Isaac Asimov, Ignorant, Hateful Atheist, Beloved by Leftists

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,126
Points
170
You kind of threw me at , "Evolution assumes atheism"
That's because you believe in lies. The Bible clearly states evolution as such. The Bible, creation, and creation science is incompatible with the lies of evolution. The majority of scientists who believe in evolution are atheists and agnostics. For example, it's impossible for life to come from non-life. As for the big bang, evolutionary thinking cannot explain what was there before the big bang. However, for creation scientists, the Bible tells us that God was there and he created space and time, created light and separated day from night on the first day. Long time was not necessary. What we discovered was the start of the universe had a beginning and from that came Kalam Cosmological Argument. The evolution scientists can't accept that even though they have no explanation for what came before the big bang.

So what happens to the minority who believe in theistic evolution? I think they'll be misled by believing in lies and being forced to believe in other lies.
 

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
974
Points
315
In 1984, I read his book, Counting the Eons.

It was the first book I ever read so full of nonsense and silliness that I took copious notes and critiqued it, then sent my notes to the publisher who forwarded them to Isaac Asimov.

First I will show you the postcard Isaac wrote to me and then I will critique his ignorant postcard, which by the way I sold on E-Bay for $75 ! Woot.

View attachment 445934

I covered over my name and address.

In his few sentences here, Asimov's ignorance is in full throat.

1. He blames the failure of religion on religion, neglecting the obvious fact that if you do not follow the precepts, the instructions, then you cannot blame the book which you purposely ignored and neglected.

2. On the subject of "humanity's social ignorance and weakness," consider that:
A. Isaac Asimov neglected his own family to pursue his passion of self-aggrandizing writing. His referenced book is 1230 pages in length, a horribly boring read. I quit after just a few dozen pages which blathered needlessly and said nothing anyone would care about.
B. Asimov's son, who he long neglected, was arrested in Northern California a few years ago for possession of child pornography on his computer. Shades of Hunter Biden! What kind of fathers raise these kinds of sons?
C. Asimov was SO INGNORANT that he refused to fly on any commercial aircraft, which happen to be ten times safer per passenger mile than driving a car.
D. Asimov became a fervent atheist after he prayed to God to help him pass a chemistry test in high school. After he failed it, he renounced God for the remainder of his miserable life. Asimov would show God, by God!

3. On the subject of my critique, Asimov completely ignored all of it, not because it was without merit, but because he had no answers and he knew it. I'll just provide a few examples for Asimov sycophants to grind their teeth on:

Page 12 "If the tube (used to breath through when underwater) is long enough and wide

enough, all the exhaled air remains in that long tube and you will breathe the same air over

and over again and it will not be long before you suffocate".



[Wrong again. If you extend a tube a mere 18" under water, and position yourself vertically

below it, the hydrostatic pressure precludes you from inspiring your first breath. I have tried it

as a scuba diver. EVEN IF that were not the case, his argument still fails. Exhale out your

nose.]


Page 21: "Raise the temperature of ice and it melts."


[Ice melts at a constant temperature - 0 degrees C.]

Page 150: ". . . there is an object a mile above the surface of the earth that is moving upward

at a constant speed. We can tell when it started its journey . . . there is nothing in the upward

direction to stop, we could conclude that it would travel forever and its journey would have no

end."



[Let's not complicate "science" with, oh say wind resistance, or even gravity. Such

oversights make his poor writing look as trivial as, "negative energy"!]
I would think you would LOVE Isaac Asimov!
He, like you and many others here, wrote Science FICTION.
Of course, he knew it WAS Fiction.



`
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
8,693
Reaction score
3,100
Points
375
You kind of threw me at , "Evolution assumes atheism"
That's because you believe in lies. The Bible clearly states evolution as such. The Bible, creation, and creation science is incompatible with the lies of evolution. The majority of scientists who believe in evolution are atheists and agnostics. For example, it's impossible for life to come from non-life. As for the big bang, evolutionary thinking cannot explain what was there before the big bang. However, for creation scientists, the Bible tells us that God was there and he created space and time, created light and separated day from night on the first day. Long time was not necessary. What we discovered was the start of the universe had a beginning and from that came Kalam Cosmological Argument. The evolution scientists can't accept that even though they have no explanation for what came before the big bang.

So what happens to the minority who believe in theistic evolution? I think they'll be misled by believing in lies and being forced to believe in other lies.
LOL! You bring the Bible to a discussion about science? I guess that is where it stands..I think if you believe in the creation myth of Genesis, you believe in lies.

