Atheism is unreasonable

[dyresand]

No, you either dismissed it out of hand or asserted that since we couldn't use it to rule out intelligent design, it must not be true. People can actually read the things you write here, you know.

I never said it "must not be true" because it can't rule out intelligent design..I said since it can't rule out intelligent design, then it can't be a given fact, you know, how you evolutionists portray it to be.

Reading comprehension, again.

No, I kinda want to mind the agenda. My work isn't the kind of thing a religious person would openly appreciate; I'm not ashamed of what it is, it's common knowledge what I write both here and in my personal life, but I have this suspicion that if I tell you it'll be used as a relentless distraction to both taunt me and avoid answering any of my more substantive posts.

Inbox me, lil fella. Just because we disagree on religion and science doesn't mean that we can't share common interests elsewhere.

You want to cut and run now that we won't let you get away without answering?

Me, run? An iceberg has a better chance in hell than me run from any atheist

---

do you believe jesus died for you or only specific people.

He died for everyone, under one condition: that you accept him as Lord and Savior and believe that he died on the cross for your sins.

Not all followers are saved not all people are saved either.

[Esquilax]

I never said it "must not be true" because it can't rule out intelligent design..I said since it can't rule out intelligent design, then it can't be a given fact, you know, how you evolutionists portray it to be.

Reading comprehension, again.

Nope, sorry, still nonsensical; all science is probabilistic, working with the evidence at the time to provide the greatest degree of certainty possible, while acknowledging that absolute certainty is hard to come by. We know that evolution happens, that it's factual, because we can observe it happening, but we can't exclusively rule out intelligent design at any point because it's an unfalsifiable claim, given the strenuousness with which theists cling to it.The reason the intelligent design proposition isn't to be put on an equal level with the theory of evolution currently is because there is no evidence for it at all.

Inbox me, lil fella. Just because we disagree on religion and science doesn't mean that we can't share common interests elsewhere.

The content of my work is down in the adults only section of the forum; I dunno that I want to confirm if we have that kind of interest in common.

Me, run? An iceberg has a better chance in hell than me run from any atheist

Icebergs don't dodge questions nearly as much as you, though. Still waiting on a demonstration of the mechanism that halts genetic change over time...

He died for everyone, under one condition: that you accept him as Lord and Savior and believe that he died on the cross for your sins.

Actually, if you read the book of Matthew, I think, there's a bit where Jesus confirms that he's only there to be the savior of the people of Israel, and that all other tribes are like dogs, to which he would not so much as feed scraps. It's Matthew 15:22 onward.

[The Grand Nudger]

I observe animals "bringing forth after their kind"...that is what I observe...that is what I can experiment with if I put two dogs, male/female, in one room...have them mate...and however many months later, they will produce a dog...that is an example of BRINGING FORTH AFTER THEIR KIND.

Right, then african wild dogs are not the same "kind" as dogs, and koalas are not the same "kind" as bears - because they can't do that. They must be their own "kinds". In fact, everything must be it's own "kind", and the hardest definition of species is reproductive isolation (and neither of us has a problem with speciation of course) - only trouble is that "kind" isn't species - as you've previously demonstrated....so we're back to square one.

What is it that you can observe again, what experiment can you run?

[dyresand]

I never said it "must not be true" because it can't rule out intelligent design..I said since it can't rule out intelligent design, then it can't be a given fact, you know, how you evolutionists portray it to be.

Reading comprehension, again.

Nope, sorry, still nonsensical; all science is probabilistic, working with the evidence at the time to provide the greatest degree of certainty possible, while acknowledging that absolute certainty is hard to come by. We know that evolution happens, that it's factual, because we can observe it happening, but we can't exclusively rule out intelligent design at any point because it's an unfalsifiable claim, given the strenuousness with which theists cling to it.The reason the intelligent design proposition isn't to be put on an equal level with the theory of evolution currently is because there is no evidence for it at all.

Inbox me, lil fella. Just because we disagree on religion and science doesn't mean that we can't share common interests elsewhere.

The content of my work is down in the adults only section of the forum; I dunno that I want to confirm if we have that kind of interest in common.

Me, run? An iceberg has a better chance in hell than me run from any atheist

Icebergs don't dodge questions nearly as much as you, though. Still waiting on a demonstration of the mechanism that halts genetic change over time...

He died for everyone, under one condition: that you accept him as Lord and Savior and believe that he died on the cross for your sins.

