Unprovable Atheistic Evolutionary Notions

[Agnos]

Quote by: KillerArgument Not with my wife, no. Or did you mean "fornication"? I thought you were a woman at first because of your screen name, but I bet you are a guy under 25? Am I right?

Yes, I meant "fornication." lol *cough* tight ass *ahem*

Nope, I'm twenty-eight.

Are you going to respond to my original post, or not?

[pikatore]

Quote by: KillerArgument Atheists are often really clear-headed, and I admire that, but does logic really fulfill all your needs as a human being?

Shock and horror atheists are often clear-headed. Shock to the four corners of the earth.

And yes, logic fulfulls my needs quite well. That why im able to THINK logically, and survive.

[RickSp]

Quote by: KillerArgument Creation is evidence, not proof, of God's existence. There's no proof that God doesn't exist, either. Are you convinced again? Faith in the Creator God Jesus is certainly not without evidence.

I see none of your alleged evidence of the existence of your God and I have spent five decades looking. I know some claim to see evidence of God in every sunrise, which again confuses metaphor for evidence. I merely enjoy the dawn without the need to append magical deities. If you actually have evidence of your alleged creator, beyond the rote repetition of prose from the tracts your sort hands out on street corners, present it here. So far your "killer arguments" have been pretty laughable.

And the old canard that one cannot prove that God doesn't exist is just silly. Good for confusing children. Of course, I can prove that God doesn't exist as long as I define God as a large purple elephant living in the trunk of my car. If God, however, is one of an infinite number of possible entities whose existence is by definition unproveable, then why bother? Proving the existence of the unproveable is a fool's game, roughly comparable to asking you to prove that my imaginary friend when I was 4 did not have big ears and red nose.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: KillerArgument Faith in the Creator God Jesus is certainly not without evidence.

Actually, it is.

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: Zhavric Actually, it is.

It amazes me how you do this. There is no evidence proving or disproving omnipotence, Therefore omnipotence does not exist.

I have seen you do this before. You do nothing more then twist words around and dilute the topic. You constantly jump back and forth with your ideas in this circus show you call logic.

When somebody does corner you with a good point, you run off or dilute it, twist it and rape it with bullshit tell it resembles nothing.

I enjoy reading your post and I believe you are entertaining but, I also think you are a very skilled bullshit artist.

Ironically, this is prime the reason you are so skilled in the art of debate. You should be a politician.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Paleface2500 It amazes me how you do this. There is no evidence proving or disproving omnipotence, Therefore omnipotence does not exist. I have seen you do this before. You do nothing more then twist words around and dilute the topic. You constantly jump back and forth with your ideas in this circus show you call logic. When somebody does corner you with a good point, you run off or dilute it, twist it and rape it with bullshit tell it resembles nothing. I enjoy reading your post and I believe you are entertaining but, I also think you are a very skilled bullshit artist. Ironically, this is prime the reason you are so skilled in the art of debate. You should be a politician.

While we're having this big sloppy heart to heart, I think you're not so good at clicking on links. The thread I linked to addresses Jesus, specifically. Not god.

As for omnipotence (since you brought it up), it's not that I'm a BS artist. I understand logic and claims. Scientific law states matter & energy cannot be created or destroyed. EVEN IF THEY CAN BE BY SOME BEING, the scientific law says they cannot. Omnipotence requires the ability to create matter & energy. Thus, omnipotence contradicts an established scientific law and thus is false until proven true.

There are a lot of people who think that we should examine claims in a vacuum and ignore existing evidence. This stance is untenable. We're constantly using existing proven knowledges to examine each new claim we come accross. To me, reading "There is no evidence proving or disproving omnipotence" ignores quite a bit of what has already been proven.

[littlebear]

Isherwood said:

Whatever it is, you might want to calm down and simply refute what I post.

What you posted that upset me was,

At least address the correct science. Evolution addresses adaptations and differentiation in species. It does not attempt to explain how life came to be.

You later suggested that I read other threads of the same nature so that I might find your same admonition.

One of the most difficult things for evolutionists to confront is the beginning of life. They hold that all life evolved from a single instance of the most primative life form that was created by chance. Hence evolution across species. What damages their theory the most is that perhaps there were several instances of life forms created by chance. Now we have several strings of evolution occuring. Consider the following quote:

So, without a specific concept of abiogenesis, there is no reason to assume that life arose once, or that organisms needed to use RM+NS to produce the higher taxonomic categories. Without a specific concept of abiogenesis, there is no reason to assume that life arose simply and then became more complex later. Abiogenesis is inextricably linked with the large-scale views of evolutionary theory. Malcom Gordon (The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay)

Guess what, I am not the only one who believes that evolution is inextricably linked to abiogenesis. I am very much concerned that by refusing to delve into abiogenesis as it applies to multiple instances of life being created and how that plays into their theory of evolution is to be dishonest and not forthcoming to say the least. In fact, I am very concerned how a "science" came to exist that is based on a supposition, (single instance of creation of life) without considering equally possible suppositions. (single vs multiple instances of the beginning of life)

Then I find a moderator who belittles someones post which addresses this link as not even being in the right science. Then I find he is running around willy nilly telling everyone who brings up the connection between the two that they are in the wrong science. Is it your intention to block valid challenges to evolution? Stiffling debate in this manner is not conducive to what forums are all about.

[rez]

Quote by: littlebear One of the most difficult things for evolutionists to confront is the beginning of life.

