|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
22nd February 2013, 07:36 PM | #4961 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
22nd February 2013, 08:07 PM | #4962 |
Dark Lord of the JREF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
|
|
__________________
"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head." |
|
22nd February 2013, 10:12 PM | #4963 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
I haven't ignored you- that's why I've been carefully reading your posts and in response explaining what we really do know, and what we don't know, about evolution. In contrast, if I may quote you:
Originally Posted by GIBHOR: "Well, i just explained you what i believe. That does not mean, that i will examine your evidence for evolution..." I've already posted how there have been many scientists who have challenged existing ideas about evolution, sometimes radically, and have gotten their ideas accepted. But that is because they first took the trouble to truly understand the theory that they were questioning, and because they were then able to provide scientific evidence for why certain aspects were wrong. Science encourages people to prove a theory wrong. Religions do what to heretics? You see, I view this thread as a great educational opportunity. An educational opportunity for me, because I learn a lot from vast majority of the other posters here. An educational opportunity for any lurkers, who get to see the profound errors in the creationist and theological arguments you cite. And, believe it or not, I see it as a marvelous educational opportunity for you! Yes, I see you are learning more about science as the thread continues. First, you have already learned that not all the information on the creationist websites is correct: that is an important step in the right direction. Next, every time you move the goalposts in response to a reply to one of your posts, or refuse to answer a simple direct question, it means that you recognize that you can't really defend your original position. Every time you change the subject in response to a post, it means you recognize that you can't defend a entire topic area. Every time you deny that you haven't seen any evidence for naturalism despite all of the many pages in this thread, or you abruptly shift from a scientific argument to theological preaching, it means that you recognize the wealth of evidence that you are forcing yourself to ignore. I certainly do not expect you to ever post, "Yes, you guys are right!' That would be... a miracle. But little by little, I think you are understanding more of the real science. That's good enough to keep me going here. |
23rd February 2013, 01:11 AM | #4964 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
|
|
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas |
|
23rd February 2013, 02:34 AM | #4965 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
|
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
23rd February 2013, 04:45 AM | #4966 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
What has one thing to do with the other ? Since when is there a competition between science and religion ? these are different things, and cannot be compared one to the other.
Quote:
Quote:
But neither is that my expectation......the more i learn, the more i wonder how someone truly can believe that God does not exist. The evidence is overwhelming, nature speaks such a clear language, its almost as nature would scream out : look how incredibly intelligent the creator of all this is.... but atheists seem blinded through their persistent and irrational will, no God to exist.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
what you call theological preaching, many times in reality is a philosophical position, which is in the end always our answer to explain natural phenomenas. Science is limited in its findings, and what we can do, is make conclusions based on the data. Unfortunately for the case of philosophical naturalism, scientific advance has lead to a different direction that atheists hoped. The universe is not existing forever, but had most probably a beginning, as the bible states for thousands of years. The universe is tuned to a razors edge, not only to permit life, but to exist as a whole. Abiogenesis is a lost case for naturalists. The evidence, like the information stored in the cell, homochirality etc. all point to a supernatural event. Sex, conscience, the hability of speech, etc. are all things that cannot be explained in a convincing manner through naturalism......
