Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

Can you explain to me how a human limited by their senses and capabilities could extend past that? How a group of people checking with limited abilities compared to the knowledge necessary could see what the data means?

...

The review process rules out fraud (i.e. a Creationist crackpot),

...

See that bit just up there? Look at what you did.

It is a prejudicial and purposeful misdefinition of what 'fraud' means.

The creationist crackpot may even be right and you have no way of knowing it. Yet there you go, presenting your opinion as fact.

And you would have rejected the truth, not based upon evidence or fact, but based upon your personal opinion of your understanding of the belief system of the one who said it? How skewed is that?

Isn't misrepresenting the truth, as you would have done, the definition of 'fraud'?

If you truly had an open mind, you'd have to agree that when neither side has the absolute answer, you don't go with any position, nor do you reject any position.

The point of view that you cannot reach a conclusion is a balanced and 'scientific' point of view.

Taking a particular position on the basis of imperfect data when offered two conflicting theories is not open mindedness, you have closed your mind to one of the possibilities.

There is no default position/argument except to say that there is no default position/argument while the data is incomplete.

The data is incomplete???? This is a no-brainer. And you don't understand sampling. You only have to take a handful of their body of "evidence" to know that it's a fraud. Ken Ham is a fraud. He's made millions off the lame, lazy and the crazy.

I'm not going to recreate a list of their claims which has been cited a million times. Prove any one of their claims and you have something to discuss. Otherwise............. I'm not wasting my time.

If you truly had an open mind, you'd have to agree that when neither side has the absolute answer, you don't go with any position, nor do you reject any position.

By your criteria, analytical thinking is out the door. There is no such thing as "perfect data". Science is an open-ended endeavor. The difference here is that the creationist agenda is not science or seeking the truth. Their agenda is a F R A U D. Creationism isn't even a Christian religion. It's a cult.

Again, I'm not going to get wound up in this argument for the umpteeth time. If you want to make excuses for them, that's on you.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Isn't misrepresenting the truth, as you would have done, the definition of 'fraud'?

The google dictionary defines it as "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain."

Here's an example, peer reviewed and all:

A couple more?


This one sums it up nicely (remember the phrase "intended to result in financial or personal gain")?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

Can you explain to me how a human limited by their senses and capabilities could extend past that? How a group of people checking with limited abilities compared to the knowledge necessary could see what the data means?

...

The review process rules out fraud (i.e. a Creationist crackpot),

...

See that bit just up there? Look at what you did.

It is a prejudicial and purposeful misdefinition of what 'fraud' means.

The creationist crackpot may even be right and you have no way of knowing it. Yet there you go, presenting your opinion as fact.

And you would have rejected the truth, not based upon evidence or fact, but based upon your personal opinion of your understanding of the belief system of the one who said it? How skewed is that?

Isn't misrepresenting the truth, as you would have done, the definition of 'fraud'?

If you truly had an open mind, you'd have to agree that when neither side has the absolute answer, you don't go with any position, nor do you reject any position.

The point of view that you cannot reach a conclusion is a balanced and 'scientific' point of view.

Taking a particular position on the basis of imperfect data when offered two conflicting theories is not open mindedness, you have closed your mind to one of the possibilities.

There is no default position/argument except to say that there is no default position/argument while the data is incomplete.

There are two possibilities in this debate

1) the universe as we see it came into being by natural physical forces and chemical reactions. This possibility is backed by every experiment and every observation that has ever been made.


Or

2) god did it. For which there is absolutely no good reason to believe.

a reply to: whereislogic

More drivel from the cult who protects child molesters and rapists.

Come on creationists! Show us your evidence. Not cult webpages and mindless YouTube propaganda. Real evidence that your sky daddy is real.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Lol they can't.
Zero verifiable evidence so far, but the thread has been amusing to be fair so I'm glad I posted it.
The desperation in speculative philosophical argument is hilarious.

I just gotta say that of the many many years ive come here which includes the years i was a lerker before joining.

Yes in threads we argue about god/s existing, we argue if the science is right, we argue if ones a Padawan or not....

But never have I seen a thread such as this one that turns the tables up on this level.

Thumbs up CornishCeltGuy

Funny that Padawan #2 has not participated in this thread much. His response to this is in his troll thread where he said we need to show him proof before he gives proof of his god. (little 'g')

Coomba98

Now now, can't we all just be friends? (Atheists, Theists, Agnostics and Undecided).

Can't we have civil discussions about the great mysteries of life without ridiculing each other?

a reply to: Incandescent

Dont star much, cause I dont come here for an ego stroke of stars and flags. Real life does fine for me.

But I totally agree with your post. So star for you.

-=Start Rant=-
Sad truth is that theres alot of people out there who think the whole world is against them, yet their against the world. And they cant see or comprehend that!

Dont post much lately cause ive said my share on subjects, but here and there ill share a post.

However.... ive been raise to stand up to bullies. In this day and age in the digital world, we call them trolls. And I looooooove trolling a troll, and truth betold everyone should.

How many people have these degenerate trolls killed!! Just think about that one second everyone.

They say feminism is cancer [the nowadays feminism], are no different than degenerate people who just want to create chaos and violence.

I really dont know why the Mods allow these people to be here.

-=End Rant=-

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

Haha cheers Coomba!
I had to start it, the other thread was so outrageous somebody had to, if only for balance.
Definitely more friendly in this thread as well, Raggedyarse is proper gumpy at times in his lol

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

His called Raggs for a reason.

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

Lol if he wasn't such a grump it could have been an interesting discussion, but the hostility was a bit much, hence this thread.
The mad thing is that I actually have an open mind, so if some decent evidence was presented to the class indicating a creator god then I'd be open to change my opinion.
26 pages in though, nothing, zero, nada.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You will learn, Raggs is only friendly to the ones that agree with him.

