|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2007 : 10:47:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
The rest of the responses I got I've answered at least 20 times each in 10 different forums.
So you say. What were your answers? I'm especially eager to learn what you think of the claim that you're a troll because you consider ID to be incompatible with evolution. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 10:47:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Most like Smoke probably never research the other side. They only read the propaganda that they have been fed about us and science and even the bible on websites like AIG. Armed with incomplete or absolute baloney about skeptics, they come here thinking that they have the goods on us and that we will be easy targets.
And the really sad part is they go running back for the shelter of those sites that ultimately left them unable to debate with anyone who actually knows anything about the subject they thought they were expert on. Only by insulating themselves with a propaganda wrap dished out by others of their kind do they find support for their views.
Meaning, they are not willing to learn from us or especially teach us anything, if indeed they actually have something to teach us…
Well, I didn't know I entered the "Dr.Freud, what's my personality" forum. I'm not exactly refreshing this topic every 5 min to dignify every response since I knew this is exactly what I'd get. I forgot about it, I partied, I watched my ultra-super-favorite "X-tian Channel" and today I was bored and I remembered I had some kind of discussion going on over here. For the record, I've visited AiG since our debate only to check on the evolutionist date for the earliest ice age. That's the truth, I'm a Christian, I can't lie. If I had to run for shelter from any of these responses I'll never be able to think of myself as anything even remotely close of a Christian apologist, maybe someone who goes around apologizing he started a debate he couldn't finish without running for "shelter."
quote:
Most like Smoke probably never research the other side.
I bookmark only skeptic and secularly historical websites regarding this subject. I don't even have AiG in my Favs, but I have just about every major skeptic site. My major is biology at CSUN, which is an evolutionist college.
Okay, here's the deal. We get a lot of hit and run posters. And that seemed to be the case with you. In general I stand by what I have often observed and so stated. That said, I am happy to see your return and apologize for lumping you in with the more common variety of challengers who mostly move along very quickly once they see what they are up against.
quote:
Smoke from a previous post:
Buddy, buddy, buddy, you should really find out who you're debating before you jump to conclusions first.
As I said in that other post, “So, will he have the balls to take us on? I doubt it. Here is hoping that I am wrong about that…”
Clearly I had not “jumped to conclusions”. In fact, I was hoping I was wrong about any doubt that I had. Turns out I was. (For the moment at least.)
It will not help you to mischaracterize what others have said here, buddy…
quote:
Smoke:
There's about 3 people in here who even know what evolution is.
Now who is jumping to conclusions?
If I were you, I would be careful about making hyp |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 10:55:16 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and I missed this beaut:quote:
Originally posted by smoke
oh wait that wouldn't help you since the chances of the simplest self-sufficient living thing on this earth to form itself out of nothing is 1 to 10 to the 190,000th power...
That's standard creationist nonsense, smoke. I thought ID had nothing to do with creationism.quote:
...whereas 1 in 10^50 and beyond is mathematically impossible.
No, Dembski's alleged Universal Probability Bound is 10150, so you're a hundred orders of magnitude off, no small error.quote:
So, perhaps I should by two newspapers today, so I can throw one of them in a puddle, so the ink can magically rearrange itself into tomorrow's edition, and for that to happen I have a MUCH greater chance than your proposition, which has to happen not only once, let alone abiogenesis, but hundreds of thousands of times over a timespan that can't even accomodate for the first.
Except that nobody except creationists think that such a probability calculation has any validity whatsoever. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 14:53:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
Intelligent Design rejects intelligent intervention...
[slight bit of sarcasm]So that is the reason it is called "intelligent design" as opposed to simply "design"?[/slight bit of sarcasm] Do you even understand what you yourself write?
quote:
If a gene is switched off it won't be expressed.
That would probably be a good definition of a switched off gene. So what?
quote:
But when the same or similar genes are present they will execute the same/similar functions. Perhaps I should have explained these simple concepts more clearly. This is my outline for why I believe in common design as a legitimate counter-argument to common descent. A head is a head, and a foot is a foot.
