(June 13, 2012 at 7:42 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:

(June 13, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Godschild Wrote: After reading many of your statements it is apparent you are afraid of everything around you, even to the point you can not recognize a joke, sad me thinks.

Afraid, my ass. How old are you, boy?

Everything you say is a joke. Are you declaring yourself a Poe? Because if you are, you're the best Poe I've ever seen.

And if you are not, that should tell you something about the outrageous idioticy of everything you say that isn't meant to be a joke.

But it's clear to me that you are merely now claiming that it's a joke because you know you've been backed into a corner you can't get out of. So tell us all about your little conversation with gawd, and why you didn't ask him to come do magic tricks for us and prove he's real.

God takes care of His own business, I do not need to ask Him to do things for you. In a corner, now that must be a joke good one kido.

I am in constant shock at the ignorance of Christians. Literally, I end up sitting at my keyboard in this mix of confusion, shock and frustration!

Crazy claims like "Oh, there's limited proof for God and also limited proof for evolution..."

BULLSH!T!! There is a MILLION TIMES more evidence for evolution than there is for ANY god. Science isn't perfect, it's true, but we have powerful and constantly improving theories with evidence we can observe in the contemporary world. With a god, we see no such evidence.

I have an honest question: If you Christians are so confident... why are you on an atheists' forum?

(June 13, 2012 at 6:15 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(June 13, 2012 at 1:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote: The "I don't know, therefore God" stance isn't the best one to take.

Evolutionist: "I can't find the scientific proof yet, but until then I will believe there is some."

For every 'God of the Gaps' there is a 'Naturalism of the Gaps' to match. We haven't found 99.9% of the fossil record, but people still hold out for naturalistic solutions to life. They may not ever appear. Both sides have to assume a stance, and either one could easily accuse the other of lacking proof. Evolution is a history and response theory, meaning it moulds to the closest naturalistic solution, rather than being confirmed by fairly-drawn evidence. Every time a contradiction comes up, scientists alter the theory to include another yet-to-be-proven assertion.

I think you're miscasting the degree of certainty and the quality of evidence that science has on various propositions, likely due to a combination of ignorance and being fed misinformation, however in the main I would agree with your overall moral. I have a saying, that the truth doesn't issue promissory notes — until you deliver the goods in terms of experiments or evidence, all you can say is, "I don't know." Unfortunately, both within and without science, there is a mix of both scientific and skeptical mindsets, in which rational methods and philosophies contribute to reliable results, and what is termed "scientism" which is a quasi-religious attitude toward science in which rational belief is supplanted by less rational notions. In that realm one finds such hopeful wishing as "We don't have the answer yet, but we will, or we're more likely to." No. Until you actually have evidence implicating a specific answer, the probability of a specific answer is simply unknown. Unfortunately, many consider giving the answer "I don't know" to be a an indication of weakness or a concession, and adopt even less sensible attitudes. If you legitimately don't know, the scientific answer is just that, "We don't know."

A more direct response to this "evolution of the gaps" bullshit-

It isn't the gaps in the fossil record which we invoke when we propose EbNS, it is what we have. Those gaps could just as easily disabuse us of some particular notion as they could reinforce them, which is why, for example, I asked for a pre-cambrian platypus. EbNS is accepted as our best explanation and assigned a degree of provisional certitude not based on what we assume to find but what we do find. We make assumptions about what might be present in those gaps based upon our interpretation of what we do have so that our theory is subject to falsification. The strength of this approach is that it doesn't devolve into a litany of what-if's based upon ignorance. Attempt to explain the unknown by reference to the known. If we attempted to explain the unknown by reference to the unknown what sort of answers do you imagine we'd end up with (and just how would we go about doing that in the first place, btw)?

(June 12, 2012 at 3:53 am)Godschild Wrote: How does a platypus give creationist any problem at all, the evolutionist needs to find the fossils that lead up to this very unusual mammal, then the creationist might have a problem. God knew evolution was coming down the line, He made the platypus to drive them nuts, and He has done that. All I can say, get digg'in evolutionist, them fossils might be out there some where.

This is the reason why trying to debate with creationists is like trying to teach a dog Norwegian..

Time consuming and utterly pointless!

(June 14, 2012 at 9:27 am)Darwinian Wrote:

(June 12, 2012 at 3:53 am)Godschild Wrote: How does a platypus give creationist any problem at all, the evolutionist needs to find the fossils that lead up to this very unusual mammal, then the creationist might have a problem. God knew evolution was coming down the line, He made the platypus to drive them nuts, and He has done that. All I can say, get digg'in evolutionist, them fossils might be out there some where.

This is the reason why trying to debate with creationists is like trying to teach a dog Norwegian..

Time consuming and utterly pointless!

I've taught my dogs German, English and hand language, I know it's not that your dogs dumb, it must be your lack of ability to teach.

How well do your dogs use the preterite?

Undeceived Wrote:Evolutionist: "I can't find the scientific proof yet, but until then I will believe there is some."

Agreed. The scientist will formulate a theory based on minor observations that they have gathered so far. Then it's a matter of experimentation and data collection to see whether the evidence will back up the theory.

Quote:For every 'God of the Gaps' there is a 'Naturalism of the Gaps' to match. We haven't found 99.9% of the fossil record, but people still hold out for naturalistic solutions to life. They may not ever appear. Both sides have to assume a stance, and either one could easily accuse the other of lacking proof. Evolution is a history and response theory, meaning it moulds to the closest naturalistic solution, rather than being confirmed by fairly-drawn evidence. Every time a contradiction comes up, scientists alter the theory to include another yet-to-be-proven assertion. Much of the 'evidence' you see is really criteria. Evolutionists need the earth to be old, so they use long half-life techniques. They know all energy came from one source and one beginning, so they formulate a "Big Bang." How many discoveries in science were obtained by an objective baseboard? We look at the universe and try to figure out how it works by observing it. We can't study the laws governing the universe, and we can't get outside for an objective, unfiltered view. When we use a microscope to study another microscope, we are limited. Knowledge is always at net zero. We explain the natural with our opinion of the natural (wherever that came from) and dismiss God as soon as we find he doesn't fit into the little touchable box labeled "nature". Objectivism, or Absolute Truth, requires a transcending standard. God is the only transcending standard humans know about. Not only does he have grounds to be considered, but the existence of a subjective reality indicates the existence of an objective one--therefore he should be considered, and deeply.

To me, it sounds like you think scientists have some sort of agenda. Well, they're dealing with science and science doesn't have an agenda of any sort. Science isn't a movement against deities. It's simply a variety of methods with which we can learn about nature. And that's the problem with the theist. They see science as a direct attack on their faith. Why? because the religious such as Christian creationists are bold enough to make materialistic claims like the earth is only 6 000 years old, and when science says otherwise through reason they have to start doing all sorts of mental backflips to avoid the implications of that.

Theists can keep pointing out the missing puzzle pieces in the theory of evolution but what they don't realise is that it hasn't always been like that. Science has been consistently (and unintentionally) been pushing the domain of God into the corners of the universe as more knowledge gets uncovered. So to you, evolution might be the area where science 'stumbles' but before you know it it's going to uncover the secrets and then just keep going. History is a testimony to that.

Naturalism isn't another possible explanation along side theism. To say "God did it" is equivalent to saying "it was magic". Nothing has been explained, the unexplainable has simply been attributed to God, as opposed to say the tooth fairy.

(June 13, 2012 at 10:38 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(June 13, 2012 at 7:42 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: Afraid, my ass. How old are you, boy?

Everything you say is a joke. Are you declaring yourself a Poe? Because if you are, you're the best Poe I've ever seen.

And if you are not, that should tell you something about the outrageous idioticy of everything you say that isn't meant to be a joke.

But it's clear to me that you are merely now claiming that it's a joke because you know you've been backed into a corner you can't get out of. So tell us all about your little conversation with gawd, and why you didn't ask him to come do magic tricks for us and prove he's real.

God takes care of His own business,

ANd your imaginary friend told you this? Tell us all about your conversation with it. Tell us what it looked like. Did it ride the bus to your house, or a taxi? Seems like it would be rather difficult in this day and age to get a driver's license, what with having no social security number or anything..

Quote:I do not need to ask Him to do things for you.

You ask it inane shit all the time, I reckon. "Oh, please, please please, don't let me fail this test I didn't study for... oh please please please, don't let mommy catch me fapping over pictures of eight year old boys...", etc. The usual x-tard requests. Just think -- you could ask it this one thing, next time it comes over to your house, and you could save my soul. Now wouldn't that be worth it?

Quote:In a corner, now that must be a joke good one kido.

Yeah. As in put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.

---

(June 13, 2012 at 6:15 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(June 13, 2012 at 1:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote: The "I don't know, therefore God" stance isn't the best one to take.

Evolutionist: "I can't find the scientific proof yet, but until then I will believe there is some."

For every 'God of the Gaps' there is a 'Naturalism of the Gaps' to match. We haven't found 99.9% of the fossil record, but people still hold out for naturalistic solutions to life. They may not ever appear. Both sides have to assume a stance, and either one could easily accuse the other of lacking proof. Evolution is a history and response theory, meaning it moulds to the closest naturalistic solution, rather than being confirmed by fairly-drawn evidence. Every time a contradiction comes up, scientists alter the theory to include another yet-to-be-proven assertion. Much of the 'evidence' you see is really criteria. Evolutionists need the earth to be old, so they use long half-life techniques. They know all energy came from one source and one beginning, so they formulate a "Big Bang." How many discoveries in science were obtained by an objective baseboard? We look at the universe and try to figure out how it works by observing it. We can't study the laws governing the universe, and we can't get outside for an objective, unfiltered view. When we use a microscope to study another microscope, we are limited. Knowledge is always at net zero. We explain the natural with our opinion of the natural (wherever that came from) and dismiss God as soon as we find he doesn't fit into the little touchable box labeled "nature". Objectivism, or Absolute Truth, requires a transcending standard. God is the only transcending standard humans know about. Not only does he have grounds to be considered, but the existence of a subjective reality indicates the existence of an objective one--therefore he should be considered, and deeply.

Absolute proof you don't know dick about how science works. Nice.