Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#42 Apr 13, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I claim that evidence for God exists and that the evidence is much stronger than the common descent postulate, for which no evidence exists, yet you are very happy to believe that fairytale.
We have plenty of evidence for that theory, as predicted by that theory and discovered in the real world. IN fossils, genomes, biogeography, embryology, atavisms, rudimentary organs, etc.

We all know how contemptuous of physical evidence you are Shubee, notwithstanding your pretense of quoting scientists like Feynman if you think it suits your crusade.

But no one has EVER provided good evidence for the existence of God. Least of all you.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#43 Apr 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Its irrational to believe in something when you have no evidence for it.
True. And there is evidence for God. There just isn't any evidence for the common descent postulate.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#44 Apr 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you also accept the inevitable conclusion that if God exists and has these characteristics, then He must lack Free Will.
To be maximally gracious implies free will. You'll have to try much harder to prove that my definition is inconsistent.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#45 Apr 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
We all know how contemptuous of physical evidence you are Shubee, notwithstanding your pretense of quoting scientists like Feynman if you think it suits your crusade.
But no one has EVER provided good evidence for the existence of God.
Feynman's definition of science suits my crusade because that's what science is. Sorry that it doesn't favor the just-so stories that evolutionists are always telling.

Good evidence for the existence of God isn't required. We only need to accept that the evidence for God's existence is more likely than not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#46 Apr 14, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>To be maximally gracious implies free will.
There is not one ounce of logic suggesting that one implies the other. One could as easily write a computer program that applied "maximum grace" to any given inputs.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#47 Apr 14, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Feynman's definition of science suits my crusade because that's what science is. Sorry that it doesn't favor the just-so stories that evolutionists are always telling.
Thats fine, we like Feynman's definition too.

As for just so stories, that is just the crap you idiots are always demanding with your "irreducible complexity" and other superficial stupidity. Its not the core of the science.

IDIOT: "So how did feathers evolve???(and if you cannot tell me, I will tell the world your ignorance is evidence that they couldn't, so there!)

SCIENTIST: "OK dumbass, we have no fossils in this case, but here is a plausible pathway.....blah blah"

IDIOT: "You are making it up!"

Duh.

As for evidence for God? Just provide ANY. That would be a start.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#48 Apr 14, 2013
Shubee wrote:
Good evidence for the existence of God isn't required. We only need to accept that the evidence for God's existence is more likely than not.
Come on Shubee, you are a smart fellow. If anyone on these threads can provide some convincing evidence for God, you can. So cough up.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#49 Apr 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Thats fine, we like Feynman's definition too.
Who are you including in your “we”?

Richard Dawkins has said:

"The particular variety of truth that concerns me is scientific truth. And that is what I mostly want to talk about today. So what is this thing called science?… My own definition is the study of what is true about the real world." -- Richard Dawkins, University of Valencia, March 31, 2009.
everythingimportant.org/science

Clearly, Dawkins prefers a stupid definition of science.
Chimney1 wrote:
As for just so stories, that is just the crap you idiots are always demanding with your "irreducible complexity" and other superficial stupidity. Its not the core of the science.
It's not scientific for you to classify me with the Intelligent Design fanatics because I also think that they, like Richard Dawkins, have no firm grasp on the meaning of science.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#50 Apr 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Come on Shubee, you are a smart fellow. If anyone on these threads can provide some convincing evidence for God, you can. So cough up.
The evidence for God that impresses me the most is also recognized by Freeman Dyson:

According to him:

"The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind … Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom."
everythingimportant.org/naturalism
Chimney1 wrote:
There is not one ounce of logic suggesting that one implies the other. One could as easily write a computer program that applied "maximum grace" to any given inputs.
Not a problem. Let's just enhance my previous characterization of God and say that the mind of God is responsible for choosing between the alternative possibilities in nature according to the laws of quantum mechanics. God is maximally powerful, maximally knowledgeable, maximally gracious and maximally good.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#51 Apr 14, 2013
Shubee wrote:
It's not scientific for you to classify me with the Intelligent Design fanatics because I also think that they, like Richard Dawkins, have no firm grasp on the meaning of science.
I take that back. I prefer to call them the Intelligent Design enthusiasts or the Intelligent Design evangelists.

I'm very sympathetic to David Berlinski's characterization of the Intelligent Design evangelists.

An outspoken critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement. Berlinski shares the movement's disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#52 Apr 14, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Who are you including in your “we”?
Richard Dawkins has said:
"The particular variety of truth that concerns me is scientific truth. And that is what I mostly want to talk about today. So what is this thing called science?… My own definition is the study of what is true about the real world." -- Richard Dawkins, University of Valencia, March 31, 2009.
everythingimportant.org/science
Clearly, Dawkins prefers a stupid definition of science.
<quoted text> It's not scientific for you to classify me with the Intelligent Design fanatics because I also think that they, like Richard Dawkins, have no firm grasp on the meaning of science.
I did not classify you with IDers. I said that a lot of the "just so stories" you complain about arose as attempts to explain plausible pathways to those who stupidly demand "the explanation" for every little anomaly they think they have found. When one is explained, they move onto the next. More fool the evolutionists who think they have to stoop to this. On the other hand, its by conjecturing in this way that one has a base from which to search for evidence. That is how, for example, tiktaalik was discovered.

