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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Haha, there you go again... "My science"...just like "my evidence". As if anyone is conduct in science or accepting scientific knowledge aimply to stand in opposite of Christianity. What an embarrassing bit of nonsense.

Let's have a reality check....the only person perverting anything is you, as you misrepresent science and lie to pervert science in favor of christianity. Once again, you are the only one guilty of the accisations you contrive, which you contrive as you are committing the offense.

It must be a source of great frustration for you that science and scientists really do not care about Christianity when performing pure science. Meanwhile, you are left to equivocate and lie as you try to debase their simple, honest work to suit your goofy, bronze age superstitions. I remember being obsessed with a girl in 7th grade who didn't give me a single thought. I imagine that's your life, every day, all day, as you vainly pound away at the wall of facts and scientific theories. How depressing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I go with the top 3 most popular ones.

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

No, with the knowledge that the top hypotheses are not chosen for how they make someone get a chubby in the 3rd pew on Sunday morning, but by how much sense they make and how well they explain the evidence.

 

[Boss]

No, with the knowledge that the top hypotheses are not chosen for how they make someone get a chubby in the 3rd pew on Sunday morning, but by how much sense they make and how well they explain the evidence.

Now we know you're science illiterate. The scientific method doesn't say something is true based on how much sense it makes. Evidence can mean whatever they hell you want evidence to mean... it's entirely subjective. Hypothesis are not validated on how well they explain evidence. It's the other way around and the hypothesis becomes a theory that is always assailable by new evidence.

There's also nothing in the scientific method about chubbys in the 3rd pew on Sunday and I never claimed any kind of stupid thing like that... but this is what you've been reduced to in this thread. You're not gonna be honest anymore, you're gonna do everything you can to lie about and distort everything I say, and hope that some idiot stumbles in late and doesn't notice the epic ass kicking I've given you. Because that's just the kind of mentally weak and pathetic little punk you are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, with the knowledge that the top hypotheses are not chosen for how they make someone get a chubby in the 3rd pew on Sunday morning, but by how much sense they make and how well they explain the evidence.

Now we know you're science illiterate. The scientific method doesn't say something is true based on how much sense it makes. Evidence can mean whatever they hell you want evidence to mean... it's entirely subjective. Hypothesis are not validated on how well they explain evidence. It's the other way around and the hypothesis becomes a theory that is always assailable by new evidence.

There's also nothing in the scientific method about chubbys in the 3rd pew on Sunday and I never claimed any kind of stupid thing like that... but this is what you've been reduced to in this thread. You're not gonna be honest anymore, you're gonna do everything you can to lie about and distort everything I say, and hope that some idiot stumbles in late and doesn't notice the epic ass kicking I've given you. Because that's just the kind of mentally weak and pathetic little punk you are.

I never said that. When you have to lie amd misrepresent others to have a point, you don't really have a point. And this flailing and whining by you is embarrassing and futile. It doesn't matter that I am one who respects evidence-based knowledge, or that you are a lying charlatan trying to place your magical faith on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge. It stands, regardless of my opinion or of your goofy, bronze age beliefs. No, you have brought no real challenge to any accepted theory. You have merely equivocated and lied yourself into a pasty white little pretzel, forever frustrated that science doesn't fellate your nonsense.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

You're not gonna be honest anymore, you're gonna do everything you can to lie about and distort everything I say,

I'm not judging the outcome but that none of the combatants are above the above quote. and that includes boss who's implication of innocents is undoubtedly their weakest link.

 

[sealybobo]

No, with the knowledge that the top hypotheses are not chosen for how they make someone get a chubby in the 3rd pew on Sunday morning, but by how much sense they make and how well they explain the evidence.

Now we know you're science illiterate. The scientific method doesn't say something is true based on how much sense it makes. Evidence can mean whatever they hell you want evidence to mean... it's entirely subjective. Hypothesis are not validated on how well they explain evidence. It's the other way around and the hypothesis becomes a theory that is always assailable by new evidence.

There's also nothing in the scientific method about chubbys in the 3rd pew on Sunday and I never claimed any kind of stupid thing like that... but this is what you've been reduced to in this thread. You're not gonna be honest anymore, you're gonna do everything you can to lie about and distort everything I say, and hope that some idiot stumbles in late and doesn't notice the epic ass kicking I've given you. Because that's just the kind of mentally weak and pathetic little punk you are.

Boss this person is destroying you. It's your evidence that is subjective.

Stop calling other people science illiterate. You pervert twist and spin fact with fiction. No wonder your church has only one member.

And no you don't talk to any scientists who are experts in this area. You talk to other religious people who are used to agreeing with other religious people no matter what nonsense they say.

 

[sealybobo]

No, with the knowledge that the top hypotheses are not chosen for how they make someone get a chubby in the 3rd pew on Sunday morning, but by how much sense they make and how well they explain the evidence.

Now we know you're science illiterate. The scientific method doesn't say something is true based on how much sense it makes. Evidence can mean whatever they hell you want evidence to mean... it's entirely subjective. Hypothesis are not validated on how well they explain evidence. It's the other way around and the hypothesis becomes a theory that is always assailable by new evidence.