Actually, if you read the book of Matthew, I think, there's a bit where Jesus confirms that he's only there to be the savior of the people of Israel, and that all other tribes are like dogs, to which he would not so much as feed scraps. It's Matthew 15:22 onward.

pretty much he only saved gods chosen the jewish it doesn't matter if your a follower of jesus you still have that chance of going to hell

[Asmodee]

I observe animals "bringing forth after their kind"...that is what I observe...that is what I can experiment with if I put two dogs, male/female, in one room...have them mate...and however many months later, they will produce a dog...that is an example of BRINGING FORTH AFTER THEIR KIND.

Let me guess. You don't believe evolution is true because you've never seen what scientists claim happens over millions of years happen in all the dozens of years you've been alive.

Let me ask you this. When you mate these dogs and the pups are born, do any of them look EXACTLY like either of the parents? You ever notice that there are tiny little changes? Maybe some differences between the parents and the pups? Are you aware that there are new dog breeds popping up even now? Big dogs, little dogs, dogs in between, some with big snouts, some with small. Obviously changes can be made from one dog to the next, right? And we know for a fact that these changes can be compounded from one generation to the next, getting more pronounced or less. This is how we get different breeds of dogs. What do you think these dogs will look like 10 million years from now? How about 100 million? 500 million? If we can see such huge changes in how they look just in our lifetimes, what do you think is going to happen over massive amounts of time much more than we can observe? Never, in all that time, will the changes compound to such an extent that we won't recognize it as a dog?

One important thing to note that most ID proponents are not aware of, there was no "first dog". Evolution doesn't work that way. You don't have a chicken lay an egg and sit on it and, POOF! Out pops a dog! Evolution is the compounded changes you very much have seen in your lifetime over very massive amounts of time.

If you would like an example of how subtle these changes are, look at horses and donkeys. They are not the same species, but they are close enough that they can breed and produce a mule, which is almost always infertile. You can tell a horse from a donkey easily enough. They look a lot a like, but there are some major differences. But the offspring they produce cannot be mated to produce more. In rare cases there are fertile female mules, but they only produce offspring when mated with either horse or donkey, never when mated with mule. The changes have been so subtle over so much time that they still look a lot alike, but they are very much not the same thing. If they were their offspring could reproduce, just like the offspring of two purebred dogs can reproduce to make more of the same crossbreed of dogs.

So, yes, a dog will always produce a dog and if you watch any dog give birth it will always from here until infinity give birth to a dog. But, if you go forward in time 100 million years and get a descendant from that dog, it might not be a dog any more. It's a difficult concept to grasp, but the changes are so slight from one generation to the next that there is no point where something is born where you can say definitively "that is not a dog". If you see one born and say, "That is not a dog" then you'll look at the parent and say "That is not a dog either!"

Not that you care or are open to learning new things or ideas which differ in any way from those you already hold, but that's how it works. Compounded changes over massive amounts of time with no single point where a species goes from being one thing to being another thing. It is small changes from one generation to the next, so small you can barely perceive them when looking from one generation to the next to the next. It is only when you go from one generation to thousands of generations in the future and compare the two very far separated by time that there even is enough difference for the species to have changed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wrong. All dogs belong to one species, as has already been pointed out to you.

I believe that all dogs are one "kind" of animal, as has already been pointed out to you

I can also prove that the Eiffel Tower didn't exist before 1889. That doesn't mean that Joe Blow from Pascagoula, MS built it in six days using tinkertoys.

See how that worl\Ks?

No, I don't.

There is no such thing as "philosophical evidence", firstly. Secondly, any conclusion about the source of the origin of the Universe necessarily oversteps the evidence currently at hand, because we are unable to examine the point of expansion.

There is a such thing as "philosophical arguments", and we can prove that the universe hasn't been expanding forever...or do you deny that so I can prove you wrong on that as well??

No, I mustn't believe in anything. However, I must follow the evidence. (That's a heuristic you'd do well to apply to yourself). The evidence for your deity is absent.

The evidence for an eternal universe, abiogenesis, and macroevolution is also absent.

Feel free to correct me, in detail, either in this thread or another that you may start, called "The Evidence for the Christian God". I challenge you to do the latter ... if you dare.

I challenge you to a debate regarding "The Evidence for the Christian God". Fight or flight time.

As I've already pointed out, your dire need for education is obvious. You really don't need to buttress my point with these retarded claims of yours ... but hey, I'm nothing if not grateful. Keep talkin', kid.

Education isn't what is needed, evidence is what is needed.

I'll get to this reply in a little bit. In the meantime, youve attributed my points to another member.

As for the debate ... are you going to abide the rules this time, or is it going to be another exercise in demonstrating your idiocy?