Surely you have the brains to understand that when we already have the fossil evidence for significant transitions, such as the continuum of mammal-like fossils that show the emergence of the 3-boned middle ear from the reptilian jaw...that the principle of evolution of large transitions is supported by the evidence. If we lack the fossils of the "first feathers" etc, this does not rule out their evolution. Yet that is the approach of ID.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#53 Apr 14, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> The evidence for God that impresses me the most is also recognized by Freeman Dyson:
According to him:
"The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind … Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom."
everythingimportant.org/naturalism
That looks to me like a case of mistaking an anthropomorphic analogy with reality.

Complexity researchers have been struck by Conway's purely deterministic program - "the game of life" - by how lifelike the behavior of his graphical flock appeared although it was the result of applying some simple logical rules. That's not to say quantum behavior is deterministic, but that human instincts can be fooled.

What if our own "life recognition" program - evolved to spot food and threats etc from among the inanimate rocks...is the same instinct that drove Dyson's intuition?
Not a problem. Let's just enhance my previous characterization of God and say that the mind of God is responsible for choosing between the alternative possibilities in nature according to the laws of quantum mechanics. God is maximally powerful, maximally knowledgeable, maximally gracious and maximally good.
God would also determine the laws of quantum mechanics etc. Meaning the choices He made hardly sound maximally gracious. Was the annihilation of the world (Noah), and demanding the slaughter of the Midianites (genocide), the best He could do? Really?

I would be more inclined to say your definition of God rules out the Bible (or the Quran) as a reliable source of information concerning God.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#54 Apr 14, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I take that back. I prefer to call them the Intelligent Design enthusiasts or the Intelligent Design evangelists.
I'm very sympathetic to David Berlinski's characterization of the Intelligent Design evangelists.
An outspoken critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement. Berlinski shares the movement's disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."
I am sure that Berlinski deserves all of his ex-wives. They were probably taken in initially by his pompous show of superiority, but became disgusted when they discovered he was an empty vessel. A man has a character (or lack of one) that permeates all his activities and relationships.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#55 Apr 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Surely you have the brains to understand that when we already have the fossil evidence for significant transitions, such as the continuum of mammal-like fossils that show the emergence of the 3-boned middle ear from the reptilian jaw...that the principle of evolution of large transitions is supported by the evidence.
I'm a big believer in large scale transitions. I simply doubt many of the details. If the details you refer to are absolutely conclusive, then why isn't that evidence clearly displayed on some website somewhere in picture form?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#56 Apr 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
That looks to me like a case of mistaking an anthropomorphic analogy with reality.
I see no anthropomorphism there at all.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#57 Apr 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Was the annihilation of the world (Noah), and demanding the slaughter of the Midianites (genocide), the best He could do? Really?
Jesus was asked,“Lord, are there few who are saved?”

And His reply was,“Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able."

That's certainly what the story about Noah implies. The followers of Jesus just accept that.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#58 Apr 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
God would also determine the laws of quantum mechanics etc.
Correct.
Chimney1 wrote:
Meaning the choices He made hardly sound maximally gracious.
How could grace exist without God creating sentient life and how could sentient life exist without God also creating a quantum mechanical universe?

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#59 Apr 15, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Buddhism is real, it’s not a figment of clerical imagination to frighten the flock. It’s quite popular in the east, in some Asiatic countries Buddhism is the default religion, there are some Buddhists in the west too (some quite famous celebrates) http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php... .
I know some Buddhists, considerably more human and humane than many of the christians I know
Nope, Buddhists get a better option, they come back to live again.
<quoted text>
You can believe in whatever you want, that however makes it a belief, not a fact
Genetic Adam an genetic Eve surely lived, The DNA the evidence is incontrovertible. The fact that they lived about 80,000 years apart is somewhat inconvenient for the abrahamic god books though
Nope
Magic? or hoax? You decide.
So the supernatural consciousness that decides a Buddhist deserves to live again is less ludicrous than the Christian one?
That's a real hoot. Try again, poofter.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#61 Apr 15, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Correct.
<quoted text> How could grace exist without God creating sentient life and how could sentient life exist without God also creating a quantum mechanical universe?
Topix phags hate grace, so why waste it on them?

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#62 Apr 15, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Correct.
<quoted text> How could grace exist without God creating sentient life and how could sentient life exist without God also creating a quantum mechanical universe?
Define grace.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min ChromiuMan 121,110
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 33 min Zog Has-fallen 720
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr MikeF 138,204
Darwin on the rocks 3 hr Dogen 373
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 7 hr Chimney1 381
Monkey VS Man Oct 19 Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Oct 19 TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE