Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2015, 03:15 AM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Well, it's now been over a week since my last post. This is a final warning for gwsm1992. If you do not post within the next 48 hours, I will consider this debate forfeited. I'll then make my closing remarks before asking a moderator to lock down the thread. If you do not want me to have the last, unchallenged, word; you had better make your presence known.

Acting like your non-interventionist 'god' does not win you the debate.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
07-05-2015, 08:20 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Ooo! I forgot about this! My computer restarted at the tab closed!

So do you believe that the universe has always existed? This sounds like a lot of we don't really knows to me. That's ok, since what I say is non-falsifiable as well. Though I'm sure you can say a lot about that, since what you are saying is scientific and can eventually be something falsifiable, while God is never something falsifiable, since it is outside of space and time.

Hm. If God is non-falsifiable, then maybe we can't argue about him.
Find all posts by this user
07-05-2015, 09:29 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2015 01:23 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
You know what? This still doesn't look like a meaningful definition for your god. Drinking Beverage


(07-05-2015 08:20 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Ooo! I forgot about this! My computer restarted at the tab closed!


[Image: 1319427168001.jpg]

In English perhaps?


(07-05-2015 08:20 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  So do you believe that the universe has always existed?


I believe that our current universe has been expanding and continues to expand based upon the best available evidence we have. What there may have been before our universe, if anything at all, and even assuming that one can meaningfully ask what came 'before' temporal time existed if even it did have a starting point; we don't have enough evidence to confidently say for sure.

So of course any ancient story book of myth and fables written by ancient people with far less access to information than we do will be held accountable if they start make positive claims.


(07-05-2015 08:20 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  This sounds like a lot of we don't really knows to me.


Which when you do not have adequate information, knowledge, or evidence; is in fact the correct answer. When you do not know something, admit you do not know it. Pretending to 'know' things when you do not actually 'know' them (such as making positive claims without, or contradictory to, the evidence) is colloquially known as lying.


(07-05-2015 08:20 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  That's ok, since what I say is non-falsifiable as well. Though I'm sure you can say a lot about that, since what you are saying is scientific and can eventually be something falsifiable, while God is never something falsifiable, since it is outside of space and time.


See my point above. How do you 'know' that your god is outside of space and time? Do you have evidence to support that assertion? If not, then you do not 'know' what you are seemingly claiming to know.

Again, we call that lying.


(07-05-2015 08:20 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Hm. If God is non-falsifiable, then maybe we can't argue about him.


Either you can define your god in such a way as to be meaningful (i.e. falsifaible).

Or you can realize that many of the common definitions used for god (i.e. outside of space and time) are meaningless.

Make of that what you will. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
08-05-2015, 02:17 AM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
I would think that just because something is non-falsifiable does not mean it is meaningless.
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2015, 02:33 AM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2015 04:23 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(08-05-2015 02:17 AM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  I would think that just because something is non-falsifiable does not mean it is meaningless.


It is meaningless, because it has no meaning. It's the very definition of meaningless. You can project meaning onto it, but there is nothing there that can be objectively quantified. You continue to want to posit a god 'outside of time and space', yet you have utterly failed to even begin to define what that would even begin to mean in any meaningful (i.e. falsifiable) sense. That is what I mean when I say it is 'meaningless'. I can quantify temperature; by defining it, falsifying it, and objectively measuring it. Can you do the same for something 'outside of space and time'? Until you can, then 'outside of time and space' is meaningless as anything other than a sting of words in English or a turn of phrase or a nebulous fictional concept.


It is just as meaningful as Darth Vader, a fictional character that plays a role in a fictional galaxy. The stories may or may not be interesting, you may or may not like Darth Vader or attribute meaning to the character or his actions; but Darth Vader does not actually exist as anything other than a fictional construct. There never was a Darth Vader, just a story about Darth Vader, a movie adapted from a screenplay, costume designers and prop makers that created his look, actors who portrayed him, James Earl Jones who voiced him, and many other people who helped bring to life the fiction that was Darth Vader.


