Creationists

[Koios]

What a mature response.

Fair enough. Indeed my bad for suggesting anything as foolish as "pray."

Yeah; pray to what? One would have to be an imbicle to thing some made up character is actually listening.

Can you back this statement with any proof ?

No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.

What would cause so many to subscribe to the belief in a higher power ?

Desire to assign significance. Wish to dodge the penalty for being born: death. To make what is hard to comprehend seem ordered, simple and easier to grasp.

All of the above, often.

All men know life leads to death and the grave.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Fair enough. Indeed my bad for suggesting anything as foolish as "pray."

Yeah; pray to what? One would have to be an imbicle to thing some made up character is actually listening.

Can you back this statement with any proof ?

No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.

I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.

 

[CrackedSkull]

Can you back this statement with any proof ?

No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.

I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.

I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature.

Assumption (Premise) not proved.

Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible.

Proving the bible with itself? Man I should not have sold my copy of Little Red Riding Hood.

I am a witness to these entities

PLEASE....witness to what? What were the bible writers witness to? All you have is their word 2000 years ago.

There is not just biological evidence of a designer.

There is no evidence of a supernatural designer either. So what are we left with? Zilch! All creationists have is a 2000 year old book that is not science. Hell for that matter its just badly written mythology. Besides who would trust a god that puts plants and trees in before creating the sun? Not me.

 

[Hollie]

Can you back this statement with any proof ?

No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.

I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.

Oh, lordy, man. Not the silly precision in nature, canard again.
I can't help but find it ironic that you never seem to address how this "precision" actually exists in view of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, planetary bombardment by meteors, etc., etc.

As part of that "precision", the laws of plate tectonics describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth's crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gawds established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the author of that "precision", the gawds could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

And so the question remains firmly unanswered: Why did the gawds need to create existence in such a way as to create these humanity destroying "acts of the gawds" in the first place?


BTW, I am also witness to these "entities" you claim to have seen. They were over for dinner the other night. They had two servings of meatloaf. They also told me they have never met you. So.... we seem to be on the horns of a dilemma here.

 

[Koios]

No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.

I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.

Oh, lordy, man. Not the silly precision in nature, canard again.
I can't help but find it ironic that you never seem to address how this "precision" actually exists in view of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, planetary bombardment by meteors, etc., etc.

As part of that "precision", the laws of plate tectonics describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth's crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gawds established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the author of that "precision", the gawds could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

And so the question remains firmly unanswered: Why did the gawds need to create existence in such a way as to create these humanity destroying "acts of the gawds" in the first place?


BTW, I am also witness to these "entities" you claim to have seen. They were over for dinner the other night. They had two servings of meatloaf. They also told me they have never met you. So.... we seem to be on the horns of a dilemma here.

Outta thanks. So +1.

 

[Koios]

Can you back this statement with any proof ?

No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.

I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.

Indeed you do not, since dogma is like that.

Meanwhile, evolution does require evidence / proof, since it's a postulate derived of scientific study.

And to all not blinded by dogma, the proof of evolution is overwhelming.

 

[UltimateReality]

No. Obviously it's failed in your many continued attempts.

That's why I opted instead to stick to well-founded truths about the Cosmos and life on this planet, as opposed to absurd attempts at resolving the myriad conflicts between millenia old religious myths and contemporary scientific fact.

You really have no clue about probability arguments do you?

Pray I do, since I'm schooling your retarded ***** ass.

 

[UltimateReality]

Says the dipshit who clings to ancient myth.

Such irony.

How do you know is views are from a myth ? Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.

I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.

People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.

 

[UltimateReality]

I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.

What would cause so many to subscribe to the belief in a higher power ?

Desire to assign significance. Wish to dodge the penalty for being born: death. To make what is hard to comprehend seem ordered, simple and easier to grasp.

All of the above, often.

When multiple cultures separated my miles of isolation come up with the same idea, don't you wonder if there is more to it?

 

[Koios]

What would cause so many to subscribe to the belief in a higher power ?

