RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 >   
  Topic: Daniel Smith's "Argument from Impossibility", in which assumptions are facts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Quack



Posts: 1758
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,02:43   

Quote (Rrr @ May 04 2009,01:58)
 
Quote (Quack @ May 03 2009,11:10)
IIRC, 40 days it took to flood the Earth, but many more days had to be spent sailing the waves.

Impressive! Even more so than Paris, 1959. Provided, of course, that you do remember correctly...
:-)

Ahhh, nothing like a goat on the waves...

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,13:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,22:37)
Quote (rhmc @ May 02 2009,18:35)
why is daniel so afraid of theoldman's questions?

I don't read oldman's posts.  I've explained my reasons for this several times.  He knows that but just keeps on posting anyway.  Same with Louis.

LOL

Yeah yeah, we all know. You can't answer the questions we ask, don't like the fact that we (and many others) see straight through you, don't like the fact that we refuse to sit quietly and nod at your dishonesty...

Oh wait, you mean those aren't the reasons? You seem to be differing with reality....again. Big shocker.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e..



Posts: 2896
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,14:11   

Quote
LOL

Yeah yeah, we all know. You can't answer the questions we ask, don't like the fact that we (and many others) see straight through you, don't like the fact that we refuse to sit quietly and nod at your dishonesty...

Oh wait, you mean those aren't the reasons? You seem to be differing with reality....again. Big shocker.



One word: Psychosis.

Dan suffers from it....there's probably a brain chemistry explanation.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Quack



Posts: 1758
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,16:25   

The extensive research that Richard Feynman did on ants showed how they created paths that got improved by continued use.

We find similar processes in the brain too, with the paths forming closed loops. Just replace the sugar with religion, creationism or whatever aberration you prefer.

By prolonged use the paths/loops become hardened, requiring more energy than available to break.

I believe we have empirical support for that theory.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,16:25   

Quote (k.e.. @ May 04 2009,21:11)
Quote
LOL

Yeah yeah, we all know. You can't answer the questions we ask, don't like the fact that we (and many others) see straight through you, don't like the fact that we refuse to sit quietly and nod at your dishonesty...

Oh wait, you mean those aren't the reasons? You seem to be differing with reality....again. Big shocker.



One word: Psychosis.

Dan suffers from it....there's probably a brain chemistry explanation.

My brain and I have great chemistry!

We go places together

And yet sometimes I let it wander

Now to be fair on the Denial matter

It's quite obvious that he's a wanker...


There, a little poem for ya!  :)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1025
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,21:30   

Quote (k.e.. @ May 03 2009,22:45)
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

<snip>

God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

<snip>

In fairness, the trees were engaged in some totally gay pollination.  And the babies were going to grow up to be Hitler. Yes, all of them.

Back on topic... If Daniel won't talk about Ye Olde Flood, maybe he'll enlighten us about witches.  That would be entertaining.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,21:47   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 01 2009,19:13)
(1) I asked for a detailed evolutionary pathway for aminosynthesis but no one was able to provide one.
(2) I then asked for an outline or an immediate precursor so that we could build from that.
(3) You replied with your sketchy outline.
A "sketchy outline? " The precise duplication pathway and supporting evidence. You then ignored that and  proceeded to work on your god of the gaps ploy: "where did that come from, Daddy?"

(4) I point out that we need to now try to add detail to it.
(5) You blow up and accuse me of "moving the goalposts" and setting up an "infinite regression"
Which is exactly what you are doing
(6) You leave for awhile (presumably to cool off).
False, but you never let facts bother you

(7) When you come back, I point out that all I'm asking for is something that is settled science (I use the term "final answer" as well but later correct that).
(8) You ask for an example of settled science (no mention of it having to be about "origins").  Yet that is precisely what your claim is about...and how it is that you keep using a god of the gaps fallacy
(9) I give several examples (including common descent) but you claim they are not detailed enough.  
(10) I then give the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun as an example of settled science.
(11) You respond by moving the goalposts and claiming that now the only settled science answer you'll accept must deal with origins.
(12) I respond that my position all along has been that origins will forever be impossible to explain by science (since it can only test for natural mechanisms and God didn't use nature to create itself).
(13) You say now that I didn't answer your question (although I did) and accuse me of a lot of things including championing a "God of the gaps".And this is exactly the point regarding your use of God of the Gaps methods...you simply keep asking "where did that come from?" and then  when someone says "we don't know" ...why, that's where Denial inserts his God.