Now stop and think about that, and compare that to the uncountable lines of hearsay that all of your 'knowledge' of your god stems from. Everything you've ever read, heard, or talked about your god stems from one of the longest games of Chinese Telephone in history.


So tell me again, just how 'meaningful' is it? If you want to posit that something actually exists, that you derive some meaning from the idea of the concept existing does not in fact make that thing exist; belief is not sufficient evidence to substantiate existence.


To the best of our knowledge, 'god' is nothing more than a concept.


Unless you have a meaningful (i.e. falsifiable) definition you'd like to posit and substantiate with some evidence?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
08-05-2015, 09:09 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Ok ok. I think I might be getting it. Sorry. I have argued with people about God before and they have never said anything about non-falsifiable before, so I really didn't understand the concept. I also don't understand the concept really as I have never taken philosophy before, but I think it is starting to make sense.

The idea of God to be comes from a few different places: the Bible and the problem with science not being able to answer every question yet. Until science can answer every question, what is the problem in believing in something that is non-falsifiable rather than saying I don't know? As for the Bible, that is where I get the other idea instead of I don't know.

We don't know if the Big Bang really happened, we don't know where or how life actually began in the theory of abiogenesis, and we don't know where all the transitional fossils are. Instead of saying, science will find the answer, even though we don't know that, why not instead say, I believe a God did it?

The idea of God involves Him being outside of space and time as well as being eternal, meaning that He is non-falsifiable. Is there anyway to work around that?
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2015, 10:28 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2015 04:45 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Funny, this still doesn't sound like a meaningful definition of your god. Drinking Beverage


(08-05-2015 09:09 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Ok ok. I think I might be getting it. Sorry. I have argued with people about God before and they have never said anything about non-falsifiable before, so I really didn't understand the concept. I also don't understand the concept really as I have never taken philosophy before, but I think it is starting to make sense.


What would be the point of two people arguing over what color a car is if they can't agree on what the colors even are? Defining your terms is a crucial point of any debate. I imagine that your previous 'debates' probably consisted of a lot of talking past one another, because each of you meant something different every time you said 'god'.

Also stop and think about that fact that you, the believer attempting to defend a positive position, is being stumped and are entirely unable to even provide a meaningful definition of what it is you are arguing for to someone who has admittedly thought about this far more than you have. That aught to tell you something.



(08-05-2015 09:09 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  The idea of God to be comes from a few different places: the Bible and the problem with science not being able to answer every question yet.


Indoctrination and ignorance, not terribly great reasons to believe anything, especially sans evidence.


(08-05-2015 09:09 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Until science can answer every question, what is the problem in believing in something that is non-falsifiable rather than saying I don't know?


The moment science can answer every question, science becomes obsolete; which will not be happening in the foreseeable future, nor is it any sort of honest standard to hold it too. Just because science hasn't answered every question, doesn't negate the fact that it has been the best method we have ever developed for determining the truth. Incidentally, did you renounce your parents for not having an answer to your every question? Have you renounced your religion for not having the answer to every question, or having contradictory answers to the same questions?

Let's also not forget that every claim made by the world's religions is either not evidently true, or evidently not true.

What is the problem on believing things without evidence? Once your threshold is that low, that you attribute positive belief in things without evidence, you'll find yourself having to believe in all of the things. If you apply the same abysmally low standards equally across the board, then you should also believe in alien abductions, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, astral projection, psychics, astrology, crystal healing, homeopathy, dowsing rods, and the existence of every god ever imagined, including clearly fictitious ones like Krom and Cthulhu.

And in case you haven't already noticed, equal belief in the existence of mutually exclusive deities is somewhat logically inconsistent and contradictory.


(08-05-2015 09:09 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  As for the Bible, that is where I get the other idea instead of I don't know.


Learn the history of the Bible, the actual history as supported by a majority of the world's anthropologists, archaeologists, and religious scholars. Also note that a Christian claiming the Bible as 'knowledge' is no better or more factually accurate than a Muslin claiming the Koran. The Bible is a claim, not the evidence, so there is that as well. But I'll not let this debate be side-tracked further by your meanderings.

