal can do.

We record our communication.

Kanzi the Bonobo chimp(I just googled it) that can roast marshmallows has been taught this....

He did not work it out himself.

It is still very impressive though.

One of the saddest things about us hominids or humans as we are now....is how incredibly violent we are.

We have Muslims at the top of the violent list just now, but all Humans are violent by nature.

It is our Achilles heel I feel.

Chimpanzee can be violent, but nothing like as bad. We need to study Chimpanzee more, they are our closest relatives,

to try and learn something about ourselves I feel

Sep 2, 2016 -- 1:54AM, zorrostrikes wrote:

all mutation is degenerative - it destroys data - it does not add.Disease is a mutation. get an x-ray and you will get a mutation.stay on the beach too long and you get a mutation.

Mutation is a natural process.  It is always occurring.  When an organism is adapted to its environment, significant mutations are usually not an aid to survival and thus the organisms with the mutation don't survive in sufficient numbers to pass the mutation to future generations.

When there is an abundance of resources or a significant change in the environment organisms with mutations can survive to pass these on and some of these mutations lead to organisms with a significant advantage.  Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands being an example of this.  The resources available on the new islands leading to a population boom and allowing various beak mutations to be passed on through generations.

It's not about whether a chimp works something out or sees another do it and learns.
The general question from a creationist standpoint is to ask 'where are all the inbetweens'
and
'why are there still monkeys at all?'

If evolution is the correct answer then the pattern of monkeys learning could be it in action, since that is believed what occured during the stone age.
The chimp that is in the wild in its natural habitat wouldnt need to learn fire creation and so remains a chimp chucking its 5hit around.

Besides the long game is a very long game, the names given to animals are arbitrary and man made, this is just a moment in time that could appear to have stopped over the brief amount of time humans have been intelligent enough to assess it.(ofc it hasnt stopped really)
Thats how I interpret it anyway.

and the 'inbetweens' as it were got wiped out

cardifffc

Are you some kind of forum moderator? You fking ****...

It always tickles me how those who believe that the bible was anything other than a collection of stories that in many respects contradicts itself.
To say the bible must be true because it sells is exactly the sales chatter that the JWs use on the doorstep.
They say that Jesus must have been what they say he was otherwise he'd have been forgotten.
Thats not true.
Had the myth of Jesus and the bible been doused at the time they were created then they wouldnt sell even in secondhand bookshops shops.
But because the fish that were sold on the stall of the believers were some magical ones that couldnt at the time get called out then the myth becomes greater until it becomes a legend.

What the believers in the bible really need to work on is the flaw that they always come to, which is the part they cant explain themselves, that non of the logic stands up, and when we reach this point the answer is always 'dont question god'.

and more to the point the bible's account of creation is straightforward nonsense.  Attempting to discredit science is only a diversion from the obvious flaws in the "holy book".

If someone wants to believe that because it is difficult to explain the origins of the universe and of life that the answer might be some sort of superior entity, then fair enough, but the bible is nothing to do with such an entity and clearly is the completely the creation of men.

Ive read quite a lot of bible interpretations by believers and sometimes that say 'we see bits of god's personality' or 'we can understand his message by the explanations he gives'
Then other times when they cant think of an answer say 'sometimes god tells us that hes god and doesnt have to explain himself' or like when Lot who had already been given grace by angels then goes on to f uck his own daughters (you couldnt even make it up....oh hang on somebody did) that 'god supplies up with all alternatives to view possibility'

really laughable bobbins, people actually try and find reasons to suggest the defective stories of human nature has a cause to it.

* obviously there is a 'cause' for all actions but reverse engineering some gathered together stories and attempting to link a narrative through them is pathetic.

John 3: 16

Genesis 1: 27

Toyah Willcox track 1. 'Its a mystery'

God was a triune james
He apparently was himself and his son, yet needed 40 days in the desert to think about it.

Primal Scream track 2 - space blues 2

'why are there still monkeys at all?'

an interesting question dustybin.

The reason is monkeys are perfectly adapted to their environment of living in trees. There is no need for them to evolve.

The monkeys who had to adapt by evolution were those Monkeys who began living on the ground. Because of lack of forest.

These monkeys eventually evolved into hominids, but we are the only hominid species to survive.

So we are the monkeys who have come down from the trees.

We must remember the immense time scales here, it took something like 3 million years!

I was paraphrasing ebul
And I thought id pretty much said that but there you go.

The Frank Chickens - Blue Canary - (my personal favourite) Live Barbican Weekender London 2011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jqxxSEy4_M

* sorry I misread the thread title.

