(November 21, 2011 at 9:27 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Ah, no.
But assumption is your best friend, because reason is not.
Then why would you ask such a stupid question?
(November 21, 2011 at 9:38 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Exhibit A : A fossilised dinosaur skeleton. (I can't be arsed to post the image, you've seen it) This IS conclusive proof that such a creature existed. No other evidence is required.
That’s not even a logical syllogism much less a sound one, where is your premise, conclusion, antecedent, and consequent? Care to take another swing?
(November 22, 2011 at 2:01 am)IATIA Wrote: SCIENCE
Put the fairy tales down and read some real science.
Unjustified interference from an intelligent investigator doesn’t prove abiogenesis is even possible much less ever happened. Try again.
(November 22, 2011 at 8:19 am)orogenicman Wrote: Me: So you agree that you are an ass. Congratulations.Nope, I agree that I was acting like an atheist which would make my arguments absurd and my behavior like that of an ass.
Quote:
Atheists don't argue against the existence of God. They argue against any emperic evidence for the existence of God.
…revisionists’ definition of atheism that does not harmonize with many of the best Encyclopedias of Philosophy.
Quote: 2) There is emperic evidence that you exist.No there isn’t, you have not directly observed me.
Quote:No, we are asking for an inductive argument concerning the existence of God. Got anything like that?
Absolutely! The Cosmological and Design arguments for the existence of God are both good inductive arguments. I’ll give you one…
P1 Information is always observed to originate from a mind
P2 DNA holds semantic information.
C Therefore DNA originated from a creator mind.
Quote: Hence we find that there are creationists who believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.Name one who actually does….
(November 22, 2011 at 8:32 am)tuxcomputers Wrote: ...ssssoooo.... you have the same amount of evidence for god as for leprechauns, big foot, aliens, the rainbow serpent, Zeus, zero point energy and an expanding earth, none.
Nope, the very preconditions of intelligibility do not require that any of those other things exist, they do require that God exists, so false analogy.
(November 21, 2011 at 8:27 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: .. blah blah blah... lies lies lies...
Abusing the quote function is against the forum rules.
Quote: This would be Statlers technique as a criminal defense lawyer:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution will show you
..but, what you have to remember nobody saw my client sexually assault, strangle, stab then dismember the victim so it's all just a story, the defense rests.
Why would you falsely equate forensics with empirical science? I thought you said you knew a thing or two about how science works?