Desire to assign significance. Wish to dodge the penalty for being born: death. To make what is hard to comprehend seem ordered, simple and easier to grasp.

All of the above, often.

When multiple cultures separated my miles of isolation come up with the same idea, don't you wonder if there is more to it?

Sure, but then, Asians have Buddha, Native Americans have the Great Spirit, Europeans came up with Paganism and then Christianity, Mayans... and so on and so on, ad infinitum.

And each came up with entirety different creation myths.

 

[CrackedSkull]

How do you know is views are from a myth ? Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.

I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.

People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.

You can shop here to find a god that suits your needs:

Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods

 

[CrackedSkull]

Desire to assign significance. Wish to dodge the penalty for being born: death. To make what is hard to comprehend seem ordered, simple and easier to grasp.

All of the above, often.

When multiple cultures separated my miles of isolation come up with the same idea, don't you wonder if there is more to it?

Sure, but then, Asians have Buddha, Native Americans have the Great Spirit, Europeans came up with Paganism and then Christianity, Mayans... and so on and so on, ad infinitum.

And each came up with entirety different creation myths.

Yep. Here are a few:

Creation Myths - A Large and Diverse Collection of Links to Creation Myths from Around the World - creation myth,creation myths,creation mythology,creation myths from around the world,creation myths from different cultures,creation story,creation sto

 

[Koios]

How do you know is views are from a myth ? Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.

I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.

People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.

No. Not to counter god myths, but in search of a unified relatively theory, and to posit what dark matter might be the result of. But those are merely unproven theories and not shit they say is true because they merely believe or wish it to be true.

 

[BOBO]

...who cares?????????? If the planet is 6000 years old, 30 zillion years old or a million years old... whats the diff? All that matters to folks is not having to work for their dough, food/water, shelter, parties/sex & enough status to get others to worship them. Everything else is unimportant to folks of today.

 

[newpolitics]

You might also want to let Einstein know that it is a completely logical train of thought to deduce that if Humans come from evolution and Computers and Rocket ships come from Humans, then we can conclude that evolution indirectly produces computers and rocket ships. This takes about a 3rd grade understanding of basic reasoning so it is not surprising he-she doesn't get it.

The inventions of rocket ships are purely incidental, and in no way guaranteed indirectly by an evolutionary process, so you can't say that evolution "indirectly produces computers and rocket ships." We only have one example of evolution to draw from: our own. Here again, you are using an argument from induction, combined with the fallacy of hasty generalization. You attempt to make a general statement about any evolutionary processes by observing our own, yet based on no other examples of evolutionary lineages. Therefore, you are attempting to make a general statement about evolution from a particular example of evolution (inductive reasoning) and using a very small sample size (one sample of evolution) to make a generalization about all evolutionary processes. This implies that there are extra-terrestrials out there under going evolution, and you are claiming that they too, have "computers and rocket ships." Yet, I thought as a theist, you don't believe in extra-terrestrials, because god made the universe for us? We have no idea what other evolutionary processes produce, because we have never directly observed them. Until we do, your statement is highly unsubstantiated. In all likelihood, evolution would mostly produce bacteria and algae and things of this nature and likely constitute most of the life in the universe. There may be a few instances of evolution producing life which produces computers in the cosmos, but at best, this sort of induction could only grant probabilities to your conclusion.

All you are left with, is the ability to say "this particular evolutionary process produced a species which produced computers and rocket ships." We already know this to be true, so you haven't gotten anywhere, logically.

You're attempt to sound smart with all you WRONG flowery speech has EPICALLY FAILED again. The fact of the matter is that my argument is not an argument from induction, because if evolution is true, then evolution produced computers and rocket ships via the human race. We are not talking about some random evolutionary process. We are talking about evolution of humans. Your arguments about other instances of evolution than our own are irrelevant and ludicrous. If evolution is true, then you cannot deny it has produced computers and rocket ships. Of course we know evolution is pseudoscience, and such a claim is totally ridiculous.

