Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...

[Boss]

Boss's spirituality evolved backwards.

We argue we don't need a God. He argues that the Christian God is a lie.

And the funny part? That makes me more Christian than him.

LOL

I think you may be more Christian. You seem to believe in a Christian God more than myself.

 

[Boss]

right, because all evidence is subjective, and your opinion of whether it is evidence is just as valid as anyone else's. yes, I gathered that from about the first 3 posts I ever saw from you. Boss, while you may have convinced yourself of this goofy idea long ago, you really aren't convincing anyone else or putting any dents in well-founded scientific theories.

Replies: 760
Views: 14,500

So now you have clairvoyant powers and can speak for 14,500 people who have mostly not replied to this thread?

Amazing!

argumentum ad populum: In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

 

[BreezeWood]

Replies: 760
Views: 14,500

So now you have clairvoyant powers and can speak for 14,500 people who have mostly not replied to this thread?

there may be a deeper meaning to that boss you've not considered ... a lack of correspondence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

right, because all evidence is subjective, and your opinion of whether it is evidence is just as valid as anyone else's. yes, I gathered that from about the first 3 posts I ever saw from you. Boss, while you may have convinced yourself of this goofy idea long ago, you really aren't convincing anyone else or putting any dents in well-founded scientific theories.

Replies: 760
Views: 14,500

So now you have clairvoyant powers and can speak for 14,500 people who have mostly not replied to this thread?

Amazing!

argumentum ad populum: In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

You, for the second time in this thread, have used the term "ad populum" incorrectly. In the first case, it was only you wielding an ad populum argument, as you were calling evidence "all subjective", and therefore judging its merit on consensus.. In this latest case, i did not argue that you were wrong because you have not convinced anyone . So that was another incorrect use. maybe you should stop using terms you do not fully understand.

 

[Boss]

Replies: 760
Views: 14,500

So now you have clairvoyant powers and can speak for 14,500 people who have mostly not replied to this thread?

there may be a deeper meaning to that boss you've not considered ... a lack of correspondence.

Hey, I'm just responding to his proclamation that no one was being convinced. I'm not sure how he could know that since it appears many of them aren't replying. Again, this was a weak and pathetic attempt at argumentum ad populum.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Replies: 760
Views: 14,500

So now you have clairvoyant powers and can speak for 14,500 people who have mostly not replied to this thread?

there may be a deeper meaning to that boss you've not considered ... a lack of correspondence.

Hey, I'm just responding to his proclamation that no one was being convinced. I'm not sure how he could know that since it appears many of them aren't replying. Again, this was a weak and pathetic attempt at argumentum ad populum.

"Hey, I'm just responding to his proclamation that no one was being convinced. "

yes, I know, because that is what desperate people do.... they seize on pedantic, non-germane points to beat to death when they are losing badly. You got me. i cannot possibly know the minds of everyone on the planet. I admit, I was incorrect to pretend I did.

Looks like you were right that all evidence is 100% subjective. *rolls eyes

 

[Boss]

right, because all evidence is subjective, and your opinion of whether it is evidence is just as valid as anyone else's. yes, I gathered that from about the first 3 posts I ever saw from you. Boss, while you may have convinced yourself of this goofy idea long ago, you really aren't convincing anyone else or putting any dents in well-founded scientific theories.

Replies: 760
Views: 14,500

So now you have clairvoyant powers and can speak for 14,500 people who have mostly not replied to this thread?

Amazing!

argumentum ad populum: In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

You, for the second time in this thread, have used the term "ad populum" incorrectly. In the first case, it was only you wielding an ad populum argument, as you were calling evidence "all subjective", and therefore judging its merit on consensus.. In this latest case, i did not argue that you were wrong because you have not convinced anyone . So that was another incorrect use. maybe you should stop using terms you do not fully understand.

I made the correct statement that all evidence is subjective and I cited numerous examples to support my argument. You've not refuted my argument because you can't.

 

[Boss]

You got me. i cannot possibly know the minds of everyone on the planet. I admit, I was incorrect to pretend I did.

LOL... Now, bow and kiss my ring!

Not only can you not know the minds of everyone on the planet, you can't know the minds of 14,500 USMB thread viewers who mostly haven't bothered to reply with their opinions in this thread. Hell, you seem to have lost your own mind most of the time. You should worry more about keeping up with that than how many people I might be convincing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

right, because all evidence is subjective, and your opinion of whether it is evidence is just as valid as anyone else's. yes, I gathered that from about the first 3 posts I ever saw from you. Boss, while you may have convinced yourself of this goofy idea long ago, you really aren't convincing anyone else or putting any dents in well-founded scientific theories.

