Question for CDF47.

Is each snowflake in a storm designed by your god? How does he decide the shape of each one? Or do they grow by undirected blind processes? What about a snowflake from a snow machine?

(May 13, 2018 at 10:15 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 9:28 am)Joods Wrote: Honestly, you're just lowering yourself to CDF's level by putting yourself on repeat. It's not productive at all.

In your experience, when was the last productive discussion with a creationist about the origin and evolution of life?

I believe a fossil was found of one of those dating to the triassic...

Take it on faith.

Quote:Truth denier

Creatard Propaganda shill 

Quote:Under that criteria, real scientists should then respect the fact that they have indisputable signs of intelligence before their eyes when they look inside the cell.

Nope science rejects it because it's not their 

Quote:Not in any way.  Information was found in living systems that perform advanced functions.  Intelligence should be automatically inferred once someone has a basic grasp of how this works.  There shouldn't need to be a 150 page thread to discuss it, even among atheists.  It is as if some are blinded by their own arrogance or ignorance or other reason.

Your right there is not conversation to be had as ID does not have a real leg to stand on. It's creationist nonsense plain and simple .And the one displaying blindness and ignorance as well as arrogance and a lack of reason .

Quote:There are serious scientists and great scientist that believe in a higher power in all fields.  More scientists believe in a higher power than there are atheistic scientists.  Some of the best scientists of all time believed in a higher power and in God and Newton said it actually helped him in his scientific field

Smart people believing in God in a prominently religious society is no surprise as even smart people are corrupted the foolishness of their age .

Quote:More scientist believe in a higher power than don't.

See above

Quote:There is actual proof to support it.

There is no evidence or even a truly scientific hypothesis .Just fallacies and parasitism.

Quote:Well in this case the science pointed in that direction so it cannot be ignored.

 No it does not . Thus yes it can.

Quote:The only reason for doubt is evolutionists trying to suppress this obvious truth.

There is no such group and no their not .

Quote:It follows the rules of science.  The same rules Darwin applied actually are used in ID.  It is not biased but looks at what should be obvious to everyone and uses scientific criteria to understand it.

No it is not . And no they don't . And no ID is totally biased religious propaganda 

Quote:The truth is suppressed all the time.  Where have you been?  Look at the government cover-ups of operations like Gladio, Mockingbird, MK Ultra, FBI COINTELPRO, dragnet mass surveillance,.......  Secret societies and cults like Scientology cover-up their misdeeds like gangstalking and fair game.

Look at the suppression of science and scientists throughout history.

Lol conspiracy moon battery 

Quote:Because I won this argument on page 1 and the atheists continue to kick and scream.

No you didn't and it's you who as been kicking and scream  "It's obvious you atheist meanies because i say it is"or "Stop ridiculing my fairy tales your like Dawkins "

Quote:Where are the cover-ups in Christianity?  Christianity is a free and open society.  Now, there has been bad Christians and bad Christian systems (apostate systems) throughout history.  That I'm with you on.  Back to your original point though, clearly the truth is suppressed throughout the ages by the powers that be.

Christianity is full of lies and suppression 

Quote:Because I brought irrefutable facts which the atheist can't stand because their whole house of cards comes tumbling down when introduced.  It is, where does the sophisticated information in DNA come from.  Only an advanced intelligence could have devised such information, hence, there is a Creator.

Total bullshit 

Quote:Theologians are careful to note that the church didn’t develop the canon. The church recognized the canon by experience and mutual agreement on the veracity of the books. Below is more information:

No they didn't most of it was pure politics and suppression of certain idea's and sects that were inconvenient to the doctrine they were trying to weave .

Quote:The truth of it is being suppressed in the scientific community.  Have you ever seen the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? The scientific community is trying to protect evolution aside from all the issues with the theory.  I suggest you watch the movie if you haven't seen it.

 No it's not . Propaganda film 

Quote:You know how time travel is possible as Einstein discovered. This fact is used in all GPS systems to keep their coordinates or else you would be driving off into the ocean, so it has to be accounted for. I think time travel is possible because God can see all of time; beginning to end, since He is the alpha and the omega. I don't think anything of any mass will be able to travel in time but I think that is the reason it is designed into the universe. Just some food for thought.

Rubbish 

Quote:Yeah, he hosts and narrates the documentary.  Are you watching it?

Why would he rot his brain ?

Quote:Oh, I suggest you watch it.  It is a very interesting movie and puts a good perspective on things and the reasons why we are even having this debate.

No it doesn't .Propaganda film 

Quote:It is a true documentary.  Others on this forum have said they seen it before.  It is about exactly what we are discussion.

No it doesn't .Propaganda film 

Quote:The different charts,.., are interesting to me.  I learn stuff to along the way.  My main point though on DNA stands as proof of design based on DNA information and fine-tuning of the universe.

Utter crap 

Quote:Depends on your definition of evolution.  If you mean there has been some adaptations within a genus then yes, there has been evolution throughout the ages.

