Best description of Christianity

[Huggy Bear]

So, are you going to start justifying any of the claims you've made regarding evolution in this thread?

I think I've made my stance on evolution clear, If there something specific you're referring to, the state it.

Yes, I suspect it does take you quite a bit more mental strain to come to a correct conclusion than it does for me. This isn't shocking news.

That could be why you lose 100% of your arguments, not enough strain on the brain....

[dyresand]

I think I've made my stance on evolution clear, If there something specific you're referring to, the state it.

[Esquilax]

I think I've made my stance on evolution clear, If there something specific you're referring to, the state it.

Well, gosh, how about the fact that the entirety of your stance is completely unjustified, based on self serving definitions that don't match those of the scientific community, revolving around mechanisms that prevent genetic change from accumulating that you haven't even specified, and relying on the Noah's flood narrative, which is not only contradicted by all of the physical evidence, but has no evidentiary support of its own? How about all of that?

Oh, and how about the fact that your position lacks any information content too?

That could be why you lose 100% of your arguments, not enough strain on the brain....

It's cute that you think that. But everyone here's already aware of how deeply you're entrenched in the Dunning-Kruger effect, you don't need to keep reminding us.

[Huggy Bear]

Well, gosh, how about the fact that the entirety of your stance is completely unjustified, based on self serving definitions that don't match those of the scientific community, revolving around mechanisms that prevent genetic change from accumulating that you haven't even specified, and relying on the Noah's flood narrative, which is not only contradicted by all of the physical evidence, but has no evidentiary support of its own? How about all of that?


Oh, and how about the fact that your position lacks any information content too?

Wow, an atheist disagrees with a theist, shocking...

It's cute that you think that. But everyone here's already aware of how deeply you're entrenched in the Dunning-Kruger effect, you don't need to keep reminding us.

If you're saying i don't have the evidence to back up that statement, I know you can't be that foolish....

[Esquilax]

Wow, an atheist disagrees with a theist, shocking...

So, you don't have any justification for your position?

If you're saying i don't have the evidence to back up that statement, I know you can't be that foolish....

I'm saying you are unaware of your own ineptitude, sufficient to both make you believe you've won every argument we've ever had, and also to make your opinion on that front entirely irrelevant to reality.

[Huggy Bear]

So, you don't have any justification for your position?

Not any that you'll be satisfied with, seeing how in another thread, i still can't get anyone to admit that Denmark doesn't have a secular government despite the PROOF, not to mention the ones claiming Denmark was secular (that includes you) contradicting their own argument.

What makes you think this will be any different?

I'm saying you are unaware of your own ineptitude, sufficient to both make you believe you've won every argument we've ever had, and also to make your opinion on that front entirely irrelevant to reality.

Thats not an answer, if you're saying I don't have the evidence, then say so.
You know there's nothing I like better than putting people on blast.

*points at sig*

[dyresand]

Not any that you'll be satisfied with, seeing how in another thread, i still can't get anyone to admit that Denmark doesn't have a secular government despite the PROOF, not to mention the ones claiming Denmark was secular (that includes you) contradicting their own argument.

Denmark is not officially a secular country but only 17 to 18% belief in a god and or follow a religion the majority is atheist. Considering everyone in Denmark who is born is also a a member of the Lutheran church i don't get it because religion is dying over there anyways why keep it on life support.

[DeistPaladin]

At one point that had to be the case right?

I'm not aware of any reason to think so. True, a limited genetic pool and xenophobic taboo against marrying outside the culture creates genetic problems down the road (nature delights in diversity and abhors inbreeding) but that only proves my point.

I've heard that biologists say the minimum number for sufficient genetic diversity to sustain a species is 80. I'm a layman when it comes to science but I'm confident that the minimum number is nowhere close to 2.

---

Not any that you'll be satisfied with, seeing how in another thread, i still can't get anyone to admit that Denmark doesn't have a secular government despite the PROOF, not to mention the ones claiming Denmark was secular (that includes you) contradicting their own argument.

This seems to be a "poisoning the well" argument that so many apologists are fond of. Here's how it works:

1. Look for any mistake the skeptic has made, no matter how beside the point of the discussion it may be.
2. Harp on it endlessly.
3. Imply "you were wrong about this so you must be wrong about everything else."

This is a good example of "poisoning the well". The reality is that your mistake "A" doesn't mean your argument "B" has no validity.

An example of this tactic to underscore the fallacy: "Sir Issac Newton believed in alchemy. How fucked up is that? What a nut! He believed in alchemy! That must mean all his discoveries in physics must also be wrong! Throw them all out! We can't waste time listening to some nut who believed in alchemy!"

Reality: Sir Issac Newton was a brilliant physicist. His nutty beliefs in alchemy are not relevant. Science accepts his findings in physics and respects his contributions to that field while ignoring all his babbling about alchemy.

[Esquilax]

Not any that you'll be satisfied with, seeing how in another thread, i still can't get anyone to admit that Denmark doesn't have a secular government despite the PROOF, not to mention the ones claiming Denmark was secular (that includes you) contradicting their own argument.

What makes you think this will be any different?

You can try to hide it any way you want, but if you actually had any evidence for your position, which would be quite a stretch considering literally every part of it is contradicted by numerous pieces of evidence, and you haven't even been able to define large swathes of what you believe in, you would simply say so. You've hardly been so reluctant to share the inanities of your belief system in the past, this sudden coquettish attitude seems more reflective of how insubstantial what you're claiming really is.

Hey! I know! Why don't you tell us some more about the groups of animals that you don't know anything about, and then insist anyway that you do know modern evolutionary theory doesn't reflect them?

Thats not an answer, if you're saying I don't have the evidence, then say so.
You know there's nothing I like better than putting people on blast.

Here's the thing, since you seem incapable of recognizing a subtle point when it's in front of you: I fully believe you think you have evidence for what you're claiming here, and you're so completely intractable that nothing will convince you otherwise. But, as I've pointed out, you're completely unaware of how badly you understand the things you see fit to argue against, making whatever you present as evidence more reflective of your own stunted understanding than of any failing on my part.

I would have thought the explicit reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect would have made that clear, but I guess that's yet another thing you're ignorant about.

*points at sig*

Yes, I remember the quote in your sig: Rhythm said something, and you presented evidence that it was wrong, leading to Rhythm accepting that and retracting his claim in his very next post. For a mature adult, that would have been the end of it; nobody is perfect, sometimes we're wrong, and the important thing is to adjust your claims to fit the information coming in, which is what happened.

You, on the other hand, decided to enshrine this simple mistake in your sig, in order to crow about it like a toddler for as long as you could. If you think you're making some kind of important point by doing so, when in actuality you're just sticking out your tongue and going "nyah nyah!" to a legitimate adult that made a mistake, that just makes it even sadder.

[Mudhammam]

I don't feel like playing catch up but I just have to know:

Huggy believes in the story of Noah's flood?