People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's yet another shameless lie by you. He said the models predicted it as possible, which was accurate to say. One of these days, you cackling deniers are going to come to the realization that your own ignorance and misunderstanding of simple words and scientific topics is not everyone else's fault.

So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. It would appear that the only ignorance here is your inability to believe that you can not sway the masses with your theology of global warming when the untruths of your dogma are uncovered. I'm sure that as you kneel to the great alter of scientific consensus one of these days you'll have a prophesy that might even come true... After all even a clock is right two times a day.

*****CHUCKLE*****

"So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. "

No, you shameless, embarrassing little liar, i said nothing like that. I said gore said that the models now predicted the possibility that the Northern sea ice could melt away completely at some point during the year by 2014. And saying so was accurate on his part, as this was an outlier in the models. Just take a hike, I have no use for your crazy or for your lies.

And knowing what we "know" now...that doesn't seem like a scare tactic to you? How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?

" How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?"

Simple... by gathering more data, given the benefit of time. Just as the part of a model of a hurricane's path over a location in the middle of the model becomes more narrow and accurate, as the hurricane approaches. How can you not puzzle this out for yourself?

A. How much is the current model going to be off as the hurricane approaches closer and closer...is it going to get further and further, it did make a pretty drastic change in only 10 years? And 50 years is the most aggressive model.
B. Predicting Hurricanes are not at all the same as predicting climate change...not even close. With the data we've been compiling and have compiled over the past we'll say even 50 years. If it was similar to predicting a hurricanes path, certainly with 50 years of data we should've had a vastly better idea of the "path" of climate change.
C. A simpler explanation is that it was a scare tactic, which seems to work well in a world with such a short term memory, and a constant imminent "threat" from terror, tragedy, war, and violence.

You sound a lot like an excuse maker, more than someone whose honestly curious. If that wasn't a scare tactic, I don't know what is.

I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.

Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.

you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman

 

[BreezeWood]

The reason I have stayed out of this thread was the title. Why am I defending evolution? This is a prove your God thread in Religion and & Ethics section, no?

So

Riddle me this Batman. How did the dinosaurs and Chicxulub meteor minor detail get left out of the Bible? There were lots of dinosaurs and the meteor killed off additional sea life and birds the Flood would not have touched.

Did not God promise he would never do this again?

.

The reason I have stayed out of this thread was the title. Why am I defending evolution? This is a prove your God thread in Religion and & Ethics section, no?

So

Riddle me this Batman. How did the dinosaurs and Chicxulub meteor minor detail get left out of the Bible?

People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD


defending evolution in this thread has not been an exercise for how it works, the mechanism for initiating change and the means for how the information is stored and passed to future generations, etc. that is necessary for the process to work and the key to the threads errant assumption. the process of evolution itself by its nature is proof of a metaphysical presence in all beings that transcends their physiological existence - proof of the metaphysical transcending the physiological state lends credence to the existence of an all encompassing enabling force at the onset and present time as necessary for evolution to have been possible by its presence. - - that at most is only remotely associated with the desert religions.

for the ability of the beings metaphysical state to continue to exist without a physiological presence.

 

[MarkDuffy]

What the hell does climate change have to do with proving God exists?

Is being against climate change somewhere in the Gospels? Uh, I don't think so

Genesis 8:21-22
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Climate Change and the Bible | Creation Moments

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise), which is documented several times in the fossil record -- it kinda, sorta, almost starts looking like a cosmic ray storm or violent event is indeed an "act of God". That's what the insurance companies call it --- RIGHT?

Point is, the tree of life didn't "plod along" at a constant rate of growth and diversity.

Besides, if you look at the story of Creation in Genesis, it's REALLY NOT that far off from the researchsy, sciency version of events. How did they get that far before science began?

"If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise)"

Nonsensical statement. "Evolutionary wise" can mean many things, depending on one's view of graduation and punctuation, and the overlap. You are selling snake oil, friend. You picked the wrong mark this time. And it's misleading, in that even those pushing punctuated evolution admit gradualism.

