Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

But it is correct regardless of whether you are sure or not.

What is correct whether I am sure or not?

Quote:

The unicorn example is just me asserting that unicorns do not exist without having to prove it, because you don't have to prove a negative! And that's my point.

If you assert that unicorns do not exist...it seems to me that you bear the burden of proof for that assertion.

What is your evidence (not necessarily your proof) that unicorns do not exist?

Quote:

It doesn't take mathematical calculation to see that god most likely doesn't exist. All it takes is examination of what a world with god would look like, and realization that in all regards this world comes up short.

How would you know what the world would look like if a GOD exists?

What makes you think you have the right to limit what a creator GOD might do with ITS creation?

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

hee hee, good luck with that. Frank has been blessed with a great surplus of cranial density when it comes to this issue.

Hes got so much denial built into his replies that admitting hes even close to being wr wr wr wrong is not in his psyche.
Frnk will go on for pages and pages about his
"you cant prove that Easter Bunnies don't exist"

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

The lack of evidence in the fossil record for unicorns ever existing, the fact that no such evidence has ever been brought forth that they do exist. (this second one is the big one)

Like I said earlier, you don't prove a negative.

And perhaps I should rephrase, then. A LOVING god's world would not look like this one.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Ive fed several of these clowns with a perfectly good scientific argument about " evidence for ID", and its the concept of convergent evolution. I think one, reasonably adept at scientific analyses could make a very good argument pointing out that convergence among the several species is at least some scientific evidence to discuss.
All this "if gods then ID or Id is only with gods" or "Life is too complex" bullshit is very lame to anyone except the speaker (and possibly spendi who just likes to argue while unarmed).

Frank actually BELIEVES that his argument is strong when all it is is a copout from anything substantive, and Herald is just caught in the circle of" belief without evidence"

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

The lack of evidence in the fossil record for unicorns ever existing,...

Ahhh...so you are saying there is a fossil record for every creature that has ever existed.

Are you able to detach and see the absurdity of that notion?

Quote:

the fact that no such evidence has ever been brought forth that they do exist. (this second one is the big one)

Or the absurdity of that one?

Quote:

Like I said earlier, you don't prove a negative.

Mostly because you are not able to do so. So...you really should not assert a negative.

If you assert..."there are no gods"...that really is not a negative. That is a positive assertion made using a "no" in it. If you are suggesting that it simply has to be accepted, I am sure you can see where that would lead.

Quote:

And perhaps I should rephrase, then. A LOVING god's world would not look like this one.

So...who says the GOD has to be loving?

And even if we were to suggest a "loving god"...why would you assume it would intrude? We are supposedly a mature species. Loving parents usually allow their offspring, once mature, to manage on their own...to make their own mistakes, so to speak.

So tell me, Jimmy...is the existence of a GOD an impossibility?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ive fed several of these clowns with a perfectly good scientific argument about " evidence for ID", and its the concept of convergent evolution. I think one, reasonably adept at scientific analyses could make a very good argument pointing out that convergence among the several species is at least some scientific evidence to discuss.
All this "if gods then ID or Id is only with gods" or "Life is too complex" bullshit is very lame to anyone except the speaker (and possibly spendi who just likes to argue while unarmed).

Frank actually BELIEVES that his argument is strong when all it is is a copout from anything substantive, and Herald is just caught in the circle of" belief without evidence"

I do not do any "believing", FM.

And my argument has been "If there is the possibility of a GOD...then there is the possibility of intelligent design."

That is no cop-out...and it is substantive, which probably accounts for the fact that it irritates you so!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Darwin wrote concerning the pea-hen being enamoured by the peacock's tail feathers and "eye" spots--

Quote:

A girl sees a handsome man, and without observing whether his nose or whiskers are the tenth of an inch longer or shorter than in some other man, admires his appearance and says she will marry him. So, I suppose with the pea-hen.

and--

Quote:

It is an awful stretcher to believe that a peacock's tail was thus formed; but, beieving it, I believe in the same principle somewhat modified applied to man.

Which implies that the female, through minute accretions over untold numbers of generations, and motivated by vanity, designed the male. The Pussy Whip sanctioned and sanctified by Science at considerable cost to the male unless the peacock's tail has some other advantages.

A bit undignified don't you think old boy?

It won't be long before we are all being sent to Husband Training Schools supervised by the likes of Mistress Sidonia. Thank your lucky stars you were born when you were. Your great grandsons will not have the sort of planning you were fortunate to be able to take advantage of.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

That is no cop-out...and it is substantive

ONLY IN YOUR MIND FRANK. I don't "believe" that many will buy it.
Evidence leads us to conclude (not know to 100%)

Science proceeds from an assumption of naturalism

Evidence has not refuted any of the basic assumptions

EVIDENCE HAS, on the other hand, refuted "creationism" and "ID" whether its space aliens of=r gods or flying noodly spaghetti monsters.

Any arguments that attempt to validate the "If gods, then ID" bullshit are just empty smoke screens that ignore both science and religion.

1 Reply

@spendius,

That's why I have long held that how we men are is not our fault because we have been designed by the female. And it is why some believe that God is a woman with infinite vanity.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You're so wrapped up in your goal of being "neutral" that you're starting to just sound silly.

We must all be neutral on the existence of tooth fairies, unicorns, and santa claus because we can't prove that they don't exist.

The fact that you can't see the idiocy in that statement merely proves my point.