Oh and while we are on the topic of your fallacious arguments, you wrongly claim that ID is an appeal to ignorance. That would be the case if we exhausted other origin of life possibilities and were saying we don't know how it happened so an intelligence must have done it. But that is not the argument of ID. The thing you continually ignore, and to your own detriment, is that we have evidence of "causes now in operation" [Lyell, Darwin]. We aren't arguing from ignorance because we have evidence that complex, functional information ONLY comes from an intelligent agent. So please knock it off with your fallacious claims of argument from ignorance.

So your refutation of my counter-argument is to talk about evolution? The flaw that I claimed exists, is contained in your argument, which isn't about evolution since you don't believe in it, so why are you talking about evolution? You are evading the topic, and you haven't refuted my point that you are using an argument from induction in this evolution example. By the way, why are you bringing up this point? It is plainly obvious that evolution produced humans, and humans produced rocket ships. Are you simply trying to mock evolution because it has the ability to create a species that creates rocket ships? The entire attempt is just childish, if this is the case.

My arguments about other evolutions are not irrelevant when you are claiming, based on one evolutionary timeline, that "all evolutionary timelines will indirectly produce rocket ships." You are actually the one who brought up other evolutionary timelines, because it is implicit when you say "evolution creates rocket ships." We only have witnessed one evolution, so all you can say is, "this evolutionary timeline created a species which was able to create rocket ships." Wow... big deal. This is plainly observable. You are trying to extract something profound out of something very menial, as far as information goes. Again, this is basic inductive reasoning, and is completely flawed, because the conclusion does not follow at all from the premises.

I don't think I ever said that ID is an argument from ignorance. Certain parts of it certainly are, but not the entire thing. Namely, I said that Meyer's attempt at discrediting abiogenesis with pure probability calculations constitutes an argument from ignorance, because he is ignorant to the precise conditions that would have caused it. Therefore, he can't have the numbers to adequately describe what went on, even probabilistically. I wish you would admit this. He basically has a cult with this ID thing. His numbers are non-descriptive of anything that actually happened. They serve only to make his followers feel better. What I claimed was that ID was built on inductive reasoning, and as such, can not make the conclusions it tries to, and still call itself science. So, you are either mistaken or being dishonest.

 

[newpolitics]

How do you know is views are from a myth ? Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.

I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.

People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.

Haha. You actually think that the multi-verse theory was created in order to deal with fine tuning? It wasn't. Multi-verse theory is a natural byproduct of the math in string theory, which itself is an attempt at a unified field theory. It has nothing to do with your silly argument. It just so happens to make sense of it of these cosmological values. The values themselves do not demonstrate a god.

 

[Bill Angel]

How do you know is views are from a myth ? Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.

I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.

People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.

I think that there is a criterion to distinguish science from myth. Individuals who hold competing scientific views in physics attempt to resolve the conflict via experimental observations using telescopes, particle accelerators, and other apparatus. I realize that theoretical physicists are considered the glamour boys of science, but their speculations are considered to be of little value to experimentalists if they don't yield testable hypothesis.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.

I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.

Assumption (Premise) not proved.



Proving the bible with itself? Man I should not have sold my copy of Little Red Riding Hood.

I am a witness to these entities

PLEASE....witness to what? What were the bible writers witness to? All you have is their word 2000 years ago.

There is not just biological evidence of a designer.

There is no evidence of a supernatural designer either. So what are we left with? Zilch! All creationists have is a 2000 year old book that is not science. Hell for that matter its just badly written mythology. Besides who would trust a god that puts plants and trees in before creating the sun? Not me.

When you see possessed people or walk in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or you here voices and no one is there.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.

The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.

What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.

I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.

Indeed you do not, since dogma is like that.

Meanwhile, evolution does require evidence / proof, since it's a postulate derived of scientific study.

And to all not blinded by dogma, the proof of evolution is overwhelming.

Which it lacks and can be considered dogma as well. Design is clearly seen in the cell,with God we don't need to believe in miracles but a naturalist believing in naturalism by chance you do need to believe in miracles.