Quote:
Quote:
|
23rd February 2013, 04:54 AM | #4967 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
23rd February 2013, 05:08 AM | #4968 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
What criterion have you applied to conclude i failed ? And , on what exactly have i failed, could you explain please ?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
23rd February 2013, 05:28 AM | #4969 |
Scholar
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
|
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
|
23rd February 2013, 06:02 AM | #4970 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
23rd February 2013, 06:15 AM | #4971 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
Conflict arises when scientific evidence conflicts with religious belief. For example, large numbers of people might hold the religious belief that a global flood once wiped out most life on earth. What happens when they're presented with scientific evidence that contradicts this belief? It's not just the sites you cite. Every creationist site makes "wrong assertions". If a world view clearly contradicts the observable facts of the world, that world view is wrong. The instances of biologists and other scientists lying and providing false or distorted information to support their conclusions is rare and unusual. Being discovered in this kind of deception is enough to ruin careers. The instances of creationists lying and providing false or distorted information to support their conclusions is commonplace. It's standard practice. Being discovered in this kind of deception has no negative consequences for them, and the false information will continue to be disseminated long after it's been publicly demonstrated as being false. The "you too" argument doesn't really work in this case. Surely you can see the difference? "Yes I can see the difference, and don't call me Shirley." [/humor] Technically, being gnostic or agnostic has nothing to do with whether or not you believe God exists. You can easily be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. People often misuse the term "agnostic" to mean "weak atheist". Used properly, it means a person who holds the belief that it's not possible to know for certain whether God does or does not exist. (But not thinking it's possible to know for certain is no barrier to holding a belief on the subject.) For me it's the other way around. I was raised without any religious instruction. No prayer, church service, or anything. I was never taught that God existed, but was never taught that God didn't exist either. Religion was a subject that never came up, and I was only peripherally aware of it from sources like movies or television shows. But the more I learned about religion, the more bizarre it seemed to me that anyone could believe such nonsense. The "evidence" is all in your head. Nature is amazing and wonderfully complex, I'll grant you that. But only someone with deeply ingrained preconceptions about God could ever see it as evidence of an intelligent creator. You seem to think that atheist possess a strong desire for god not to exist, but that's not necessarily true. Personally, I think it'd be pretty awesome if we discovered that a god of some kind actually existed, especially if we could communicate with it. But the only "evidence" we have for such a thing existing are ancient stories, flawed logic, self-deception and deliberate lies. No verifiable evidence at all. Believing in God makes as much sense as believing in magic pixies. If we're getting back to the thread topic "Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence?" the question itself is based on a misunderstanding of what naturalism is. Naturalism isn't an explanation for "our existence" or anything else. It's a useful philosophical tool that can be used to develop a better understanding of the world. The idea of the universe existing forever has never been the basis of atheism, so finding out it hasn't is hardly leading in a "different direction that atheists hoped". The steady state theory of the universe was discredited back in the 60's, and the fact that the universe appears to have an earliest point in time is common knowledge. Pointing out something that many atheists have been aware of for their entire lives is hardly going to make atheists rethink their position. But you specifically credit the Bible with saying that the universe had a beginning. So what? Practically every religion claims the universe had a beginning, including far older religions than yours. Infinity is a fairly modern concept, and so primitive societies without this concept would naturally assume the universe had a beginning. The conditions that permit life to exist in the universe only occur in extremely rare and unusual situations, in infinitesimally tiny regions compared the the universe as a whole. If you were to paint the entire near side of the moon with a pie chart comparing the habitable areas of the universe to the uninhabitable areas of the universe, the slice representing the habitable areas would be so narrow that an astronaut kneeling on the moon with a magnifying glass would be incapable of even seeing it. The period of time (past an future) when these conditions are even capable of occurring is only the tinyist sliver of a moment in the lifespan of the universe. If you were to create a chart long enough to wrap around the entire earth that represented the period of time in which atomic matter is capable of existing, and were to mark on the chart the period of time in which it was physically possible for life to exist, the marked section would be so small that you still wouldn't be able to see it. The idea that this universe is fine-tuned to support life is absurd. And quoting phony figures from creationists about how "improbable" this universe is (as you have done repeatedly) is hardly convincing. Yes, it can. All it takes is the recognition that the "facts" provided by creationist websites are lies, and a little effort to actually examine and understand the concepts presented. |
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
23rd February 2013, 06:17 AM | #4972 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
23rd February 2013, 06:35 AM | #4973 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
GIBHOR, I have a question that has been bothering me for a while.
Why would you, or any other Christian even want to argue that the universe is fine-tuned? It makes no sense to me. After all, the only kind of God who would need to create an entire, mostly uninhabitable and supposedly fine-tuned universe like the one we see around us would be a deistic God who initiates the process but doesn't meddle. But if the universe was created by a deistic God, that means your entire religion is false, that the entire Bible is a lie. So why would you even make this argument? The God you believe in, the one who simply pops life into existence, who summons global floods, who destroys cities, parts oceans, turns water into wine an brings the dead back to life, YOUR God... ... Why wouldn't he just pop the solar system into existence? He could have simply popped a single sun into existence and surrounded it with thousands of habitable worlds. So why would he bother creating an entire vast, hostile universe filled with countless trillions dead worlds simply to create life on a single planet? Why? |
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
23rd February 2013, 07:36 AM | #4974 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
GIBHOR: when do you intend to address your demonstrably dishonest misquote of Dr. Sagan's words--you know, the one that shows that you did not read the source form which some creationist cherry-picked a carefully incomplete idea?
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
23rd February 2013, 07:41 AM | #4975 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
|
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett |
|
23rd February 2013, 08:32 AM | #4976 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
-the combined chromosome of humans vs. the other great apes
-the design of the retina with the blood vessels in front of the photoreceptors -the fact that all humans will develop as female without the presence of androgens -the multiple errors and mistakes in replication and reproduction -the insertion of genetic material by viruses |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
23rd February 2013, 08:37 AM | #4977 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
I pointed out a major flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument,which you have refused to address, why is that GIBHOR?
I have asked over twenty times, and you are dishonest, you do not want to discuss it because you know the FTA is wrong or you just don't understand it and all you do is parrot and copy. |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
23rd February 2013, 08:40 AM | #4978 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
23rd February 2013, 09:35 AM | #4979 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
|
Then religion doesn't belong in a thread about the best explanation for our existence, because while it gives an answer (the same answer for every question, as it turns out), it doesn't explain.
Since religion doesn't explain, would you care to come up with a superior explanation for our existence that is non-religious and superior to naturalism? |
23rd February 2013, 10:20 AM | #4980 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
GIBHOR, Please address this question: If Evolution was a "failed hypothesis", then what accounts for its many, many success stories?
How come the Science of Evolution: Saved the kakapo from the brink of extinction: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib.../060401_kakapo Helped us help the cheetahs prosper: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...070701_cheetah Helped us understand the avian flu: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...051115_birdflu Allowed us to find where SARS came from: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...060101_batsars Is helping us understand and combat super-weeds: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...1015_superweed Just to name a few examples. |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
23rd February 2013, 11:47 AM | #4981 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
23rd February 2013, 12:09 PM | #4982 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
You're setting them in direct conflict, actually, factually speaking. Not your fault, really, since the creators of a lot of the arguments want exactly that, because the beliefs that they want to support are very much not supported by science.
No one's done that here. Seriously. The conclusions that we've formed about creationism are, for a number of us, due entirely to a serious look at the matter. Of course, after the 20th claim that's been found to be completely dishonest and none found to be honest, one tends to be less trusting of creationism. After the 50th, fairly certain of the vacuousness of the position. After multiple hundreds without a single positive mark? It's just really, really pathetic. To err is human, as I recall. To intentionally repeat known mistakes is openly dishonest. Less than you likely think, actually, just going by the nature of the systems. Science has checks, rechecks, peer review, and encourages challenges to existing theories... so long as the challenges can be backed up with actual evidence. Dishonesty is dealt with harshly and watched for constantly. That's not to say that everything's perfectly right, but its structured so that the most likely truth, based on the relevant evidence, will be accepted as such, even in the face of entrenched opposition. Creationism, on the other hand, has no actual controls. Blatant lies, terrible arguments, logical fallacies, and impossibilities are still spread around as "fact" centuries after they've been discredited, even by people who have just been shown why they're very dishonest and wrong, despite being shown to be bad arguments over and over and over and over again. What's worse, a number of people have found that there's a lot of money to be made in openly lying to people about such matters, giving them false validation in the place of honest understanding. If only you wouldn't run straight to openly dishonest people for your trusted information. Ehh... when the "information" on a particular side is consistently wrong, there being a lot of it isn't really helpful. When the reasons for why a particular worldview is being held to the exclusion of others fail upon consideration, that doesn't help it, either. Both are the case for creationism. If you're dealing with forums like this? The participating part is important. Much in the way of discussions like these are for the lurkers or casual observers, with just the people who have something to contribute doing so. When you're looking through smudged, rose-tinted glasses, things do