What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[robvalue]

Is it astounding that the best MMA fighter in the world just happens to be the MMA champion? I mean, of all the people in the world, billions, this is a massive coincidence!

No, it's not astounding at all. It's self selecting. He's the champion (women can't fight for shit ) because he beat everyone else. We're here because we survived. The fact that other stuff could have survived and taken our place as dominant species is as irrelevant as wondering why I am not MMA champion. It's exactly the same, except different.

What are the chances the guy who won the lottery also happened to have exactly the right winning ticket?

If a tree falls in the woods while I'm making a video somewhere else, does it matter?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I'm not overly concerned with peer review. But if an ID article is published, you will just say that the publisher is wacko and ignore it. So if we can look at the evidence ourselves, then we do not need to base our conclusions solely on peer review.

You have repetitively, and dubiously claimed to be a university biology student.

Where are you studying?

Who are you studying under? What's his/her name and title?

Does this person believe your above statement on peer review?

[robvalue]

Wait...

Not overly concerned with peer review?

If that's isn't an anti-science motto, I don't know what is. The absence of peer review is "making shit up".

AAA seems to want to play both sides, science and anti-science, whichever is convenient at the time.

[FebruaryOfReason]

...some words...

So because you can't see a rational explanation for this stuff, you've decided that - rather than to keep looking for a rational explanation - the best way forward is an irrational explanation?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. The lamest defence of Theism is (drum roll):

The God of Gaps.

Were you one of those guys who was saying up until a few weeks ago that there was no evidence for gravity waves, so current astronomical theories must be invalid, and therefore there is a God?

BTW. You expressed doubts that I have a degree. I could post a photo of it on here if you like. Just give me a ten digit number and the photo will include that as well.

But of course, that would just be me providing evidence, and in your book, evidence is irrelevant.

And if I can reproduce your ten digit number in my photo, I suppose you'll say it couldn't possibly have happened by coincidence and therefore God must have been involved?

[robvalue]

Let's play a game of "spot the difference".

The scientific method

[ignoramus]

I just read through all 8 pages of this.  Why do I feel like I just sat through a Sunday morning sermon!

AAA, you are entitled to your own beliefs. As a loyal religious person it is your job to defend the faith.
Having said that, it doesn't matter what discipline you study: biology, physics, robotics, etc.

You will use any knowledge you learn in your field and skew it to fit your comic book. (jesus gives you kudos when you do)
In this case its biology. You are breaking the first rule of science. Skewing the evidence to suit your outcome. That's a big naughty, naughty, no, no.

(At least I hope you're doing that! For your sake! You'll burn in hell if you're not defending Jesus!)

Just to add.
You believed in God way before you started studying biology. You had no proof then, why all of a sudden do you feel compelled to need proof all of a sudden.
Are you trying to convince yourself or us.
Since you've already decided on the outcome, you'll happily argue your case with all other disciplines as well. eg: cosmological fine tuning? Sorry, when did you become Carl Sagan?
Alex? get the program man! This guy knows his shit better than you!

[robvalue]

No, not iron. You know how Yahweh feels about iron!

[Pat Mustard]

Actually, Junk Status, in order for you to be able to claim that you'd have to show us evidence. But you cannot do that, because you've got none.

Checkmate creatard.

Sequential information in cells and molecular mediums that allow information to be transferred between molecules seem like designed features. It can easily be interpreted as evidence of design, especially when we see intelligently created technologies that resemble it, yet we never see non-living systems mimic it.

Bolded the one honest word you've said on this matter, and the most important word. Seems is not the same as is, just because something looks designed to you doesn't make it designed, especially as you've amply demonstrated that you've a woeful grasp of biology and what evidence is in general.

Underlined the second most important section. Yes, appearances can be interpreted as evidence, but unfortunately for you, they are not evidence. When you conflate the two reach phrases 'seems like' and 'can be interpreted as' you yourself are acknowledging (probably subconsciously) that you have no case.

Truly, as I described you last month, you are an arse brained creatard idiot. Oh, and by the way, how does it feel for you to get schooled by somebody who doesn't even have a science degree, especially with all your boasting about how great a student of biology you are? Stuff I remember from 20 years ago, and stuff I've picked up from popular science books are more scientificially valid that the santorum that emanates out your arse every time you try and prove god by disproving evolution.

[ignoramus]

AAA- You can't tell me this was intelligently designed! It doesn't make sense!

[FebruaryOfReason]

See how the west coast of Saudi Arabia fits the east coast of Egypt and Eritrea!
See how the west coast of Madagascar mirrors the east coast of Mozambique!



How is this possible without an intelligent designer who made himself from nothing - like a sort of spring-loaded Ikea table - using technology that we mastered in the 1950s?

Checkmate Atheists!