Refuting Evolution

[Mister Agenda]

I looked through that proof, it had a bunch of premises tailored to support the conclusion he wanted, and still it was full of non sequitur conclusions. Even if you accept all the premises, the 'proof' doesn't get you to Allah, just deism. If you don't accept all the premises, it doesn't even get off the ground.

[downbeatplumb]

But he forgets my proof that disproved god.

The universe contains everything that exists.
God lives outside the universe.
Therefore god does not exist.

No one can refute my proof that I can assert without any evidence at all cos that's how it works now......Apparently.

[ideologue08]

I looked through that proof, it had a bunch or premises tailored to support the conclusion he wanted, and still it was full of non sequitur conclusions. Even if you accept all the premises, the 'proof' doesn't get you to Allah, just deism. If you don't accept all the premises, it doesn't even get off the ground.

That's the exact reason why I never use 'logical' arguments so to speak, they can never get you to your religion, the best they can do is try to show the existence of the personal abrahamic God, but even then you're left with 3 choices, not 1. So it's kind of dubious and extremely long to use logical deduction. If it must be used the person has to go for the jugular and try to deduce why their particular holy book is the word of God.

[Muslim Scholar]

I looked through that proof, it had a bunch of premises tailored to support the conclusion he wanted

Of course I should select relevant premises

, and still it was full of non sequitur conclusions.

Like what?

Even if you accept all the premises, the 'proof' doesn't get you to Allah, just deism.

Yes, I agree on that
Although it gives much more probability to Allah
Proving Allah is another subject

If you don't accept all the premises, it doesn't even get off the ground.

but then you need to refute the premises, which is far difficult then refuting the proof itself.

---

I looked through that proof, it had a bunch or premises tailored to support the conclusion he wanted, and still it was full of non sequitur conclusions. Even if you accept all the premises, the 'proof' doesn't get you to Allah, just deism. If you don't accept all the premises, it doesn't even get off the ground.

That's the exact reason why I never use 'logical' arguments so to speak, they can never get you to your religion, the best they can do is try to show the existence of the personal abrahamic God, but even then you're left with 3 choices, not 1. So it's kind of dubious and extremely long to use logical deduction.

All 3 religions have the same God!

If it must be used the person has to go for the jugular and try to deduce why their particular holy book is the word of God.

This proof will come later.

[Cato]

This thread still? Stupid fealty to ancient religious ignorant doctrine.

Refuting evolution is tantamount to saying you exist without your biological parents fucking.

[littleendian]

This thread still? Stupid fealty to ancient religious ignorant doctrine.

Refuting evolution is tantamount to saying you exist without your biological parents fucking.

[Dragonetti]

This thread still? Stupid fealty to ancient religious ignorant doctrine.

Refuting evolution is tantamount to saying you exist without your biological parents fucking.

Unless your parents are also cousins.

[Mister Agenda]

I looked through that proof, it had a bunch of premises tailored to support the conclusion he wanted

Of course I should select relevant premises

1- If time is infinite, there must be a time in the past where infinite numbers of seconds passed which is not, so time & universe had a start.

Ignores the finite past/infinite future scenario, but this one is basically okay.

2- As the universe was nothing or something static, something (else) must have started it to be time sensitive, we will call it G.

Physics indicates the universe was never absolutely nothing or something static. The most likely natural causes for the universe are that the Big Bang inflated from a previous hot dense state that went back who knows how long; or that it expanded from a fluctuation in the quantum foam. An interesting thing about quantum foam is how closely it resembles certain descriptions of what a creator god would have to be, such as existing necessarily. It looks like quantum foam can't not exist.

3- G must have some attributes, those attributes are not by choice but by logic, so they define G.

The main problem with your conclusions is that natural explanations can fit them as well as supernatural ones. So far, quantum foam fits the bill for G, and has the advantage that it's existence can potentially be tested.

Brane theory might qualify as well, but I'm not as up on it as I am on QF.

[popeyespappy]

Allah ^

[Cyberman]

Ok, I'll bite.

The Burak is not half man, he is a creature similar to a horse
What is your objections on that? can you prove its non-existence????

Yes.

Your go.