I support the notion of slow gradual growth over long periods of time. I do not know what you mean by "confront." Do you mean to compare and examine or come face to face with something that threatens a certain "belief?"

As a supporter of the Theory of Evolution, I am not threatened nor scared to compare and examine other explainations; however, I will pick the best explaination and may change my mind later down the rode if a better explaination arises. What about you?

What damages their theory the most is that perhaps there were several instances of life forms created by chance. Now we have several strings of evolution occuring. Consider the following quote:

Damage the Theory of Evolution? Try it, you only better the theory by doing so.

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: Zhavric While we're having this big sloppy heart to heart, I think you're not so good at clicking on links. The thread I linked to addresses Jesus, specifically. Not god. As for omnipotence (since you brought it up), it's not that I'm a BS artist. I understand logic and claims. Scientific law states matter & energy cannot be created or destroyed. EVEN IF THEY CAN BE BY SOME BEING, the scientific law says they cannot. Omnipotence requires the ability to create matter & energy. Thus, omnipotence contradicts an established scientific law and thus is false until proven true. There are a lot of people who think that we should examine claims in a vacuum and ignore existing evidence. This stance is untenable. We're constantly using existing proven knowledges to examine each new claim we come accross. To me, reading "There is no evidence proving or disproving omnipotence" ignores quite a bit of what has already been proven.

:rolleyes:

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Agnos Yes, I meant "fornication." lol *cough* tight ass *ahem* Nope, I'm twenty-eight. Are you going to respond to my original post, or not?

No.

[Agnos]

Quote by: KillerArgument No.

Well, then are you going to claim victory again, instead?

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Paleface2500 It amazes me how you do this. There is no evidence proving or disproving omnipotence, Therefore omnipotence does not exist. I have seen you do this before. You do nothing more then twist words around and dilute the topic. You constantly jump back and forth with your ideas in this circus show you call logic. When somebody does corner you with a good point, you run off or dilute it, twist it and rape it with bullshit tell it resembles nothing. I enjoy reading your post and I believe you are entertaining but, I also think you are a very skilled bullshit artist. Ironically, this is prime the reason you are so skilled in the art of debate. You should be a politician.

There is no evidence in your possession that this girl sitting next to me is either here or not. All your logic and science and lack of evidence doesn't make her go away. You, for your part, don't know if she is here or not. Use logic, science and evidence and let me know if this real girl (not an IPU or a blue 16 foot dragon) is sitting here next to me.

Then go one step further:

What Evidence do you have that I, Killer Argument, DON'T exist?

One last time:

WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT I DO NOT EXIST?

[Agnos]

Quote by: KillerArgument There is no evidence in your possession that this girl sitting next to me is either here or not. All your logic and science and lack of evidence doesn't make her go away. You, for your part, don't know if she is here or not. Use logic, science and evidence and let me know if this real girl (not an IPU or a blue 16 foot dragon) is sitting here next to me. Then go one step further: What Evidence do you have that I, Killer Argument, DON'T exist? One last time: WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT I DO NOT EXIST?

Girl? I hope that's your wife. You're married, man!

Anyways, *ahem* ...can't prove a negative. It must be nice being able to completely neglect certain responses in order to favor your argument. It's either intentional ignorance, or blind faith; probably the latter. Then again, what's the difference?

Tell me, if I wanted to prove something didn't exist, what would I be looking for? Heh.

The point is, can you prove that something does exist? Oh, you can't? You can't prove that something does exist without spouting off ancient scripture or describing a beautiful sunrise? That's a shame. Because now there is no reason to accept your assertion (namely, that God exists).

Or is there a reason? You see, I want God to exist. I really do! It would be comforting knowing that I'll reunite with my loved ones in the afterlife. It would be satisfying to know that murders and rapists will get what's coming to them. It would be fulfilling to know that a big being of pure love existed up there somewhere. But I am not going to lie to myself. That I will not do. I have reasons for what I believe, and blind faith is not one of them. But oh, how I want there to be a God! Please, I'm begging of you, give me a reason to believe in God.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Because you want to, and if there is no God at least you'll have been happy while you lived.

[Agnos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Because you want to, and if there is no God at least you'll have been happy while you lived.

Expand on that a bit, please. I'm not sure if I completely understand what you're saying.

[Gods_Mercenary]

If you really want to believe in God, then you might as well, because the worst case scenario is that you're wrong and you've lived a happy, if not completely rational, life.

[Agnos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If you really want to believe in God, then you might as well, because the worst case scenario is that you're wrong and you've lived a happy, if not completely rational, life.

Are you advocating Pascal's Wager? Or are you saying that because I want to believe in God, I might as well? If it is the latter, then go a little bit deeper into why I might as well. Your posts are short and sweet, yes, but I want to know exactly what you're saying before I respond.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Because you want to, and if there is no God at least you'll have been happy while you lived.

Pascal's wager is a uniquely bad bet. It is the the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. It assumes that there are only two possilbities, that either there is a Christian God or there isn't, while instead there are an infinite number of possible Gods. Chances are that if there is a God, he/she will not look kindly on your particular dogma. Blaise Pascal was a given mathematician but in this case, he screwed up big time.

[Gods_Mercenary]

The latter,Pascal's wager gets a little silly.

You might as well because I can see no way in which a little sensible deism would hurt you, and if it makes you happier, who cares?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Agnos Well, then are you going to claim victory again, instead?

I rather like his silly victory dance. Highly amusing. This gentlemen seems to be a legend in his own mind.