Needless to say, if I were to ask you for the measurement of pi, and you were to quote the Bible and answer '3', you would be demonstrably wrong.

(Also you don't get stripped and speckled lambs by displaying sticks to pregnant sheep. Genesis 30:39)


(08-05-2015 09:09 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  We don't know if the Big Bang really happened, we don't know where or how life actually began in the theory of abiogenesis, and we don't know where all the transitional fossils are. Instead of saying, science will find the answer, even though we don't know that, why not instead say, I believe a God did it?


Simple, for the same reason that it would be meaningless to say that 'Nork did it'.

Filling in the gaps of our knowledge with 'god did it' doesn't answer any questions, it merely pushes the answers back further, and leaves us with even more unanswered questions. Once you assume a divine agent (and you do have to assume, as there is no evidence to support this conclusion), now you've introduced a whole new needless layer of inquiry. This sort of reasoning has lead us to the ritualistic slaughter of animals and people in an effort to divine the will of or appease the gods that control the weather; science helped us develop the field of meteorology and launch weather satellites into Earth's orbit.

Also, do you know what the cosmic microwave background radiation is? No? Then educate yourself before defying the almost universal consensus vis-à-vis the Big Bang and evidence in support thereof.


(08-05-2015 09:09 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  The idea of God involves Him being outside of space and time as well as being eternal, meaning that He is non-falsifiable. Is there anyway to work around that?


So I take it that reading comprehension is not one of your strong suites?



Either you can define your god in such a way as to be meaningful (i.e. falsifaible).

Or you can realize that many of the common definitions used for god (i.e. outside of space and time) are meaningless.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
09-05-2015, 04:04 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Usually we don't bring up the meaning of color, because most people agree on what colors are. If people can't agree on colors, then probably there is no point in having an argument. If we can't even agree on the idea of God, then I don't know how we could even have an argument. And sure, I now you would then say, it is not that, but more that I can't define it. What have other people come up with when you argue with them? What do other people say the definition of God is if it isn't outside of space and time?

Sure, it is indoctrination. That is why I argue with people like you Big Grin So that it can become true instead. Unless it is proved false which is something I would like to happen instead if everyone I argue with says its indoctrination.

No I didn't renounce my parents just because they didn't answer every question. Nor would I renounce God if he didn't give an acceptable answer (in some circumstances). However, science is not a human or a God, something personal. If they don't have an answer, there is a reason. Either they don't know, or they don't want to say. Science has to eventually answer every question. I don't even necessarily mean it needs to answer every question anyway. More those three questions that I brought up. Those are big questions that a lot of science hinges on I would think. But I don't think science is going to be able to come up with acceptable answers ever, because I don't think those things can happen with chance, the formation of the universe, life, and evolution.

We don't have to argue about the Bible, but the part of God being outside of space and time, and eternal, comes from the Bible, because those things are non-falsifiable. I didn't just make them up like Nork. The Bible is not evidence, but as far as I go with my indoctrination, the claims have not been proved false. I don't think there is enough evidence yet to say that there was a Big Bang, etc. There might be enough evidence for you, but you don't want to believe in God, so even though there isn't much evidence, you still believe it. There is not enough evidence for me. There is no evidence for any of the other things that you spoke of, like Nork and Cthulhu. There might be claims, but they must have been much more false than Biblical claims.

Pi is not 3. That's pretty close though Smile Would you rather it go out to the 100th decimal place?

Nork seems pretty cool, but there seems to be a lot less claims about him than God. There is a book about God, while I have never heard of Nork before. There is no evidence in itself for God, unless there isn't evidence to support the contrary. If there isn't evidence for the beginning of life without something making it, then one would go on to assume that something made it. Sure, some religions kill animals to appease a God, some don't. I don't.

Cosmic background radiation has a lot of problems still. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/c...ackground/ Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
09-05-2015, 04:42 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2015 04:54 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
I'll get back to the rest of this later, but...