Replies: 760
Views: 14,500

So now you have clairvoyant powers and can speak for 14,500 people who have mostly not replied to this thread?

Amazing!

argumentum ad populum: In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

You, for the second time in this thread, have used the term "ad populum" incorrectly. In the first case, it was only you wielding an ad populum argument, as you were calling evidence "all subjective", and therefore judging its merit on consensus.. In this latest case, i did not argue that you were wrong because you have not convinced anyone . So that was another incorrect use. maybe you should stop using terms you do not fully understand.

I made the correct statement that all evidence is subjective and I cited numerous examples to support my argument. You've not refuted my argument because you can't.

You got me. i cannot possibly know the minds of everyone on the planet. I admit, I was incorrect to pretend I did.

LOL... Now, bow and kiss my ring!

Not only can you not know the minds of everyone on the planet, you can't know the minds of 14,500 USMB thread viewers who mostly haven't bothered to reply with their opinions in this thread. Hell, you seem to have lost your own mind most of the time. You should worry more about keeping up with that than how many people I might be convincing.

You're not very honest. What you have attempted to do here is not to prove that all evidence carries a degree of subjectivity , but rather that all evidence is therefore equally subjective. This is, of course, ridiculous and false. I have deconstructed your attempt to do this and have laid bare your motives for doing it. Thank goodness we invented the scientific method, to drag ourselves out of this murk you are bathing yourself in. You are wrong, you will always be wrong, and thank goodness for that.

What I find kind of annoying is that people like you enjoy the fruits of your own philosophy being proven to be absurd and incorrect. Yet here you are, on your quantum machine, peddling your nonsense over electromagnetic waves carried by satellites fully reliant on the theory of relativity, enjoying a longer lifespan thanks to a field of science completely reliant and based on a theory which you shit all over.

 

[sealybobo]

Dude? Don't you ever watch Animal Planet, Nat Geo, Wild Kingdom... Lion King? Other animals kill each other all the time! I could actually make the argument that because of our spirituality, we are LESS likely to kill each other! I know that may sound bizarre to you but think about it... at some point, some cave man had to lay down beside another cave man of a different tribe and trust he wasn't going to kill him and his family in the middle of the night and steal his stuff. A mutual spirit greater than self would help provide that kind of trust and faith.

I grew up on those shows, esp Wild Kingdom. Other animals of the same species do kill each other at times, but it is rare, because obviously evolution does not favor that trait. But humans kill each other at a phenomenal rate. And the big purges are due to wrong beliefs in human-created religions or politics.

There are over 1,700 recorded wars in human history. Only 142 were over religion. Most of the time, they are over power and control of resources.

You're totally wrong about evolution, that's exactly what it favors and that's a vital aspect to natural selection. Survival of the fittest... have you never heard that phrase? For MANY species, the foundation of their "social society" is rooted in dominance by the alpha male who kills his challengers.

You SAY that you have a moral and ethical life but I've never known any human to say anything different. Obviously, some humans are lying, don't you agree? If you don't have any accountability for your morality and ethics they are only as strong as your character in a given situation. In other words, your morals can change depending on circumstances.

No, morals don't change. They are stamped into us early during the period of growth and discovery, and many are instinctual. Only religious/political rulers can get you to do something against your morals. Like killing strangers, because you're told to. And there's a lot of mental health issues that come from having to follow those orders. Morals are trying to stay the same. Having to break those morals based on an order, has a big consequence on what evolution has established.

Morals DO change, especially if they have no foundation. It's very easy to proclaim that you're not a liar but I'll bet that at some point in life, you have indeed told a lie. That means you ARE a liar in spite of your moralistic claim to the contrary. People with no spiritual moring will often abandon their moral principles for the sake of their own personal needs.

How many devoutly spiritual people do you reckon get abortions? I would be willing to bet it is very, very few. Abortion is a good example of people abandoning their morals for the sake of vanity and convenience. They literally justify killing another human being and have convinced themselves there is nothing morally wrong about that.

And on your next post you said:

doesn't nature cast judgement on species when it renders them extinct? If a certain species doesn't meet adequate requirements of reproduction it goes extinct.

That's evolution. There was no judgement cast. Nobody said that that life form was right or wrong. It just couldn't keep up and died out.