tend to look rather different. Well... that's you projecting. Again. I really have nothing against the existence of deities of a lot of kinds. I'd even call a lot of them gods without them even coming close to reaching the claims made about YHWH. I just don't see valid reason to conclude that any do exist. And most of us here would have a hard time caring less about your theological position. Your arguments for your position leave a lot to be desired, though. Your reasons for rejecting naturalism as a better explanation have been utterly lacking, too. No. That conversation left off at valid, if weak reasons are better than invalid reasons, either way. You've yet to come up with a valid reason for why your answer should be accepted at all, after all. Nice attempt at using rhetoric to obfuscate events. Yes, in concept. Less so than you seem to think, though. You keep trying to say that, but... you've made it fairly clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Likely so. And that our universe likely had a beginning in no way either implies a creator god or challenges philosophical naturalism. False. Just, flat out, false. None of the available evidence suggests that. The Bible doesn't even state thousands of years. That was taken from a bunch of attempts to interpret it in ways that it was never designed to accurately answer. For that matter, Christians were the ones who demonstrated that that was a pathetically foolish position to hold. And that was before Darwin's time, no less. Wishful thinking. You've yet to present a case here that wasn't completely riddled with gaping holes. Wishful thinking. You've yet to present a case here that wasn't completely riddled with gaping holes. Not really, as has been demonstrated to you over and over again. Wishful thinking. You've yet to present a case here that wasn't completely riddled with gaping holes. You've also shown that you're an absolutely terrible judge of what constitutes a "good case" and have made it clear that you're completely uninterested in honest discussion in the matter as you openly profess that you won't even try to understand what the position that you seek to attack actually says, means, or is. You've been attacking science like a madman to try to make your religion look better and you expect your attacks to go unanswered or unassociated with the reason why you're attacking science? Come now. I doubt that anyone's fooled. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
23rd February 2013, 12:30 PM | #4983 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
your problem is, that its not creationist websites that make these assertions. They are not baseless assertions, but scientific facts......
If you do not know that molecules are homochiral, and that the cell stores a hudge amount of information, than you need to educate yourself...... |
23rd February 2013, 12:36 PM | #4984 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
23rd February 2013, 12:38 PM | #4985 |
I say nay!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
|
|
__________________
Memento Mori |
|
23rd February 2013, 12:41 PM | #4986 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
hahaha..... that supposed to be a joke, or what ??!!
Lee Smolin Wrote (Three Roads, p202) The apparently improbable values of the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces. One can estimate the probablilty that the constants in our standard theories of the elementary particles and cosmology would, were they chosen randomly, lead to a world with carbon chemistry. That probability is less than one part in 10^220. but without carbon chemistry the universe would be much less likely to form large numbers of stars massive enough to become black holes, and life would be very unlikely to exist. Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” |
23rd February 2013, 12:42 PM | #4987 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Appearances and quality of arguments. All you've done is show that your position is vacuous with the tactics that you've used.
Quote mining, outright lying, presenting false information, fallacious logic, and so on as if it was truth are all reasons not to consider something trustworthy. See above answer. Oh, I suspect that I understand the subject a fair bit better than you, based on what you've been trying to do. The simple fact is that your attempt to argue along those lines will get you nowhere at all. Really. If you're invoking that form of absolute nothing, "God," no matter what form or properties you claim for it, CANNOT exist, which dooms your argument completely from the start. Been there, done that. You've yet to present a response, let alone a valid response. That's because your question's so far out of touch with reality that it's worthy of ridicule. It's been answered, either way, completely reasonably. Your acceptance of such is up to you, but you do realize that you're just making yourself look dumb by trying to make that a relevant issue with regards to why you don't think that naturalism is the best explanation for existence, itself? When the shoe fits... Would you like us to make a list of a few things that we consider dishonest? Such as trying to pass off terrible logic as good logic, repeating discredited arguments, and claiming expertise where one has none? Not in the least, if the arguments have been dealt with separately, as they have, and the person's demonstrated their dishonesty in what they use and how they use it. Creationism's demonstrated its dishonesty for centuries, now, especially models like young earth creationism. Is identifying a pigeon as a pigeon an admission of failure? Hardly. It was a summary. It was in no way intended to be detailed. See my last post for a few. Actually, this one a bit, too, with regards to your attempt at using absolute nothing as an argument. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
23rd February 2013, 12:45 PM | #4988 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t380...cal-naturalism
Quote:
|
23rd February 2013, 12:50 PM | #4989 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
23rd February 2013, 12:53 PM | #4990 |
I say nay!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
|
|
__________________
Memento Mori |
|
23rd February 2013, 12:55 PM | #4991 |
I say nay!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
|
|
__________________
Memento Mori |
|
23rd February 2013, 12:56 PM | #4992 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
That the universe is finely tuned to life is a scientific fact. Thats why people like Stenger, Dawkins et al try to avoid God as explanation , and present science fiction fantasies, like the multiverse hypotheses.