Perhaps you should realise that while the cental dogma reactions (DNA->RNA->protein) are very important, they are not the whole story. Post-transcriptional modifications (e.g. splicing and RNA editing) and post-translational modifications (e.g. protein splicing and glycosylation) does not guarantee that a genes of similar, or even the same, DNA sequence will have similar functions. In this context, a head is not necessarily a head and a foot is not necessarily a foot and so your "counter-argument" is not legitimate.
quote:
I must have been wrong to enter this forum in such a debate.
Yes.
Oh, and you haven't tried to defend yourself when I said that you did a straw man. Why is that? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
| Edited by - Hawks on 03/04/2007 14:55:36 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 15:34:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Smoke, you seem to be railing against some cartoon version of atheism you learned somewhere. If you want to argue against actual atheism, you should first learn what it is. To put it very simply, atheism is simply a lack of a belief that that a god or gods exist. This includes your god and every other god ever hypothesized. The lack of belief follows from the utter lack of credible evidence that any god exists. I don't hate or blame god because I do not believe that there is anything there to hate or blame.
Arguments against christianity are not only pointing out the lack of evidence in support of it, they also point out the flaws in the "holy book" and the "logic" the whole thing is based on. There are numerous contradictions and stories of impossible events. There is the sanctioning, even glorification, of atrocities and antisocial behavior on a scale that any reasonable person would find revolting. And there is the completely ridiculous notion that a being capable of creating the universe would micromanage and treat his creations so poorly. Top it off with the concept that the god had to come to earth in the form of his son, in order to have the crap beaten out of himself and have himself killed, all to save his creations from himself!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, how I love it when somebody throws me the 1000-impossible problem pamphlet. I shoot them down like birds:
1)the "logic" the whole thing is based on
A:This is an independent answer since I know that this statement is supported by the remainder of your paragraph, but I simply want to point out that the theological nature of the Bible not only supercedes any other religious book by not contradicting itself, but it employs virtually every literary device known to man to express its concepts, which it does so in the clearest way: symbollism, metaphors (not literary, physical), theological concepts that describe the world and perfectly complement it, as you will all see if you actually read my post.
Way to ignore that whole lack of evidence thing.
Anyway, how do you know which parts of the bible are symbolic or metaphoric, and which parts are historically accurate?
quote:
2)There are numerous contradictions and stories of impossible events.
A: As for the contradictions, please visit my site: http://geocities.com/renassault/skepticism/contra.htm
That page is an amazing example of the ability of the True Believer(tm) to rationalize anything. If it wasn't so pathetic, it would almost be humorous.
quote:
impossible events, that's a judgment call by you, unless you explain yourself.
Global flood, sun standing still, just to cite a couple of examples.
quote:
3)There is the sanctioning, even glorification, of atrocities and antisocial behavior on a scale that any reasonable person would find revolting.
A:Yet, materialistic philosphy doesn't. This problem has been recognized since ancient times. Marcion rejected the whole Old Testament, and from what I remembered only accepted the Gospel of Luke as inspired due to the very genocides which were not only done by Israel but ordered by God. But there is more than just a simplistic reading. Why would an omnibenevolent God do this? Did you ever wonder what the Amorites and Amalekites and Canaanites did? They practiced incest, and child-rape, and all sorts of sins that you would find revolting (until your atheist buddies don't take a vote to make it "right" seeing the popular opinion is what goes now). Perhaps you should understand that it was these people's sins that killed them, who were given a second chance like Nineveh, who would have ended up killing many more people had they not been exterminated.
They had it comin' to 'em!! Way to blame the victims.
quote:
Sure you may ask, why wasn't Hitler killed by his sins by God to save 62 million people. This comes down to the nature of the Covenant which was made to save all people from the only death that matters - hellfire. Since God has omniscience, He probably saw that these peoples would tamper with His covenant, endangering the Messiah's First Coming. You may make the claim that the Israelites were using God as an excuse to get land, but in Genesis God destroys two cities without using Abraham's army, so this argument is a judgment call.