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Cosmic background radiation has a lot of problems still. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/c...ackground/ Big Grin


Really? Fucking really? One of the most dishonest charlatans around? A man whose idea of adhering to Biblical literalness is being unable to build a replica (i.e. landlocked and not even sea worthy) boat with the benefit of modern equipment, materials, workforce, and millions of dollars in funding; to recreate something supposedly created by a 600+ year old man and his 3 sons in a year with only hand tools?


Fucking really?


Don't link me to Answers in Genesis. If you cannot begin to fucking understand the topic, then just fucking quit. Do not link me to some pseudoscientific bullshit as a stand in for your inability to get a high-school education. AIG is just as sound a source for information as citing the National Inquirer about the habits of Madonna and her bat-boy love child with Elvis...


And you STILL haven't supplied a meaningful definition for your god. Stop pussy-footin' around the fucking problem. Either put up or shut up, I'm rather sick and tired of your evasive time-wasting bullshit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
09-05-2015, 10:59 PM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 03:49 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Once again, I'm noticing a complete lack of a definition. Dodgy


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Usually we don't bring up the meaning of color, because most people agree on what colors are.


Let me stop you right there, "most people"? Even that tacitly admits that there are some who do not agree, and that is the entire fucking point.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  If people can't agree on colors, then probably there is no point in having an argument. If we can't even agree on the idea of God, then I don't know how we could even have an argument.


Indeed, that is the point. Unless we can agree on what we mean by 'god', then there is no point going forward.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  And sure, I now you would then say, it is not that, but more that I can't define it. What have other people come up with when you argue with them? What do other people say the definition of God is if it isn't outside of space and time?


The Yahweh of the Old Testament isn't outside of space and time. Going by the stories, he would manifest as a burning bush, cheated in a wrestling match with Jacob, and lives up in the clouds in a place that can be reached with a sufficiently high ladder or tower.

This god is falsifiable, because he lives above the firmament, and we can test for the existence of this global glass dome that stretches up from the foundations of the Earth. The firmament clearly doesn't exist, those stories were simply borrowed from even earlier Sumerian and Babylonian creation stories and views of cosmology.

This is why religious claims are either evidently not true (there is no firmament), or not evidently true (god exists outside of space and time).

Your god concept was merely moved outside of the universe and perceptible reality in order to move him from evidently not true to not evidently true, for the express purpose of hiding him from falsification.

Why does a god that really exists need to be so hidden from the rest of the world, and by his own followers no less?



(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Sure, it is indoctrination. That is why I argue with people like you Big Grin So that it can become true instead.


Arguing does not make something true. For something to be evidently true requires evidence, and it's precisely what you lack; which is why religions rely upon indoctrination whereas science teaches facts. One side needs brainwashing, precisely because it doesn't have evidence. Once again, that aught to tell you something.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Unless it is proved false which is something I would like to happen instead if everyone I argue with says its indoctrination.


That's not how it works, assuming something is true until proven false is a terrible fucking way to get to the truth. Case in point, the Muslims do the exact same fucking thing as the Christians, but come to entirely different conclusions and 'truths'. Why? Because assuming you're right is a terrible way to figure out the truth, because it's terrible at figuring out if you're wrong. Don't believe me? Try to convince a Muslim that he is a heretic and should convert to your religion because you have the one and only truth by merely asserting that he cannot prove you wrong. Tell me how convincing it would be if a Muslim said the same thing to you.

The Jews say the Christians are wrong, the Christians say the Muslims are wrong, and the Muslims say the Jews are wrong; and anyone not indoctrinated into any of those religions says they're all correct. They are all wrong, or at least, none of them is more evidently true than the others.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  No I didn't renounce my parents just because they didn't answer every question.


Then why do you hold your parent's and science to different standards? I can already tell you, it's called special pleading, and it's a crock of shit.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Nor would I renounce God if he didn't give an acceptable answer (in some circumstances).


