I find it hilarious the contortions you put yourself in, in order to declare your nonbelief is not a belief. Fine have it your way every other rational person knows better except "you" of course. Can we just call your non belief, a vacuum of thought? It does make me wonder though why it would be so imperative for you to cling to such a claim. The only rational reason I see is fear. It must really suck to be so afraid of something that it makes you unable to recognize or admit your own beliefs.
careful , careful now,stu might get all stewed up with you portraying the "non belief" argumentative semantics farce as an idea or a belief. His non belief as presented is obviously a thought consisting of a mental vacuum. As foreign as that is to me , I'm certain that it's an all too oft condition for him. So I'll take him at his word.
Yet losers like yourself can't figure out why you are perceived as immature thinkers or as morally bankrupt.
As an inhabitant of the bizarre world of religious confusion, you are as such inevitably driven to rely on absurdity to try and argue in defense of the contradictions you make (no belief is belief) and in the lack of cognitive content you bring against any opposing views, as demonstrated above..
Come on stu, one doesn't have to believe you aren't smart to be an inhabitant of the bizarre world of religious confusion. One simply has no reason to believe you are smart.
Barbara Hollingsworth: Keeping the lid on - and the science out By: BARBARA HOLLINGSWORTH Examiner Columnist December 1, 2009 As a long-ago biology major, I once shared romantic notions of scientific geniuses like Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein shrugging off critics of their paradigm-changing theories and following the physical evidence wherever it led. I now know that science is sometimes sacrificed to ideology, as exemplified by the recent scandal at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and the ongoing attempt to silence proponents of intelligent design. More than 800 Ph.D.-level scientists around the world are seriously considering ID to explain the origin of life, but you'd never know it. Most do so clandestinely for fear of being ostracized by their peers or even forced out of their academic positions. Some have secretly contacted the Discovery Institute (www.discoverinstitute.org) after researching ID, Stephen C. Meyer, author of "Signature in the Cell" -- now in its fifth printing and one of Amazon.com's top 10 science titles -- recently told me over lunch. Others, like Cold War dissidents making furtive contact with the West, arrange discreet meetings to discuss what "evolutionary biologists don't want to talk about, the origins of the information in the digital code of DNA necessary to produce life." When former Cambridge biochemist Douglas Axe computed the chances that the four amino acids that form DNA could self-arrange themselves into just one functional protein, he found it was 1:10164 -- or less than the odds of finding one marked subatomic particle in the entire observable universe. In other words, the evolutionary story now universally taught to students fails to account for the origin of the basic information that forms the very blueprint of life. Yet even though most of the scientific establishment rejects the notion of an intelligent designer, Meyer says nobody has come up with a better explanation. Ironically, attempts to discredit ID have turned it into forbidden fruit on college campuses. Many recruits are grad students who understand the complex nanotechnology of the cell and the dead ends in Darwinian evolution much better than their professors. "It looks like engineering," Meyer says. "Replication. Digital code. We own the metaphors. They know the future is with us." The day before a debate in Shrewsbury, England, commemorating the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth in February, Meyer quietly met with some of the top biologists in the United Kingdom who wanted him to know they "were on our side" despite the "reflexive hostility" shown by evolutionists who resist the theistic implications of ID, but find it easier to brand its adherents as "creationist whackos" than to address the numerous deficiencies in Darwin's theory. "The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection -- which is to say, minor changes within existing species," writes Discovery Institute senior fellow Jonathan Wells, who has two Ph.D.s from the University of California at Berkeley in molecular and cell biology. "Faced with such evidence, any other scientific theory would probably have been abandoned long ago. Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, Darwinism is false." Isn't it interesting that the vast majority of Americans have never heard any of these scientific challenges to Darwinism even though the scientific method is based on questioning existing theories? "If we've defined science such that it cannot get to the true answer, we've got a pretty lame definition of science," Axe said. Amen to that.
the superstitious mind. its a thing of beauty. did it ever occur to you that if any scientist were to come up with some evidence for id he would be world famous? why do you think none ever has? the id proponents want their ideas accepted as science without the step of peer reviewed evidence. why. because well its looks too complicated to happen naturally. the whole id movement rests on one idea. it looks complicated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA Many Intelligent Design proponents often cite the complexity of the eye as proof that the eye is so complicated that it could not have evolved. Here scientists and educators explain how the eye fits very well into Darwin's evolution model.