There is no depending on definition. You either accept evolution or you don't . It's not something you can i accept this or that part of it . It's all or nothing . Universal common descent is evolution . 

Quote:You are just as bad as the horrendous systems I named earlier since you knowingly are denying the truth.

You mean the intelligent design propaganda industry yes your just as awful CD

(May 13, 2018 at 4:09 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 4:05 am)pocaracas Wrote: Cool!
Can we agree that throughout the ages there has indeed been an evolution of all life?

Depends on your definition of evolution.  If you mean there has been some adaptations within a genus then yes, there has been evolution throughout the ages.

Remember the large plot I showed you?
That one concerns all life on Earth and, while not going into detail, it does show the connections between today's large distinctions.

The plot I showed for human evolution mostly shows the Homo genus, but many similar plots exist which start at Australopithecus, or even before:



Or we can do a similar thing for the cat family, the Felidae family:


Do note that, for example, the Lynx is it's own genus, while the Tiger belongs to the Panthera genus, while common house cats belong to the Felis genus. That is to say that this image finishes at different Genus (Genuses?, Genii? I don't know how to make this plural... checked in a dictionary: genera ).

How about the horse Family, Equidae:



Are you now going to claim that "kind" actually means Family?

Say I need to write a program to create a circuit diagram for a specific task. The program can recognise a good circuit diagram from another and how well it works, if at all.

1) How do I write a program to intelligently design the circuit diagram?

2) How do I write a program to evolve it?

We solved 2) over 30 years ago. No one has a clue how to about solve 1).

My point is that creationists think that intelligence is the simplest explanation. It is not.

(May 13, 2018 at 11:16 am)Tizheruk Wrote: ,snip for brevity>

Sorry, Tiz, but our proponent here swallowed all of it, sure we all know and recognise the abject lies in "Expelled", but our current protagonist is sufficiently gullible to accept it prima facie.

Others have line by line dismantled it, but it is a fair bet that our protagonist refuses to watch those since they torpedo his fervently held faith.

(May 13, 2018 at 10:15 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 9:28 am)Joods Wrote: Honestly, you're just lowering yourself to CDF's level by putting yourself on repeat. It's not productive at all.

In your experience, when was the last productive discussion with a creationist about the origin and evolution of life?

Never, AFAIK, however, repeating yourself doesn't make things better.

---

(May 13, 2018 at 10:25 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Maybe if we quit feeding it, it will go away.

I think what it boils down to is the fact that many here feel like since the dunderhead isn't getting it through his skull that he has no case to argue, and that he keeps saying he "won" the argument with his first post, that if they don't respond, the idiot will indeed think he won. 

Can't have that now, can we? Pride goeth before the fall, in this case. It's no longer about proving DNA doesn't have a designer. This has become one giant dick measuring contest. 

(May 13, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Joods Wrote: I think what it boils down to is the fact that many here feel like since the dunderhead isn't getting it through his skull that he has no case to argue, and that he keeps saying he "won" the argument with his first post, that if they don't respond, the idiot will indeed think he won. 

Can't have that now, can we? Pride goeth before the fall, in this case. It's no longer about proving DNA doesn't have a designer. This has become one giant dick measuring contest. 

I found it interesting reminding Drich the other day of the two month debate we had on TTA. Since then he has remembered completely differently with him winning and has forgotten how he struggled to extricate himself out of the web of self contradicting assertions that he had made which I frequently reminded him of.

(May 13, 2018 at 12:53 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Joods Wrote: I think what it boils down to is the fact that many here feel like since the dunderhead isn't getting it through his skull that he has no case to argue, and that he keeps saying he "won" the argument with his first post, that if they don't respond, the idiot will indeed think he won. 

Can't have that now, can we? Pride goeth before the fall, in this case. It's no longer about proving DNA doesn't have a designer. This has become one giant dick measuring contest. 

I found it interesting reminding Drich the other day of the two month debate we had on TTA. Since then he has remembered completely differently with him winning and has forgotten how he struggled to extricate himself out of the web of self contradicting assertions that he had made which I frequently reminded him of.

I saw that. I do find it quite ironic when he intentionally distorts the facts right in front of him. Huggy does that as well. Rather than just being honest and admitting to what everyone can clearly read for themselves, they both lie in an attempt to get out of the corner they backed themselves into. Funny.

(May 13, 2018 at 5:51 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 13, 2018 at 12:03 am)CDF47 Wrote: It is the atheist that believe in magical blind undirect processes created everything.

How many times do we have to tell you that atheists generally don't believe this. Nor do they generally believe that natural processes are directed.

How is telling someone that they currently believe something that they don't and explaining why it's wrong supposed to convince them of anything?

It would be like to trying to convince you that the christian god does not exist by asserting that you believe that he is the son of Thor even though you don't and explaining why Thor couldn't exist. Can you see why this is not going to achieve anything?

So if you want to learn how to debate, first start by dropping the strawman arguments.

I have not used a straw man argument once.  On the contrary, I am faced with straw man, ridicule, spin, and every other dirty debate trick in the book in this thread.