I note with amusement that you seem to think that Christianity is the only religion out there--and that your truth is everybody's. Not so..

But this is a far cry from Asimov--the good doctor would be quite amused though..at this thread.
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
2,604
Reaction score
1,898
Points
1,940
The majority of scientists who believe in evolution are atheists and agnostics. For example, it's impossible for life to come from non-life.
EVEN WITH the formula for hemoglobin, scientists cannot duplicate human blood. The best we can do today is draw blood out of one person and transfuse it into another.


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

_________________________

From my website:

This is the schematic for a NEC monitor.

NEC Monitor


This monitor performs a valuable function and is clearly designed, that is to say, it did not develop itself.



This is the schematic for a single cell. Note the similarities of the two schematic designs.

Cell chemistry.jpg


However, unlike the NEC monitor schematic, the cell schematic:

  1. Cannot be constructed by humans in a laboratory, but only by another living cell,
  2. Can feed (provide power) to itself,
  3. Can repair itself,
  4. Can reproduce itself,
  5. Can transport itself from place to place via chemical means,
  6. Can modify its own structure, as when muscles are developed through exercise.
To pretend that sophisticated electronics were designed by educated engineers, but far more sophisticated cells and animals made themselves, via absurd and statistically impossible syntheses is totally absurd.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,906
Reaction score
4,705
Points
1,130
The majority of scientists who believe in evolution are atheists and agnostics. For example, it's impossible for life to come from non-life.
EVEN WITH the formula for hemoglobin, scientists cannot duplicate human blood. The best we can do today is draw blood out of one person and transfuse it into another.


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

_________________________

From my website:

This is the schematic for a NEC monitor.

NEC Monitor


This monitor performs a valuable function and is clearly designed, that is to say, it did not develop itself.



This is the schematic for a single cell. Note the similarities of the two schematic designs.

Cell chemistry.jpg


However, unlike the NEC monitor schematic, the cell schematic:

  1. Cannot be constructed by humans in a laboratory, but only by another living cell,
  2. Can feed (provide power) to itself,
  3. Can repair itself,
  4. Can reproduce itself,
  5. Can transport itself from place to place via chemical means,
  6. Can modify its own structure, as when muscles are developed through exercise.
To pretend that sophisticated electronics were designed by educated engineers, but far more sophisticated cells and animals made themselves, via absurd and statistically impossible syntheses is totally absurd.
I think what is absurd is the hyper-religious comparing inanimate objects; electronics, to biological objects and mechanisms.

Who or what were the designers of the designer gods?

It always comes as a surprise to the hyper-religious that inanimate objects are not subject to reproductive pressures that biological organisms face.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,126
Points
170
LOL! You bring the Bible to a discussion about science? I guess that is where it stands..I think if you believe in the creation myth of Genesis, you believe in lies.

I note with amusement that you seem to think that Christianity is the only religion out there--and that your truth is everybody's. Not so..

But this is a far cry from Asimov--the good doctor would be quite amused though..at this thread.
Lol, it just goes to show your narrow minded thinking.

I brought in the Bible because that is where the science was found. The Bible isn't a religious book, but science backs it up. We learned of the creation in Genesis. If it wasn't true, then it would've been discarded. It explains what was there before the big bang. Before that, secular science thought the universe and Earth existed forever, but that changed with the discovery of the CMB. Once that happened and a beginning was determined, the Kalam Cosmological Argument came to fruition. However, evolutionists do not have any explanation for what was there before the big bang.

Lol, it goes to show that evolutionists do not have a leg to stand on. They made up the rest since the 1850s.

Furthermore, one cannot prove evolution because what's difficult to believe is the long time. No one can witness a million or even billions of years. Closest we can get is 100+ or -. Thus, it's a made up idea so we can have the theory of evolution.

What if I said to you that I don't believe the Earth and universe is greater than 10,000 years old? You wouldn't be able to answer. If you could show the transitional fossils of the long times, then more people would be convinced and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,126
Points
170
Who or what were the designers of the designer gods?

It always comes as a surprise to the hyper-religious that inanimate objects are not subject to reproductive pressures that biological organisms face.
God always existed forever. Why is that so hard to believe since you believed in an eternal universe and Earth before?