Francis Crick was wasting his time - your scientific knowledge is so advanced?

your belief system makes sense - monkeys and trees.

believe the monkey tree story. but don't believe Francis Crick.

James Clerk Maxwell was Einstein's hero - a christian.
Blaise Pascal - mathematician - a christian.

All science now points to a creator. ignore it all you want.

the odds are ridiculous times absurd that evolution is even feasible.
please read what Francis Crick says before you post bull.

the FRANCIS CRICK INSTITUTE

Creator doesnt equal religion.

which ever one it is you chose to believe in

All science now points to a creator. ignore it all you want

Even if this is true, why is the bible full of nonsense?

chances of being born relate to number of sperm, multiply that up
for every generation and chances of being here make that first number
look small

hey ho, i am here, and you are

chances of us meeting here ........

is my chance of being born x your chance of being born
x all those involved in betfair and internet being born

= massive number


massive numbers exist in probability but think of all those
that were not born because millions of sperm fail ....

zorro
I actually am grateful because I knew very little about Crick other than he was involved with DNA discovery.
So I read up about him because thats what I generally do, listen and read.

Im incredulous as to how you seem to be using his name after what he said about christianity to be honest, Ive rarely seen anyone denounce religion and imparticular christianity to the extent he did.

The reason I am grateful is because Ive had a pencilled in theory of a number of things, one being that philosophy was closer to the truth of conscious reward than they realised. The 'leap of faith' I strongly believed to be a reward based chemical reaction in the mind that people such as yourself interpret wrongly as devine.
As it turns out this seems to actually be a theory Crick also had with respect to dopamine in particular (which I had suspected all along but had never took further as Im not a scientist and thought if it were true somebody would have stubbled upon it)
Well it seems they had.

wiki
Crick suggested that it might be possible to find chemical changes in the brain that were molecular correlates of the act of prayer. He speculated that there might be a detectable change in the level of some neurotransmitter or neurohormone when people pray. He might have been imagining substances such as dopamine that are released by the brain under certain conditions and produce rewarding sensations. Crick's suggestion that there might someday be a new science of "biochemical theology" seems to have been realized under an alternative name: there is now the new field of neurotheology.

dustybin  • September 2, 2016 5:30 PM BST 


I was paraphrasing ebul
And I thought id pretty much said that but there you go.

indeed you did dusty...I think I just like reading my own posts at times

Francis Crick died in 2004

How come he is making statements in 2011?

He rejected religion.

I never said Crick believed in God.
I wanted to point out that he did not believe in Darwinism.
He laid out in plain English why it could not happen.

DNA disproves the Victorian theory. Darwin did not know about DNA or that the fossil
record was missing intermediate stages. He assumed that more digging would come up with
the missing links inbetween - but they just don't exist.

Species adaption still stands. But evolving is a myth.

Selective breeding of Racehorses have gotten faster horses, but their bones are getting more and more fragile. To such an extent that breeders are worried that in thirty years time their bloodlines will collapse. They might have to start again from Arabians or stouter breeds.

Crick did not say that!

DNA does not disprove Darwinism, it confirms it, it is where mutations are held in a system of dominant and recessive genes,
they are not lost.
Otherwise they would disappear as soon as they appeared like a drop of white paint in a bucket of red point.
Gregor Mendel showed the theoretical basis of DNA with his pea experiments. Crick and Watson found it. Without
DNA, Darwinism was not safe.

If there are intermediate fossils missing, that is because they have not all survived the passage of time.

The only thing we do not know is how or where life started.

Selective breeding of race horses is not the same as genetic mutations.

I respect your belief in GOD Zorro, but you are very weak on evolutionary theory.

If there was a Creator WTF created the Creator ?

Anyway I would like to see Cardiiffs response to Bedtime

Who created the creator is the question the believers cannot answer.

My theory is that we could be an experiment being performed by another planet. They are more advanced than us and planted life here to see what happens.

Another theory is that the life-forming proteins/chemicals came on an asteroid.

There is life out there somewhere. There just has to be.

I'll bow to ebuls superior knowledge on this matter and let him take the floor since I've only flirted over the subject.
But I have to agree that the example of racehorses isn't apt since it's not natural selection, it's an artificial one implemented for the behest of humans.

What I struggle with is how zorro is using Crick attempting to denounce a theory by a method of somebody who denounced his own. Very unusual IMO.

Where the theology stand seems to fall is that it says humans simply can't understand God.
Well that didn't have to be so. If the theory is correct then it is of gods making not our own.
So when believers come unstuck they argue it's endemic in all of us to not understand it.

