Debate Score:	57
Arguments:	64
Total Votes:	58
More Stats

What if I were to tell you that scientists believe in God?

https://newspunch.com/world-physicist-evidence-god/?fbclid=IwAR039VWh25KQWTXxMP0bzQCZ_grrCD4fDEJD4F6WO4J-FKWMSmGXH9E7wRo

Liberals believe they know more than scientists ;)

OMG!!! Side Score: 26		Wait..., what? No!!! Side Score: 31
Add New Argument		Add New Argument

AlofRI (3293)

4 points

Steven Miller, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump (2), outlaw, …… ALL great arguments AGAINST "intelligent design". ;-)

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

joecavalry (40157)

1 point

Einstein also believed in God. Would you dispute Albert ;)

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Goldtop (166) Clarified

1 point

Albert disputes you...

Einstein said "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

"For me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

joecavalry (40157)

1 point

Again, why use the second quote? It leads me to believe that you do not understand the difference between God and religion. It also takes away from the first quote. It makes it sound like his focus is religion.

Regardless, I did a little digging and found this: https://www.newsweek.com/albert-einstein-god-letter-be-auctioned- expected-15-million-1243291

It contains the quotes you brought up. But it finishes with this:

Nonetheless, he (A. E.) retained belief in a higher power, the biography explained. Einstein said he believed in “Spinoza’s God”—that proposed by Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch philosopher. This god “reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

Einstein also went on record to criticize “fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics.”

Any way, you believe whatever you want. ;)

Supporting Evidence: https://www.newsweek.com/albert-einstein-god-letter-be-auctioned- expected-15-million-1243291 (www.newsweek.com)

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Pedestrian (151)

1 point

I much admired Prof. of sociology Mortimer Adler. However, his one shortcoming after being a non- believer until his 50s, he got baptized.

It didn't change my mind and could understand how he decided on that leap of faith but not actually being baptized because we both knew...wouldn't make a difference..

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

dadman (1703)

1 point

Science indeed points to an intelligent designer (God)

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Jody (1792) Disputed

1 point

Go on I will humour you , show us some peer reviewed papers that’s supports your claim bet you cannot ......I know the next answer bet it’s .....scientists are covering up and discriminating against I D pseudoscience

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

dadman (1703) Disputed

1 point

how does random-mindlessness-develop information / code .... an atheist has to answer this

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Jody (1792) Disputed

1 point

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

dadman (1703) Clarified

1 point

Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological

------------

Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).

------------

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly

------------

Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

------------

Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular

Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

------------

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

------------

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

------------

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

------------

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

------------

Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).

------------

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

------------

Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

------------

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

------------

Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

------------

David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

------------

Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

------------

Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-

Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

------------

Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).

------------

A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

------------

Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

------------

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

------------

Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

------------

William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) ........................... feel free to continue

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

BurritoLunch (6565) Disputed

1 point

Nice one, idiot. Quote the specific parts which say God is real and the empirical evidence which supports this claim. Don't just dump a random bunch of links under the false pretence they support what you are saying you goddamned idiot.

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

dadman (1703) Disputed

1 point

goddamned idiot <--- aw, poor baby -- you can't answer a simple question ??

is the painting of the Mona Lisa the result of an intelligence ? or random/un directed mindlessness

Don't just dump a random bunch of links

Uhm, no .... the review quotes are not 'random' < they were selected by an intelligence

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

BurritoLunch (6565) Disputed

1 point

is the painting of the Mona Lisa the result of an intelligence ?

It didn't paint itself you imbecile.

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

BurritoLunch (6565) Disputed

1 point

Uhm, no .... the review quotes are not 'random'

If there were any evidence in any of those papers of the existence of God you obviously would have posted it. The fact that you did not confirms to everybody not only that you are wrong, but also that you are intellectually dishonest.

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

dadman (1703) Disputed

1 point

but also that you are intellectually dishonest. really ?? < like how

----------------------------

Origin of Life: New Discoveries About DNA, God and Evolution

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

BurritoLunch (6565) Disputed

1 point

but also that you are intellectually dishonest. really ?? < like how

Because you deflected your responsibility to prove the claims you made. You engaged in the very familiar tactic of the red herring fallacy.

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

dadman (1703) Disputed

1 point

is the painting of the Mona Lisa the result of an intelligence ? ... did you answer this with total logic ?? < I think not

------------------------

I buy you books and I buy you books ... DNA Molecules and the Odds Against Evolution

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Jody (1792) Clarified

1 point

Go away you idiotic troll your reply is as anticipated , so any peer reviewed papers recognised by real scientists........waiting 🤔

Rational wiki

The Discovery Institute (DI, not in any way associated with the Discovery Channel) is a non-profit religious "think"-tank notorious for its attempts to get intelligent-design creationism taught in American schools. It has set out many of its goals in the Wedge Document (1999). Ironically, DI has its headquarters in liberal Seattle, Washington.