Yes, nature judged a species no longer met minimal requirements of survival. The judgement cast was extinction.

You're totally wrong about evolution, that's exactly what it favors and that's a vital aspect to natural selection. Survival of the fittest... have you never heard that phrase? For MANY species, the foundation of their "social society" is rooted in dominance by the alpha male who kills his challengers.

LOL, kills his challengers even! Whew doggies that's a bold assertion. How many babies does your alpha male have? Boss claims a species survives by killing itself. The big and the bold get the headlines in the newspaper, but they are not the ones creating all the babies.

MISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those that are strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.

CORRECTION: In evolutionary terms, fitness has a very different meaning than the everyday meaning of the word. An organism's evolutionary fitness does not indicate its health, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation. The more fertile offspring an organism leaves in the next generation, the fitter it is. This doesn't always correlate with strength, speed, or size. For example, a puny male bird with bright tail feathers might leave behind more offspring than a stronger, duller male, and a spindly plant with big seed pods may leave behind more offspring than a larger specimen — meaning that the puny bird and the spindly plant have higher evolutionary fitness than their stronger, larger counterparts. To learn more about evolutionary fitness, visit Evolution 101.

MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population.

CORRECTION: Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. In most populations, organisms with many different genetic variations survive, reproduce, and leave offspring carrying their genes in the next generation. It is not simply the one or two "best" individuals in the population that pass their genes on to the next generation. This is apparent in the populations around us: for example, a plant may not have the genes to flourish in a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. These individuals may not be the "fittest" in the population, but they are "fit enough" to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about evolutionary fitness, visit Evolution 101.

Misconceptions about evolution

For those just now tuning in... What we're seeing here is what happens with arrogant blowhards who can't support their arguments. Whenever they are defeated, they have to run find some trivial little detail to start an entirely new argument with. When that argument is defeated, they'll find another trivial detail to argue. It's a never-ending argument style. It doesn't really matter if they have to lie and distort what someone said to create their new argument, as long as it detracts from the previously defeated old argument. The objective is to appear they've not lost the argument.

I've seen people who are very good at this. They can surf almost seamlessly from one trivial argument to the next and you hardly even notice they've completely changed the topic. McDuff isn't one of those posters.

Excuse you...you are the arrogant blowhard....time after time you have been corrected on the completely incorrect things you have said, for example, about the theory of evolution. Not once have you admitted your errors. Not once have you discarded your false premises, and the arguments you make from them. You honestly believe that you present a challenge to the most well founded the sort in the history of mankind by saying, "Nuh-uh!". All of that is the height of arrogance and the very definition of "blowhard". So, yet again, you accuse others of doing exactly what it is you are doing, as you do it.

So it's not just me who thinks this about boss?

And I love it that he says he talks to real scientists all the time. I wonder if he ever listens?

 

[sealybobo]

You've yet to explain origin of life.

Nuts to that. We are having enough trouble getting evolution through your Neandertal skull. Even kiddies understand evolution.

Maybe that's my problem? I'm not a kiddie. I don't believe in MACROevolution because there is no science to support it.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Talkingorigins.org is a hack website designed to promote your anti-Christian dogma.

There is no valid scientific evidence macroevolution ever happened. NONE!

Plenty of evidence. They admit they don't have the full picture of origins but from what we know your creation theory is junk. And yes they pretty much know all living things are related

 

[Boss]

You're not very honest. What you have attempted to do here is not to prove that all evidence carries a degree of subjectivity , but rather that all evidence is therefore equally subjective. Rhinos, of course, ridiculous and false. I have deconstructed your attempt to do this and have laid bare your motives for doing it. Thank goodness we invented the scientific method, to drag ourselves out of this murk you are bathing yourself in. You are wrong, you will always be wrong, and thank goodness for that.

No... What you have done is perverted science to use as a tool against Christians who you hate.

Thanks for publicly admitting evidence is subjective like I said. I never made the claim of "equality" because, again, that is a subjective term. Therefore, it is redundant. In this context, you're attempting to use "equal" to elevate your subjective evidence above other subjective evidence. But as I said, you're just being redundant. All evidence is subjective and whether it is equal, greater than or less than, is also subjective.

 

[Boss]

Plenty of evidence. They admit they don't have the full picture of origins but from what we know your creation theory is junk. And yes they pretty much know all living things are related

You keep flip flopping, sillyboob! You admitted they don't know.... now they "pretty much know."

