Here's why Creatards might be right

[jenny1972]

-and yet you persist in that error, and continue to defend that error, and refuse to acknowledge that it is an error.  Instead scorching the earth with this "opinions" bullshit.  Because if you can't be right, it's all just opinions and beliefs anyway.  You continue, all the while, to make plainly dissonant statements such as that recently above about whether or not people should believe in something without evidence.  And then....this....this response right here, you pretend that none of this is happening, even as we speak.

Save it.

how was that a dissonant statement saying that you should have proof to believe in something ? i agree with that

---

-and yet you persist in that error, and continue to defend that error, and refuse to acknowledge that it is an error.  Instead scorching the earth with this "opinions" bullshit.  Because if you can't be right, it's all just opinions and beliefs anyway.  You continue, all the while, to make plainly dissonant statements such as that recently above about whether or not people should believe in something without evidence.  And then....this....this response right here, you pretend that none of this is happening, even as we speak.

Save it.

just because i disagree thats its an error doesnt mean that i dont acknowledge that you think it is

---

what am i being dishonest about ? im being very honest here about my opinion on this subject

Pretending to have an education in science and history when you are clearly and deliberately ignorant in both fields.

You can lie or tell the truth about your opinion.  I really don't care about that, because given your startling ignorance, your opinion carries absolutely no weight with me.  Zero.

when did i ever claim to have an education in science and history i never said i had a degree or specialized ducation in either now your being dishonest

[The Grand Nudger]

how was that a dissonant statement saying that you should have proof to believe in something ? i agree with that

You said, earlier, that it was evidence...here again we see your dishonesty...but if it's proof you -now- require...then it matters little, as you have neither.

just because i disagree thats its an error doesnt mean that i dont acknowledge that you think it is

We aren't having a disagreement.  You have been demonstrably and provably wrong...and here again we see your dishonesty.  A moment ago you claimed to have acknowledged these errors.  Here, we see that you do not.

Look, lie to yourself, in private. Don't lie to me, in public. There's just no point. -I- don't require you to have proof or evidence in order to believe. I can see that your belief isn't tied to anything you'd have to work at, such as either of those two. -I- don't require you to be able to produce a single coherent thought in order to justify your belief....and I can see that this is too much to ask of you, anyway.

[Thumpalumpacus]

when did i ever claim to have an education in science and history i never said i had a degree or specialized ducation in either now your being dishonest

Here's what you wrote an hour ago:

but i do know basic science and history so i wouldnt be the cause of a hangnail

How you got to know basic science and history, as you claim here, without an education in it is beyond me.

Also, I didn't stipulate degree or specialized education.

As you can see, I'm not being dishonest. But that was a nice try at "NO U!!11!11", I suppose.

You bore me. Goodbye.

[jenny1972]

how was that a dissonant statement saying that you should have proof to believe in something ? i agree with that

You said, earlier, that it was evidence...here again we see your dishonesty...but if it's proof you -now- require...then it matters little, as you have neither.

just because i disagree thats its an error doesnt mean that i dont acknowledge that you think it is

We aren't having a disagreement.  You have been demonstrably and provably wrong...and here again we see your dishonesty.  A moment ago you claimed to have acknowledged these errors.  Here, we see that you do not.

Look, lie to yourself, in private.  Don't lie to me, in public.  There's just no point.  -I- don't require you to have proof or evidence in order to believe.  I can see that your belief isn't tied to anything you'd have to work at, such as either of those two.  -I- don't require you to be able to produce a single coherent thought in order to justify your belief....and I can see that this is too much to ask of you, anyway.

ok switch the word proof with the word evidence making a mistake between putting the word  proof and the word evidence isnt being dishonest its a mistake with two words that are more or less synonymous and yes i achnowledge my error at making assumptions about you i even apologized for making assumptions leading to the 'strawman' error , acknowledged fully

---

when did i ever claim to have an education in science and history i never said i had a degree or specialized ducation in either now your being dishonest

Here's what you wrote an hour ago:

but i do know basic science and history so i wouldnt be the cause of a hangnail

How you got to know basic science and history, as you claim here, without an education in it is beyond me.

Also, I didn't stipulate degree or specialized education.  

As you can see, I'm not being dishonest. But that was a nice try at "NO U!!11!11", I suppose.

You bore me. Goodbye.

yes but since i do know basic science and history you saying that i dont have an education is deceptive

[TheRocketSurgeon]

It's really very, very simple.

If you think that evolution happens by any means other than natural forces, naturally interacting, then you don't understand evolution.

The only proposals to the contrary weren't really counter-ideas, just people saying "I want God in there so I'm going to suggest that your idea isn't enough, and that we can still squeeze God into those gaps I wedged." Except the gaps weren't there. We looked wherever they pointed, and kept finding no gaps.

Your question about "who made the rules" is a different question, and has nothing to do with how the universe operated after the moment following the Big Bang. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. Yet you continue to speak as if you don't understand the difference between those two issues.

If you want to think the universal constants had to be set by some intelligence in order for the universe to operate... um, okay. I don't see any reason to think that, but clearly you do.

But when it comes to "what happened after organic molecules clumped into a form that could self-copy", there's really not much question, and it's clear that we understand the forces at play and why/how it happened, even though the process of mapping out every single aspect of that how will likely never finish being accomplished (requiring, as it would, examination of almost literally every sub-system and gene of every species on earth, including bacteria, archaea, fungi, plants, etc.) by scientists. Ever. It doesn't mean we don't know what we have already learned; it just means there is a lot more of the same stuff to find and to learn.

As long as you keep repeating things we know are not true about evolution, we're not going to believe you're really listening to us. You cannot just say "this is my opinion and that is yours" when your opinion is based on misconceptions, and we (the ones who DO have degrees in this stuff and/or have made it our primary field of study) keep trying to tell you what those misconceptions are.

