Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

By the way, love how you completely ignore that you just showed everyone that you didn't even know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

Why? Because I refuse to acknowledge the Evolutionist's equivocation fallacy? Gotcha. Any other nuggets of wisdom to share with the class?

You still haven't answered my 1 question and "we don't know yet", isn't a valid response.

How come "we don't know yet" isn't a valid answer...there is TOOOONS we don't know yet. And filling those gaps of knowledge with magic (aka gods) isn't a solution that has worked very well in the past if you think about comets, plagues, floods...all stuff that was at one point attributed to god because people filled a gap in knowledge with magic.

Not magic, intelligent design has 3 proponents, just 1 group is Creationists, and one of the groups is seeding from aliens, and the third (minor) group deals with crystals from outer space. So let's get this straight, you're allowed to believe something that secular scientists "don't know yet", but anyone else it's just "blind faith"

That's a "special pleading" fallacy. Are you trying to make at least 1 of all the fallacies known to man in one thread? Goin for the record dude? Does your brain really operate this way? How can you tell people to use logic while you're spitting out fallacies at such an alarming rate?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Not magic, intelligent design has 3 proponents, just 1 group is Creationists, and one of the groups is seeding from aliens, and the third (minor) group deals with crystals from outer space. So let's get this straight, you're allowed to believe something that secular scientists "don't know yet", but anyone else it's just "blind faith"

Correct, none of those 3 subgroups provide the slightest bit of objective evidence...they are therefore showing blind faith as their entire belief isn't based on logic, rationality, and objetive evidence. It's the very definition of FAITH

That's a "special pleading" fallacy. Are you trying to make at least 1 of all the fallacies known to man in one thread? Goin for the record dude? Does your brain really operate this way? How can you tell people to use logic while you're spitting out fallacies at such an alarming rate?

How exactly am I using a special pleading fallacy?

I'm saying those creationists aren't providing objective evidence, which is a FACT. They are therefore stating a belief that isn't backed up by real hard evidence. Nothing wrong with that...unless they pretend their belief is a "fact".

reply to post by MrXYZ

The actual event being studied through an experiment doesn't have to be repeatable.

Then the study of it ISN'T SCIENCE, it's a RELIGION. Even if you and your buddies in white lab coats (Biologists :lol claim the opposite.

Your God is called "random processes".

Your holy book is Origin of Species

Your ministers are Evolutionary Biologists.

And your religion shouldn't be taught in schools nor be taxpayer funded.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I'm saying those creationists aren't providing objective evidence, which is a FACT.

"You must present information in peer-reviewed journals!" (But if you do just pre-clean out your desk, even if you have tenure) (Oh yeah, P.S., only OUR peer-reviewed journals of course.) (P.S.S. Forgot to mention, you'll be black-listed so I hope you have a part-time job in the wings.)

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

The actual event being studied through an experiment doesn't have to be repeatable.

Then the study of it ISN'T SCIENCE, it's a RELIGION. Even if you and your buddies in white lab coats (Biologists :lol

claim the opposite.

Your God is called "random processes".

Your holy book is Origin of Species

Your ministers are Evolutionary Biologists.

And your religion shouldn't be taught in schools nor be taxpayer funded.

It's getting a bit silly now, you keep on repeating the same nonsense

1) Scientists aren't saying it's a "random process"! Read that 100 times until you get it!

2) The origin of species isn't a religious book because it's based on objective evidence...something religious books aren't. Also, it's 150 years old and we have since made many many maaaaany discoveries that fully back it up. Hell, we are actively applying the theory in modern medicine, something we couldn't do if it was wrong

3) Scientists aren't ministers. Scientists care about facts and objective evidence...ministers clearly don't.

4) Of course science should be taught in school, it's what drives the nation's economy. Not everyone wants to live in the Middle Ages where people don't question stuff and don't ask for objective evidence.

Regarding your "experiment" thing: Like I said, the actual event doesn't have to be repeatable. Scientists can run experiments regarding the birth of our sun even though this won't ever happen again....they can do that by witnessing dozens of star births all over the universe for example.

All this is besides the point though, like I said, we are ACTIVELY applying the theory in modern medicine. If it was wrong, we wouldn't have many of the meds we have today...just like if we were wrong about electricity, you wouldn't be able to write your SUBJECTIVE belief posts

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I'm saying those creationists aren't providing objective evidence, which is a FACT.