(This is not a detailed account.  It is only a sketchy outline.  If you want detail, go back and reread our posts.)

 
Quote
The God of the Gaps argument tries to relegate God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases. Judeo-Christian theology disagrees: God is above nature and science. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: "...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.[2]

Francis Collins, noted geneticist of Christian faith and head of the Human Genome Project, expounded on this in his book, "The Language of God" where he argues that using the God-of-the-gaps theory is scientifically irresponsible for Christians and may even be considered to take away from beautiful complexity of God's creation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps


--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,03:43   

Quote (k.e.. @ May 04 2009,20:11)
Quote
LOL

Yeah yeah, we all know. You can't answer the questions we ask, don't like the fact that we (and many others) see straight through you, don't like the fact that we refuse to sit quietly and nod at your dishonesty...

Oh wait, you mean those aren't the reasons? You seem to be differing with reality....again. Big shocker.



One word: Psychosis.

Dan suffers from it....there's probably a brain chemistry explanation.

Indubitably, my good sir.

It'll be one of them there complex feedback type thingies. Brain chemistry influences brain state, brain state influences psychology, psychology influences ideology, ideology influences psychology, psychology influences brain state, brain state influences brain chemistry. Or something not entirely unlike that.

{ahem}

This is the theory, the theory that is mine, it is my theory, no other person's theory is this, my theory is as follows, what is coming up is my theory...

{ahem}

Stuff affects other stuff.

Thank you.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,03:51   

Quote (Quack @ May 04 2009,22:25)
The extensive research that Richard Feynman did on ants showed how they created paths that got improved by continued use.

We find similar processes in the brain too, with the paths forming closed loops. Just replace the sugar with religion, creationism or whatever aberration you prefer.

By prolonged use the paths/loops become hardened, requiring more energy than available to break.

I believe we have empirical support for that theory.

I'm not sure I'd classify either religion or creationism as aberrations. They seem to be successful mental strategies within certain given social contexts. For example has Duane Gish really suffered from his creationism? I understand he is mildly wealthy/healthy/fecund/socially acceptable.

Speaking purely from an adaptationist stance, the broader class of "limited reality denying world views" (because no world view denies reality utterly) doesn't appear to be enormously maladaptive given the social nature of our species. Speaking from a more pluralist stance, there seems to be no reason that "limited reality denying world views" could not be off shoots of other (perhaps more selected/selectable) mental processes. In fact there's a growing body of evidence that out pattern forming "machinery" is behind such things, IIRC (IANANeuroscientist).

But yes, the loops/paths thing is IIRC uncontroversial. Dammit, you've made me want to go and read ANOTHER book now! ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Quack



Posts: 1758
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,05:02   

Quote
Dammit, you've made me want to go and read ANOTHER book now! ;-)


You’re welcome;-)

The problem nowadays is finding books one [I]want to  - and enjoy[/I ] reading, after Ian Fleming, Tom Clancy (ugh), - and SF, whodunits, suspense, in fact most fiction has lost its attraction.

One alternative is reading the same good books again, and again, but it is not possible to keep that going forever.

BTW, I said ‘aberration’ just to be controversial…


Edit: snipped irrelevant comment

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,06:51   

Quote (Quack @ May 05 2009,12:02)
One alternative is reading the same good books again, and again, but it is not possible to keep that going forever.

It is, actually. I've been hooked to Terry Pratchett for 10 years, and that's the only thing I'm reading now (in the novels category, of course, I'm not THAT closed).

I think the one I've read most is Jingo (about 12 times). I have almost the full discworld series (lacking only 4 books that I will order soon), and it's entertained me for 10 years now. I can feel another decade will pass by, and I still won't be bored with Pratchett's genius!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Quack



Posts: 1758
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,09:05   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 05 2009,06:51)
 
Quote (Quack @ May 05 2009,12:02)
One alternative is reading the same good books again, and again, but it is not possible to keep that going forever.

It is, actually. I've been hooked to Terry Pratchett for 10 years, and that's the only thing I'm reading now (in the novels category, of course, I'm not THAT closed).

I think the one I've read most is Jingo (about 12 times). I have almost the full discworld series (lacking only 4 books that I will order soon), and it's entertained me for 10 years now. I can feel another decade will pass by, and I still won't be bored with Pratchett's genius!

Thanks for the tip. I didn't even know he existed, but I have the bad habit of looking for American authors only, imagine that!

I made a quick Google and believe there may be something there, will give him a fair chance!