You have still not presented any valid scientific evidence for origin of life. None. Zero. Nadda!

You've also presented nothing to refute creation theory. Just your personal proclamation.

 

[sealybobo]

Plenty of evidence. They admit they don't have the full picture of origins but from what we know your creation theory is junk. And yes they pretty much know all living things are related

You keep flip flopping, sillyboob! You admitted they don't know.... now they "pretty much know."

You have still not presented any valid scientific evidence for origin of life. None. Zero. Nadda!

You've also presented nothing to refute creation theory. Just your personal proclamation.

Bullshit! All it takes is a quick internet search to uncover so much evidence it's overwhelming. You are being will fully ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

No they don't have the full picture but the evidence we have does not lead to anything you're saying.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes the most basic building blocks of life can get cooked together then Frozen in deep space and land on planets like earth and life flourishes. I saw a quick 7 minute YouTube explaining how simple atoms and protein and molecules and carbon hydrogen bla bla ultimately single cell turns into complex life.

Why can't we survive temperatures like tardigrades? Why don't we live longer than trees? Why aren't we as fast as cheetahs? Why can't we fly? Or eyes like an eagle? Hearing like a deer? God could have done better with us.

 

[Boss]

Bullshit! All it takes is a quick internet search to uncover so much evidence it's overwhelming. You are being will fully ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

No they don't have the full picture but the evidence we have does not lead to anything you're saying.

Just for shits and giggles, I did a few quick inquiries...


evidence sealybobo is a genius: 6 results

evidence for abiogenesis: About 125,000 results

evidence a UFO crashed at Roswell: About 301,000 results

evidence elvis is alive: About 381,000 results

evidence dick cheney is a reptilian: About 494,000 results

evidence boss is awesome: About 623,000 results

proof we faked the moon landing: About 1,150,000 results

evidence demons are real: About 4,660,000 results

evidence 9/11 was an inside job: About 5,000,000 results

evidence god exists: About 8,160,000 results

evidence reality is an illusion: About 15,000,000 results

evidence of spiritual nature: About 45,200,000 results

Wow... all it took was a quick internet search and look at all the evidence I found!

 

[sealybobo]

Bullshit! All it takes is a quick internet search to uncover so much evidence it's overwhelming. You are being will fully ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

No they don't have the full picture but the evidence we have does not lead to anything you're saying.

Just for shits and giggles, I did a few quick inquiries...


evidence sealybobo is a genius: 6 results

evidence for abiogenesis: About 125,000 results

evidence a UFO crashed at Roswell: About 301,000 results

evidence elvis is alive: About 381,000 results

evidence dick cheney is a reptilian: About 494,000 results

evidence boss is awesome: About 623,000 results

proof we faked the moon landing: About 1,150,000 results

evidence demons are real: About 4,660,000 results

evidence 9/11 was an inside job: About 5,000,000 results

evidence god exists: About 8,160,000 results

evidence reality is an illusion: About 15,000,000 results

evidence of spiritual nature: About 45,200,000 results

Wow... all it took was a quick internet search and look at all the evidence I found!

I go with the top 3 most popular ones.

 

[Boss]

Yes the most basic building blocks of life can get cooked together then Frozen in deep space and land on planets like earth and life flourishes. I saw a quick 7 minute YouTube explaining how simple atoms and protein and molecules and carbon hydrogen bla bla ultimately single cell turns into complex life.

Why can't we survive temperatures like tardigrades? Why don't we live longer than trees? Why aren't we as fast as cheetahs? Why can't we fly? Or eyes like an eagle? Hearing like a deer? God could have done better with us.

What you didn't see was scientific evidence to prove your conjectures because you haven't presented any.

 

[Boss]

I go with the top 3 most popular ones.

Wow... Even with the knowledge that popularity is not a scientific argument?

 

[sealybobo]

Yes the most basic building blocks of life can get cooked together then Frozen in deep space and land on planets like earth and life flourishes. I saw a quick 7 minute YouTube explaining how simple atoms and protein and molecules and carbon hydrogen bla bla ultimately single cell turns into complex life.

Why can't we survive temperatures like tardigrades? Why don't we live longer than trees? Why aren't we as fast as cheetahs? Why can't we fly? Or eyes like an eagle? Hearing like a deer? God could have done better with us.

What you didn't see was scientific evidence to prove your conjectures because you haven't presented any.

Now I know others see what I see about you you're kind of funny