Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

I was responding to the your "Big Bang" BS, not your claims about water on the earth. This is typical of how you never allow yourself to be pinned down, how you never keep a coherent train of thought on the tracks. I would be happy to stipulate that you could not have life on this planet without water--but biological evolution could not, therefore, take place without water. In that case, evolution would not "care" where the water came from, because it would only occur in the presence of water. As usual, your arguments have nothing to do with the actual topic of the nature of evolution, nor proof that any part of life on earth was designed. You can't support your "intelligent design" argument, so you try this smoke and mirrors approach.

It doesn't work.

I hear ya. The intellectual dishonesty is dripping off his every post. Makes me wonder how hard he has to work to keep the lie going within himself.

A very cogent question . . .

     Why don't you go through your math logic abc books - if you have ever had any of the kind.
Contradiction - Def.: In classical logic, a contradiction comprises logical incompatibility of two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical, usually opposite, inversions of each other.
     Since for contradictory statements one may prove anything this is called the "principle of explosion" or "ex falso quodlibet" ("from falsity, whatever you like"). No formal model of any logic can exist and function if it has contradictions.
     As a demonstration of the principle let's consider two contradictory statements - “All lemons are yellow” and "Not all lemons are yellow", and suppose (for the sake of argument) that both are simultaneously true. If that is the case, anything can be proven, like "God exists", for example, by using the following argument:
     1. We know that "All lemons are yellow" as it is defined to be true.
     2. Therefore the statement that (“All lemons are yellow" AND/OR "God exists”) must also be true, since the first part is true.
     3. However, if "Not all lemons are yellow" (and this is also defined to be true), God must exist - otherwise statement 2 would be false.
     Thus it has been "indisputably proven" that if a theory with contradictions can exist, from there automatically follows that anything can exist, including God.
     In the very same way by using contradictory statements could be proved that "Big Bang does not exist" (in any interpretation of the world, especially in a world that is full of contradictions of any kind).
     No formal logic can exist, let alone operate in the real world if its inference engine is based on contradictions. The very moment some 'theory', like the Big Bang for example, stumbles against unsolvable contradictions vs. physics and/or math logic - this is the end of that 'theory' - rien ne va plus & game over.

Try this elementary logic, a simple hypothetical syllogism:

All theories are by scientific definition claims that have been proven true by reigning scientific standards.
Claim X has been proven to be untrue by reigning scientific standards.
Therefore, Claim X is not a theory.

"false theory" is an oxymoron, you everyday moron.



It must hurt to be that stupid. I know one person who will be safe in the zombie apocalypse: Herod. Zombies only eat brains.

Herald is safe, then...

Im feeling bowkoo love here.

Reading the posts of the last few days shows more than ever that this thread is a sham...not truly discussing what is purported to be the issue, but instead a pretense that actually has one side arguing "there is NO GOD"...and the other arguing either "yes, there is"...or "there may be."

The sad part is that the more bull-headed and illogical side...is the side arguing that there is NO GOD. And that holds no matter what the unknown truth is.

There is no more concession to scientific methodology on the side of the atheists in this thread...than is being made by the theists...no matter their many assertions about how logical they are being...and how devoted they are to scientific method.

Amusing display on the part of the atheists, though...who should know better and who should be able to see their own nonsense more clearly. Watching them go through their hypocrisy is sorta like viewing exotic birds doing courtship rituals.

There's always some weasel that, preaching from a pulpit, pretend to own the ultimate wisdom.

Saying "I don't know" is their intellectual dwarfism travestied in grandeur.

Down to earth people tend to call that "bullshit"..

FRANK, if its a sham, show your evidence that validates your "if...then" arguments.
You have no clue that They are stupid bases for any serious discussion (unless its some thread about Wizards and Dragons).

Otherwise, have a nice Holiday and go visit Quahog, you guys apparently have more in common than you think.

FM...show the balls to respond to my earlier response to you...then we can talk.

Glad to see that my calling attention to the fact that the atheists arguing here are as absent of logic as the theists...has been so effective.

Some ad hominems, and some rambling and not saying anything.
What a piece of art!

Oh...I doubt anyone minds that you do it so often. But that avatar is such a drag! We know you are an unhappy person...no need to drown us in it.



Saying "I do not know" is telling the truth, which seems to escape people like you. Hey, I enjoy watching the turmoil "the truth" causes for ya!



People like you may call it "bullshit"...but that is because people like you seem to fear acknowledging there is anything you do not know. And if you conceive of yourself as "down to earth"...you really are dreaming!

You are what I said: A human acting like an exotic bird doing courtship rituals.

Some ad hominems, and some rambling and not saying anything.
What a piece of art!

whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Logical? Logical ?

Looks more to circular reasoning to me! And on top of that this it is a logical fallacy!! it i called "Denying the antecedent " Look it up!


Logical? MY ASS!!!!!!!


Look in the mirror, mate, PLEASE!!!

You must have missed this part...

It's not a good idea to multiply entities unnecessarily. The mathematics required gets out of hand pretty quickly. Also, you can just get into an endless recession of introducing another new entity to explain the shortcomings of the former hypothesis, with no way to put a stop to it. Consider what Ptolemy had to invent regarding retrograde motion of the planets (celestial spheres, epicycles) in order to keep his dear geocentric model afloat. The simpler (and pre-existing) heliocentric model worked better without all those extra inventions, but his emotional bias sent him off on a life-long wild goose chase. If he'd just held to the data without prejudice, there's no telling how far he would have advanced astronomical understanding in his lifetime.

I thought a brief review of human scientific achievement rather than scientific denial might be fun... Touchdown at 26:00


How awesome was that?

Scientific denial and all of its bastard children (like Intelligent design) simply fall away like a skein of lies in the exhilarating light of reality and human achievement.

No youre merely throwing up another of your dead pony arguments and everyone here is telling you that youre arguing like an idiot. That's all.

HAving you announce that this argument is a "sham" is like Gov Christie telling me to stay away from the donuts.

On a scale of 1 to 10? Bacon.