Well I'm right here right now not understanding God and see only a poorly engineered theory built around a collection of untested testimonies made an awful longtime ago by those nobody knew.

Shab  • September 3, 2016 8:30 AM BST 
Who created the creator is the question the believers cannot answer.

Yes it is the Achilles heel of the creator theory.

I don't think it is impossible perhaps some advanced race, created simple life, DNA and the rules of evolution
and then waited to see where it would lead.

But to argue someone created every single life form, and a every version of a life form, it so hard to see.
It is so obvious some life form are clearly related to other life forms, and may have evolved from other life forms
or have a common ancestor. There is plenty of proof, it can't just be ignored.

Perhaps we may in time come up with another theory, I just don't think it will be going back to Adam and Eve.
Plenty of scientists do believe in GOD in some way.

Darwin delayed publication of 'On the Origin of Species' because he thought he had killed GOD.
He need not have worried, GOD does seem resilient.

F*ck me sideways. Seriously, this is staggering.

The passage that you quote from his book, Life itself its origin and nature, was used to preface an argument FOR DARWINISM.

beyond f*cking belief.

Don't see why you are surprised that a religious zealot is a liar - they will destroy mankind.

zorro's problem is that he seeks out websites which support his point of view, rather than challenge it, and it's pretty easy to find them on the internet.

it's a bit odd, when he's so so suspicious of accepted scientific wisdom, that he seems to be able to park his keen scepticism when he encounters anything, not matter how spurious, that supports his point of view.

TBF is that not the same as non believers with a different point of view?
Everybody reads and hears what they want to hear.

As for accepted scientific wisdom. These seem to change from time to time as well. There's always someone new coming along rubbishing what we once
believed as fact. The only fact is, until yo die, no one knows any better than anyone else..

the difference is that the scientific method is based on falsification.

Science is as much a faith as Believing in a God.

The atheists point out 'why would God allow a child to die?'

yet they don't mention - chemical weapons,hydrogen bombs,GM food which nearly wiped out all vegetation in 1991. Seems science will soon wipe us all off the face of the planet. The genie will get out of the bottle.
Atheist's believe Science is a wonderful tool, putting their faith in it blindly.
I was an atheist for 25 years, I know all the arguments they are putting forward. I was
passionately stubborn in my atheism - It stems from pride. Pride in man's achievements.

I pointed out one flaw in Darwinism and you've all chosen selective blindness. Just as a christian relies on faith, you've all done the same. There are other stupid 'theories' that do not hold water. But science gets by on statistical manipulation.

CRICK -
“This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about
two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average
length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each
place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred
times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that
is, a one followed by 260 zeros!”

“This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For
comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking
loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11
stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This
number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry (or measly) by comparison
to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather
modest length… The great majority of sequences can never have been
synthesized at all, at any time.”

631,152,000,000,000,000 seconds of time in 20 billion years.

If there were an evolutionary change every second there is not enough time for anything
to “evolve”. If evolution were still taking place, why is there not any new life forms arising every day? It would take many billions of times 20 billion years for life to have evolved the way evolutionists say it happened. There is only one answer. It had to have all been made by a great Designer.

I'll say it again.

Do you understand that the quote from Crick that you've used below is used as a preface for an argument FOR natural selection.

I mean, before quoting that, you've read the whole chapter of the book that it appears in, haven't you?

just so you're sure you understand the context of the quote, and the reason why he brings this little idea up.

this is a new low, even for you zorro.

here's a low - everybody dies.
whether you are one or 120 yrs old.
If there is a God who has been reaching out to people..
and those people slap him away, then they are in trouble.
God only asks you to be sorry and accept him.
What reason stops anyone from doing this? Pride.
Childish beliefs are not for me. Self Righteousness.
Jesus came for the sinners not the righteous.
sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Blaise Pascal called it a wager. You die and there is nothingness.
or there is an afterlife. a coin toss. (bear in mind that matter/energy cannot be destroyed)

I'm okay with nothingness, I'd prefer it, but I know now there is a God.
I don't have much faith but all the arrows point to one.

God will judge people who have refused him. I expect the spirits of people who have been good will still come to him. Those that want him.

I'm going to stop posting on religious matters now - because
I'm wasting my time, those that are saved have been saved already.
God either makes himself known to you or he doesn't - he leaves the
door open.

free choice.

he must have been very busy in the 148,000 years of human civilisation BEFORE he sent jesus down to let all those people miss out on the opportunity.