It would be good if everyone would be rational thinkers, and the sad truth is, this is a great place to learn rational thinking.

In fact the Mods should create a Forum titled 'Rational and Critical Thinking'. Which people can post comments to teach others how properly to approach and evaluate certain subject matters.

Such as science.

Coomba98

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

As I've already implied before, the type of "decent evidence" you are requesting will never be presented because you are trying to quantify something that transcends the boundaries of science and materialism.

If God exists, he does not need to prove his existence to you or anyone else. Can you imagine how how grand, complex and absolute a being that created the universe would be if it were to be properly conceptualized?

a reply to: Incandescent

This is like if humans could one day create a mini universe we are able to intervene through technology, and say to the ones we created 'Hey, whats uuuuuup!!' We would do that. Its our failing arrogance.

Which is really 'If its and buts could rule the world then anything is possible'. True?

If theres a God, and he intervenes, then we can measure that.

You say he does not really need to prove his existence, yet provides us with high intelligence, yet sends a crap tone of us to Hell for eternity because he gave us a brain, yet said in an unverifiable, ancient text that we need faith!.

Does this sound right?

If this god is real, and I mean no offence but id rather not worship or follow it.

That no different than rolling the dice, some go to heaven, some go to hell. Tuff luck for the smart and logical ones.

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

Not all of us who are open to the belief of God's existence base our belief on texts such as the bible.

The numerous contradictions and inconsistencies found in these texts should be warning enough that they are not the words of God but rather the words of those who want to rule over others and control them.

a reply to: Incandescent

Last post then im crashin, work tomorrow and its 12.13am.

The numerous contradictions and inconsistencies found in these texts should be warning enough that they are not the words of God but rather the words of those who want to rule over others and control them.

Would this not only be a warning that the 'god' thing is a myth used as the control mechanism?

Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
Would this not only be a warning that the 'god' thing is a myth used as the control mechanism?

You could be right. However, couldn't the same could be said about Karma, a central idea to Buddhism - which is actually an atheistic belief system?

I would say God and his Judaism/Christianity/Islam depiction is more a case of a half-truth (there might exist a powerful creative force that created all life, but that doesn't mean he is an invisible old man that interferes with their lives and condemns his creations to hell for disobeying his commandments.)

a reply to: Incandescent

I don't believe in karma either, nor souls or gods.
Why do you believe in stuff which cannot be verified? Genuine question and not mocking you, I just don't get it, it seems odd to me. It's like believing in goblins and elves or whatever, equally as little evidence to support claims of their existence.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I could point out that there is no end-to-end evidence for the entire process of evolution as formulated in the MES and demand that you present that, before I will accept it, but if that were the case it would be particularly stupid of me, wouldn't it?

What would you consider "end-to-end" evidence? Please explain yourself and also explain how this "end-to-end" evidence exists for creation or the idea of god, because that's the topic here. The topic isn't, "let's try to exploit semantics to trick people into thinking I can argue against science" as per usual.

You exist in a universe of existence, are asking big questions about existence and the evidence is all around you. What more could be offered?

This is the nonsense I'm talking about. You ask for "end-to-end" evidence of evolution and hold it to the highest possible (unrealistically possible) standards of proof, yet when it comes to god you just make lazy half ass statements like "the evidence is everywhere". Come on, dude. You know me better than that.

Even if there was a flashing neon sign brighter than 100 suns, you'd probably still ask for evidence.

Well there is not one, so your statement is pointless, yet again.

The evidence is there and it is voluminous at a universal scale.

Then show it instead of talking about it. There is no evidence in favor of god or creation. Religious people are mad about this and mad that there is so much evidence supporting evolution that the only argument they have left is pure blind denial and lies. Saying that there is evidence, does not make evidence actually exist.

Science, on the other hand, has no evidence for the ultimate origins of everything.

On the other hand???? As if religion has evidence for god or the origins of everything?

Consider the old "stuff from quantum fluctuation" BS. Try and derive a non-zero answer from Schrödinger's equation with inputs of zero. You can't. To further extend the 'quantum fluctuation' bit to say it produced a singularity (ignoring Pauli exclusion) is just so unphysical and unscientific I'm surprised that so few people point out how stupid and mythological it is.

LMAO! Meanwhile the idea of god coming into existence from nothing or nowhere cannot be rectified by any equations anywhere in the history of everything. At least they have math and data to support things on the quantum level, whereas you just make blind assumptions about a magical being. How do you not see the blatant double standards you are invoking. The funny thing is you don't even realize it. You just think it's inherent truth that god exists and that evolution is a guess.

Also, since philosophical argument is repeatable, verifaible, falsifiable, testable, objective and follows rules of rationality, why would you disregard it as evidence? Is it too hard for you?

No. Philosophical arguments are speculative. They aren't proof of anything. Anybody can argue for anything, that doesn't make it true by default. Every single philsophical argument made to support god is flawed. Every single one of them and we've already been over it. None of it is based on fact, especially when you argue nonsense like "the universe began" when we don't even know it. Apologetic BS is not evidence, sorry. I get that you WANT it to be, but it's not on the level of testable scientific data.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: whereislogic

More drivel from the cult who protects child molesters and rapists.

Come on creationists! Show us your evidence. Not cult webpages and mindless YouTube propaganda. Real evidence that your sky daddy is real.

They literally program him to regurgitate a certain group of web links and youtube videos. It's pretty bad. You can't make a simple statement to him without 5 paragraph essay condensed into a wall of unreadable text and red herring youtube videos. Then he tries to claim that WE are the ones using propaganda and deceptive tactics. It's hilarious.