I don't refuse to consider "anything". I refuse to consider a baseless assumption. In support of my argument I can and have provided you with evidence that you can weigh, and ultimately, decide for yourself. You have been unable to provide this in return. This is not a strength of your position. You allow that the entirety of the observable world is largely as we see it, but make one giant special plea at the very beginning. The plea for things unseen. What do you point to as evidence of the unseen? Apparently, the seen.

If you wish to maintain that there is such a thing, you could at least attempt to provide something other than god that belongs in that group, otherwise you have merely replaced the word "god" with "immaterial" in your premise. Your premise is identical to your conclusion in this argument. It is entirely circular. In short, you have no argument.

The Immaterial exists
God is immaterial
Ergo God exists

is equivalent to

God exists
God is immaterial
Ergo God exists

Furthermore: Were I to grant you that very special plea, you would still only be arguing for the deists god. Clearly not your intention. Argue for what you mean to prove. If you can show an example of any other thing that exists only in the immaterial. We could consider the immaterial honestly. If you could then show that this proposed thing was compatible with the christian concept of god, you will have advanced apologetics farther in one post than centuries worth of apologists before you.

Your argument that science cannot address your religion is identical in every regard. Give me an example of something other than your god that science is incapable of measuring or observing, directly or indirectly, in any way.

(August 5, 2011 at 12:52 am)Godschild Wrote: Third you have nothing, no one has recovered an eye from dinosaurs or any other animal perivious to them. Please show those ancient eyes that have been so well preserved over millions of years.

We don’t need to recover an intact eye from a dinosaur. We have living examples. Eye spots can be found in some forms of green algae and several other types of single celled organism like euglenids right now. Eye pits are found in many types of flat worms. The nautilus has pin hole eyes. Some gastropods and annelids have spherical lensed eyes. Most land vertebrate eyes have a refractive cornea.

We can also deduce many of the characteristics of dinosaur eyes from the features of their fossilized skulls. The size, shape and location of the opening in the skull gives us information about dinosaur eyes. We can also recreate 3d models of dinosaur brains from the shape of the skull. This allows us to determine the size and shape of the occipital lobe region of the cerebrum. This type of information allows us to determine if a certain species of dinosaur relied more on vision, olfactory or hearing the most. None of that really matters though since mammals and therefore humans didn’t evolve from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs and mammals each evolved from a separate branch of decedents of an early reptile/protoreptile/amphibian that laid water proof eggs.

I’d like to suggest that you spend a little time learning what science really thinks about evolution instead of depending on your preacher or people from the Discovery Institute. I’d bet that would be a waste of time though because I’m sure others have made similar suggestions to no avail before me. It would be nice though if you had a clue. It might help you formulate an argument that didn’t involve a straw man or simply shouting “You can’t prove it!” over and over again.

I don't make any plea at all Rhythm. I simply can't believe that you're this dumb. Honestly. You just keep hiding your head in the sand. I'm getting sick of repeating myself to you so this will be the last time ok.

I believe through faith (trust in information to which I give intellectual assent) IN God. You've got to be more than stupid to think that the Christian God defies his nature as desribed, that would contradict our (Christians) reasons to believe and be provable beyond doubt. As usual with all atheists I've ever met you seem unable to grasp this concept, whilst at the same time stating that you undesrtand Christianity (you didn't but a lot of atheists do).

To claim that something can't be unique is fallacial BTW. I'm not suggesting an exception to the rule for evidence gathering: I'm making a scientifically sound observation that the non physical cannot be measured using the scientific method. It isn't me making the exception, but science.

Please go find some scientists to beat you down over this. I'm sure they'd enjoy putting you straight.

Negative, you are defining the immaterial along the lines of your beliefs for the purposes of abusing the truth. This is not a "scientifically sound observation". This is special pleading.

No amount of believing makes anything more or less true Frodo.

(August 5, 2011 at 5:03 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(August 5, 2011 at 12:52 am)Godschild Wrote: Third you have nothing, no one has recovered an eye from dinosaurs or any other animal perivious to them. Please show those ancient eyes that have been so well preserved over millions of years.

We don’t need to recover an intact eye from a dinosaur. We have living examples. Eye spots can be found in some forms of green algae and several other types of single celled organism like euglenids right now. Eye pits are found in many types of flat worms. The nautilus has pin hole eyes. Some gastropods and annelids have spherical lensed eyes. Most land vertebrate eyes have a refractive cornea.