If you read this post, and then in the next post say something that makes it clear you did not listen to someone who's telling you that you have biology wrong, then you're basically arguing with your mechanic because you think the engine "ought to" run properly and don't like him telling you what you're doing to damage it.

[The Grand Nudger]

ok switch the word proof with the word evidence making a mistake between putting the word  proof and the word evidence isnt being dishonest its a mistake with two words that are more or less synonymous and yes i achnowledge my error at making assumptions about you i even apologized for making assumptions leading to the 'strawman' error , acknowledged fully

No, fucking up once, twice, a few times.  That's a mistake.  Fucking up everytime, persisting in the behavior after it's been pointed out to you and -as- it's being pointed out to you, is not.  So save it.   You've worked hard, for pages and pages, over the span of two days..to end up here. I hope you're enjoying the fruits of your labor.

Even now, in this, you've failed to acknowledge the very words I just typed to you - you stopped right there, at a convenient point....as if there wasn't something much more valuable than whatever credibility you think you might salvage...mentioned in my post.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

And the difference between evidence and proof is that evidence requires evaluation, and can be evaluated wrong. Proof is evidence that, no matter who evaluates it, you all get the same result. There is evidence of Bigfoot. But it's terrible evidence, and carefully analyzed it turns out to not be good evidence at all, but simple forgery by people who want it to be true.

Y'know... like everything religious people have ever written.

[Thumpalumpacus]

yes but since i do know basic science and history you saying that i dont have an education is deceptive

Except that your lack of education is apparent for all to see.

Now pardon me as I stop answering you; I don't make a habit of bandying words with fools, and I'm not about to start with you.

Enjoy the ignore list.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's what I'm going to do.  I'm going to let you reach down and grab a shred of dignity out of the wreckage you've created.

The idea that complex things -have- designers, in your experience today here on earth, does not provide a valid means of inference for your conclusion.  What this means...is that even if complex things do have designers....here on earth, even if your mal-formed opinion on the matter is true, read that again, even if it is true, this is no reason to conclude that there is a creator, let alone a creator god.   That's what it means, for something to be an invalid form of inference.  It means that the truth of the propositions are irrelevant - that even if we supplied the form with true propositions, we cannot trust the conclusion to be true.  I don't have to know, for example..whether or not complex things have designers....to state that you are plainly, demonstrably, and provably wrong.  

That's it, that's all there is... and all there needs be. There's no difference of opinion, there's nothing to argue, there is nothing further to discuss regarding this claim. Are you capable of acknowledging this simple fact, and remaining consistent to that acknowledgement going forward? Do you understand what I've just explained to you?

[jenny1972]

It's really very, very simple.

If you think that evolution happens by any means other than natural forces, naturally interacting, then you don't understand evolution.

The only proposals to the contrary weren't really counter-ideas, just people saying "I want God in there so I'm going to suggest that your idea isn't enough, and that we can still squeeze God into those gaps I wedged." Except the gaps weren't there. We looked wherever they pointed, and kept finding no gaps.

Your question about "who made the rules" is a different question, and has nothing to do with how the universe operated after the moment following the Big Bang. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. Yet you continue to speak as if you don't understand the difference between those two issues.

If you want to think the universal constants had to be set by some intelligence in order for the universe to operate... um, okay. I don't see any reason to think that, but clearly you do.

But when it comes to "what happened after organic molecules clumped into a form that could self-copy", there's really not much question, and it's clear that we understand the forces at play and why/how it happened, even though the process of mapping out every single aspect of that how will likely never finish being accomplished (requiring, as it would, examination of almost literally every sub-system and gene of every species on earth, including bacteria, archaea, fungi, plants, etc.) by scientists. Ever. It doesn't mean we don't know what we have already learned; it just means there is a lot more of the same stuff to find and to learn.

As long as you keep repeating things we know are not true about evolution, we're not going to believe you're really listening to us. You cannot just say "this is my opinion and that is yours" when your opinion is based on misconceptions, and we (the ones who DO have degrees in this stuff and/or have made it our primary field of study) keep trying to tell you what those misconceptions are.

If you read this post, and then in the next post say something that makes it clear you did not listen to someone who's telling you that you have biology wrong, then you're basically arguing with your mechanic because you think the engine "ought to" run properly and don't like him telling you what you're doing to damage it.

i understand that some people have the opinion that evolution is completely random and not intelligently designed  i just dont have that opinion . there is no proof its simply a theory noone really knows for sure or were there to document the evolution or perform testing during the process so its a theory . i do understand the theory of evolution that some people think had nothing to do with intelligent direction/design .

---

ok switch the word proof with the word evidence making a mistake between putting the word  proof and the word evidence isnt being dishonest its a mistake with two words that are more or less synonymous and yes i achnowledge my error at making assumptions about you i even apologized for making assumptions leading to the 'strawman' error , acknowledged fully

No, fucking up once, twice, a few times.  That's a mistake.  Fucking up everytime, persisting in the behavior after it's been pointed out to you and -as- it's being pointed out to you, is not.  So save it.   You've worked hard, for pages and pages, over the span of two days..to end up here.   I hope you're enjoying the fruits of your labor.

Even now, in this, you've failed to acknowledge the very words I just typed to you - you stopped right there, at a convenient point....as if there wasn't something much more valuable than whatever credibility you think you might salvage...mentioned in my post.

yes i am enjoying the fruits of my labor very much

---

yes but since i do know basic science and history you saying that i dont have an education is deceptive

Except that your lack of education is apparent for all to see.

Now pardon me as I stop answering you; I don't make a habit of bandying words with fools, and I'm not about to start with you.

Enjoy the ignore list.

being ignored by you will be torture but ill try to go on