(October 29, 2015 at 8:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's not often that someone overestimates human ignorance and incompetence.  So kudos on that, I guess.

You haven't just assumed wrong about me, Jenny, you've assumed wrong about every scientific theory you've mentioned.  You even assumed wrong about Hawkins.  You continue to assume wrong about logic and reason.  That's an impressively long list of things for you to get wrong and still think, somehow...that you're right.  In that context...maybe your estimation of the depths of human ignorance has at least some backing...in yourself.

Yep. 

Jenny is so far off, she's not even wrong. 


Not only does she fail to make valid points, but she fails to understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things (especially basic logic) that need to be understood to even participate.

(October 29, 2015 at 8:44 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 8:39 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: im not against the idea that God is also apart of a more complex system of intelligent creation ....  but the concept of eternity is incomprehensible to the human mind and our understanding of time and space might just not understand an intelligent creator always existing either is possible

So, it's either 'turtles all the way down' (see post above this. 

Or, a universe creating deity, with no evidence to believe it actually exists, (other than your argument from ignorance "I can't see how the universe could have come about via natural means, therefore, god") , that now you are claiming might have always existed.

Boy, for a universe creator that you claim we are unable to understand, you sure are giving it a lot of attributes.

i didnt say that i did know anything i said i was open to all those possibilities

Jenny, what they're trying to tell you is that the nature of the complexity of life is well understood. We don't have a grasp on how the first replicating molecule formed, but we're pretty solid on everything that happened after. I am a biologist; if you have specific questions about it, ask me and I'll explain it to you so you can understand what we know about evolution... please ask, ask honestly and specifically. It's not hard to understand, once you start trying, and I think it will help you a lot.

Likewise, we don't know what started the Big Bang or what happened in that first second of the universe, but mathematical predictive-models have been proved by experiment so many times that we have a good grasp on almost everything that came after that first fraction of a second.

(October 29, 2015 at 8:57 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 8:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's not often that someone overestimates human ignorance and incompetence.  So kudos on that, I guess.

You haven't just assumed wrong about me, Jenny, you've assumed wrong about every scientific theory you've mentioned.  You even assumed wrong about Hawkins.  You continue to assume wrong about logic and reason.  That's an impressively long list of things for you to get wrong and still think, somehow...that you're right.  In that context...maybe your estimation of the depths of human ignorance has at least some backing...in yourself.

Yep. 

Jenny is so far off, she's not even wrong. 


Not only does she fail to make valid points, but she fails to understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things (especially basic logic) that need to be understood to even participate.

i understand what we are debating . i believe an intelligent being created the universe and you guys disagree .  what you have is an opinion without facts and what i have is my opinion without facts . we are both arguing our opinions and both giving reasons why we have these opinions that is what we both have been doing listing the reasons why we believe as we do . im an expert at my own opinions and i know why i have them thats all that is needed in an opinion debate , and ive been listing those reasons . that is the " nature of the discussion " everyone giving reasons why they have an opinion and thats what weve been doing

(October 29, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 7:33 am)pool Wrote: I'm sorry if you are not familiar with programming because that Is the only way I seem to be able to explain what I mean to others in a way that they can understand(I.e, simplified to an unbearable extent).

Do you understand my other objections?

Objections against my points?
I'm not sure you understood my points in order to argue against them? :/

Quote:I don't believe in a God. As a matter of fact I have no clue what a God is. As you can see, I believe in Ignosticism.
Come to think of it though, "This is how particles interact with each other, period." - Do you really think that this is not designed? I mean like, that sentence in and of of itself is what a design kind of means, don't you think?

As I said earlier, It's almost as if someone set a base as a sort of design and the universe kind of built itself on top of this base.
Now, I'm not capable to built a formal proof as to why I'm right(aside from the fact that the reason I'm right can be observed in everyday life.) but until such a time comes when someone makes a proper argument as to why I can't simply be right; I probably am right.

(October 29, 2015 at 9:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Jenny, what they're trying to tell you is that the nature of the complexity of life is well understood. We don't have a grasp on how the first replicating molecule formed, but we're pretty solid on everything that happened after. I am a biologist; if you have specific questions about it, ask me and I'll explain it to you so you can understand what we know about evolution... please ask, ask honestly and specifically. It's not hard to understand, once you start trying, and I think it will help you a lot.

Likewise, we don't know what started the Big Bang or what happened in that first second of the universe, but mathematical predictive-models have been proved by experiment so many times that we have a good grasp on almost everything that came after that first fraction of a second.

i do believe in evolution i just disagree with the opinion that intelligent design had nothing to do with evolution but im glad to personally know a biologist even if we do disagree about the existence of God

(October 29, 2015 at 9:16 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i understand what we are debating . i believe an intelligent being created the universe and you guys disagree . 

Not actually what I'm debating with you.....though I do disagree.  You've stated that the complexity or diversity or organization of life is evidence of a creator.  I say it's evidence of evolution.  

Quote:what you have is an opinion without facts and what i have is my opinion without facts .

I have both a fact...the fact of evolution....and the scientific theory offered as an explanation of that fact, Modern Synthesis.  