No, it does not "almost" look like an "act of God". Bullshit. That's you trying to cram magical nonsense in the gaps of our understanding. Same bullshit for 1000s of years. Nor do the examples of phyletic gradualism rule out an act of God. You are simply taking an overlay of magical bullshit and laying it on top of a scientific theory.


Yes, the story of Genesis, as it relates to human origin, is far off; as in, as far off as it gets. No, our genetic "Adan and Eve" did not meet. We know this. It is clearly 100% wrong .

I think what flacaltenn was referring to in genesis is the actual creation story of the heavens, earth and life. Which actually is not far off considering all the other creation stories from the thousands of other religions out there. This one came from a time where they didn't comprehend the earth was a sphere, or that the sun was a star, or what an actual star was. They didn't understand the concept of gravity, what blood did, what lightning was. No concept of energy, or matter, or disease was caused by microbes, or that microbes even existed, or that light has a speed. Schools didn't even exist, and they didn't even have the language or terms for half the shit I'm talking about. So that being considered, how close they got it does raise eyebrows, at least for me. Now you could say even a blind squirrel to that, absolutely. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I mean if a God was going to contact people, THESE PEOPLE, who thought the warm ball of light in the sky was spinning around THEM...and explain to them how of all this came about, to people who''d scratch their head at the basic concept of DNA...how we'll do you think they'd comprehend and explain that story to others? I mean they described a great void, then a burst of existence, then light, then a formation of heavens and earth, then a geo forming on earth with lands and sea, then plants, then fish, then animals, then humans (I think, I'm just going off of memory, haven't practiced since I was a kid). I mean try to explain what we know now to a five year old, and see how well they can recite it to 5 others, then see how those 5 explain it others...it could sound something a lot like that. Again you could say even a blind squirrel absolutely...but it is something that I, and I'm sure others find interesting.

I mean I find the Phoenix lights interesting. that doesn't mean I think aliens are among us and infiltrating government and abducting people and stuff. But that shit did not look like flares to me. I don't know what it was, could've been some government secret project or something, but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows...

And like it or not, there a still tons of questions that have our greatest minds scratching their heads, even when it comes to existence and life. Like the jump from non life to life, then the jump from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life (which might even be more statistically rare than life to non life), and the jump of the mammal to human brain, which is a pretty significant jump compared to the rest of the field. To say that science has completely disproven god is ridiculous. If there is one, it's certainly outside of our realm of existence...since it created it, which includes our current and probably future reach of science. I also don't think you can prove god.

Oh, I agree there is much we do not yet know about evolution, and the universe in general. To know it, it would be helpful for all of these people trying to stuff god into these gaps in our knowledge to stay the fk out of the way.

"but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows..."

Yes, but only because I don't, personally, understand it. It would not then rationally follow that nobody understands it, or that it cannot be understood. In fact, the reasonable assumption would be to assume it can be understood, and that this understanding likely does not involve some extraordinary or new concept or claim.

And I don't think they looked like flares. they looked like planes to me. And, voila, that's exactly what they were.

the second event of lights that evening were indeed, flares.

the Phoenix lights were long ago explained. as in, literally days after they were witnessed. Don't you find it odd that this "faux mystery" is still presented as a mystery?

The problem with your understanding here is that I'm not attempting to stuff God into any gaps.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Ok, good. I will hold you to that.

My God is there for you to observe at any time.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise)"

Nonsensical statement. "Evolutionary wise" can mean many things, depending on one's view of graduation and punctuation, and the overlap. You are selling snake oil, friend. You picked the wrong mark this time. And it's misleading, in that even those pushing punctuated evolution admit gradualism.

No, it does not "almost" look like an "act of God". Bullshit. That's you trying to cram magical nonsense in the gaps of our understanding. Same bullshit for 1000s of years. Nor do the examples of phyletic gradualism rule out an act of God. You are simply taking an overlay of magical bullshit and laying it on top of a scientific theory.


Yes, the story of Genesis, as it relates to human origin, is far off; as in, as far off as it gets. No, our genetic "Adan and Eve" did not meet. We know this. It is clearly 100% wrong .