We can also deduce many of the characteristics of dinosaur eyes from the features of their fossilized skulls. The size, shape and location of the opening in the skull gives us information about dinosaur eyes. We can also recreate 3d models of dinosaur brains from the shape of the skull. This allows us to determine the size and shape of the occipital lobe region of the cerebrum. This type of information allows us to determine if a certain species of dinosaur relied more on vision, olfactory or hearing the most. None of that really matters though since mammals and therefore humans didn’t evolve from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs and mammals each evolved from a separate branch of decedents of an early reptile/protoreptile/amphibian that laid water proof eggs.

I’d like to suggest that you spend a little time learning what science really thinks about evolution instead of depending on your preacher or people from the Discovery Institute. I’d bet that would be a waste of time though because I’m sure others have made similar suggestions to no avail before me. It would be nice though if you had a clue. It might help you formulate an argument that didn’t involve a straw man or simply shouting “You can’t prove it!” over and over again.

It's all hypothesis, you have no facts about any ancient eyes or if the eye evolved at all, without the actual subjects to study you can have no proof, the same as God, I can not physically show Him to you so I have no proof that you would accept. Just because certain types of eyes exist this in no way means that the eye evolved through any process, there is no proof that a simple type of light sensitive material in a single cell organsim evolved into an eye. I'm not buying this line of reasoning it makes no sence. I guess the next thing I will hear from you will be that a photoelectric cell will evolve into a digital telescope that will be able to see into the center of a black hole. Now do not get me wrong I like science and enjoy scientific discoveries that are factual, I love to see the pictures that Hubble brings us and look forward to the spacecraft going to Jupiter, I think that's the correct planet, to peer through the clouds so we can see what's under them. However when it comes to evolution well there is no evidence that it's true, I do believe that changes can and do happen within a species but not changes so great that a new species evolves. By the way my pastor was a nuclear engineer with TVA before he was called to be a pastor, so you see I do study under a very intelligent man, who by the way will only deal with truth, if there is speculation in anything he teaches he says so and explains it.

Nuclear Engineer does not equal Biologist

When you want to appeal to an authority, at least pick an authority in the field.

Wait a fucking minute, you cant show me god Mr "Nothing that cant be seen by the human eye can be proven to exist"?

I am disappoint.

(By the by, a lot of the shit you're staring at when you look at images that Hubble has sent down....are older than your mythical cosmos)

The fact that we eat and breath out of the same tube so we can potentially choke to death. Hey, thank God we invented the Heimlich maneuver though. No really, thanks a lot God.

(August 5, 2011 at 5:14 am)ElDinero Wrote:

(August 5, 2011 at 1:06 am)Godschild Wrote: I have, your original post was to the evolutionist on this forum not the creationist, that's why I posted what I did. Corrected statement #3 for you, your welcome.

Is that a joke? Try again, dickhead. I'm going to spell it out for you so you can understand what I'm saying.

If we are designed, as you claim, why do we have all these useless body parts? What kind of design would allow a minority of pregnancies to reach full term?

Oh, and this was the post I wanted you to address, since you're too lazy/ignorant to actually read the posts:

(August 3, 2011 at 5:28 am)ElDinero Wrote: No, listen, Godschild. We don't have to address the human eye at all. YOU have to address all the things we've raised in this thread. Why do we have an appendix? Why are we made with two kidneys if we can live with one? Why is there so much of the Earth that is uninhabitable to humans? Why are we required to sleep approx 30% of our lives? Why do a minority of fertilised eggs make it to full term? What kind of design is this?

You can't point to one specific example (which can be explained, by the way) and say 'explain that, if you can't that means I'm right'. Because if it's designed, it ALL has to be designed. Every last thing, from the womb to the pineapple. So why don't you answer our questions about these undoubtedly poor 'designs'.

I noticed you already misrepresented what one person asked, they said why don't we have big pads instead of toes and you said that you'd fall over without your big toe. That isn't what they were suggesting. So please read my post carefully and be cautious not to twist what I have said. Thanks.

Now, stop dodging the questions, and answer them as well as you can. If you can only go off a Bible, which is a 'spiritual book', then stop making claims about the material world, or provide another source.

