What is the main reason so many do not believe in a Creator...and choose evolution? | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 42120434 United States 01/17/2020 01:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Can it be said fairly that those who believe in evolution are "spiritual orphans"...with no Heavenly Father, and no hope for the future on this earth? Quoting: CelestialMaiden Maybe it's because we're not as dumb to believe what people 5000 years ago thought about things in life. They would hear thunder, not knowing what caused it, and think it was a god talking to them. FFS. They would see lightning, and think it was Thor... They thought it was gods hand when an air burst meteorite exploded and took out small cities like Sodam. Just because they didn't know about asteroids and meteors. They made up gods for everything they didn't understand. This is why I do not believe in any gods. |
CelestialMaiden (OP) User ID: 20340140 United States 01/17/2020 02:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78292982 Australia 01/17/2020 09:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Interested_1 User ID: 77128962 United States 01/17/2020 11:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77762685 Belgium 01/19/2020 08:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Rather than making assumptions and judging people you've never met, maybe you should actually go learn what the evidence is for evolution. Have you ever tried that? Can you even tell me what evolution theory is? Conjecture, pragmatism and bullshit. We know what you believe to be true, do not worry, we all know and we have very good reasons not to believe this to be true. Cheers |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78292982 Australia 01/19/2020 11:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Rather than making assumptions and judging people you've never met, maybe you should actually go learn what the evidence is for evolution. Have you ever tried that? Can you even tell me what evolution theory is? Conjecture, pragmatism and bullshit. We know what you believe to be true, do not worry, we all know and we have very good reasons not to believe this to be true. Cheers I don't think you do. After all this time, can you tell me why most scientists accept evolution? It's been explained to you over and over. Do you know what the theory says, and what accurate predictions it makes? Why don't you think that a scientific theory that makes accurate predictions should be considered invalid? Can you propose an alternative theory that has equal predictive power? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77762685 Belgium 01/20/2020 10:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Rather than making assumptions and judging people you've never met, maybe you should actually go learn what the evidence is for evolution. Have you ever tried that? Can you even tell me what evolution theory is? Conjecture, pragmatism and bullshit. We know what you believe to be true, do not worry, we all know and we have very good reasons not to believe this to be true. Cheers I don't think you do. After all this time, can you tell me why most scientists accept evolution? It's been explained to you over and over. Do you know what the theory says, and what accurate predictions it makes? Why don't you think that a scientific theory that makes accurate predictions should be considered invalid? Can you propose an alternative theory that has equal predictive power? Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont. Just like Flew when he abandoned his ideas. I mean your attitude towards this topic already clearly reflects the credibility part of my argument. It is just a matter of time for you to change your mind when a new and trendy consensus comes along. My alternative theory is that either everything was created and yours is everything created itself. The main difference is, when I point out lets say a feather and show you complexity, functionality and ingenuity, my explanation will start out with a mind/creator and yours will start out with 'nature/time/dont know/no creator' did it. |
MaybeTrollingUAgain User ID: 76840347 Brazil 01/20/2020 12:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78292982 Rather than making assumptions and judging people you've never met, maybe you should actually go learn what the evidence is for evolution. Have you ever tried that? Can you even tell me what evolution theory is? Conjecture, pragmatism and bullshit. We know what you believe to be true, do not worry, we all know and we have very good reasons not to believe this to be true. Cheers I don't think you do. After all this time, can you tell me why most scientists accept evolution? It's been explained to you over and over. Do you know what the theory says, and what accurate predictions it makes? Why don't you think that a scientific theory that makes accurate predictions should be considered invalid? Can you propose an alternative theory that has equal predictive power? Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont. Just like Flew when he abandoned his ideas. I mean your attitude towards this topic already clearly reflects the credibility part of my argument. It is just a matter of time for you to change your mind when a new and trendy consensus comes along. My alternative theory is that either everything was created and yours is everything created itself. The main difference is, when I point out lets say a feather and show you complexity, functionality and ingenuity, my explanation will start out with a mind/creator and yours will start out with 'nature/time/dont know/no creator' did it. Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont. Complete baseless claim. Usually what happens is exactly the opposite. My alternative theory is that either everything was created and yours is everything created itself. Its abundantly clear that you are NOT graduated. Therefore, thinks that a scientific theory is the same as a hunch or hypothesis. The main difference is, when I point out lets say a feather and show you complexity, functionality and ingenuity, my explanation will start out with a mind/creator and yours will start out with 'nature/time/dont know/no creator' did it. The main difference is that you know nothing about science. It starts with observation, then evidence is collected, then evidence is tested and this cycle repeats to the exaustion. Sometimes for many decades. When there is a sufficient body of evidence(overwhelming evidence) then it can maybe become a theory. What you want to do is, start with an observation, insert a baseless and evidenceless claim and expect that everyone accepts it because that's how you think science works. It is not. MaybeTrollingUAgain |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78292982 Australia 01/21/2020 04:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78292982 Rather than making assumptions and judging people you've never met, maybe you should actually go learn what the evidence is for evolution. Have you ever tried that? Can you even tell me what evolution theory is? Conjecture, pragmatism and bullshit. We know what you believe to be true, do not worry, we all know and we have very good reasons not to believe this to be true. Cheers I don't think you do. After all this time, can you tell me why most scientists accept evolution? It's been explained to you over and over. Do you know what the theory says, and what accurate predictions it makes? Why don't you think that a scientific theory that makes accurate predictions should be considered invalid? Can you propose an alternative theory that has equal predictive power? Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont. Lol ok... So they're all just pretending? They don't really think the evidence supports evolution? You're delusional. You're pulling this claim straight out of your ass based on nothing. As I thought, even though it's been explained to you over and over, you still don't know why scientists accept evolution. You don't have the attention span necessary to learn basic biology. Flew didn't abandon evolution, retard. He was a deist, which means he didn't believe in your god. I've told you this multiple times, but it's like your brain is incapable of absorbing new information. I mean your attitude towards this topic already clearly reflects the credibility part of my argument. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 It is just a matter of time for you to change your mind when a new and trendy consensus comes along. Another claim that you pulled out of your ass, based on nothing. Evolution theory has only grown stronger since it was created, and it's not going anywhere in our lifetimes. My alternative theory is that either everything was created and yours is everything created itself. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 You don't know what I believe, or what theory means, you dense fuck. Show me a test that demonstrates a snowflake is assembled by an intelligent creator. The main difference is, when I point out lets say a feather and show you complexity, functionality and ingenuity, my explanation will start out with a mind/creator and yours will start out with 'nature/time/dont know/no creator' did it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 Yeah, because nature and time are facts. Your religion is not. I try to explain the feather using evidence, you'll make ignorant assertions based on nothing at all. That's the real difference between us. I'm describing complex biological processes, you're just asserting 'god done it.' That doesn't explain anything. Just like saying 'my parents made me' doesn't explain how reproduction actually works. Again, you haven't retained anything about evolution, despite arguing about it constantly. You're too stupid to talk to. Stop wasting my time. |
Zoinkaeon User ID: 12343871 United States 01/21/2020 04:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I think Mark Twain summed it up rather quaintly. "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." Ash Nazg Durbatulûk, Ash Nazg Gimbatul, Ash Nazg Thrakatulûk, Agh Burzum-ishi Krimpatul |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76013906 United States 01/24/2020 01:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77762685 Belgium 01/27/2020 07:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 Conjecture, pragmatism and bullshit. We know what you believe to be true, do not worry, we all know and we have very good reasons not to believe this to be true. Cheers I don't think you do. After all this time, can you tell me why most scientists accept evolution? It's been explained to you over and over. Do you know what the theory says, and what accurate predictions it makes? Why don't you think that a scientific theory that makes accurate predictions should be considered invalid? Can you propose an alternative theory that has equal predictive power? Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont. Lol ok... So they're all just pretending? They don't really think the evidence supports evolution? You're delusional. You're pulling this claim straight out of your ass based on nothing. As I thought, even though it's been explained to you over and over, you still don't know why scientists accept evolution. You don't have the attention span necessary to learn basic biology. Flew didn't abandon evolution, retard. He was a deist, which means he didn't believe in your god. I've told you this multiple times, but it's like your brain is incapable of absorbing new information. I mean your attitude towards this topic already clearly reflects the credibility part of my argument. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 It is just a matter of time for you to change your mind when a new and trendy consensus comes along. Another claim that you pulled out of your ass, based on nothing. Evolution theory has only grown stronger since it was created, and it's not going anywhere in our lifetimes. My alternative theory is that either everything was created and yours is everything created itself. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 You don't know what I believe, or what theory means, you dense fuck. Show me a test that demonstrates a snowflake is assembled by an intelligent creator. The main difference is, when I point out lets say a feather and show you complexity, functionality and ingenuity, my explanation will start out with a mind/creator and yours will start out with 'nature/time/dont know/no creator' did it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 Yeah, because nature and time are facts. Your religion is not. I try to explain the feather using evidence, you'll make ignorant assertions based on nothing at all. That's the real difference between us. I'm describing complex biological processes, you're just asserting 'god done it.' That doesn't explain anything. Just like saying 'my parents made me' doesn't explain how reproduction actually works. Again, you haven't retained anything about evolution, despite arguing about it constantly. You're too stupid to talk to. Stop wasting my time. Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it". The argument of ID is that evidenced objects and physical concepts are either too simple or too complex to be simply natural, whichever of the two extremes one chooses to be the hallmark of design by an outside intelligence. He also answered in the affirmative to Habermas's question, "So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?". He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before But that's just a crazy old man in fear of death. You are the only source of wisdom here, we know. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77762685 Belgium 01/27/2020 07:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 Conjecture, pragmatism and bullshit. We know what you believe to be true, do not worry, we all know and we have very good reasons not to believe this to be true. Cheers I don't think you do. After all this time, can you tell me why most scientists accept evolution? It's been explained to you over and over. Do you know what the theory says, and what accurate predictions it makes? Why don't you think that a scientific theory that makes accurate predictions should be considered invalid? Can you propose an alternative theory that has equal predictive power? Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont. Just like Flew when he abandoned his ideas. I mean your attitude towards this topic already clearly reflects the credibility part of my argument. It is just a matter of time for you to change your mind when a new and trendy consensus comes along. My alternative theory is that either everything was created and yours is everything created itself. The main difference is, when I point out lets say a feather and show you complexity, functionality and ingenuity, my explanation will start out with a mind/creator and yours will start out with 'nature/time/dont know/no creator' did it. Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont. Complete baseless claim. Usually what happens is exactly the opposite. My alternative theory is that either everything was created and yours is everything created itself. Its abundantly clear that you are NOT graduated. Therefore, thinks that a scientific theory is the same as a hunch or hypothesis. The main difference is, when I point out lets say a feather and show you complexity, functionality and ingenuity, my explanation will start out with a mind/creator and yours will start out with 'nature/time/dont know/no creator' did it. The main difference is that you know nothing about science. It starts with observation, then evidence is collected, then evidence is tested and this cycle repeats to the exaustion. Sometimes for many decades. When there is a sufficient body of evidence(overwhelming evidence) then it can maybe become a theory. What you want to do is, start with an observation, insert a baseless and evidenceless claim and expect that everyone accepts it because that's how you think science works. It is not. Are you high on something? Going against any flow results exactly in what i have stated. Outcasts, rebels and the likes will always be removed for their mere ideas are a hinderance to idiots, no offense. |
RussianAsset User ID: 77996502 Netherlands 01/27/2020 07:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Evidence. Simple as that. All disciplines confirm evolution. Especially the genome project made this abundantly clear. Now, you could maybe argue that God created evolution as a process to create, because he is way too busy to mold everything and everyone by hand, from clay, but surely he is more intelligent than that. But again. No evidence for a God. None. Last Edited by RussianAsset on 01/27/2020 07:33 AM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72946100 United States 01/27/2020 07:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
gray lady User ID: 77590476 United States 01/27/2020 07:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72946100 United States 01/27/2020 07:46 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 Conjecture, pragmatism and bullshit. We know what you believe to be true, do not worry, we all know and we have very good reasons not to believe this to be true. Cheers I don't think you do. After all this time, can you tell me why most scientists accept evolution? It's been explained to you over and over. Do you know what the theory says, and what accurate predictions it makes? Why don't you think that a scientific theory that makes accurate predictions should be considered invalid? Can you propose an alternative theory that has equal predictive power? Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont. Just like Flew when he abandoned his ideas. I mean your attitude towards this topic already clearly reflects the credibility part of my argument. It is just a matter of time for you to change your mind when a new and trendy consensus comes along. My alternative theory is that either everything was created and yours is everything created itself. The main difference is, when I point out lets say a feather and show you complexity, functionality and ingenuity, my explanation will start out with a mind/creator and yours will start out with 'nature/time/dont know/no creator' did it. Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont. Complete baseless claim. Usually what happens is exactly the opposite. My alternative theory is that either everything was created and yours is everything created itself. Its abundantly clear that you are NOT graduated. Therefore, thinks that a scientific theory is the same as a hunch or hypothesis. The main difference is, when I point out lets say a feather and show you complexity, functionality and ingenuity, my explanation will start out with a mind/creator and yours will start out with 'nature/time/dont know/no creator' did it. The main difference is that you know nothing about science. It starts with observation, then evidence is collected, then evidence is tested and this cycle repeats to the exaustion. Sometimes for many decades. When there is a sufficient body of evidence(overwhelming evidence) then it can maybe become a theory. What you want to do is, start with an observation, insert a baseless and evidenceless claim and expect that everyone accepts it because that's how you think science works. It is not. "Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont." There is a very valid reason for that. Asserting an alternative theory lacking verifiable evidence is not science. It's mythology and superstition. |
Wookiee666 User ID: 62421844 United States 01/27/2020 07:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Statistics and something that just seem to be real every so thousand years. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78350448 Not sure what you mean, but....the abundance of life all around the earth is and always has been real, and evidence of intelligent design, no? Nope. There is NOT A SHRED of evidence for "intelligent design". The FACT is, evolution is real, not something to be believed in. Reasonable people don't "believe" in evolution, we simply understand it. Your argument is a very well known one and is part of the process for becoming a reasonable person. Its called "personal incredulity". [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] One cannot imagine the living cell existing without intelligent design May be. But to KILL over it? That's the problem. To kill over books written, compiled, edited (several times), printed, declared divinely inspired, by men is just too primitive for my liking. Warning: JustSomeGuy_42 is a publicly confessed unvaxxed neophiliac . If the number 666 is considered evil. then technically, 25.8069758 is the root of all evil. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 01/27/2020 04:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78292982 Australia 01/30/2020 02:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78292982 I don't think you do. After all this time, can you tell me why most scientists accept evolution? It's been explained to you over and over. Do you know what the theory says, and what accurate predictions it makes? Why don't you think that a scientific theory that makes accurate predictions should be considered invalid? Can you propose an alternative theory that has equal predictive power? Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont. Lol ok... So they're all just pretending? They don't really think the evidence supports evolution? You're delusional. You're pulling this claim straight out of your ass based on nothing. As I thought, even though it's been explained to you over and over, you still don't know why scientists accept evolution. You don't have the attention span necessary to learn basic biology. Flew didn't abandon evolution, retard. He was a deist, which means he didn't believe in your god. I've told you this multiple times, but it's like your brain is incapable of absorbing new information. I mean your attitude towards this topic already clearly reflects the credibility part of my argument. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 It is just a matter of time for you to change your mind when a new and trendy consensus comes along. Another claim that you pulled out of your ass, based on nothing. Evolution theory has only grown stronger since it was created, and it's not going anywhere in our lifetimes. My alternative theory is that either everything was created and yours is everything created itself. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 You don't know what I believe, or what theory means, you dense fuck. Show me a test that demonstrates a snowflake is assembled by an intelligent creator. The main difference is, when I point out lets say a feather and show you complexity, functionality and ingenuity, my explanation will start out with a mind/creator and yours will start out with 'nature/time/dont know/no creator' did it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 Yeah, because nature and time are facts. Your religion is not. I try to explain the feather using evidence, you'll make ignorant assertions based on nothing at all. That's the real difference between us. I'm describing complex biological processes, you're just asserting 'god done it.' That doesn't explain anything. Just like saying 'my parents made me' doesn't explain how reproduction actually works. Again, you haven't retained anything about evolution, despite arguing about it constantly. You're too stupid to talk to. Stop wasting my time. Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it". The argument of ID is that evidenced objects and physical concepts are either too simple or too complex to be simply natural, whichever of the two extremes one chooses to be the hallmark of design by an outside intelligence. He also answered in the affirmative to Habermas's question, "So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?". He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before But that's just a crazy old man in fear of death. You are the only source of wisdom here, we know. Do you know what a deist is? Deists believe that god started the universe, but doesn't interact with it beyond that. Flew believed in evolution. So why do you keep bringing him up to support your Creationist position? Flew disagreed with you. |