I think what flacaltenn was referring to in genesis is the actual creation story of the heavens, earth and life. Which actually is not far off considering all the other creation stories from the thousands of other religions out there. This one came from a time where they didn't comprehend the earth was a sphere, or that the sun was a star, or what an actual star was. They didn't understand the concept of gravity, what blood did, what lightning was. No concept of energy, or matter, or disease was caused by microbes, or that microbes even existed, or that light has a speed. Schools didn't even exist, and they didn't even have the language or terms for half the shit I'm talking about. So that being considered, how close they got it does raise eyebrows, at least for me. Now you could say even a blind squirrel to that, absolutely. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I mean if a God was going to contact people, THESE PEOPLE, who thought the warm ball of light in the sky was spinning around THEM...and explain to them how of all this came about, to people who''d scratch their head at the basic concept of DNA...how we'll do you think they'd comprehend and explain that story to others? I mean they described a great void, then a burst of existence, then light, then a formation of heavens and earth, then a geo forming on earth with lands and sea, then plants, then fish, then animals, then humans (I think, I'm just going off of memory, haven't practiced since I was a kid). I mean try to explain what we know now to a five year old, and see how well they can recite it to 5 others, then see how those 5 explain it others...it could sound something a lot like that. Again you could say even a blind squirrel absolutely...but it is something that I, and I'm sure others find interesting.

I mean I find the Phoenix lights interesting. that doesn't mean I think aliens are among us and infiltrating government and abducting people and stuff. But that shit did not look like flares to me. I don't know what it was, could've been some government secret project or something, but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows...

And like it or not, there a still tons of questions that have our greatest minds scratching their heads, even when it comes to existence and life. Like the jump from non life to life, then the jump from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life (which might even be more statistically rare than life to non life), and the jump of the mammal to human brain, which is a pretty significant jump compared to the rest of the field. To say that science has completely disproven god is ridiculous. If there is one, it's certainly outside of our realm of existence...since it created it, which includes our current and probably future reach of science. I also don't think you can prove god.

Oh, I agree there is much we do not yet know about evolution, and the universe in general. To know it, it would be helpful for all of these people trying to stuff god into these gaps in our knowledge to stay the fk out of the way.

"but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows..."

Yes, but only because I don't, personally, understand it. It would not then rationally follow that nobody understands it, or that it cannot be understood. In fact, the reasonable assumption would be to assume it can be understood, and that this understanding likely does not involve some extraordinary or new concept or claim.

And I don't think they looked like flares. they looked like planes to me. And, voila, that's exactly what they were.

the second event of lights that evening were indeed, flares.

the Phoenix lights were long ago explained. as in, literally days after they were witnessed. Don't you find it odd that this "faux mystery" is still presented as a mystery?

The problem with your understanding here is that I'm not attempting to stuff God into any gaps.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Ok, good. I will hold you to that.

My God is there for you to observe at any time.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Sure it is. And my pet unicorn is also yours to behold. You just gotta close your eyes real tight and tell yourself unicorns exist. You'll see him. promise.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I think what flacaltenn was referring to in genesis is the actual creation story of the heavens, earth and life. Which actually is not far off considering all the other creation stories from the thousands of other religions out there. This one came from a time where they didn't comprehend the earth was a sphere, or that the sun was a star, or what an actual star was. They didn't understand the concept of gravity, what blood did, what lightning was. No concept of energy, or matter, or disease was caused by microbes, or that microbes even existed, or that light has a speed. Schools didn't even exist, and they didn't even have the language or terms for half the shit I'm talking about. So that being considered, how close they got it does raise eyebrows, at least for me. Now you could say even a blind squirrel to that, absolutely. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I mean if a God was going to contact people, THESE PEOPLE, who thought the warm ball of light in the sky was spinning around THEM...and explain to them how of all this came about, to people who''d scratch their head at the basic concept of DNA...how we'll do you think they'd comprehend and explain that story to others? I mean they described a great void, then a burst of existence, then light, then a formation of heavens and earth, then a geo forming on earth with lands and sea, then plants, then fish, then animals, then humans (I think, I'm just going off of memory, haven't practiced since I was a kid). I mean try to explain what we know now to a five year old, and see how well they can recite it to 5 others, then see how those 5 explain it others...it could sound something a lot like that. Again you could say even a blind squirrel absolutely...but it is something that I, and I'm sure others find interesting.