The Discovery Institute is behind the growing number of "Academic Freedom Acts" being introduced in various state legislatures across the United States with varying degrees of success. These "academic freedom" statutes represent a more sophisticated approach to sneaking creationism into public schools than those advanced by Discovery Institute fellow Wendell Bird in the 1980s (prior to the founding of the Discovery Institute in 1990) by omitting any references to creationism whatsoever. Instead, the Discovery Institute proposed language for a new breed of "Academic Freedom Acts" in 2007.[1] This proposed model "academic freedom" statute made its way into a number of bills in various states, such as that in Louisiana (passed in the Senate, died in the House), which would permit teachers "to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught". As such, the Discovery Institute significantly broadened its program of attempting to permit schools to "Teach the Controversy", going well beyond the Wedge Strategy (solely directed to intelligent-design creationism) to other politicized fields of science to which right-wingers object, such as climate change.

The Discovery Institute attempts to inject intelligent design creationism into secondary education through the publication of various creationist textbooks such as Of Pandas and People (1989, the subject of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial of 2005). Pandas, written in part by Discovery Institute fellows William Dembski and Jonathan Wells, was re-titled The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems in 2007 - presumably in an attempt to duck the shame attendant on the original name following the Kitzmiller case. It remains in print at least as of 2009. The Discovery Institute published Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism in 2007. The DI toutsrepresents the book as "the first biology textbook to present the scientific evidence

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

dadman (1703) Disputed

1 point

lol ...... sounds to me the swamp of sudo-sciences don't like any competition <--- poor babies

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

dadman (1703) Disputed

1 point

Go away you idiotic troll your reply is as blah blah .... jody has no answer for the simple question ?? typical

-------------------

LIFE .. what is it made up of .... matter alone ? ....

or is there an non-material element needed inorder for life to exist ? .... what would that element be ?

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Jody (1792) Disputed

1 point

Tell you what Troll get a book on Evolution from a bookshop and ignore your Unintelligent Design books from your local church and get back to me ........

Doctor Meyer has absolutely no qualifications in biology; he does hold a Bachelor of Science in geology and physics, but his Ph.D is in the philosophy of science which has no relevance to evolutionary biology.

You’re an idiot buddy and a troll

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

dadman (1703) Disputed

1 point

get a book on Evolution from a bookshop and IGNORE your intelligent Design books .. lol

I believe you're the one who owns 'ignore' .... t y p i c a l

-----------------

so tell me, get a book < would that 'book' be the result of an intelligence ? ... or just so much more 'randomness' ??

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Jody (1792) Disputed

1 point

No , I put you in your place , you put up the idiot Meyer as your poster boy and now you whine when I demonstrate what rational people know as he is an idiot with no peer reviewed papers to his name , get over it ......Maybe pray on it 😂

Here you are open wide and take your medicine ( again ) .....🙏

You’re an idiot buddy and a troll 👏👏👏

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

dadman (1703) Disputed

1 point

......................................... s l e e p - w e l l - m y - f r i e n d ....... dadmanabode.com

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Goldtop (166) Clarified

1 point

Science indeed points

Science is a process, a system of finding information, it doesn't point to anything.

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

dadman (1703) Disputed

0 points

so, tell me .... is the painting of the Mona Lisa the result of an intelligence ? or random/un directed mindlessness

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

dadman (1703)

1 point

12-12-2018 .. In Cambrian Explosion Debate, ID Wins by Default

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

dadman (1703)

1 point

02-26-2018 .. Dr. Michio Kaku dishes on spirituality, Einstein, and God in this latest installment of Dr. Kiki's

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

dadman (1703)

1 point

03-19-2018 .. God's problem Is a Lack of Evidence ?

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

AlofRI (3293)

2 points

"I am a deeply religious non-believer …. this is a somewhat new kind of religion." (Albert Einstein)

"To take those fools in spiritual garb seriously is to show them too much honor." (Albert Einstein)

"Two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." (A. E.)

(That last one is not relative to the first two... unless he was referring to those who thought he was a believer? …. Maybe?? ) ;-)

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

joecavalry (40157)

2 points

I don't think you are disputing me. I mean, I did not say that scientists believe in religion. Believing in God and believing in a religion are 2 different things. The quotes you provided prove that A. E. did not believe in religion. I agree with that ;)

4 years ago Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

AlofRI (3293) Clarified

1 point

I wouldn't dispute you Joe ;-), I'm like you, I just like to start trouble ………;-D

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Goldtop (166) Disputed

1 point

Believing in God and believing in a religion are 2 different things.

Please do explain those differences? Thanks in advance.

4 years ago Side: OMG!!!

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies