Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Not actually what I'm debating with you.....though I do disagree. You've stated that the complexity or diversity or organization of life is evidence of a creator. I say it's evidence of evolution.
I have both a fact...the fact of evolution....and the scientific theory offered as an explanation of that fact, Modern Synthesis.
No, stop, you've been shitposting so completely that I damned well know, and you damned well know..that some portion of it was intentional. We have not been debating my opinions, at all, nor have we been debating my facts, at all, nor have we been debating the things I offer as explanations for those facts, at all. You've been debating..with yourself..those positions you would ascribe to me. You've been debating with yourself those positions you would ascribe to others.
I say Modern Synth explains both the complexity and diversity of life..and also it's organization. You say "godidit" explains that. This is not a disagreement of opinion. If you'd like to debate something with me, or anyone else who's responded to you.....you're going to need to debate -that-. You're going to need to explain why I, or any of them... would choose "goddidit" over Modern Synth - which neither invokes nor requires any gods to explain anything at all.
Your very last post, claiming that you havent been shitposting..that you understand..was yet another shitpost. Your string of shitposts seems designed. I have to assume that there was a designer. You must have designed them to be shitposts. That they are shitposts proves both that you are a designer, and that you designed the shitposts as shitposts.
i believe in evolution and modern synthesis , and i believe both were created by intelligent design . your opinion is that intelligent design has nothing to do with evolution and synthesis right ? thats an opinion and you have no evidence for that other than your theory that evolution and synthesis doesnt require intelligence to create it they just create themselves out of nothing . your argument is based on theory and opinion , noone is arguing evolution or synthesis but instead what started it.
October 29, 2015 at 9:56 pm (This post was last modified: October 29, 2015 at 10:02 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 29, 2015 at 9:50 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:
(October 29, 2015 at 9:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Not actually what I'm debating with you.....though I do disagree. You've stated that the complexity or diversity or organization of life is evidence of a creator. I say it's evidence of evolution.
I have both a fact...the fact of evolution....and the scientific theory offered as an explanation of that fact, Modern Synthesis.
No, stop, you've been shitposting so completely that I damned well know, and you damned well know..that some portion of it was intentional. We have not been debating my opinions, at all, nor have we been debating my facts, at all, nor have we been debating the things I offer as explanations for those facts, at all. You've been debating..with yourself..those positions you would ascribe to me. You've been debating with yourself those positions you would ascribe to others.
I say Modern Synth explains both the complexity and diversity of life..and also it's organization. You say "godidit" explains that. This is not a disagreement of opinion. If you'd like to debate something with me, or anyone else who's responded to you.....you're going to need to debate -that-. You're going to need to explain why I, or any of them... would choose "goddidit" over Modern Synth - which neither invokes nor requires any gods to explain anything at all.
Your very last post, claiming that you havent been shitposting..that you understand..was yet another shitpost. Your string of shitposts seems designed. I have to assume that there was a designer. You must have designed them to be shitposts. That they are shitposts proves both that you are a designer, and that you designed the shitposts as shitposts.
i believe in evolution and modern synthesis , and i believe both were created by intelligent design . your opinion is that intelligent design has nothing to do with evolution and synthesis right ? thats an opinion and you have no evidence for that other than your theory that evolution and synthesis doesnt require intelligence to create it they just create themselves out of nothing . your argument is based on theory and opinion , noone is arguing evolution or synthesis but instead what started it.
Oh bloody hell!
Name one thing in evolution, anywhere along the process, that required an intelligent designer.
Because the best minds on the planet, who have dedicated their lives to the study of biology, who actually work in the field on a daily basis, with the most advanced tools ever built by humans, are not finding it.
molecules -> self replicating molecules -> self replicating RNA enzymes -> DNA -> simple cells -> simple multi-cell organisms -> the vast variation of life we see today.