I mean I find the Phoenix lights interesting. that doesn't mean I think aliens are among us and infiltrating government and abducting people and stuff. But that shit did not look like flares to me. I don't know what it was, could've been some government secret project or something, but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows...

And like it or not, there a still tons of questions that have our greatest minds scratching their heads, even when it comes to existence and life. Like the jump from non life to life, then the jump from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life (which might even be more statistically rare than life to non life), and the jump of the mammal to human brain, which is a pretty significant jump compared to the rest of the field. To say that science has completely disproven god is ridiculous. If there is one, it's certainly outside of our realm of existence...since it created it, which includes our current and probably future reach of science. I also don't think you can prove god.

Oh, I agree there is much we do not yet know about evolution, and the universe in general. To know it, it would be helpful for all of these people trying to stuff god into these gaps in our knowledge to stay the fk out of the way.

"but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows..."

Yes, but only because I don't, personally, understand it. It would not then rationally follow that nobody understands it, or that it cannot be understood. In fact, the reasonable assumption would be to assume it can be understood, and that this understanding likely does not involve some extraordinary or new concept or claim.

And I don't think they looked like flares. they looked like planes to me. And, voila, that's exactly what they were.

the second event of lights that evening were indeed, flares.

the Phoenix lights were long ago explained. as in, literally days after they were witnessed. Don't you find it odd that this "faux mystery" is still presented as a mystery?

The problem with your understanding here is that I'm not attempting to stuff God into any gaps.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Ok, good. I will hold you to that.

My God is there for you to observe at any time.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Sure it is. And my pet unicorn is also yours to behold. You just gotta close your eyes real tight and tell yourself unicorns exist. You'll see him. promise.

Is that like one of those transitional fossils you have in your imaginary stable of horses that weren't quite horses?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What a stupid thing to say.... that's one of the most well-documented lineages in the fossil record... you clearly know nothing about that topic at all and should probably stop posting about it. Seriously, as advertised, I am not going to litigate the truth of scientific theories with internet hacks. I'll leave that to scientists debating scientists. When do you plan to publish your life's work on evolution? I am sure it will be a bombshell!

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Is that like one of those invisible transitional fossils you have in your imaginary stable of horses that weren't quite horses?

the metaphysical display is meant only for the final product, lack of transitional fossil's is proof of its efficiency.

 

[MarkDuffy]

"If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise)"

Nonsensical statement. "Evolutionary wise" can mean many things, depending on one's view of graduation and punctuation, and the overlap. You are selling snake oil, friend. You picked the wrong mark this time. And it's misleading, in that even those pushing punctuated evolution admit gradualism.

No, it does not "almost" look like an "act of God". Bullshit. That's you trying to cram magical nonsense in the gaps of our understanding. Same bullshit for 1000s of years. Nor do the examples of phyletic gradualism rule out an act of God. You are simply taking an overlay of magical bullshit and laying it on top of a scientific theory.


Yes, the story of Genesis, as it relates to human origin, is far off; as in, as far off as it gets. No, our genetic "Adan and Eve" did not meet. We know this. It is clearly 100% wrong .

I think what flacaltenn was referring to in genesis is the actual creation story of the heavens, earth and life. Which actually is not far off considering all the other creation stories from the thousands of other religions out there. This one came from a time where they didn't comprehend the earth was a sphere, or that the sun was a star, or what an actual star was. They didn't understand the concept of gravity, what blood did, what lightning was. No concept of energy, or matter, or disease was caused by microbes, or that microbes even existed, or that light has a speed. Schools didn't even exist, and they didn't even have the language or terms for half the shit I'm talking about. So that being considered, how close they got it does raise eyebrows, at least for me. Now you could say even a blind squirrel to that, absolutely. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I mean if a God was going to contact people, THESE PEOPLE, who thought the warm ball of light in the sky was spinning around THEM...and explain to them how of all this came about, to people who''d scratch their head at the basic concept of DNA...how we'll do you think they'd comprehend and explain that story to others? I mean they described a great void, then a burst of existence, then light, then a formation of heavens and earth, then a geo forming on earth with lands and sea, then plants, then fish, then animals, then humans (I think, I'm just going off of memory, haven't practiced since I was a kid). I mean try to explain what we know now to a five year old, and see how well they can recite it to 5 others, then see how those 5 explain it others...it could sound something a lot like that. Again you could say even a blind squirrel absolutely...but it is something that I, and I'm sure others find interesting.