Funney User ID: 72942568 Czechia 01/30/2020 03:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76013906 United States 01/30/2020 12:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont. Lol ok... So they're all just pretending? They don't really think the evidence supports evolution? You're delusional. You're pulling this claim straight out of your ass based on nothing. As I thought, even though it's been explained to you over and over, you still don't know why scientists accept evolution. You don't have the attention span necessary to learn basic biology. Flew didn't abandon evolution, retard. He was a deist, which means he didn't believe in your god. I've told you this multiple times, but it's like your brain is incapable of absorbing new information. I mean your attitude towards this topic already clearly reflects the credibility part of my argument. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 It is just a matter of time for you to change your mind when a new and trendy consensus comes along. Another claim that you pulled out of your ass, based on nothing. Evolution theory has only grown stronger since it was created, and it's not going anywhere in our lifetimes. My alternative theory is that either everything was created and yours is everything created itself. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 You don't know what I believe, or what theory means, you dense fuck. Show me a test that demonstrates a snowflake is assembled by an intelligent creator. The main difference is, when I point out lets say a feather and show you complexity, functionality and ingenuity, my explanation will start out with a mind/creator and yours will start out with 'nature/time/dont know/no creator' did it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 Yeah, because nature and time are facts. Your religion is not. I try to explain the feather using evidence, you'll make ignorant assertions based on nothing at all. That's the real difference between us. I'm describing complex biological processes, you're just asserting 'god done it.' That doesn't explain anything. Just like saying 'my parents made me' doesn't explain how reproduction actually works. Again, you haven't retained anything about evolution, despite arguing about it constantly. You're too stupid to talk to. Stop wasting my time. Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it". The argument of ID is that evidenced objects and physical concepts are either too simple or too complex to be simply natural, whichever of the two extremes one chooses to be the hallmark of design by an outside intelligence. He also answered in the affirmative to Habermas's question, "So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?". He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before But that's just a crazy old man in fear of death. You are the only source of wisdom here, we know. Do you know what a deist is? Deists believe that god started the universe, but doesn't interact with it beyond that. Flew believed in evolution. So why do you keep bringing him up to support your Creationist position? Flew disagreed with you. Yep. There are plenty of well-educated people, both god-fearing and atheist, that believe in evolution. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77762685 Belgium 01/31/2020 12:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 Most scientists accept evolution because they will lose their jobs, funding and credibility if they dont. Lol ok... So they're all just pretending? They don't really think the evidence supports evolution? You're delusional. You're pulling this claim straight out of your ass based on nothing. As I thought, even though it's been explained to you over and over, you still don't know why scientists accept evolution. You don't have the attention span necessary to learn basic biology. Flew didn't abandon evolution, retard. He was a deist, which means he didn't believe in your god. I've told you this multiple times, but it's like your brain is incapable of absorbing new information. I mean your attitude towards this topic already clearly reflects the credibility part of my argument. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 It is just a matter of time for you to change your mind when a new and trendy consensus comes along. Another claim that you pulled out of your ass, based on nothing. Evolution theory has only grown stronger since it was created, and it's not going anywhere in our lifetimes. My alternative theory is that either everything was created and yours is everything created itself. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 You don't know what I believe, or what theory means, you dense fuck. Show me a test that demonstrates a snowflake is assembled by an intelligent creator. The main difference is, when I point out lets say a feather and show you complexity, functionality and ingenuity, my explanation will start out with a mind/creator and yours will start out with 'nature/time/dont know/no creator' did it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 Yeah, because nature and time are facts. Your religion is not. I try to explain the feather using evidence, you'll make ignorant assertions based on nothing at all. That's the real difference between us. I'm describing complex biological processes, you're just asserting 'god done it.' That doesn't explain anything. Just like saying 'my parents made me' doesn't explain how reproduction actually works. Again, you haven't retained anything about evolution, despite arguing about it constantly. You're too stupid to talk to. Stop wasting my time. Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it". The argument of ID is that evidenced objects and physical concepts are either too simple or too complex to be simply natural, whichever of the two extremes one chooses to be the hallmark of design by an outside intelligence. He also answered in the affirmative to Habermas's question, "So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?". He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before But that's just a crazy old man in fear of death. You are the only source of wisdom here, we know. Do you know what a deist is? Deists believe that god started the universe, but doesn't interact with it beyond that. Flew believed in evolution. So why do you keep bringing him up to support your Creationist position? Flew disagreed with you. I see. So god created the universe but nothing else. Like a human filling a fishtank with water and then wait for the fish to magically appear/evolve/whatever, because 'life finds a way'. [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] Clearly this man has no clue as well. Thank notgod for your wisdom and their stupidity. So to be clear, did god start evolution or not? Or only the universe and then wait? Cheers |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76554726 Canada 01/31/2020 01:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | fear of logic?? Whoever fucked wuth humans dna is evil our dna show multiple editing who are pure craft of evil. start with vitamin C pathway if our pathway wasnt disabed we would not suffer 80% of tge diseases and conditions we suffer fuck you and your evil father time...aka saturn aka satan |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78417268 Australia 01/31/2020 09:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78292982 Lol ok... So they're all just pretending? They don't really think the evidence supports evolution? You're delusional. You're pulling this claim straight out of your ass based on nothing. As I thought, even though it's been explained to you over and over, you still don't know why scientists accept evolution. You don't have the attention span necessary to learn basic biology. ... Flew didn't abandon evolution, retard. He was a deist, which means he didn't believe in your god. I've told you this multiple times, but it's like your brain is incapable of absorbing new information. ... Another claim that you pulled out of your ass, based on nothing. Evolution theory has only grown stronger since it was created, and it's not going anywhere in our lifetimes. ... You don't know what I believe, or what theory means, you dense fuck. Show me a test that demonstrates a snowflake is assembled by an intelligent creator. ... Yeah, because nature and time are facts. Your religion is not. I try to explain the feather using evidence, you'll make ignorant assertions based on nothing at all. That's the real difference between us. I'm describing complex biological processes, you're just asserting 'god done it.' That doesn't explain anything. Just like saying 'my parents made me' doesn't explain how reproduction actually works. Again, you haven't retained anything about evolution, despite arguing about it constantly. You're too stupid to talk to. Stop wasting my time. Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it". The argument of ID is that evidenced objects and physical concepts are either too simple or too complex to be simply natural, whichever of the two extremes one chooses to be the hallmark of design by an outside intelligence. He also answered in the affirmative to Habermas's question, "So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?". He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before But that's just a crazy old man in fear of death. You are the only source of wisdom here, we know. Do you know what a deist is? Deists believe that god started the universe, but doesn't interact with it beyond that. Flew believed in evolution. So why do you keep bringing him up to support your Creationist position? Flew disagreed with you. I see. So god created the universe but nothing else. Like a human filling a fishtank with water and then wait for the fish to magically appear/evolve/whatever, because 'life finds a way'. [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] Clearly this man has no clue as well. Thank notgod for your wisdom and their stupidity. So to be clear, did god start evolution or not? Or only the universe and then wait? Cheers You're comparing an entire universe, with a tank of water, which is stupid. A tank of water isn't full of black holes, and colossal nuclear reactors that condense matter into heavy elements. Think about it, if God is omniscient, then he predetermined everything that would happen at the moment of creating the universe. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77762685 Belgium 02/01/2020 11:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it". The argument of ID is that evidenced objects and physical concepts are either too simple or too complex to be simply natural, whichever of the two extremes one chooses to be the hallmark of design by an outside intelligence. He also answered in the affirmative to Habermas's question, "So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?". He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before But that's just a crazy old man in fear of death. You are the only source of wisdom here, we know. Do you know what a deist is? Deists believe that god started the universe, but doesn't interact with it beyond that. Flew believed in evolution. So why do you keep bringing him up to support your Creationist position? Flew disagreed with you. I see. So god created the universe but nothing else. Like a human filling a fishtank with water and then wait for the fish to magically appear/evolve/whatever, because 'life finds a way'. [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] Clearly this man has no clue as well. Thank notgod for your wisdom and their stupidity. So to be clear, did god start evolution or not? Or only the universe and then wait? Cheers You're comparing an entire universe, with a tank of water, which is stupid. A tank of water isn't full of black holes, and colossal nuclear reactors that condense matter into heavy elements. Think about it, if God is omniscient, then he predetermined everything that would happen at the moment of creating the universe. Well why not, a fish tank is less complex. I don't think bringing in biological or cosmological factories is helping your case for evotardism to be a thing. Or let alone it being a god created evolution thing. Again, so god created the universe and thats it, or also started the process of evolution, a bit like the opening scene of Prometheus? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78296683 United Kingdom 02/01/2020 11:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78417268 Australia 02/01/2020 07:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78292982 Do you know what a deist is? Deists believe that god started the universe, but doesn't interact with it beyond that. Flew believed in evolution. So why do you keep bringing him up to support your Creationist position? Flew disagreed with you. I see. So god created the universe but nothing else. Like a human filling a fishtank with water and then wait for the fish to magically appear/evolve/whatever, because 'life finds a way'. [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] Clearly this man has no clue as well. Thank notgod for your wisdom and their stupidity. So to be clear, did god start evolution or not? Or only the universe and then wait? Cheers You're comparing an entire universe, with a tank of water, which is stupid. A tank of water isn't full of black holes, and colossal nuclear reactors that condense matter into heavy elements. Think about it, if God is omniscient, then he predetermined everything that would happen at the moment of creating the universe. Well why not, a fish tank is less complex. I don't think bringing in biological or cosmological factories is helping your case for evotardism to be a thing. Or let alone it being a god created evolution thing. Again, so god created the universe and thats it, or also started the process of evolution, a bit like the opening scene of Prometheus? Yes, a fish tank is less complex... that means it has LESS potential configurations and possibilities. Despite what you think, the presence of 'cosmological and biological factories' does mean that there are far greater possibilities that can emerge as a result of the interaction of matter and energy within the system. Have you ever heard of the game of life? Here it is: This very simple system is capable of spontaneously forming complex structures, capable of movement, and self replication. If such a basic system can produce these things, imagine what the universe can produce given billions of years. "Again, so god created the universe and thats it, or also started the process of evolution, a bit like the opening scene of Prometheus?" You're still not getting it. I'm not talking about aliens coming to Earth and seeding life, I'm talking about a God that created the universe itself. If God is all knowing, and created the laws of nature/physics, then it logically follows that he predetermined everything that would occur. Get it? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78350737 United States 02/01/2020 07:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77762685 Belgium 02/08/2020 08:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77762685 I see. So god created the universe but nothing else. Like a human filling a fishtank with water and then wait for the fish to magically appear/evolve/whatever, because 'life finds a way'. [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] Clearly this man has no clue as well. Thank notgod for your wisdom and their stupidity. So to be clear, did god start evolution or not? Or only the universe and then wait? Cheers You're comparing an entire universe, with a tank of water, which is stupid. A tank of water isn't full of black holes, and colossal nuclear reactors that condense matter into heavy elements. Think about it, if God is omniscient, then he predetermined everything that would happen at the moment of creating the universe. Well why not, a fish tank is less complex. I don't think bringing in biological or cosmological factories is helping your case for evotardism to be a thing. Or let alone it being a god created evolution thing. Again, so god created the universe and thats it, or also started the process of evolution, a bit like the opening scene of Prometheus? Yes, a fish tank is less complex... that means it has LESS potential configurations and possibilities. Despite what you think, the presence of 'cosmological and biological factories' does mean that there are far greater possibilities that can emerge as a result of the interaction of matter and energy within the system. Have you ever heard of the game of life? Here it is: This very simple system is capable of spontaneously forming complex structures, capable of movement, and self replication. If such a basic system can produce these things, imagine what the universe can produce given billions of years. "Again, so god created the universe and thats it, or also started the process of evolution, a bit like the opening scene of Prometheus?" You're still not getting it. I'm not talking about aliens coming to Earth and seeding life, I'm talking about a God that created the universe itself. If God is all knowing, and created the laws of nature/physics, then it logically follows that he predetermined everything that would occur. Get it? Just as likely as you flipping a coin 500 times and it lands heads everytime. You understand this, I don't and I am ok with that. I'll take my chances with my own silly stupidity. Your statements concerning god are very confusing, what did god create and what did god not create? |