Or maybe god just doesn't exist.
quote:
4)And there is the completely ridiculous notion that a being capable of creating the universe would micromanage and treat his creations so poorly.
A: This problem has been known as well, popularly termed by Leibniz as "theodicy," the pain problem is thoroughly resolved collapsing to the "why did this happen to me?" question (for a detailed analysis PM and I'll show you why). The answer Jesus gives to this question is metaphorically, "shit happens," but the Book of Job elaborates on the issue where Job, "the most upright man in all of Uz," is punished for "no reason" or so he thinks, by God. The answer to "why did this happen to me," is "so you can find the right way to God," as Job did, and as Jesus told His disciples (Luke 13:2-3).
So your god inflicts punishments on the innocent to lead them to him? Sounds kind of like a wife beater to me.
quote:
5)Top it off with the concept that the god had to come to earth in the form of his son, in order to have the crap beaten out of himself and have himself killed, all to save his creations from himself!
A:This is why creationism is crucially important to Judeo-Christianity. Because since we all fell into this state where there is suffering and death because of Adam, Christ had to come and replace Him. God cannot do this without becoming a man, and this man had to be sinless.
Huh? God can do anything. He could have given salvation without all the silly games.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a wonder so many people buy into this story. Of course that level of gullibility also explains why there are almost as many variations of christianity as there are christians themselves, each claiming that they have the Truth(tm) and the other guy, sadly, is wrong, and should be dispatched to an eternity of unimaginable torture. I guess it also explains scientology, homeopathy, "The Secret", Deepak Chopra, and professional wrestling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The variations of Christianity come from the Protestant branch. The only reason they exist is because of the lack of structure and leader. The Catholics have the Pope, and the Orthodox have the Synod. If the Protestants had a representative there would still only be 3 or 4 (Lutheran, Waldensian, Anglican, etc). The Apostles knew that Christianity's doctrines would be split up, but the only ones who are Christians and claim everyone else is going to Hell are the Catholics.
So only the catholics believe in hell? I must have imagined all the fire and brimstone nonsense from all the protestant preachers.
quote:
2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I have yet to see this one resolved
Please state the 2nd law of thermodynamics. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2007 : 16:04:11 [Permalink]
|
Okey-dokey...... The Second Law of Thermodynamics sez: quote:
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
From TO's FAQ. They say it much better than I could.
Here's a site that might do you, smoke, some benefit to study. And here's another. Indeed, I'll go so far as to state that we all could profit from browsing them once in a while, for: "The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time." --- Richard Nixon
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 22:09:23 [Permalink]
|
In response to Smoke: quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Behe hasn't come up with anything new since his book “Darwin's Black Box” (published in 1996) and even as the book was being first published, examples in the book of “irreducible complexity” had been discovered in reduced forms, showing Behe hadn't even done thorough research before blasting his nonsense from rooftops.
That's not true. Ken Miller has yet to demonstrate how flagellum is reducable since his example contains many flaws. I can point to links to back me, I just don't remember exactly what.
Who the hell is Ken Miller and why are you mentioning him as if I brought him up first? I mentioned over 125 published scientific articles on flagella. Did Kenneth Miller write all of them?
quote:
quote:
marfknox wrote:
However, irreducibly complex systems can evolve at other levels and do. A popular example is the heart. Behe does not deny this. So it cannot just be irreducibly complex systems that require intelligent design. Instead, Behe says it is a matter of scale, and his evidence deals specifically with biochemical systems.
Let me get this straight. You say that irreducibly complex systems can evolve...The very definition of irreducible means this can't happen. We're not talking about the heart. The heart is not the hinge of ID, so I could care less if it's reducible or not.
Try. Reading. My. Posts. More. Slowly. And. Carefully. First, I didn't say that irreducibly complex systems can evolve – I was saying that Behe admits that they can and do, but only on a large scale, such as with the heart.
Maybe Behe's own words will help you since you don't seem to have read his book. Here he defines “irreducible complexity”: quote:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively stop functioning.