I mean I find the Phoenix lights interesting. that doesn't mean I think aliens are among us and infiltrating government and abducting people and stuff. But that shit did not look like flares to me. I don't know what it was, could've been some government secret project or something, but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows...

And like it or not, there a still tons of questions that have our greatest minds scratching their heads, even when it comes to existence and life. Like the jump from non life to life, then the jump from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life (which might even be more statistically rare than life to non life), and the jump of the mammal to human brain, which is a pretty significant jump compared to the rest of the field. To say that science has completely disproven god is ridiculous. If there is one, it's certainly outside of our realm of existence...since it created it, which includes our current and probably future reach of science. I also don't think you can prove god.

Oh, I agree there is much we do not yet know about evolution, and the universe in general. To know it, it would be helpful for all of these people trying to stuff god into these gaps in our knowledge to stay the fk out of the way.

"but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows..."

Yes, but only because I don't, personally, understand it. It would not then rationally follow that nobody understands it, or that it cannot be understood. In fact, the reasonable assumption would be to assume it can be understood, and that this understanding likely does not involve some extraordinary or new concept or claim.

And I don't think they looked like flares. they looked like planes to me. And, voila, that's exactly what they were.

the second event of lights that evening were indeed, flares.

the Phoenix lights were long ago explained. as in, literally days after they were witnessed. Don't you find it odd that this "faux mystery" is still presented as a mystery?

The problem with your understanding here is that I'm not attempting to stuff God into any gaps.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Ok, good. I will hold you to that.

My God is there for you to observe at any time.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Thank You Science!

Hubble Deep Field

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

no it's not. A much simpler explanation for the lack of "transitional fossils" (as you mean them here, but it's a nonsensical phrase, as transition is undefined) is that those species were 'transitional' precisely because they were not as stable as those species exhibiting stasis. That's not proof efficiency of anything but of selection. You keep searching for this guiding spirit... every bit of your magical construct is explained by selection. All of it. take some time, see for yourself.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

.

Is that like one of those invisible transitional fossils you have in your imaginary stable of horses that weren't quite horses?

the metaphysical display is meant only for the final product, lack of transitional fossil's is proof of its efficiency.

But Fort Fun assures me that he has a unicorn.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's true! Don't let the fact that I have not shred of evidence for the existence of this unicorn persuade you! All you must do is suspend your incredulity for just a moment or two. Then I will wedge this idea into your brain, never to be extracted. Heck, you'll even start saying absurd things about other topics, because you think they, somehow, someway, imply that my unicorn is NOT real. In fact, you will even get personally offended when anyone says anything which could even remotely being construed as denying the existence of my unicorn.

Trust me, it's a blessing! Receive my gift!

 

[K9Buck]

It's true! Don't let the fact that I have not shred of evidence for the existence of this unicorn persuade you! All you must do is suspend your incredulity for just a moment or two. Then I will wedge this idea into your brain, never to be extracted. Heck, you'll even start saying absurd things about other topics, because you think they, somehow, someway, imply that my unicorn is NOT real. In fact, you will even get personally offended when anyone says anything which could even remotely being construed as denying the existence of my unicorn.

Trust me, it's a blessing! Receive my gift!

You sure spend a lot of time refuting the existence of something that you believe doesn't exist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's true! Don't let the fact that I have not shred of evidence for the existence of this unicorn persuade you! All you must do is suspend your incredulity for just a moment or two. Then I will wedge this idea into your brain, never to be extracted. Heck, you'll even start saying absurd things about other topics, because you think they, somehow, someway, imply that my unicorn is NOT real. In fact, you will even get personally offended when anyone says anything which could even remotely being construed as denying the existence of my unicorn.