What ChemEngineer and I want is you and your side showing us an example of abiogenesis. We know it can't be done through the scientific method. The creationists side has Dr. Louis Pasteur's scientific method and cells and life reproducing. IOW, the long time required and that it happens from non-life is BS.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,906
Reaction score
4,705
Points
1,130
Who or what were the designers of the designer gods?

It always comes as a surprise to the hyper-religious that inanimate objects are not subject to reproductive pressures that biological organisms face.
God always existed forever. Why is that so hard to believe since you believed in an eternal universe and Earth before?

What ChemEngineer and I want is you and your side showing us an example of abiogenesis. We know it can't be done through the scientific method. The creationists side has Dr. Louis Pasteur's scientific method and cells and life reproducing. IOW, the long time required and that it happens from non-life is BS.
Your "...because I say so" arguments are rather pointless. They're the same "...because I say so" arguments made by competing religioners so your claims are best directed at your competition.

I wasn't aware, until now, that I believed in an eternal earth. Remarkable what you discover on the interwebs. Because the planet has an approximate timeline of its existence, I suppose you will need to revise what I believe. Let me know when you're done.

I actually can show you an example of abiogenesis. Life on this planet is that example. How about that? I gave you an example. You will want to claim that life on the planet appeared at the sweeping hands of polytheistic gods by magical and supernatural means a mere 6,000 years ago, but you have made no supportable case either for your gods, firstly, or a 6,000 year old planet, secondly.

The fact that life exists on the planet actually does prove that abiogenesis did occur. It is the precise mechanism(s) that is in question. There is no plausible case against it. While the ID’iot creation cults (fundie Christian cults), insist their gods are responsible for a fully formed planet / humans 6,000 years ago, we have hard science to discredit those claims, The only attempts to discredit abiogenesis are silly calculations that result in the “it’s too complicated” meme.

As we see with certainty, it is the ID’iot creation / YEC crowd that rails against abiogenesis. It’s predictable that they are unable to defend their claims to magic and supernaturalism so they are left to attack science. It’s not at all ironic that science is the mechanism that will lead us to rational conclusions s opposed to religious extremism which is the opposite of rationality.

Your nonsense claim regarding Pasteur comes from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and is another ID'iot creationer fraud. Here's where that fraud came from:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

What your fraud fails to identify is that the spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism - how cool is that?.


Take some time to learn the consequences of being an accomplice to fraud.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,126
Points
170
Here's a good video on what the lies of atheist conditioning has done to the evolutionary brain. It cannot see how a creator could have created everything.

It is so difficult that the video maker had to go through much inventing to show what you see isn't true.

 

HenryBHough

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
30,604
Reaction score
6,676
Points
1,140
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
I would think you would LOVE Isaac Asimov!
He, like you and many others here, wrote Science FICTION.
Of course, he knew it WAS Fiction.



`
Think about it. "Fiction" means "not true". "Not true" means "lie".

So consider Azimov......became richer and more well known than any liberal politician through lying but without raping or pillaging. No wonder he didn't go into poolitics!
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,906
Reaction score
4,705
Points
1,130
Here's a good video on what the lies of atheist conditioning has done to the evolutionary brain. It cannot see how a creator could have created everything.

It is so difficult that the video maker had to go through much inventing to show what you see isn't true.

I've noticed a disturbing pattern where ID'iot creationers get their limited science education from fundamentalist ministries and silly youtube videos.
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
8,693
Reaction score
3,100
Points
375
I would think you would LOVE Isaac Asimov!
He, like you and many others here, wrote Science FICTION.
Of course, he knew it WAS Fiction.



`
Think about it. "Fiction" means "not true". "Not true" means "lie".

So consider Azimov......became richer and more well known than any liberal politician through lying but without raping or pillaging. No wonder he didn't go into poolitics!
Asimov was entirely too blunt for politics...and he had little patience for those he considered fools.

BTW...Asimov wrote far more fiction books than non-fiction--as well as being a working scientist and full Professor.
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
2,604
Reaction score
1,898
Points
1,940
U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller delivered a sweet plea bargain to David Asimov, Isaac's son.

Asimov was indicted by a federal grand jury in November 1999 on four counts of possessing images of child pornography. Because the grand jury transcript has not been released to the public, the public cannot determine whether evidence of distribution and sale of pornography was ever presented by the U.S. Attorney. Did the grand jury see all 1000 videotapes of horrendous child pornography found in Asimov's home? If so, why did they only find four instances where pornography was possessed by Asimov?