"You must present information in peer-reviewed journals!" (But if you do just pre-clean out your desk, even if you have tenure) (Oh yeah, P.S., only OUR peer-reviewed journals of course.) (P.S.S. Forgot to mention, you'll be black-listed so I hope you have a part-time job in the wings.)

I have no clue what you are trying to say here...are you saying peer reviews are somehow bad? People testing other people's work is bad? Really?

reply to post by MrXYZ

How exactly am I using a special pleading fallacy?

Okay fine, then I have a valid response for creationism:

"We (I'm a Creation scientist now), just don't know exactly how God did it."

See, now it's not blind faith. I guess it wasn't a special pleading fallacy after all.

Did anyone see where I set down my Kool-Aid, can't seem to find it?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

How exactly am I using a special pleading fallacy?

Okay fine, then I have a valid response for creationism:

"We (I'm a Creation scientist now), just don't know exactly how God did it."

See, now it's not blind faith. I guess it wasn't a special pleading fallacy after all.

Did anyone see where I set down my Kool-Aid, can't seem to find it?

Of course it's still a great example of BLIND FAITH because you still assert that god exists in the first place...yet you fail completely at providing objective evidence proving that.

Comon', it's not that hard...google it if you have to. Learn the difference between "objective" and "subjective" evidence!!

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I'm saying those creationists aren't providing objective evidence, which is a FACT.

"You must present information in peer-reviewed journals!" (But if you do just pre-clean out your desk, even if you have tenure) (Oh yeah, P.S., only OUR peer-reviewed journals of course.) (P.S.S. Forgot to mention, you'll be black-listed so I hope you have a part-time job in the wings.)

I have no clue what you are trying to say here...are you saying peer reviews are somehow bad? People testing other people's work is bad? Really?

Look for the laundry list of people who have had all that stuff happen to them for challenging the golden calf of Secular Humanism.

Hope you don't have too much on your plate for the next few days.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well then, list a couple of examples

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

How exactly am I using a special pleading fallacy?

Okay fine, then I have a valid response for creationism:

"We (I'm a Creation scientist now), just don't know exactly how God did it."

See, now it's not blind faith. I guess it wasn't a special pleading fallacy after all.

Did anyone see where I set down my Kool-Aid, can't seem to find it?

Of course it's still a great example of BLIND FAITH because you still assert that god exists in the first place...yet you fail completely at providing objective evidence proving that.

Comon', it's not that hard...google it if you have to. Learn the difference between "objective" and "subjective" evidence!!

You can use Google too, just sayin, it doesn't require a membership. Read my signature quote.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well then, list a couple of examples

Right, is your Google broke? Or do I just need to Google stuff?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Please! You base everything you believe on what someone may or maynot have said a few thousand years ago and then Hundreds of years later...someone else wrote down what they gotout of something they may or maynot have read or if what they read was even original text.

If you have a belief...that is one thing...to debate the reality of what your beliefs are as being Fact or Not...you have not one shred of proof.

Evolutionary Development of all life on Earth is based on Fact and actual Genetic Data which cannot be denied.

Your ability to argue against this or in favor of what you believe is ZERO. Split Infinity

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

How exactly am I using a special pleading fallacy?

Okay fine, then I have a valid response for creationism:

"We (I'm a Creation scientist now), just don't know exactly how God did it."

See, now it's not blind faith. I guess it wasn't a special pleading fallacy after all.

Did anyone see where I set down my Kool-Aid, can't seem to find it?

Of course it's still a great example of BLIND FAITH because you still assert that god exists in the first place...yet you fail completely at providing objective evidence proving that.

Comon', it's not that hard...google it if you have to. Learn the difference between "objective" and "subjective" evidence!!

You can use Google too, just sayin, it doesn't require a membership. Read my signature quote.

Of course I can use Google...I do all the time.

In this case though it's you who REALLY needs it as you don't even grasp such a basic scientific concept as objective and subjective evidence

It's pretty clear though that you prefer soiling yourself in your own ignorance, so you're not even gonna look it up. Your mind is closed...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well then, list a couple of examples

silly sppooky atheist. Anyway, the fact of the matter is when you accept both evolution and creationsim, how do u argue against that perspective? really ? I am on your side , but i am also not really

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well then, list a couple of examples

Right, is your Google broke? Or do I just need to Google stuff?

I can't find any examples...but since you said there's tons of examples, I'm sure you can list at least 1...just one

Or might it be that you were bull#ting without actually being able to list a single example...'cause that wouldn't surprise me.

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well then, list a couple of examples

silly sppooky atheist. Anyway, the fact of the matter is when you accept both evolution and creationsim, how do u argue against that perspective? really ? I am on your side , but i am also not really

Arguing against evolution is demonstrably silly given the amount of evidence, and personally I don't believe a creator is responsible for starting life...but at least when it comes to the creation of life I can't prove you wrong. I still think it's wrong of you to believe a creator did it though, mostly because there's ZErO objective evidence suggesting it.

So on one hand I'm happy you don't belong to the "people can live inside whales and evolution is wrong" crowd (kudos!), on the other, I can't see how you can claim a creator started life as there's a complete lack of evidence. I can respect that OPINION though because I can't prove you wrong...when it comes to taking Genesis literally I could though

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Arguing against evolution is demonstrably silly given the amount of evidence, and personally I don't believe a creator is responsible for starting life...but at least when it comes to the creation of life I can't prove you wrong. I still think it's wrong of you to believe a creator did it though, mostly because there's ZErO objective evidence suggesting it.

So on one hand I'm happy you don't belong to the "people can live inside whales and evolution is wrong" crowd (kudos!), on the other, I can't see how you can claim a creator started life as there's a complete lack of evidence. I can respect that OPINION though because I can't prove you wrong...when it comes to taking Genesis literally I could though

Exactly we simply won on that front, I BELIEVING BOTH SIDES. and genesis. IDk thats another can of worms. So who is repsonbile for starting life? cause the universe isn't that old, imo

They Didn't Exist! let me explain if you have ears

Originally posted by MrsMKX
Speedbujmp

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

How exactly am I using a special pleading fallacy?

Okay fine, then I have a valid response for creationism:

"We (I'm a Creation scientist now), just don't know exactly how God did it."

See, now it's not blind faith. I guess it wasn't a special pleading fallacy after all.

Did anyone see where I set down my Kool-Aid, can't seem to find it?

Of course it's still a great example of BLIND FAITH because you still assert that god exists in the first place...yet you fail completely at providing objective evidence proving that.

Comon', it's not that hard...google it if you have to. Learn the difference between "objective" and "subjective" evidence!!

You can use Google too, just sayin, it doesn't require a membership. Read my signature quote.

Of course I can use Google...I do all the time.

In this case though it's you who REALLY needs it as you don't even grasp such a basic scientific concept as objective and subjective evidence

It's pretty clear though that you prefer soiling yourself in your own ignorance, so you're not even gonna look it up. Your mind is closed...

The point is Adam and Eve were not made of flesh because they were perfect beings.

I'm sorry if you don't understand what a "heavenly body" is...it is not what we call "real"

Everything in the physical world is ruled by Lucifer, until it is destroyed by Jesus.

Hope that helps,

My medinet

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Arguing against evolution is demonstrably silly given the amount of evidence, and personally I don't believe a creator is responsible for starting life...but at least when it comes to the creation of life I can't prove you wrong. I still think it's wrong of you to believe a creator did it though, mostly because there's ZErO objective evidence suggesting it.

So on one hand I'm happy you don't belong to the "people can live inside whales and evolution is wrong" crowd (kudos!), on the other, I can't see how you can claim a creator started life as there's a complete lack of evidence. I can respect that OPINION though because I can't prove you wrong...when it comes to taking Genesis literally I could though

Exactly we simply won on that front, I BELIEVING BOTH SIDES. and genesis. IDk thats another can of worms. So who is repsonbile for starting life? cause the universe isn't that old, imo

The only objective answer is: We don't know (yet).

Every other answer is guessing...it's basically filling a gap in knowledge with magic. Just like ancient people have done with plagues and floods they attributed to god instead of admitting they simply didn't understand what caused them.

I'd think we in the 21st century don't have to think like cavemen and people from the Middle Ages.