And here he puts forth his controversial add-on: quote:
An irreducibly complex biochemical system cannot be produced directly . . . by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
quote:
Yet, one crucial element evades this mesmerisingly enchanting moment of evolutionist triumph...observation. Show me where this has happened. Show me how this could happen given already established laws (Laws of information, 2nd law of Thermodynamics).
You are going to have to explain how these laws of information and how the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution either impossible or astronomically improbable if you want an intelligent response here, because you are not being clear. This leads me to think that you are either repeating someone else's arguments or that you are just being lazy.
So, come on, spell it out for us. Unless, of course, you enjoy long, drawn-out miscommunication.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/05/2007 22:12:40 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 22:16:46 [Permalink]
|
Smoke wrote: quote:
but the only ones who are Christians and claim everyone else is going to Hell are the Catholics
What are you talking about? Every “born again” Christian claims that those without the faith are headed toward hell. In college I watched a campus preacher and a group of Christian students debating over what he meant to be “born again”, and the preacher believed that the Christian students were going to hell because he thought they hadn't truly turned themselves over to God. Most Mormons certainly think everyone else is going to hell. (But you probably don't consider Mormons Christians, right?) I might also point out to you that not all Catholics, including all Catholic clergy and theologians, think that non-Catholics automatically go to hell. There is a wide variety of Catholic opinion on the matter. Try reading about it you condescending prick.
quote:
Why would an omnibenevolent God do this? Did you ever wonder what the Amorites and Amalekites and Canaanites did? They practiced incest, and child-rape, and all sorts of sins that you would find revolting (until your atheist buddies don't take a vote to make it "right" seeing the popular opinion is what goes now). Perhaps you should understand that it was these people's sins that killed them, who were given a second chance like Nineveh, who would have ended up killing many more people had they not been exterminated.
Could you be more naïve and simple-minded in your understanding of human nature?
First of all, you are clearly implying here that human suffering and death is wrong and that God disapproves of it. But so much of what causes human suffering and death is circumstantial. It is a fact that murder and violent crime, abusive drug use, divorce, child abuse, and many of vices which directly cause human suffering increase in areas of economic instability. So unless you believe in the whole Protestant ethic crap about good people getting what they deserve in this life, (or if you are racist), what hell does human-centered morality have to do with Christianity? Here in reality, if the Amorites, Amalekites, and Canaanites were committing horrible atrocities against their fellow mankind, there were environmental factors at least contributing. Unless, of course, you want to claim that Biblical reality functioned differently than today's reality. And gee, who was ultimately in charge of setting the initial environmental factors for humans? If there is a capital “G” God, that would be him!
Look, the problem of evil can be summed up like this: In Christianity, God is claimed to be all good. And we can assume that God also has free will since if he didn't he wouldn't be much of an all-powerful and intelligent being. If such a god exists, his mere existence proves that a being can possess both free will and a nature to freely choose only good. Since such beings can exist, why wouldn't God create humans not only with free will, but with natures to only do good?
The only “evil” committed with the first so-called sin was disobeying God, not actually harming anyone. So evil according to the Christian God (at least traditionally) is not about rape or incest or murder or any kind of harm. It's about blind and absolute obedience to God (whatever the heck that means). It is pretty damn clear from reality that prevention of human suffering is very low of the list of God's priorities. I mean, geez, think about it… God, being all-knowing, could have simply known who was going to end up in heaven and who was going to end up in hell and instead of going through thi |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 23:00:27 [Permalink]
|
Hey Marf, go easy on Kenneth Miller. He is one of my hero's.
He was the guy who wrote the book that got the Dover school board's knickers in a bind.
But here is the reason why Smoke really doesn't like Kenneth Miller…
Oh, and probably because he has the nerve to be a theist who understands that knowledge is a good thing.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2007 : 00:46:08 [Permalink]
|
smoke('n crack) said:
quote:
Did you ever wonder what the Amorites and Amalekites and Canaanites did? They practiced incest, and child-rape, and all sorts of sins that you would find revolting
Who were the children of adam and eve married to?
Aren't Moses's father and mother are siblings?
If the only humans to survive the flood were Noah and his family....