In December 1999, Asimov pled not guilty in federal court, and was released on his own recognizance. Again this type of release put no pressure on Asimov.

The two previous charges in Sonoma County, included distribution of child pornography and felony exploitation of a child. The federal indictment did not include these charges, and only included lesser charges that Asimov possessed child pornography by downloading images from the Internet into his computer and onto a floppy disk. The federal charges also included the possession of one videocassette and one foreign magazine with images of children engaged in sex acts. Each of the four federal counts carried a potential sentence of five years in prison.

In the summer of 1999, U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller, far left wing hack, engaged in plea deal with Asimov, by dropping two counts. At this point, Asimov and his attorney were close to obtaining a sentence which would not involve state prison or forfeiture of assets.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,126
Points
170
U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller delivered a sweet plea bargain to David Asimov, Isaac's son.

Asimov was indicted by a federal grand jury in November 1999 on four counts of possessing images of child pornography. Because the grand jury transcript has not been released to the public, the public cannot determine whether evidence of distribution and sale of pornography was ever presented by the U.S. Attorney. Did the grand jury see all 1000 videotapes of horrendous child pornography found in Asimov's home? If so, why did they only find four instances where pornography was possessed by Asimov?


In December 1999, Asimov pled not guilty in federal court, and was released on his own recognizance. Again this type of release put no pressure on Asimov.

The two previous charges in Sonoma County, included distribution of child pornography and felony exploitation of a child. The federal indictment did not include these charges, and only included lesser charges that Asimov possessed child pornography by downloading images from the Internet into his computer and onto a floppy disk. The federal charges also included the possession of one videocassette and one foreign magazine with images of children engaged in sex acts. Each of the four federal counts carried a potential sentence of five years in prison.

In the summer of 1999, U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller, far left wing hack, engaged in plea deal with Asimov, by dropping two counts. At this point, Asimov and his attorney were close to obtaining a sentence which would not involve state prison or forfeiture of assets.
Asimov's son shoulda gone to prison!!! Like father like son.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,126
Points
170
Here's a good video on what the lies of atheist conditioning has done to the evolutionary brain. It cannot see how a creator could have created everything.

It is so difficult that the video maker had to go through much inventing to show what you see isn't true.

I've noticed a disturbing pattern where ID'iot creationers get their limited science education from fundamentalist ministries and silly youtube videos.
I wasn't talking to you as anything to do with science would just go over your head :aug08_031:.

It shows evolutionists have been fooled by uniformitarianism and evolution. Now, they can't see anything else. The Earth is young and the evidence such as light sedimentary layer buildup backs it up.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,906
Reaction score
4,705
Points
1,130
Here's a good video on what the lies of atheist conditioning has done to the evolutionary brain. It cannot see how a creator could have created everything.

It is so difficult that the video maker had to go through much inventing to show what you see isn't true.

I've noticed a disturbing pattern where ID'iot creationers get their limited science education from fundamentalist ministries and silly youtube videos.
I wasn't talking to you as anything to do with science would just go over your head :aug08_031:.

It shows evolutionists have been fooled by uniformitarianism and evolution. Now, they can't see anything else. The Earth is young and the evidence such as light sedimentary layer buildup backs it up.

Another of your conspiracy theories. We know through the methods of science that the planet is not a mere 6,000 years old. That’s just ridiculous.

Science is the most successful way of learning about the world. Simply put, the methods of science are reliable. Through science, more knowledge of the world has been illuminated than with two thousand years of religiously based fears and superstitions. Through the enlightenment of science, people live through disease, we live longer. We can explain gravity and the motion of planets through science, more so than through astrology, alchemy, divination, or ritual. Deny it as you want but you appear literally Medieval doing so.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,126
Points
170
Another of your conspiracy theories.
What conspiracy theory?

We know through the methods of science that the planet is not a mere 6,000 years old. That’s just ridiculous.
If you give it some thought, the long time is all based on the assumption of ToE and uniformitarianism. That's the illusion. If that were true, then we would have a great amount of sedimentary buildup below the oceans. Instead, we have the mid-Atlantic ridge that goes around the world as evidence of catastrophism.

Science is the most successful way of learning about the world. Simply put, the methods of science are reliable. Through science, more knowledge of the world has been illuminated than with two thousand years of religiously based fears and superstitions. Through the enlightenment of science, people live through disease, we live longer. We can explain gravity and the motion of planets through science, more so than through astrology, alchemy, divination, or ritual. Deny it as you want but you appear literally Medieval doing so.
Sure, but not the science of ToE and uniformitarianism.