Read Anymouse's reply he has done a good job of explaining things, I gave him kudos for his answer. As for one being able to live with one kidney, what if you only had one to begin with and it went bad. As for the tail bone it does make a good bumper to protect the spine and spinal cord, you see I have deteriotorive athritis in my lower back and glad to have that part of my spine unaffected to help protect me. I have not used the Bible to prove design, it's you that says I have. The human body is a wonderful design and the reason it fails is because sin brought deteriation to all things.

---

(August 5, 2011 at 6:32 pm)MinusGod Wrote: The fact that we eat and breath out of the same tube so we can potentially choke to death. Hey, thank God we invented the Heimlich maneuver though. No really, thanks a lot God.

So you think one tube is bad, well how do you think you would look coughing up phlegm through your nose, that's right we can't cough through our noses and how would you be able to stop water from getting in your lungs when swimming if not for the awesome one tube design, by the way do you smoke, without the one tube design you would look funny with a cigar stuck in your nose.
Welcome to the forum.

(August 5, 2011 at 6:21 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(August 5, 2011 at 5:03 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: I’d like to suggest that you spend a little time learning what science really thinks about evolution instead of depending on your preacher or people from the Discovery Institute. I’d bet that would be a waste of time though because I’m sure others have made similar suggestions to no avail before me. It would be nice though if you had a clue. It might help you formulate an argument that didn’t involve a straw man or simply shouting “You can’t prove it!” over and over again.

It's all hypothesis, you have no facts about any ancient eyes or if the eye evolved at all, without the actual subjects to study you can have no proof, the same as God, I can not physically show Him to you so I have no proof that you would accept. Just because certain types of eyes exist this in no way means that the eye evolved through any process, there is no proof that a simple type of light sensitive material in a single cell organsim evolved into an eye. I'm not buying this line of reasoning it makes no sence. I guess the next thing I will hear from you will be that a photoelectric cell will evolve into a digital telescope that will be able to see into the center of a black hole. Now do not get me wrong I like science and enjoy scientific discoveries that are factual, I love to see the pictures that Hubble brings us and look forward to the spacecraft going to Jupiter, I think that's the correct planet, to peer through the clouds so we can see what's under them. However when it comes to evolution well there is no evidence that it's true, I do believe that changes can and do happen within a species but not changes so great that a new species evolves. By the way my pastor was a nuclear engineer with TVA before he was called to be a pastor, so you see I do study under a very intelligent man, who by the way will only deal with truth, if there is speculation in anything he teaches he says so and explains it.

Just as I suspected, the best you can do is scream “You can’t prove it!” Unfortunately for you, your very intelligent, nuclear engineer preacher with the bad case of belief bias has imparted to you a pathetic understanding of the concepts of facts, evidence and proof. For example: Changes in the frequency of alleles within a population over time is a fact. One you could demonstrate to yourself by doing a little flower gardening and crossing two different colors of the same species of flower and observing what the following generations looks like. This very same change of alleles is also evidence of evolution. You might not accept it, but that is likely due in large part to the conformation bias your very intelligent, nuclear engineer preacher is ensuring you don’t leave church without. Finally, the number of confirmed human endogenous retrovirus K insertions in identical chromosomal locations shared by humans and the rest of the primate family proves that you and the monkey at the local zoo are descended from a common ancestor.

Now before you start screaming that “I can’t prove it” or “God did it” there is something I’d like for you to consider. First is that you have already admitted that you can’t prove God exists. Your belief in creationism relies entirely on your faith in the recorded beliefs of people that had an extremely limited understanding of even the most basic principles of science. On the other hand I can prove that viruses exist through the application technology combined with modern scientific method. I can also prove viruses are responsible for horizontal gene transfer to organisms including humans. Finally, I can prove that humans and other primates share multiple identical HERV insertions, and that the distribution of those insertions is consistent with evolution in every way.

(August 5, 2011 at 6:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Negative, you are defining the immaterial along the lines of your beliefs for the purposes of abusing the truth. This is not a "scientifically sound observation". This is special pleading.

No amount of believing makes anything more or less true Frodo.

Blinkers on!

Truth to you is purely material isn't it?

"not a scientifically sound observation"



No Rhythm... no amount of believing makes God provable by the scientific method. Spot on bozo