At what age 2000+ years ago (or at any time before the industrial revolution really) were girls married off?
Seriously, you can't make any rational case for incest or child rape/murder being immoral using the bible.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2007 : 00:47:51 [Permalink]
|
And let me join in the request that you explain to us, exactly, in your own words (no link spamming) how the second law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution. Start by telling us what the law is, again in your own words.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2007 : 03:42:57 [Permalink]
|
Great drawing, Marf! I haven't thought of Tiktaalik roseae in quite some time.
I think that smoke, like many fundementalists/apologists, fails to grasp the scientific method. I shall put it in a nutshell: Science, in all of it's many fields, is only concerned with inquery. Questions. It differs from religious inquery in that religious texts purport to have the answers already, which is why those texts are scientificly invalid. Those answers, apart from a little archeology, are not verifiable by any empirical means, and therefore outside of legitimate investigation; they can only be translated. Simple enough, no?
It seems that the driving ambition of many of the religious organizations is the debunking of the theory of evolution. Well, I'm here to help. All you have to do is find and verify the Devonian Bunny to make evolutionary scientists sit down and start re-thinking the theory. That's all. Just dig the fossilized bones of that ledgendary lagomorph from verifiably dated, Devonian strata, and you've all but done it. Piece o' cake...
I have a question -- actually, I have a huge number of questions, but I'll ask the rest another time. Hell and Heaven both assume the existence of something called a "soul." In Hell, the sinners souls are happily torchered by some demon, to the ghastly gratification of those who have made it into Heaven, is this not more or less correct?
And in Heaven, when not in the Hell's bleachers, the saved souls spend their time(?) worshiping God constantly. It seems to me that an all-powerful and all-encompassing entity would greet such blatant toadying with contempt, if it even noticed at all.
But all of that is neither here nor there.
The question is: WTF is a "Soul?" Does it have any substance at all? Can it's existence be verified by scientific means -- Oh, and don't try to hand me Duncan McDougall's nonsense. We've all seen it before.
Taken all in, I think better the shell of atheism than the intellectual shackles of faith.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2007 : 04:15:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
smoke('n crack) said:
quote:
Did you ever wonder what the Amorites and Amalekites and Canaanites did? They practiced incest, and child-rape, and all sorts of sins that you would find revolting
Who were the children of adam and eve married to?
Aren't Moses's father and mother are siblings?
If the only humans to survive the flood were Noah and his family....
At what age 2000+ years ago (or at any time before the industrial revolution really) were girls married off?
Seriously, you can't make any rational case for incest or child rape/murder being immoral using the bible.
And more importantly, our only evidence for any of the immoral practices of the Amorites and Amalekites comes from the Bible itself-- not exactly a source free of bias, no? |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2007 : 06:02:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
quote:
If I may be permitted a little quote-mining: quote:
You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.
I agree. These sorts of questions are the sophomoric drivel one hears when adolescents try to discuss it.
It's a legitimate question, but the method that is used in asking them isn't. The answer is of course illogical, both yes and no, since it is an illogical question. Yes God can make a rock so powerful that He can't lift it, and No there's nothing He can't lift.
emphasis added
Here you are accepting sophomoric drivel based on faith alone. You believe in a completely unevidenced, unobservable assertion. And in another post you demand the observable evidence.
quote:
i]Originally posted by smoke[/i]
That would be the long desired theory to be proven by evolutionists. Thank you for pointing that out since it appears to all of you that I am too ignorant of what macroevolution requires. Yet, one crucial element evades this mesmerisingly enchanting moment of evolutionist triumph...observation. Show me where this has happened. Show me how this could happen given already established laws (Laws of information, 2nd law of Thermodynamics).
[i]emphasis added[/i]
You may not be ignorant, but you are certainly not consistent in your approach, or your demands for evidence, when it comes to the critical evaluation of a scientific theory that does not conform to your world view.
Without having caught up with this thread, I predict that you will have been given what you have asked for, but it will have had no effect. Faith often begets certainty.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You may be a fundamentalist atheist if...
