For further reference, look at every post Statler Waldorf has ever made on this forum. No user on this forum embraces the Gish Gallop technique as often, or as deliberately, as he does.

(May 22, 2014 at 5:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Why are first cause threads always started by people with zero reps?

Probably naive teenagers just hearing WL Craig's "Kalam" argument for the first time.

we take you apart and find nothing ... so there is no "you".
wtf people.

(May 30, 2014 at 3:48 pm)Harris Wrote:

(May 19, 2014 at 4:45 am)Esquilax Wrote: Nope: we have evidence that man made objects have designers, but we have none that natural things do, regardless of complexity. Snowflakes, crystals, and a number of other natural phenomenon are complex, but you're begging the question of you seek to insert a designer into their makeup despite knowing their natural origins simply because they are complex, as you haven't demonstrated that complexity is the sole domain of designers.

At many occasions, I disputed that CHANCE has no scientific value. There is nothing in nature, which has no cause for its existence. If we do not have, appropriate scientific evidence that does not mean CHANCE prevail and outrun the scientific reasoning by mere axioms and postulates. In case you are not a promoter of CHANCE, then what proposition you have to explain the origin of complex structures such as DNA code?

I’ll give you few quotes which perfectly fit to the intelligent design argument:

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
Wickramasinghe, C., Interview in London Daily Express (August 14, 1981)

"Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10 to the power 15 or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order of 1015 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of leaves in the forest would be 1015, equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain."
Evolution: A theory in Crisis
Denton
page 330:

Denton briefly scratches the surface of the supposedly "simple" cell:
"Altogether a typical cell contains about ten million million atoms. Suppose we choose to build an exact replica to a scale one thousand million times that of the cell so that each atom of the model would be the size of a tennis ball. Constructing such a model at the rate of one atom per minute, it would take fifty million years to finish, and the object we would end up with would be the giant factory, described above, some twenty kilometres in diameter, with a volume thousands of times that of the Great Pyramid."
Evolution: A theory in Crisis
pages 329-30

Could you just explain, for my benefit if you would, how any of the above actually disproves the theory of evolution?

Forgive me but all I read is a mixture of personal incredulity and arguments from ignorance, so please point out where I'm misreading this as I presume you wouldn't have posted this in order to evidence something.

(May 19, 2014 at 3:36 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(May 19, 2014 at 2:18 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I not know. You?

*snerk*

I look at time in two different ways. One religious and second standard.

Religious view:
Allah is the creator of everything (including space). He regulates all events and actions in the universe. He determines to what extent His created beings would exist. In other words, He allocate age to every being. His creatures are time dependent, but He is not. Allah’s activities is time for His created beings. He is time Himself.

“Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 255-
Quran


Standard view:
Aging + Relative motions = Human sense of Time

Please also check my response to Pickup_shonuff below

---

(May 19, 2014 at 3:49 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(May 19, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Causality as I understand it cannot be without time.

That's the dirty little secret none of them seem to notice or care about.

Everything in the universe has a Local frame of causality that means everything in the universe is reliant on the laws that run the universe. However, the cause (whatever it maybe) that prompted Big Bang, transcends the scope of universe.

Causality without time within the scope of universe is not possible but what about the causality that originated the universe. Is there any reason to believe that before Big Bang time exist in similar way how we perceive it today?

---

(May 22, 2014 at 2:18 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: What a pile of gish-gallop.

I'll just break it down to the basics.

1.If x, then y.

2.Therefore, if x, then not y.

3. Myriad of bullshit gish-gallop.

4. QED: This couple of Quran verse are true.

Lolwut?

When to an evolutionist a genuine scientific evidence is presented as a fact against evolution, almost immediately he moved away from the scientific material and jumped into the areas of philosophy, theology, the worldview, etc. He just start throwing lots of smoke and name-calling and get people even not to listen to the message of science by essentially criticising the messenger.

---

(May 22, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(May 19, 2014 at 3:49 pm)Faith No More Wrote: That's the dirty little secret none of them seem to notice or care about.

Don't you guys know? God exists outside of time, which means he never changes, never moves a finger, never acts in a way that was not already part of the immutable process. But also, and this is key, he can be petitioned to intervene within time! Isn't that comforting!? But how does that work, one might ask?

Well, unfortunately, human logic, which both God and theists are immune too, only offers rebuttals to the idea. So only God knows.

Remove the process of aging and you will get an active and fully energetic person who will live without having any limits of time.

Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.
Ali Imran (3)
-Verse 2-
Quran

---

(May 22, 2014 at 4:58 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Theists call their beliefs 'logical'. In that same spirit, North Korea calls itself a "democratic republic".

And atheist thinks everything is popping out of nothingness and without any cause

---

(May 22, 2014 at 9:21 pm)Tea Earl Grey Hot Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 5:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Why are first cause threads always started by people with zero reps?

Probably naive teenagers just hearing WL Craig's "Kalam" argument for the first time.

Kalam is logical argument for naïve teenagers as well as for old professional boys.

(May 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Harris Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 4:58 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Theists call their beliefs 'logical'. In that same spirit, North Korea calls itself a "democratic republic".

And atheist thinks everything is popping out of nothingness and without any cause

Strawman (I presume you've tried to demolish this multiple times on this thread).

(May 30, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(May 30, 2014 at 3:48 pm)Harris Wrote: At many occasions, I disputed that CHANCE has no scientific value. There is nothing in nature, which has no cause for its existence. If we do not have, appropriate scientific evidence that does not mean CHANCE prevail and outrun the scientific reasoning by mere axioms and postulates. In case you are not a promoter of CHANCE, then what proposition you have to explain the origin of complex structures such as DNA code?

I’ll give you few quotes which perfectly fit to the intelligent design argument:

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
Wickramasinghe, C., Interview in London Daily Express (August 14, 1981)

"Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10 to the power 15 or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order of 1015 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of leaves in the forest would be 1015, equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain."
Evolution: A theory in Crisis
Denton
page 330:

Denton briefly scratches the surface of the supposedly "simple" cell:
"Altogether a typical cell contains about ten million million atoms. Suppose we choose to build an exact replica to a scale one thousand million times that of the cell so that each atom of the model would be the size of a tennis ball. Constructing such a model at the rate of one atom per minute, it would take fifty million years to finish, and the object we would end up with would be the giant factory, described above, some twenty kilometres in diameter, with a volume thousands of times that of the Great Pyramid."
Evolution: A theory in Crisis
pages 329-30

Could you just explain, for my benefit if you would, how any of the above actually disproves the theory of evolution?

Forgive me but all I read is a mixture of personal incredulity and arguments from ignorance, so please point out where I'm misreading this as I presume you wouldn't have posted this in order to evidence something.

Please read all of my responses to Esquilax

(May 30, 2014 at 3:48 pm)Harris Wrote: Professor Antony Flew is the world’s foremost academic atheist ...

I didn't think it possible to be that full of shit.