Why not? And under what circumstance would you renounce your 'god'?


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  However, science is not a human or a God, something personal.


Science is a method, one that forces us to go against our own biases (especially confirmation biases), which is precisely why it works so damn well.

[Image: science.jpg]


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  If they don't have an answer, there is a reason. Either they don't know, or they don't want to say.


Knowing, but not saying, is the antithesis of science. Do not conflate the two.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Science has to eventually answer every question.


No it does not, but I doubt we'll stop striving for understanding anytime soon.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  I don't even necessarily mean it needs to answer every question anyway.


Then choose your words more carefully.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  More those three questions that I brought up. Those are big questions that a lot of science hinges on I would think.


That's because you don't know what you won't know. You've clearly made zero effort to actually get yourself an education and even begin to understand just how out of your depth you are here.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  But I don't think science is going to be able to come up with acceptable answers ever, because I don't think those things can happen with chance, the formation of the universe, life, and evolution.


You, who admittedly doesn't understand the scientific explanations for anything, who professes ignorance at every turn, is unconvinced that the universe is anything other than the special creation of a divine agent.

Why should anyone else fucking care?

Your personal incredulity is not evidence for jack shit.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  We don't have to argue about the Bible, but the part of God being outside of space and time, and eternal, comes from the Bible, because those things are non-falsifiable.


As noted earlier, those are later additions and interpretations tacked on for the express purpose of hiding god from falsifiability.

Once again, if god really existed, one has to wonder why his followers try so hard to hide him from non-believers.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  I didn't just make them up like Nork.


And yet my Nork has the exact same explanatory power your god does, imagine that? How do you explain that?


What created the universe? God/Nork!

Who created people? God/Nork!

Who is the basis for absolute moral authority? God/Nork!


Funny how that works, isn't it? The only difference between a religion and a cult, is that in a cult the guy who know's it's all bullshit is still alive. In a religion, that person is long dead.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  The Bible is not evidence, but as far as I go with my indoctrination, the claims have not been proved false.


Yes, they have. Global flood? Bullshit. Firmament? More bullshit. Earth created before the sun? Even more bullshit. Once again, every claim is either evidently not true, or not evidently true.

Claims must be substantiated with evidence, claims should not be accepted at face value without evidence; and especially shouldn't be accepted once evidence to the contrary comes to light.

For the record, what would you say to a Muslim who used that exact same line of reasoning? What could you say? Nothing. He'd use the exact same reasoning to justify an entirely different conclusion, and neither of you would have evidence to back you up, and you'd both just cry "you can't prove me wrong" as if it actually proved something. This gets us nowhere, and a neutral observer would be right to call them both bullshit.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  I don't think there is enough evidence yet to say that there was a Big Bang, etc.


Oh do tell. I'm sure that your admittedly uninformed opinion on the state of the evidence is real convincing.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  There might be enough evidence for you, but you don't want to believe in God, so even though there isn't much evidence, you still believe it.


No, you have that backwards, so please stop projecting your failings onto me.

You assume there is a god, and ignore the evidence in order to maintain your preconceived conclusion. You already had your answer, you're just looking to defend it; and that's the exact opposite of how science works. Science doesn't start with a conclusion and then do everything it can to prove it correct, because that leads to confirmation bias; it's the sort of thing the incredulous do, which is why they're so terrible at picking apart truth from bullshit (like homeopathy, ghosts, psychic hotlines, astrology, and organized religions).

The scientific method works in the exact opposite way, because it's designed to combat confirmation bias. I don't accept the Big Bang because it's useful for not believing in gods (once again, defending a preferred conclusion against evidence is a bad idea), I accept the theory as the best explanatory device we have to account for the current evidence. Now if someone comes up with a better model that accounts for the evidence better and makes more accurate predictions, or if additional evidence comes to light that requires either the alteration or abandonment of this theory in favor of a new model; I will change my belief. Science is not rigid and unchanging, everything is dependent upon the state of the evidence; and when the evidence changes, you have to accept that the conclusions can change as well.