Why God created the universe the way he did, and not differently, will maibe be a good question i will make him, when i am in heaven |
23rd February 2013, 01:02 PM | #4993 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
Once again, it is clear you do not know what you are talking about.
Molecules are NOT homochiral. Some molecules are, not all. Do you even know what that word means? Have you learned about reverse transcriptase yet? Or epigenetics? Your problem here is you simply do not know the subjects at hand. You don't know biology You don't know cosmology And you certainly don't know the bible. |
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
23rd February 2013, 01:06 PM | #4994 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
MACRO-Evolution (not just micro) has helped scientists do the following:
Save the Kakapo from the brink of extinction: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib.../060401_kakapo Save tasmanian devils from the threat of a new form of cancer: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...ws/080901_dftd Understand the impact of climate change on various species: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...le/mcelwain_01 Develop strategies to promote biodiversity in general: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...1101_diversity And, of course, build to build a Tree of Life encompassing all known species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology) The Hillis Plot has further allowed us to continue making more discoveries in the realm of biology. We already mentioned the fly studies, and how far scientists can expect them to apply to humans, based on Macro-evolutionary theory. If MACRO-Evolution is a "failed hypothesis", then what accounts for all of these success stories?! |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
23rd February 2013, 01:09 PM | #4995 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Before starting, you quoted me as stating what you said, as well as what I said. That's false attribution and as such, is officially dishonest.
Not in the least. That we exist under conditions that we could come to exist is not evidence for the supernatural, no matter how much you might wish it to be so. If we existed under conditions that we could not have come to exist under, that would be, on the other hand. Regardless, I strongly, strongly doubt that you understand where those numbers that you cite are coming from, especially given some of your other arguments. Of course it doesn't. Has anyone here argued that anything in particular makes philosophical naturalism automatically become true? If not, this is another example of a dishonest rhetorical tactic, no matter what. For that matter, if the specific person you're addressing wasn't arguing such there, it's still such. Regardless, here, let's put the obvious right back in front of your eyes, again. Naturalism has a good case for it being the best actual explanation for anything, of the methods that have been tried, which, at the very least, gives it a weak argument for why it's the best explanation for our existence. The creationism that you're trying to push has no demonstrated valid case and a massive amount of invalid and dishonest attempts at making a valid case, which gives a strong case to not trust it for any explanations about anything. Theism against atheism might be able to be portrayed as equal contenders. Naturalism against creationism cannot, by any honest standards. Atheistic creationism and Theistic naturalism are both valid stances, as well as the atheistic naturalism and the theistic creationism that you've been trying to pit against each other and failing, so your attempts to portray this as a debate between naturalism and theism fail utterly. Still. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
23rd February 2013, 01:12 PM | #4996 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
Your behind the times, once again,
Based on new information, our universe is actually unstable. http://www.tgdaily.com/space-brief/6...se-is-unstable But by all means, tell me more about how our universe is finely tuned to be unstable..... |
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
23rd February 2013, 01:21 PM | #4997 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t270...ommon-ancestor
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
23rd February 2013, 01:23 PM | #4998 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
23rd February 2013, 01:32 PM | #4999 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
23rd February 2013, 01:33 PM | #5000 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|