No, the existence of a god is not an impossibility, but it's far less likely than what we currently know from science. Tell me, Frank, do you think evolution is an attempt by the devil to blind humanity?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
That is no cop-out...and it is substantive

ONLY IN YOUR MIND FRANK. I don't "believe" that many will buy it.
Evidence leads us to conclude (not know to 100%)

To conclude what???

Quote:

Science proceeds from an assumption of naturalism

Evidence has not refuted any of the basic assumptions

EVIDENCE HAS, on the other hand, refuted "creationism" and "ID" whether its space aliens of=r gods or flying noodly spaghetti monsters.

Any arguments that attempt to validate the "If gods, then ID" bullshit are just empty smoke screens that ignore both science and religion.
[/quote]

If there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Are you saying there is no possibility of a GOD?

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

You're so wrapped up in your goal of being "neutral" that you're starting to just sound silly.

I do not sound silly, Jimmy. That must be your bias interfering with your reasoning.

Quote:

We must all be neutral on the existence of tooth fairies, unicorns, and santa claus because we can't prove that they don't exist.

I have not said that anywhere.

Quote:

The fact that you can't see the idiocy in that statement merely proves my point.

I do see the idiocy in it. Makes me wonder why you said it.

Quote:

No, the existence of a god is not an impossibility, but it's far less likely than what we currently know from science.

What a bunch of blather!

Science has not shown anything about the impossibility or likelihood of a GOD or gods...so stop with this abject nonsense.

If you want to submit any scientific study on the likelihood of a GOD...please do so. I'd love to study it.

Quote:

Tell me, Frank, do you think evolution is an attempt by the devil to blind humanity?

No. I think evolution is the way we got to become what we are.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You do sound silly.

Quote:

I have not said that anywhere.

You inferred it when you said that I cannot prove unicorns do not exist.

Quote:

I do see the idiocy in it. Makes me wonder why you said it.

Obviously you don't see the idiocy in it, since that is what you're inferring.

Likelihood is not something that needs to be studied. There's no scientific studies on the likelihood of a flying noodle monster either. That does not mean I'm going to respect someone's opinion that the noodle monster created everything. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

Quote:

No. I think evolution is the way we got to become what we are.

But you can't prove that, right? So to you, it's just as likely that evolution is the devil's trickery as it is that it's fact?

I'm so glad there's not that many people like you in the world. Humanity would come to a screeching halt.

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

You do sound silly.

No...as a matter of fact, I do not. But you are starting to sound silly...and out of control. Try to get a rein on it, Jimmy. We were doing so nicely.

Quote:

Quote:

I have not said that anywhere.

You inferred it when you said that I cannot prove unicorns do not exist.

Learn how to quote so we can actually discuss whatever you are trying to discuss.

Tell me exactly what you suppose I inferred about unicorns...and where I inferred it.

(Hint: You are dead wrong on this.)

Quote:

Quote:

I do see the idiocy in it. Makes me wonder why you said it.

Obviously you don't see the idiocy in it, since that is what you're inferring.

Once again you are claiming that I am inferring something without a quote. Do you understand how this back and forth works???

Quote:

Likelihood is not something that needs to be studied. There's no scientific studies on the likelihood of a flying noodle monster either. That does not mean I'm going to respect someone's opinion that the noodle monster created everything. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

Quote:

Oh...so you think all you have to do is to assert that the likelihood of something is greater than the likelihood of something else...and everyone just as to accept it??

C'mon. Wake up. The theists here regularly assert that it is more likely that there is a GOD than that there isn't.

I sure as hell am not going to accept that...and I suspect neither are you.

So I am not going to accept your unsubstantiated assertion.

Quote:
No. I think evolution is the way we got to become what we are.

But you can't prove that, right? So to you, it's just as likely that evolution is the devil's trickery as it is that it's fact?

I'm so glad there's not that many people like you in the world. Humanity would come to a screeching halt.

I'm glad you came along, Jimmy. You are making so little sense, I suspect even the people who are on your side are getting uncomfortable with you pretense at argument.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

Frank will keep this crap up for pages and pages .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Frank will keep this crap up for pages and pages .

Well...it is not crap. But I will continue to rebut some of the nonsense being spewed by you guys for as long as it takes.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

It is crap because it goes nowhere and we are going somewhere.

And using "nonsense" is MYOEP.

0 Replies

There ya go, Farmerman. Now you've got people on your side. Aren't you happy about that! Wink

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

No...as a matter of fact, I do not. But you are starting to sound silly...and out of control. Try to get a rein on it, Jimmy. We were doing so nicely.

It's pretty obvious to any unbias onlooker that you sound silly.

Quote:

Learn how to quote so we can actually discuss whatever you are trying to discuss.

Tell me exactly what you suppose I inferred about unicorns...and where I inferred it.

(Hint: You are dead wrong on this.)

I told you that burden of proof never lies on the negative side. I used the unicorn as an example of this and you said that unicorns might have existed.
From there you just continued your bs.

Quote:

I'm glad you came along, Jimmy. You are making so little sense, I suspect even the people who are on your side are getting uncomfortable with you pretense at argument.

You're just upset that someone is challenging your backwards way of thinking lol. Again, I'm so glad not many people think like you. Where on Earth would humanity be?

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

Quote:

Again, I'm so glad not many people think like you. Where on Earth would humanity be?

It wouldn't be humanity except in the crude biological sense. Apisa doesn't actually think that way. It's just a pose.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know