Which is precisely what religions never do.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  There is not enough evidence for me.


Not enough evidence for you? You don't even know how to evaluate evidence, so your uninformed opinion is worth fuck all.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  There is no evidence for any of the other things that you spoke of, like Nork and Cthulhu. There might be claims, but they must have been much more false than Biblical claims.


No, they're the same as biblical claims; either evidently not true, or not evidently true.



(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Pi is not 3. That's pretty close though Smile Would you rather it go out to the 100th decimal place?


Considering that the ancient Greeks and Egyptians had both managed to calculate it out to several decimal places (in addition to figuring out the world wasn't flat), I would expect better than a close approximation from a book supposedly inspired by the divine creator of said universe.

3 =/= 3.14159265359

Like I said, evidently not true. Drinking Beverage


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Nork seems pretty cool, but there seems to be a lot less claims about him than God.


No, the claims are identical. Nork just has less people who were brainwashed into accepting it unquestionably since childhood. I also have just as much authority as the Pope, there are just less people who agree with me. Also, just because more people believe something is true doesn't make it true; the world wasn't any more flat back before we learned the Earth is actually an oblate spheroid. In other words, please stop indulging in Argumentum ad populum.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  There is a book about God, while I have never heard of Nork before.


So? There is a Gospel for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is also a book called the Bhagavad Gita, which predates even the Old Testament by centuries. So does Homer's Iliad, as does the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enûma Eliš. Actually, the Enûma Eliš is the Akkadian/Babylonian creation story that the ancient Hebrew mostly copied for their version in Genesis.

Do you know what else has books? Mormonism and Scientology. Not to mention almost every other organized religion ever, almost all of which make claims to exclusivity that directly contradict the Bible. Drinking Beverage


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  There is no evidence in itself for God, unless there isn't evidence to support the contrary.


That's not how it works. If there is no evidence in favor of, then positive belief in unjustifiable and unwarranted.


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  If there isn't evidence for the beginning of life without something making it, then one would go on to assume that something made it.


Fortunately, the state of the truth is not determined by the assumptions of the ignorant and incredulous. Why assume that? Have you ever, in your life, heard of or seem your god actually create something out of nothing? I didn't think so. You have zero basis, zero reasons, zero evidence, to assume intelligent agency. On the other hand, do we see natural forces 'creating' things all around us? Like rivers and lakes, snowflakes and icicles, canyons and volcanoes? Are all snowflakes created by a snowflake making god? Or is assuming a creator an unwarranted assumption?



(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Sure, some religions kill animals to appease a God, some don't. I don't.


Had you been born somewhere else or sometime else and simply indoctrinated into a slightly different interpretation of your faith (or another faith), not only would you do so, you'd see it as a divine necessity. Read the Old Testament again, the smell of burning flesh is pleasing to your 'god'. Drinking Beverage


(09-05-2015 04:04 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Cosmic background radiation has a lot of problems still. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/c...ackground/ Big Grin

Fuck your fucking ignorant bullshit.


Creationism: Assuming god exists, and doing our best to crowbar evidence in support of our preferred conclusion, even if it doesn't fit.

[Image: CMB-chart1.jpg]

Fig. 1. Comparison of the Eddington radiation field and a 16,100 K blackbody. The blue points are the weighted values of the five spectra comprising the Eddington model. The red points are the computed values of a 16,100K blackbody, normalized to fit the composite Eddington curve at peak wavelength. The line through either curve is the best fit to the respective data.



Science: Following where the evidence takes us.

[Image: 600px-Cmbr.svg.png]

Graph of cosmic microwave background spectrum measured by the FIRAS instrument on the COBE, the most precisely measured black body spectrum in nature. The error bars are too small to be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve.


That's the difference between trying to make your preferred conclusion fit the evidence, versus following where the evidence takes you. The AIG bollocks misses the mark, while the actual scientific theory that isn't trying to cram an unnecessary god into the equation matches the evidence perfectly.



So how's that definition coming along? Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 7 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: