Like it or not the abrahmic god is of no value in this world other than to create mayhem and discord...oh wait, that is supposedly the 'Satan'/ Lucifer/ Light bringer of the abrahamic faiths.

Sorry guys but religion has you all fucked up with nowhere to go, and like it or not science does not need nor warrant "belief" so you are unable to get OUT of your own childish vocabulary.

(December 18, 2012 at 4:35 am)clemdog14 Wrote:

Quote:You're really wideling it down to the point where you are portraying Dawkins as providing a hypothesis with no rational theory or evidence and making a simple choice between that or god.

Pretty much. But can one truly know that one dwells over the other with complete certainty? Even though the unguided evolution appears to more probable even though it is just as unlikely as the God scenario does not necessarily mean that it is full proof.

Yes, one can!
I am doing it right now! We have mounds of testable, observable data, evidence that allows me to do it. I have nothing, not one shred of proof that puts any god anywhere near that same vein of truth.
If you prefer to carry on eyes closed and ears plugged, by all means proceed.

I prefer Hitchens for debates; that is all.

(December 18, 2012 at 4:47 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Like it or not the abrahmic god is of no value in this world other than to create mayhem and discord...oh wait, that is supposedly the 'Satan'/ Lucifer/ Light bringer of the abrahamic faiths.

Sorry guys but religion has you all fucked up with nowhere to go, and like it or not science does not need nor warrant "belief" so you are unable to get OUT of your own childish vocabulary.

Trust you to resort to talking about RELIGION when we were talking about SCIENCE!

Quote:Sorry Daniel. You are just another vacuous biped. Many have already had a "bite" out of your stupid "beliefs"

My belief in evolution is stupid? Is that what you're saying??

Why don't you try pointing out to me what you think my stupid scientific beliefs are, and then we can go from there?

PS: Lucifer does not mean Satan FYI it means morning star. Get it right.

(December 18, 2012 at 4:55 am)Gilgamesh Wrote: I prefer Hitchens for debates; that is all.

At least his were intelligent, well constructed and had verifiable references not this mishmash of "feelings", "beliefs" and "superiority complexes"

Hitch also would get you to do your own homework and not rely on others. Eh Gil?

(December 18, 2012 at 4:46 am)Aractus Wrote: OH really ... I put it to you that I have a much better basic understanding of science than you do. HA! Your move!

This from the man who thinks god personally pilots all the winning sperm.

(December 18, 2012 at 4:57 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(December 18, 2012 at 4:46 am)Aractus Wrote: OH really ... I put it to you that I have a much better basic understanding of science than you do. HA! Your move!

This from the man who thinks god personally pilots all the winning sperm.

Good morning Northern Hemispherians!!

Yep this one is a gem... studying at a seminary apparently and majoring in philosopy..

Enjoy your new chew toys.

(December 18, 2012 at 4:35 am)clemdog14 Wrote: Mr. Philosophy major is a little belittling and feels like an ad hominem argument.

Bullshit. Is this part of the ubiquitous christian persecution complex? The only reason the 'Mr. Philosophy major' feels belittling is that you invoked ad hominem inappropriately, not to mention the fact that you just did again.

Quote:Furthermore, Dawkins said that God was more improbable than "as a hurricane ripping through a junkyard" not that evolution is more improbable.

This is not what you conveyed in your original description. I even pointed out your use of a hyphen to hide the fact that you understand more than you let on, but wish to misquote to make a point.

Quote:On a separate note, my whole argument was based not on whether it is an either or statement (either there is the existence of God or there is unguided evolution). Rather, the whole argument was whether Dawkins could ascertain one over the other based on their low probabilities. Not scientifically, philosophically.

You would like to conflate terms to make it an either/or proposition, but you have no evidence. You use the term probability much like your hero William Lane Craig uses it, haphazardly and without understanding. Care to get sophisticated and plug it into Bayes' theorem?

Probabilities can be assigned to coin tosses or rolls of the die because the 'outcomes' are observable. Your god is not observable; therefore, the probability remains zero.

(December 18, 2012 at 4:57 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: This from the man who thinks god personally pilots all the winning sperm.

STRAW MAN!

(No I don't think that). Please don't presume to tell me what I think.

(December 18, 2012 at 5:02 am)Aractus Wrote:

(December 18, 2012 at 4:57 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: This from the man who thinks god personally pilots all the winning sperm.

STRAW MAN!

(No I don't think that). Please don't presume to tell me what I think.

How else does god GUIDE evolution then?

With several million genetically different DNA packages swimming towards the egg how else doe it make sure the right one hits first?