(and think of all the poor buggers who never heard about christ for hundreds of years after he revealed himself)

If there were an evolutionary change every second there is not enough time for anything
to “evolve”. If evolution were still taking place, why is there not any new life forms arising every day? It would take many billions of times 20 billion years for life to have evolved the way evolutionists say it happened. There is only one answer. It had to have all been made by a great Designer.

You have been told what causes evolutionary change Zorro. It is a mutation in reproduction, if it offers an advantage it may survive.

Look at the cat family, from the household cat up to a Lion and everything in between. Do you not see similarities?
Surely they are related in some way, in fact must have come from a common ancestor. To say GOD individually created each type of
cat is ridiculous. If he did he copies his own designs a lot

I have no trouble in you believing in GOD Zorro. But evolution works, and there is plenty of proof. What we don't know is how life started,
I don't know if we will ever find out, it is in the future?

As well as new types of life evolving, which takes many generations, species also become extinct.
What is GOD supposed to be doing there, he just feels like a change, he thinks 'I have had Dinosaurs up to here,
so they have got to go'.

Sep 3, 2016 -- 7:38PM, zorrostrikes wrote:

here's a low - everybody dies.whether you are one or 120 yrs old.If there is a God who has been reaching out to people..and those people slap him away, then they are in trouble.God only asks you to be sorry and accept him. What reason stops anyone from doing this? Pride.Childish beliefs are not for me. Self Righteousness.Jesus came for the sinners not the righteous.sorting the wheat from the chaff.Blaise Pascal called it a wager. You die and there is nothingness.or there is an afterlife. a coin toss. (bear in mind that matter/energy cannot be destroyed)I'm okay with nothingness, I'd prefer it, but I know now there is a God.I don't have much faith but all the arrows point to one. God will judge people who have refused him. I expect the spirits of people who have been good will still come to him. Those that want him. I'm going to stop posting on religious matters now - becauseI'm wasting my time, those that are saved have been saved already. God either makes himself known to you or he doesn't - he leaves thedoor open. free choice.

ha ha refuses to acknowledge that he is a liar and runs away from the argument saying - you are all going to hell - what a pos.

i am running away - i admit it - running away from the doomed.
good luck. maybe one day God will grab you by the scruff of the neck,
miracles sometimes happen.

a cat is still a cat. were is the cat that turned into a rhino?

Why would a cat turn into a rhino?

And where are the five loaves that turned into 5000?

You choose to follow urban myth zorro, but never resort to the lowest tactic of them all and  which is to use the manipulation of the Unknown to declare non members of your clique will go to hell, when you clearly don't know.

Very few deserve what you think hell is so don't insult others with such vile accusations.

Incidentally I can't be bothered to track back to see if you actually did say those exact words, I simply read the last few comments.
It is interesting how you refer to energy not being destroyed.

Think you'll find that's science not theology, if we were to live by the book you'd be living in a cave unaware of such things.

choose which one you would prefer to be...

an Ape

or

a spiritual being

?

please reply.... an Ape? I promise I won't laugh at you.

99.9% of mutations are harmful. Evolutionists claim mutation is a significant part of err...evolution.

Punctuation Equilibria was an attempt by 'Evos' to explain the gaps in the fossil record and sudden appearance of complet species.

To conclude..an Evo's stance is...'my oak chair was sculpted by a craftsman, but my dog is a product of millions of chance occurances...'

if there is a god why did the evil ******* take my dad from me when I was only 15 years old
if there is a god i will kick the **** out of him when I meet him
but we all know there is no god
religion is a form of mental illness

Calling Good Evil? Could just be a put on? but I'll answer anyway.

People who die on operating theatres say they meet their relatives in their delusions?
what if you were to meet your dad again. Wouldn't you feel an explosion of joy. your spirit to spend an eternity with your dad. Knowing that a life span of 100 years was meaningless.
Anger is the father to murder. God asks us all to forgive, so that we might be forgiven by him. Your anger towards God indicates that perhaps deep down you do believe. Perhaps you should pick up the book and read it. Rain falls on the just and the unjust.

please reply.... an Ape? I promise I won't laugh at you.

an Ape
You knew I would say that Zorro

Can't you see the resemblance when you look at one. And Frankly with the exception of us 'The Naked Ape',

they are a good deal more peaceable than us.

I would hope there is a good life waiting for us after death Zorro, I admit it.

But I will not hear a word against evolution,

Darwin and Mendel, they were good men.