Trust me, it's a blessing! Receive my gift!

You sure spend a lot of time refuting the existence of something that you believe doesn't exist.

I'm not arguing against the existence of god. I was commenting more on his dogma. How his beliefs extend past theism, and into absurd denial of other claims, not because they clash with the mere existence of god, but with how he sees god's way with our world to be. He claimed earlier -- very emphatically -- that he was only peddling theism, not religious dogma. Clearly this is false, and he was being dishonest.

I would not enter into an argument of the existence of gods. That's folly.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It's true! Don't let the fact that I have not shred of evidence for the existence of this unicorn persuade you! All you must do is suspend your incredulity for just a moment or two. Then I will wedge this idea into your brain, never to be extracted. Heck, you'll even start saying absurd things about other topics, because you think they, somehow, someway, imply that my unicorn is NOT real. In fact, you will even get personally offended when anyone says anything which could even remotely being construed as denying the existence of my unicorn.

Trust me, it's a blessing! Receive my gift!

No thank you.

My God exists. All you have to do is look around you.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, all we have to do to explain everything is just look all around us. Facinating.

Is that all you had to do? "Look around"? And a person is supposed to respect the knowledge you gained just by "looking around"? I mean, ... come on, man... I've had people try to sell me vacuums on my doorstep that had better pitches than this.

"Seriously man, just look at the vacuum, look at it!"... hmm, that guy doesn't sell too many vacuums, I bet.

Guess who ACTUALLY looks around, digs through Earth, peers through microscopes and telescopes and sends submersibles under the sea? Scientists. I would say their skill and effort in "looking all around" far surpasses anything you or i will do in ten lifetimes. But, suddenly, they are not to be trusted.

man, this magical nonsense stuff sure is confusing!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It's true! Don't let the fact that I have not shred of evidence for the existence of this unicorn persuade you! All you must do is suspend your incredulity for just a moment or two. Then I will wedge this idea into your brain, never to be extracted. Heck, you'll even start saying absurd things about other topics, because you think they, somehow, someway, imply that my unicorn is NOT real. In fact, you will even get personally offended when anyone says anything which could even remotely being construed as denying the existence of my unicorn.

Trust me, it's a blessing! Receive my gift!

You sure spend a lot of time refuting the existence of something that you believe doesn't exist.

I'm not arguing against the existence of god. I was commenting more on his dogma. How his beliefs extend past theism, and into absurd denial of other claims, not because they clash with the mere existence of god, but with how he sees god's way with our world to be. He claimed earlier -- very emphatically -- that he was only peddling theism, not religious dogma. Clearly this is false, and he was being dishonest.

I would not enter into an argument of the existence of gods. That's folly.

Again...

What dogma would that be?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The dogma that is leading you to irrationally deny scientific theories, of course. your dogma is the incorrect "alternative explanation". yes, it arises from your magical beliefs. No, I won't believe you if you say otherwise. Sorry.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Yes, all we have to do to explain everything is just look all around us. Facinating.

Is that all you had to do? "Look around"? And a person is supposed to respect the knowledge you gained just by "looking around"? I mean, ... come on, man... I've had people try to sell me vacuums on my doorstep that had better pitches than this.

"Seriously man, just look at the vacuum, look at it!"... hmm, that guy doesn't sell too many vacuums, I bet.

Guess who ACTUALLY looks around, digs through Earth, peers through microscopes and telescopes and sends submersibles under the sea? Scientists. I would say their skill and effort in "looking all around" far surpasses anything you will do in ten lifetimes. But, suddenly, they are not to be trusted.

man, this magical nonsense stuff sure is confusing!

You don't think that the mere fact that you exist at all is a miracle?

Hey! Here's another premise I'll accept that God exists...

E=mc^2

...or how about this...

If: A=A
And: A=B
And: B=C
Therefore: A=C

...or this one...

V=IR

I spect' those are all magical nonsense to you also.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, I don't think it's a miracle. Thanks for asking.

I know you think looking at those equations is evidence of your version of god. No need to repeat yourself. "Just look around". Yes, okay, we get it, zzzzzzzzzzzzz