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2238
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,10:38   

Quote (Louis @ May 05 2009,01:43)
It'll be one of them there complex feedback type thingies. Brain chemistry influences brain state, brain state influences psychology, psychology influences ideology, ideology influences psychology, psychology influences brain state, brain state influences brain chemistry. Or something not entirely unlike that.

You haven't provided sufficient detail.  Therefore, by the Law of Personal Incredulity, God did it.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,11:54   

Quote (Quack @ May 05 2009,15:05)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 05 2009,06:51)
 
Quote (Quack @ May 05 2009,12:02)
One alternative is reading the same good books again, and again, but it is not possible to keep that going forever.

It is, actually. I've been hooked to Terry Pratchett for 10 years, and that's the only thing I'm reading now (in the novels category, of course, I'm not THAT closed).

I think the one I've read most is Jingo (about 12 times). I have almost the full discworld series (lacking only 4 books that I will order soon), and it's entertained me for 10 years now. I can feel another decade will pass by, and I still won't be bored with Pratchett's genius!

Thanks for the tip. I didn't even know he existed, but I have the bad habit of looking for American authors only, imagine that!

I made a quick Google and believe there may be something there, will give him a fair chance!

I heartily second Terry Pratchett, if only for the amazing puns.

(Come for the puns, stay for the biting satire and parody)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,11:59   

Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2009,16:38)
Quote (Louis @ May 05 2009,01:43)
It'll be one of them there complex feedback type thingies. Brain chemistry influences brain state, brain state influences psychology, psychology influences ideology, ideology influences psychology, psychology influences brain state, brain state influences brain chemistry. Or something not entirely unlike that.

You haven't provided sufficient detail.  Therefore, by the Law of Personal Incredulity, God did it.

Ah yes of course. I shall amend my comment accordingly:

It'll be one of them there complex feedback type thingies. God made brain chemistry, god then makes it influence* brain state, god made brain state, god then makes it influence** psychology, god made psychology, god then makes it influence*** ideology, god made ideology, god then makes it influence**** psychology, then god makes psychology influence***** brain state, then god makes brain state influence****** brain chemistry. Or something not entirely unlike that.

Better?

Louis

* Don't ask how, we don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
** Don't ask how, we don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
*** Don't ask how, we don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
**** Don't ask how, we don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
***** Don't ask how, we don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
****** Don't ask how, we don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,12:05   

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2009,20:37   

so no flood data and no bottleneck data.

sigh.

ya'll done broke another one.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2009,22:42   

Quote (rhmc @ May 08 2009,20:37)
so no flood data and no bottleneck data.

sigh.

ya'll done broke another one.

I'm sure he's posting somewhere else describing his huge victory to the gullible masses.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,12:10   

Quote (rhmc @ May 03 2009,17:33)
                                   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,17:37)
I don't read oldman's posts.  I've explained my reasons for this several times.  He knows that but just keeps on posting anyway.  Same with Louis.

both have posed valid questions.  

to be honest, it kinda looks like you can't answer them and that's why you claim you don't read their posts.

so, instead of reading their posts, here's two questions:

where is the evidence for the biblical flood?

where is the genetic evidence of a human population of only 8 people from which all of us descend?

I've covered this several times.

I did not come here to debate the flood.  

I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.

I asked for an explanation as to how a specific amino acid biosynthetic pathway evolved and received no concrete answers.  Appeals were made to one unverified hypothetical pathway, but when pressed, the admission was made that it was no where near settled science.  I must point out here that I could have asked for an explanation for a whole host of other, much more complex living systems, but I purposely limited my question to an "easy one".  

I've shown that the reason these atheists don't accept the design in life has nothing whatsoever to do with science.  It is based solely on bias - an unwillingness to consider God as an option.

I conducted a thought experiment whereby the atheists here were asked to explain the origins of a detailed face on Mars (were there to be one).  Without hesitation, with no appeals to science, and with no "design filter" applied, they all agreed that such a thing "must be" designed.  The reason?  They could accept the possibility of a designer on Mars "like us".  Design then, when a designer was deemed "possible", was intuitively obvious, in spite of the fact that there are natural mechanisms that could conceivably build such a thing.

When pressed to apply this principle to life on Earth, the admission was made that, although they could conceive of a designer for life, THEY CHOSE NOT TO!

I've come to the conclusion that you atheists hide behind science because you know that it cannot test for God.  You pour over the books to reinforce your belief that life is just a cosmic coincidence.  You think that science has eliminated the need for God, yet science has explained exactly nothing regarding the origins of life.