The creation science explains better and isn't based on fears and superstition. Yes, the Christians are the ones who found medicine and medical science so we live through disease and live longer -- The Christian Contribution to Medicine. None of it was based on atheism.

As for gravity and motion of planets through science, it was the Christians, too.

I think you'll have to take a leap of faith to finally admit that the Christians created science and the scientific method. Your history is all jumbled up.
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
8,693
Reaction score
3,100
Points
375
Another of your conspiracy theories.
What conspiracy theory?

We know through the methods of science that the planet is not a mere 6,000 years old. That’s just ridiculous.
If you give it some thought, the long time is all based on the assumption of ToE and uniformitarianism. That's the illusion. If that were true, then we would have a great amount of sedimentary buildup below the oceans. Instead, we have the mid-Atlantic ridge that goes around the world as evidence of catastrophism.

Science is the most successful way of learning about the world. Simply put, the methods of science are reliable. Through science, more knowledge of the world has been illuminated than with two thousand years of religiously based fears and superstitions. Through the enlightenment of science, people live through disease, we live longer. We can explain gravity and the motion of planets through science, more so than through astrology, alchemy, divination, or ritual. Deny it as you want but you appear literally Medieval doing so.
Sure, but not the science of ToE and uniformitarianism.

The creation science explains better and isn't based on fears and superstition. Yes, the Christians are the ones who found medicine and medical science so we live through disease and live longer -- The Christian Contribution to Medicine. None of it was based on atheism.

As for gravity and motion of planets through science, it was the Christians, too.

I think you'll have to take a leap of faith to finally admit that the Christians created science and the scientific method. Your history is all jumbled up.
Actually..not that I'm here to cast pearls before swine, as it were..but a large part of our scientific method and math came from diverse and non-Christian sources. Everything from our numerical system..Arabic numbers, the zero and Algebra to Physics.....Pythagoras, Aristotle and Euclid. The early Greeks were not Christian...and neither were the Egyptians. The early Islamic era's made quite a lot of progress in medicine and engineering. The Romans..long before their conversion to Christianity were masters in engineering...after the fall of Rome, it was to be another 1,000 years before Europe reclaimed that knowlege..and the early Christian church was a major reason for the long delay.

In fact., given the anti-scientific bias in the early Christian church...it was not until well into the 14th century that Christians made any noticeable progress in the sciences.

In fact, one could, and many do, argue that Christianity actively tried to stifle scientific progress for well over 1,000 years! Remember the intense argument over Copernicus's assertion of the earth circling the sun? The church was not a fan of science nor the scientific method. Look how they treated Galileo?
The irony in that..was that a Greek, Aristarchus of Samos, had already proposed and presented proofs for that concept 1,800 years earlier!~
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
2,604
Reaction score
1,898
Points
1,940
I think you'll have to take a leap of faith to finally admit that the Christians created science and the scientific method. Your history is all jumbled up.
The Ivy League Colleges all have Christian Charters.
The Motto of Oxford University is "The Lord is our Light."

Godless Leftists cannot name one university founded with an atheist charter.

While incessantly professing their own intellectual superiority, atheists and Leftists mistake knowledge for wisdom. Bill Cosby has a PhD. So does the Unabomber, a former mathematics professor at UC Berkeley, who had a well worn copy of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance inside his rathole cabin.

I'll post notes from Gore's ignorati anon.
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
8,693
Reaction score
3,100
Points
375
I think you'll have to take a leap of faith to finally admit that the Christians created science and the scientific method. Your history is all jumbled up.
The Ivy League Colleges all have Christian Charters.
The Motto of Oxford University is "The Lord is our Light."

Godless Leftists cannot name one university founded with an atheist charter.

While incessantly professing their own intellectual superiority, atheists and Leftists mistake knowledge for wisdom. Bill Cosby has a PhD. So does the Unabomber, a former mathematics professor at UC Berkeley, who had a well worn copy of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance inside his rathole cabin.

I'll post notes from Gore's ignorati anon.
Th difference between knowlege and wisdom is that knowledge is a tool you constantly shine, add to, and make more complete and accurate--and wisdom is how you choose to, or not to, use your tool.

Some, such as yourself...don't have the sharpest of tools.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top