[dyresand]

I believe that all dogs are one "kind" of animal, as has already been pointed out to you


No, I don't.



There is a such thing as "philosophical arguments", and we can prove that the universe hasn't been expanding forever...or do you deny that so I can prove you wrong on that as well??


The evidence for an eternal universe, abiogenesis, and macroevolution is also absent.


I challenge you to a debate regarding "The Evidence for the Christian God". Fight or flight time.


Education isn't what is needed, evidence is what is needed.

I'll get to this reply in a little bit. In the meantime, youve attributed my points to another member.

As for the debate ... are you going to abide the rules this time, or is it going to be another exercise in demonstrating your idiocy?

i don't even remember writing any of that....oh i see why it did that.

[His_Majesty]

I'll get to this reply in a little bit. In the meantime, youve attributed my points to another member.

My bad...you all look the same to me anyway lol.

As for the debate ... are you going to abide the rules this time, or is it going to be another exercise in demonstrating your idiocy?

I was thinking...never mind the debate because when it comes to the Resurrection, there are sub-topics that needs to be addressed, and I don't think I have enough space for all of it.

So what I will do is break the argument down in parts...beginning with part 1, of course. As mentioned previously, I plan on laying this thread to rest and moving on to better things.

---

Nope, sorry, still nonsensical; all science is probabilistic, working with the evidence at the time to provide the greatest degree of certainty possible, while acknowledging that absolute certainty is hard to come by. We know that evolution happens, that it's factual, because we can observe it happening, but we can't exclusively rule out intelligent design at any point because it's an unfalsifiable claim, given the strenuousness with which theists cling to it.The reason the intelligent design proposition isn't to be put on an equal level with the theory of evolution currently is because there is no evidence for it at all.

Ok....you can have the last word.

The content of my work is down in the adults only section of the forum; I dunno that I want to confirm if we have that kind of interest in common.

Let me see whatcha got...we just might.

Icebergs don't dodge questions nearly as much as you, though. Still waiting on a demonstration of the mechanism that halts genetic change over time...

They apparently don't dodge ships, either.

Actually, if you read the book of Matthew, I think, there's a bit where Jesus confirms that he's only there to be the savior of the people of Israel, and that all other tribes are like dogs, to which he would not so much as feed scraps. It's Matthew 15:22 onward.

John 3:16 says that "For God so loved the world", it didn't say "For God so loved the Jews".

pretty much he only saved gods chosen the jewish it doesn't matter if your a follower of jesus you still have that chance of going to hell

That is about as bad as an interpretation that you will ever get right there.

[dyresand]

I'll get to this reply in a little bit. In the meantime, youve attributed my points to another member.

My bad...you all look the same to me anyway lol.

As for the debate ... are you going to abide the rules this time, or is it going to be another exercise in demonstrating your idiocy?

I was thinking...never mind the debate because when it comes to the Resurrection, there are sub-topics that needs to be addressed, and I don't think I have enough space for all of it.

So what I will do is break the argument down in parts...beginning with part 1, of course. As mentioned previously, I plan on laying this thread to rest and moving on to better things.

---

Nope, sorry, still nonsensical; all science is probabilistic, working with the evidence at the time to provide the greatest degree of certainty possible, while acknowledging that absolute certainty is hard to come by. We know that evolution happens, that it's factual, because we can observe it happening, but we can't exclusively rule out intelligent design at any point because it's an unfalsifiable claim, given the strenuousness with which theists cling to it.The reason the intelligent design proposition isn't to be put on an equal level with the theory of evolution currently is because there is no evidence for it at all.

Ok....you can have the last word.

The content of my work is down in the adults only section of the forum; I dunno that I want to confirm if we have that kind of interest in common.

Let me see whatcha got...we just might.

Icebergs don't dodge questions nearly as much as you, though. Still waiting on a demonstration of the mechanism that halts genetic change over time...

They apparently don't dodge ships, either.

Actually, if you read the book of Matthew, I think, there's a bit where Jesus confirms that he's only there to be the savior of the people of Israel, and that all other tribes are like dogs, to which he would not so much as feed scraps. It's Matthew 15:22 onward.

John 3:16 says that "For God so loved the world", it didn't say "For God so loved the Jews".

pretty much he only saved gods chosen the jewish it doesn't matter if your a follower of jesus you still have that chance of going to hell

That is about as bad as an interpretation that you will ever get right there.

Jesus only meant to save the jews not everyone.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Lets take away all of the fluff and feathers for a minute.

Are you suggesting I fuck the chicken naked?!?!?!

You sicko!