The design of life is intuitively obvious to the vast majority of the world's population.  Perhaps if you pull your nose out of your books long enough to look around and consider the absolute majesty of it all, maybe, just maybe, you'll see what the rest of us see.  

I will continue to learn, read and study about life because the scientific literature poses no challenge to my belief in God.  Everything I've read to this point: all of the papers, all of the books, all of your posts, have only reinforced my faith.  There are no coincidences that could build the things I've seen.  Life is more than science.  Man is more than molecules.  There is a spiritual universe of which all here express complete ignorance.  

You all will continue to ignore such things as you have ignored even the scientific literature that is not of the mainstream mindset.  

In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.

Goodbye.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
k.e..



Posts: 2896
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,12:31   

Onlookers Please Note

<snicker>

So much nutty goodness & projection.

It's all about Daniel boo hoo hoo

Quote
I've come to the conclusion that you atheists hide behind science because you know that it cannot test for God.


And you hide behind the god of the Fundy Literal Bible because you know nothing else supports it's existance.

Quote

You pour over the books to reinforce your belief that life is just a cosmic coincidence.


Unlike Daniel who was a wanted child...maybe.


Quote

 You think that science has eliminated the need for God......


Need?......do tell Daniel ......a little lonely perhaps?

Quote

....yet science has explained exactly nothing regarding the origins of life


Yet.....watch this space.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,12:56   

Just yesterday I was in our attendance office when a student walked out of one of our assistant principals' offices, yelling about how he was leaving, and he didn't care about going to alternative, and all that.  We see the same with Daniel, who, after losing everything, still proclaims that he has won, that he has stumped everyone with his brilliance.

I do notice his claims about the face on Mars, and how we all assumed a designer like us, when that is false (I started before that) and misleading (most others accepted the idea that the face was not natural and a designer was needed, looking at how we could tell that), but why should Daniel stop lying now.  Or maybe he's just so far gone that he actually can't tell.  Not sure which is sadder.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,14:22   

Quote
It is based solely on bias - an unwillingness to consider God as an option.

No. It is based on the inability of people who believe in a god to produce a single experiment or other test in which the presence or absence of a god would make the slightest difference.
Quote
The design of life is intuitively obvious to the vast majority of the world's population.

yet it seems that, the more a person knows about biology, the less obvious the design becomes.
Quote
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.

For weeks, people have been asking you for your explanations, but all you have ever said (when you did not evade the issue) boils down to 'God did it. I don't know how' with a whispered 'but it was not through evolution.'

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,14:32   

Denial, Denial, Denial. Tsk.

You arrived here as a true believer in the God given to you by your culture, along with cartoonlike caricatures of what you believe science, logic and rational discussion to be.

Want evidence of that? Look at your last post. In at least three places, you yap mindlessly about how you came here to expose the atheists and their godless science. You continue to hold to this despite many people telling you, many times, that not everyone here -- even the people you were talking to across this sea of electrons -- were atheists at all.

But you still choose to caricature people here as  your "atheist foes," with their "atheist ideas." Even when they say they're not.

You stick to this caricature much as you choose to continue to adhere to your simplistically naive view of logic, reason and science. That's fine. Maybe you've learned some things, maybe not. That's fine, too. What counts (for me, at least) is that perhaps one good thing can be gathered  from this painfully over-extended little encounter ; as Feynman once said (and which Louis memorializes in his "signature" ), science is a way of trying very hard NOT to fool one's self, while realizing that that same "self" is the easiest person to fool. Science is hard. Science isn't the same as faith.

Faith is easy -- little kids can be taught to believe very easily in the God of their culture (just as you argued not for Brahma, but only for Yahweh). Science is hard. It's a way of not fooling yourself about the universe around you while still recognizing the limitations of human investigation.

But you, why you discovered a little trick around that. A mental device, a demonstrable set of fallacies that used the God your culture gave you to "see" the world around you in a particular way. A view that you find enchanting and others find...well, laughable.

Your entire "challenge" was based on this trick (more properly, set of devices). All that you "discovered," as was pointed out to you many times as well, is that it is possible to

(1) Take the God of your choice and
(2) Ascribe the origins of all things to it.
(3) Challenge presumed "unbelievers" to a duel concerning "the origins of things"
(4) Take any "atheist" response and then push it backwards until you found a place for your God to nestle in, safe in that gap your naive reductionism and ignorance created and maintained.

If you find that to be comforting, great! Bon chance, and don't let the door hit you in the ass.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,15:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,10:10)
I did not come here to debate the flood.  