I wasn’t calling good evil only God (IF there is one), maybe there is a God, but he could be evil?  and he is having a laugh with "his creation"
but until i see hard evidence of his existence, to me, he does not exist - maybe it is because of my scientific background having worked in science/research I like to see hard facts before I believe. similar to a photo finish in a horse race, the betting can give an indication of the result but only the photo provides the proof of the result.
I can understand why people need to believe in a god, and I respect their choice,  as their life would appear to be pointless if they thought it all ended when death occurred, but for me it is a case of you live then you die so make the most of it ,that is why after nearly 40 years of employment I decided to stop working and got on a plane to Thailand to enjoy a relatively stress free life.

ps

I believe in evolution

Who do you give credit to for all the wonderful things in this world and beyond?

There's no need to give credit to anyone for all the "wonderful" things in the world. Most natural wonders (and I'm thinking waterfall, rainbows, landscapes) are aesthetically pleasing to our species, as a bi product of our evolution. An alien might find them repulsive. Our view of the world is entirely subjective.

As a scientist you may have heard of James Clerk Maxwell, or Blaise Pascal.

Pascal wrote a book about why you must believe in god. (book-Pensées)
Pascal computing language is named after him.

Albert Einstein wrote: about James Clerk Maxwell (devout Christian).
The precise formulation of the time-space laws was the work of Maxwell.
Imagine his feelings when the differential equations he had formulated
proved to him that electromagnetic fields spread in the form of polarised
waves, and at the speed of light! To few men in the world has such an
experience been vouchsafed ... it took physicists some decades to grasp
the full significance of Maxwell's discovery, so bold was the leap that
his genius forced upon the conceptions of his fellow workers
    — (Science, May 24, 1940)

If we submit everything to reason our religion will be left with nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous . . . There are two equally dangerous extremes: to exclude reason, to admit nothing but reason.”
― Blaise Pascal, Pensées

Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.”
― Blaise Pascal, Pensées

I see you pulling in some serious back up here Zorro

Not all scientists are bold avengers for Darwinism.

i read science books I'm smarter than the normal human?
up yer own arse much?

When you reach James Clerk Maxwell level let me know.

When you do, you let me know as well Zorro

I make no claims for myself

I am interested in science that is all

It is my regret that I was not clever enough to be a scientists, I think it is the most wonderful thing for a human being to be

shoulda put replying to onthehoy comment?

"but until i see hard evidence of his existence, to me, he does not exist - maybe it is because of my scientific background having worked in science/research I like to see hard facts before I believe".

why do people want to kill all the jews?
does your mother love you? get documented proof please.
who shot Kennedy? ( i think it was Oswald)
Prove to me that time started 14 billion years ago?
does colour exist or is it subjective?

apologies zorro

slap shot - you feel much shame, but then you get free.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XbL7lG0Su8

So let's have a look at the biblical flood.  Apparently God destroyed everyone except Noah (and his selected band of animals) because he regretted he ever made them as they had become corrupt and violent. ding ding ding - the all knowing God knew this would happen, so why did he bother? 

Anyway he killed everyone and everything but Noah and his family* (who luckily were partial to a bit of incest).  And guess what, mankind continued to be violent - one of the recent highlights being Stalin and Hitler slaughtering millions.  ding ding ding - the all knowing God knew this would happen, so why did he bother?

The God of the bible doesn't exist and that book is a fabrication of men full of nonsense.

*there is really no need to delve very deeply into the vast number of issues with this particular biblical assertion

i read science books I'm smarter than the normal human?
up yer own arse much?

Zorro, I respect your right to believe in the supernatural but I don't respect this sort of abuse of other forumites.
One could just as easily substitute "Science books" with "The Bible and religious websites". Who would that then remind you of?

Foinavon - I was quoting onthehoy

- but until i see hard evidence of his existence, to me, he does not exist - maybe it is because of my scientific background having worked in science/research I like to see hard facts before I believe. similar to a photo finish in a horse race, the betting can give an indication of the result but only the photo provides the proof of the result.

I don't believe in the supernatural - that's your belief system of God's interaction with man. It's natural to me. I'm not talking about restricting free choice. God gave us free choice and ten commandments as a guide. But Man takes away free choice. Open any law books lately there are a lot of laws. Can i drop a crisp packet in the street lawfully? Can I whiz behind a tree if I'm desperate?

I was pointing out onthehoy 's arrogance at claiming science as his alone - that God isn't involved or anyone that allies themselves with god.
let's put some perspective into the argument - the big bang theory was created by a french priest called Georges Lemaître -


Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966 -  was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[1] He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[8] WIKI

Hubble confirmed it with his observations, measuring red shifts of stars. It was Lemaitre's theory.