Quote:we are both arguing our opinions and both giving reasons why we have these opinions that is what we both have been doing listing the reasons why we believe as we do . im an expert at my own opinions and i know why i have them thats all that is needed in an opinion debate , and ive been listing those reasons . that is the " nature of the discussion " everyone giving reasons why they have an opinion and thats what weve been doing

No, stop, you've been shitposting so completely that I damned well know, and you damned well know..that some portion of it was intentional.  We have not been debating my opinions, at all, nor have we been debating my facts, at all, nor have we been debating the things I offer as explanations for those facts, at all.  You've been debating..with yourself..those positions you would ascribe to me. You've been debating with yourself those positions you would ascribe to others.

I say Modern Synth explains both the complexity and diversity of life..and also it's organization.  You say "godidit" explains that.  This is not a disagreement of opinion.  If you'd like to debate something with me, or anyone else who's responded to you.....you're going to need to debate -that-.  You're going to need to explain why I, or any of them... would choose "goddidit" over Modern Synth - which neither invokes nor requires any gods to explain anything at all.

Your very last post, claiming that you havent been shitposting..that you understand..was yet another shitpost. Your string of shitposts seems designed. I have to assume that there was a designer. You must have designed them to be shitposts. That they are shitposts proves both that you are a designer, and that you designed the shitposts as shitposts. Right?......right..........?

(October 29, 2015 at 9:16 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 8:57 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Yep. 

Jenny is so far off, she's not even wrong. 


Not only does she fail to make valid points, but she fails to understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things (especially basic logic) that need to be understood to even participate.

i understand what we are debating . i believe an intelligent being created the universe and you guys disagree .  what you have is an opinion without facts and what i have is my opinion without facts .

See, this is an example of what I mean. You are passing the burden of proof.

Your opinion requires an entity that is not in evidence. Your opinion adds unexplainable things that are not necessary to explain existence or biology. And they have no explanatory power. 

All our opinion really needs, is for you not to be able to provide demonstrable evidence to support yours. You are the one making the claim. You are the one that has the burden of proof. 

But the thing is, we do have facts that point to the universe and biology arising from purely natural means. It is not just opinion. 

All you have is, "I don't understand how the universe could have come into being via natural means, so there must be a god". 

Quote:we are both arguing our opinions and both giving reasons why we have these opinions that is what we both have been doing listing the reasons why we believe as we do . im an expert at my own opinions and i know why i have them thats all that is needed in an opinion debate , and ive been listing those reasons . that is the " nature of the discussion " everyone giving reasons why they have an opinion and thats what weve been doing

Your opinion is based on what you are unable to explain, 'therefore god' . Our opinion is based on the lack of evidence for yours, and evidence for ours.

You continue to provide logically flawed arguments, and no demonstrable evidence. 

We continue to point out your logical flaws, and you fail to learn from them. The fact that your arguments are logically flawed is not an opinion, it is provable fact. 


[/quote]

I will not disagree with the possibility that some Creator "set up" the laws of the universe so that it would unfold in a manner by which the particles interacted in such a way as to produce life by natural processes. We know what almost all of those natural processes are, now. We know that evolution is a completely-unguided process that only appears orderly to our hunter-gatherer pattern seeking brains because of our inferences about agency.

When you argue that "life is complex, so God", it tells me you do not understand biology at all, and are therefore mistaken when you say that you accept evolution. You do not know what evolution is, what Rhythm correctly calls "The Modern Synthesis" (Darwin's theory, modified for the discovery of genetics, essentially). It's okay! Just learn it before you tell us that "life is complex so goddidit".

(October 29, 2015 at 9:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 9:16 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i understand what we are debating . i believe an intelligent being created the universe and you guys disagree . 

Not actually what I'm debating with you.....though I do disagree.  You've stated that the complexity or diversity or organization of life is evidence of a creator.  I say it's evidence of evolution.  

Quote:what you have is an opinion without facts and what i have is my opinion without facts .

I have both a fact...the fact of evolution....and the scientific theory offered as an explanation of that fact, Modern Synthesis.  

Quote:we are both arguing our opinions and both giving reasons why we have these opinions that is what we both have been doing listing the reasons why we believe as we do . im an expert at my own opinions and i know why i have them thats all that is needed in an opinion debate , and ive been listing those reasons . that is the " nature of the discussion " everyone giving reasons why they have an opinion and thats what weve been doing

No, stop, you've been shitposting so completely that I damned well know, and you damned well know..that some portion of it was intentional.  We have not been debating my opinions, at all, nor have we been debating my facts, at all, nor have we been debating the things I offer as explanations for those facts, at all.  You've been debating..with yourself..those positions you would ascribe to me.  You've been debating with yourself those positions you would ascribe to others.

I say Modern Synth explains both the complexity and diversity of life..and also it's organization.  You say "godidit" explains that.  This is not a disagreement of opinion.  If you'd like to debate something with me, or anyone else who's responded to you.....you're going to need to debate -that-.  You're going to need to explain why I, or any of them... would choose "goddidit" over Modern Synth - which neither invokes nor requires any gods to explain anything at all.

Your very last post, claiming that you havent been shitposting..that you understand..was yet another shitpost.  Your string of shitposts seems designed.  I have to assume that there was a designer.  You must have designed them to be shitposts.  That they are shitposts proves both that you are a designer, and that you designed the shitposts as shitposts.

i believe in evolution and modern synthesis , and i believe both were created by intelligent design . your opinion is that intelligent design has nothing to do with evolution and synthesis right ? thats an opinion and you have no evidence for that other than your theory that evolution and synthesis doesnt require intelligence to create it they just create themselves out of nothing . your argument is based on theory and opinion , noone is arguing evolution or synthesis but instead what started it.