Yes, but your comments on the flood directly reflect your ability to evaluate evidence. The fact that you appear to believe that a global flood is both plausible and perhaps supported by the evidence strongly suggests that you aren't equipped to take on high school level geometry, never mind nitty gritty the details of molecular biology.
Quote

I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.

Note the dishonest implication that it's only atheists who accept the current scientific consensus. I suppose the millions of Christians who spent their academic lives in evolutionary biology weren't True Christians.

  
Quack



Posts: 1758
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,16:22   

Quote
I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.


OK, you knew it, you told us. But why all the questions? And what about your accusation which seems very similar to Ray Martinez's thesis: Anyone who accept evolution is by deafult an atheist?

Now that you've done the Lord's work you may wash your hands and enjoy your well earned peace of mind. No more doubts, pure joy of ultimate certainty.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,00:57   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
Quote (rhmc @ May 03 2009,17:33)
                                     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,17:37)
I don't read oldman's posts.  I've explained my reasons for this several times.  He knows that but just keeps on posting anyway.  Same with Louis.

both have posed valid questions.  

to be honest, it kinda looks like you can't answer them and that's why you claim you don't read their posts.

so, instead of reading their posts, here's two questions:

where is the evidence for the biblical flood?

where is the genetic evidence of a human population of only 8 people from which all of us descend?

I've covered this several times.

I did not come here to debate the flood.  

I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.

I asked for an explanation as to how a specific amino acid biosynthetic pathway evolved and received no concrete answers.  Appeals were made to one unverified hypothetical pathway, but when pressed, the admission was made that it was no where near settled science.  I must point out here that I could have asked for an explanation for a whole host of other, much more complex living systems, but I purposely limited my question to an "easy one".  

I've shown that the reason these atheists don't accept the design in life has nothing whatsoever to do with science.  It is based solely on bias - an unwillingness to consider God as an option.

I conducted a thought experiment whereby the atheists here were asked to explain the origins of a detailed face on Mars (were there to be one).  Without hesitation, with no appeals to science, and with no "design filter" applied, they all agreed that such a thing "must be" designed.  The reason?  They could accept the possibility of a designer on Mars "like us".  Design then, when a designer was deemed "possible", was intuitively obvious, in spite of the fact that there are natural mechanisms that could conceivably build such a thing.

When pressed to apply this principle to life on Earth, the admission was made that, although they could conceive of a designer for life, THEY CHOSE NOT TO!

I've come to the conclusion that you atheists hide behind science because you know that it cannot test for God.  You pour over the books to reinforce your belief that life is just a cosmic coincidence.  You think that science has eliminated the need for God, yet science has explained exactly nothing regarding the origins of life.

The design of life is intuitively obvious to the vast majority of the world's population.  Perhaps if you pull your nose out of your books long enough to look around and consider the absolute majesty of it all, maybe, just maybe, you'll see what the rest of us see.  

I will continue to learn, read and study about life because the scientific literature poses no challenge to my belief in God.  Everything I've read to this point: all of the papers, all of the books, all of your posts, have only reinforced my faith.  There are no coincidences that could build the things I've seen.  Life is more than science.  Man is more than molecules.  There is a spiritual universe of which all here express complete ignorance.  

You all will continue to ignore such things as you have ignored even the scientific literature that is not of the mainstream mindset.  

In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.

Goodbye.

10/10

excellent trollery.

i look forward to seeing you reinvent yourself again, legion

this was a nice character.  next time try for a portugese lesbian catholic mathematician excommunique who remains faithful to god despite her theology separating her from The Church.  or something

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
k.e..



Posts: 2896
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,02:33   

An Activista!!!!

Bring back the inquisition.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,03:31   

Well, at least this whole topic can be treasured as one of those so (un)rare occasions in which a (alleged) creotard makes a fool of himself.

Any slightly inquisitive mind would be thankful to all those who have contributed and tried to explain in a clear way, yet Denial flounces out with a cry of "ATHEISTS!"

The loss is on him really. Such a shame...



ps: how strong can his faith be that he is so scared of opening his eyes? Pretty weak, I gather.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Quack



Posts: 1758
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,04:42   

The Denial's goodbye post is a poignant document of intellectual bankruptcy.

It reminds me of an image that has stuck in my mind since 1949: it may be enjoyed between 1:20 to 2:20 here

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,06:36   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
I did not come here to debate the flood.  



--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  1103 replies since Jan. 26 2009,15:45 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (37) < ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]