Evolution vs. Creation

[Charles Idemi]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
There are more bytes of data online regarding the FSM than any other god. So by your standards, it's more true than your god.

Bits, bytes, kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes and terabytes can not come up without our complex brains. This is God's handiwork.

[xxxooxxx]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
By stating it's "self evident" you destroy your entire case instantly.

how so?

[KittenKoder]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
Well of course. Every ideology thinks that their view is the only view.
Have you taken that into consideration about views of Science?
This must be acknowledged, if you want unbias truth.

Yes, and since science has no ideology I have reason to utilize it as a method for discovering reality. I lack any ideology, I simply go with the evidence, if there is no evidence to study then the assertion can be dismissed as nothing more than wishful thinking or mythology. Your notions of a "creator" are either wishful thinking or mythology, unless you have any actual evidence instead of more assertions?

[KittenKoder]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Bits, bytes, kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes and terabytes can not come up without our complex brains. This is God's handiwork.

Where is the evidence of your assertion here? I keep asking for evidence but none of you have supplied any. No evidence of your god, until you provide evidence of your god then it is nothing more than mythology.

[KittenKoder]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
how so?

Because nothing is self evident.

[Charles Idemi]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
If so, then your creator must need a creator. Then that creator needs a creator. Then that one ... and so on. Infinite regression, and thus proving your creator is impossible.

No!
Unless you don't understand or know the meaning of God( YAWEH).
Any one that bears that title can never be created. Only YAHWEH has that title.

[xxxooxxx]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
By stating it's "self evident" you destroy your entire case instantly.

Do you consider yourself an intelligent process of the Universe, or a non-intelligent one?

[xxxooxxx]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Because nothing is self evident.

Your own existence is not self evident?

[Charles Idemi]

Thomas Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>
So you're asking for a holy book that talks extensively about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, right?
You're not familiar with the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It was written by Bobby Henderson and published by Villiard Press in 2006.
The central belief is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. Pirates are revered as the original Pastafarians (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian),[9] and Henderson asserts that the steady decline in the number of pirates over the years has resulted in global warming.
So that's what you asked for.
Are you satisfied, or are you going to move the goalpost?

From your post, the said liar was never a christian. Christians always follow the tenets and precepts of the bible.

[KittenKoder]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
Your own existence is not self evident?

No, my existence is not self evident. Evidence of my existence includes, but is not limited to:

1. I can be touched.
2. I can be seen.
3. I can be tasted.
4. I can be smelled.
5. I can post responses to people.
6. I can be heard.

You need to learn what evidence is.

[Charles Idemi]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
We don't know. Until we get there we won't know. Now enough of this red herring.

FOUL!!!

[KittenKoder]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you consider yourself an intelligent process of the Universe, or a non-intelligent one?

I am the result of chemical reactions, just like you.

[KittenKoder]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> No!
Unless you don't understand or know the meaning of God( YAWEH).
Any one that bears that title can never be created. Only YAHWEH has that title.

So if you have one exception to your "rule," then why is it there can be no other exceptions? Demonstrate the boundary, the mechanism that prevents anything else from coming into existence through natural processes.

[Charles Idemi]

Thomas Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>
And that explains how humans ended up with a triune brain?
I've seen red herrings before, but this beats everything!

Digression.

[xxxooxxx]

Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Just another Science cult.

Actually, I think it was back in the 1800, there was a atheist's cult that worshiped Satan mock Christianity.

Nothing new under the sun.

[KittenKoder]

xxxooxxx wrote:

Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Just another Science cult.
Actually, I think it was back in the 1800, there was a atheist's cult that worshiped Satan mock Christianity.
Nothing new under the sun.

Wow, you are really naive. It's actually not even a belief, it's an analogy that demonstrates the folly of your religious nonsense. Just wow, I never thought anyone could be as ignorant as you, no one actually believes there is a FSM.

[FREE SERVANT]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
This was covered before...the concept is that God created time and space...therefore he is not subject to the limitation of time and space.
God would be of an infinite nature...or immortal.

God created all matter that has movement and time is just a manmade idea of measuring things that move.

[xxxooxxx]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
I am the result of chemical reactions, just like you.

That wasn't the question.The question was...

Do you consider yourself an intelligent process of the Universe, or a non-intelligent one?

(how be it chemical or otherwise)

[xxxooxxx]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, you are really naive. It's actually not even a belief, it's an analogy that demonstrates the folly of your religious nonsense. Just wow, I never thought anyone could be as ignorant as you, no one actually believes there is a FSM.

Well the Atheist cult that worshiped Satan, said they didn't believe in Satan either...they said it was set up to mock Christianity.

[KittenKoder]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
That wasn't the question.The question was...
Do you consider yourself an intelligent process of the Universe, or a non-intelligent one?
(how be it chemical or otherwise)

Your wording is ambiguous, to the point that it can mean anything, literally anything the person wants. So I did answer your question, I answered your question on how I read it.