Where in that process does your intelligent designer fit? And what did it actually do?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Those are neat videos, Hmmm?, thanks for sharing it. Sounds a little woo-ish at the end, but I don't actually disagree with what he has to say about changing our frame of reference about life, here on earth. But I liked how he presented the physics element.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
October 29, 2015 at 10:10 pm (This post was last modified: October 29, 2015 at 10:14 pm by Homeless Nutter.)
(October 29, 2015 at 7:25 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: you also only have opinions
Sure I do. But my opinions are based on the current state of scientific knowledge. I'm not making up some non-materialistic stuff that you're supposed to accept, because "nobody really knows anything". And I haven't presented any of my opinions here, pretending they're evidence - that's what you've been doing. You're the one claiming that because you think nature (that you know NOTHING about) is "amazing - that means there's a god. That's your opinion - as stupid and uninformed as it is. What is "my opinion" - could you quote it, please? Or do you admit, that you are full of sh*t and just saying anything to "save face", as futile an effort as that is?...
The fact that you recon something to be one way or another is meaningless? That's not an opinion, that's just how science works. It's called argument from ignorance, or argument from incredulity. Let me repeat it again - your opinion is worthless to humanity, as far as discovery of the laws of physics and origin of universe is concerned. It's just some touchy-feely nonsense, that makes you feel "special" and that you couldn't communicate to anyone, if your life depended on it. Get over yourself.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
October 29, 2015 at 10:10 pm (This post was last modified: October 29, 2015 at 10:11 pm by jenny1972.)
(October 29, 2015 at 9:41 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:
(October 29, 2015 at 9:16 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i understand what we are debating . i believe an intelligent being created the universe and you guys disagree . what you have is an opinion without facts and what i have is my opinion without facts .
See, this is an example of what I mean. You are passing the burden of proof.
Your opinion requires an entity that is not in evidence. Your opinion adds unexplainable things that are not necessary to explain existence or biology. And they have no explanatory power.
All our opinion really needs, is for you not to be able to provide demonstrable evidence to support yours. You are the one making the claim. You are the one that has the burden of proof.
But the thing is, we do have facts that point to the universe and biology arising from purely natural means. It is not just opinion.
All you have is, "I don't understand how the universe could have come into being via natural means, so there must be a god".
Quote:we are both arguing our opinions and both giving reasons why we have these opinions that is what we both have been doing listing the reasons why we believe as we do . im an expert at my own opinions and i know why i have them thats all that is needed in an opinion debate , and ive been listing those reasons . that is the " nature of the discussion " everyone giving reasons why they have an opinion and thats what weve been doing
Your opinion is based on what you are unable to explain, 'therefore god' . Our opinion is based on the lack of evidence for yours, and evidence for ours.
You continue to provide logically flawed arguments, and no demonstrable evidence.
We continue to point out your logical flaws, and you fail to learn from them. The fact that your arguments are logically flawed is not an opinion, it is provable fact.
i have not seen any kind of evidence that an intelligent being could not have put into motion evolution on the earth all youve provided is your opinion that it doesnt need it . you dont have any proof there is not an intelligent creator that is responsible for the evolution of life . reproduction and life even single celled organisms develop . they told themselves how to develop they planned and then created their own course of development ? thats your opinion
Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you tryNo hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you will join us And the world will be as one - John Lennon
The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also - Mark Twain
October 29, 2015 at 10:15 pm (This post was last modified: October 29, 2015 at 10:24 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(October 29, 2015 at 9:50 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i believe in evolution and modern synthesis , and i believe both were created by intelligent design .
No, you clearly don't believe in evolution or modern synth...you clearly don't know what either of them are. You think it's something that wizards have done to us, and the method by which magic was achieved..... Fact.
Quote:your opinion is that intelligent design has nothing to do with evolution and synthesis right ?
That is the conclusion of Modern Synth, not my opinion. That these things, x, y, and z..account for the observations. There is no line in the theory that states. "And also god, maybe". Modern Synth is science, intelligent design is not, they have nothing to do with each other. Fact.
Quote:thats an opinion and you have no evidence for that other than your theory that evolution and synthesis doesnt require intelligence to create it they just create themselves out of nothing . your argument is based on theory and opinion , noone is arguing evolution or synthesis but instead what started it.
They -don't- require intelligence. I keep telling you that this "out of nothing" bullshit has nothing to do with me..but you keep typing it, shitposter. -You- are arguing against evolution and Synth.... when you refer to what it explains, as though it were evidence of something else....shitposter....... Fact.
No one has to provide you with any proof against the unevidenced, or for some position that they do not hold. No one. You are, again, assuming wrong...about logic.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(October 29, 2015 at 9:41 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: See, this is an example of what I mean. You are passing the burden of proof.
Your opinion requires an entity that is not in evidence. Your opinion adds unexplainable things that are not necessary to explain existence or biology. And they have no explanatory power.
All our opinion really needs, is for you not to be able to provide demonstrable evidence to support yours. You are the one making the claim. You are the one that has the burden of proof.
But the thing is, we do have facts that point to the universe and biology arising from purely natural means. It is not just opinion.
All you have is, "I don't understand how the universe could have come into being via natural means, so there must be a god".
Your opinion is based on what you are unable to explain, 'therefore god' . Our opinion is based on the lack of evidence for yours, and evidence for ours.
You continue to provide logically flawed arguments, and no demonstrable evidence.
We continue to point out your logical flaws, and you fail to learn from them. The fact that your arguments are logically flawed is not an opinion, it is provable fact.
i have not seen any kind of evidence that an intelligent being could not have put into motion evolution on the earth all youve provided is your opinion that it doesnt need it . you dont have any proof there is not an intelligent creator that is responsible for the evolution of life . reproduction and life even single celled organisms develop . they told themselves how to develop they planned and then created their own course of development ? thats your opinion you do not know
So, you believe things until they are proven false? How do you know when to stop?
The following things have never been prove false: alien abductions, bigfoot, Chupacabra, tarot card readings, ancient aliens and many more. Do you believe them?
Once again, I'm sure not for the last time, we do not have to provide evidence for the nonexistence of the entity that you are claiming exists. You have the burden of proof.
We are not claiming to know that the entity you believe does not exist. Only that there is no justification to believe it does exist.
Quote: they told themselves how to develop they planned and then created their own course of development ?
That is not even close to being in the same ballpark of what evolution actually states. If this is your understanding of evolution, no wonder you think it needs an intelligent being.
Seriously, your understanding of evolution is laughable.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
(October 29, 2015 at 9:47 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: I will not disagree with the possibility that some Creator "set up" the laws of the universe so that it would unfold in a manner by which the particles interacted in such a way as to produce life by natural processes. We know what almost all of those natural processes are, now. We know that evolution is a completely-unguided process that only appears orderly to our hunter-gatherer pattern seeking brains because of our inferences about agency.
When you argue that "life is complex, so God", it tells me you do not understand biology at all, and are therefore mistaken when you say that you accept evolution. You do not know what evolution is, what Rhythm correctly calls "The Modern Synthesis" (Darwin's theory, modified for the discovery of genetics, essentially). It's okay! Just learn it before you tell us that "life is complex so goddidit".
yes ill learn more about evolution im not sure why some people are convinced that learning more about evolution is going to convince me that evolution was not intelligently set up i think it would only increase my belief that it could only be intelligently organized to see actually how complex it actually is but thats ok . im glad some biologists are open to the possibility that an intelligent design could have put evolution into motion and im sure some biologists believe in God people have different opinions even scientists .
Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you tryNo hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you will join us And the world will be as one - John Lennon
The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also - Mark Twain
(October 29, 2015 at 10:07 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Those are neat videos, Hmmm?, thanks for sharing it. Sounds a little woo-ish at the end, but I don't actually disagree with what he has to say about changing our frame of reference about life, here on earth. But I liked how he presented the physics element.
Yeah, I don't know what woo-ish means, but I almost didn't post the video because of the reference to the government at the end. (I'm thinking that maybe was the woo)...either way, I'm gonna Google it.