There's also nothing in the scientific method about chubbys in the 3rd pew on Sunday and I never claimed any kind of stupid thing like that... but this is what you've been reduced to in this thread. You're not gonna be honest anymore, you're gonna do everything you can to lie about and distort everything I say, and hope that some idiot stumbles in late and doesn't notice the epic ass kicking I've given you. Because that's just the kind of mentally weak and pathetic little punk you are.

I never said that. When you have to lie amd misrepresent others to have a point, you don't really have a point. And this flailing and whining by you is embarrassing and futile. It doesn't matter that I am one who respects evidence-based knowledge, or that you are a lying charlatan trying to place your magical faith on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge. It stands, regardless of my opinion or of your goofy, bronze age beliefs. No, you have brought no real challenge to any accepted theory. You have merely equivocated and lied yourself into a pasty white little pretzel, forever frustrated that science doesn't fellate your nonsense.

It's like boss has read up extensively on evolution and he knows all the evidence that's out there but maybe he's found 5 or ten of 1000 pieces of evidence he doesn't fully believe but honestly no theory he comes up with no matter how true does not prove a creator exists. If he had a good theory he'd be famous. Instead he's stuck here being mocked by us.

So it doesn't matter how much science he learns because he's wasting it looking for a god that doesn't exist.

Boss, ask God what number I'm thinking of 1- 1 million

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, with the knowledge that the top hypotheses are not chosen for how they make someone get a chubby in the 3rd pew on Sunday morning, but by how much sense they make and how well they explain the evidence.

Now we know you're science illiterate. The scientific method doesn't say something is true based on how much sense it makes. Evidence can mean whatever they hell you want evidence to mean... it's entirely subjective. Hypothesis are not validated on how well they explain evidence. It's the other way around and the hypothesis becomes a theory that is always assailable by new evidence.

There's also nothing in the scientific method about chubbys in the 3rd pew on Sunday and I never claimed any kind of stupid thing like that... but this is what you've been reduced to in this thread. You're not gonna be honest anymore, you're gonna do everything you can to lie about and distort everything I say, and hope that some idiot stumbles in late and doesn't notice the epic ass kicking I've given you. Because that's just the kind of mentally weak and pathetic little punk you are.

I never said that. When you have to lie amd misrepresent others to have a point, you don't really have a point. And this flailing and whining by you is embarrassing and futile. It doesn't matter that I am one who respects evidence-based knowledge, or that you are a lying charlatan trying to place your magical faith on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge. It stands, regardless of my opinion or of your goofy, bronze age beliefs. No, you have brought no real challenge to any accepted theory. You have merely equivocated and lied yourself into a pasty white little pretzel, forever frustrated that science doesn't fellate your nonsense.

It's like boss has read up extensively on evolution and he knows all the evidence that's out there but maybe he's found 5 or ten of 1000 pieces of evidence he doesn't fully believe but honestly no theory he comes up with no matter how true does not prove a creator exists. If he had a good theory he'd be famous. Instead he's stuck here being mocked by us.

So it doesn't matter how much science he learns because he's wasting it looking for a god that doesn't exist.

Boss, ask God what number I'm thinking of 1- 1 million

Boss is wielding an overly general argument, and it is its own downfall. He tries to undermine the concept of evidence itself by saying it is "all subjective", and implying it is all equally so. This is complete nonsense, and nobody could actually function in life this way. Clearly it can not be so that Boss actually believes all evidence is equally subjective ("Either something is subjective , or it is not"), else he might be prone to jumping off of his roof, thinking he will fall up .... or staring right at the Sun during an eclipse... or drinking bleach. Therefore, he's not even being honest when he presents this philosophical dud as the reason he doubts scientific theories which do not suit him. But, it sounds fancier than, "Because I say so", so here we are.

 

[sealybobo]

No, with the knowledge that the top hypotheses are not chosen for how they make someone get a chubby in the 3rd pew on Sunday morning, but by how much sense they make and how well they explain the evidence.

Now we know you're science illiterate. The scientific method doesn't say something is true based on how much sense it makes. Evidence can mean whatever they hell you want evidence to mean... it's entirely subjective. Hypothesis are not validated on how well they explain evidence. It's the other way around and the hypothesis becomes a theory that is always assailable by new evidence.

There's also nothing in the scientific method about chubbys in the 3rd pew on Sunday and I never claimed any kind of stupid thing like that... but this is what you've been reduced to in this thread. You're not gonna be honest anymore, you're gonna do everything you can to lie about and distort everything I say, and hope that some idiot stumbles in late and doesn't notice the epic ass kicking I've given you. Because that's just the kind of mentally weak and pathetic little punk you are.

I never said that. When you have to lie amd misrepresent others to have a point, you don't really have a point. And this flailing and whining by you is embarrassing and futile. It doesn't matter that I am one who respects evidence-based knowledge, or that you are a lying charlatan trying to place your magical faith on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge. It stands, regardless of my opinion or of your goofy, bronze age beliefs. No, you have brought no real challenge to any accepted theory. You have merely equivocated and lied yourself into a pasty white little pretzel, forever frustrated that science doesn't fellate your nonsense.

It's like boss has read up extensively on evolution and he knows all the evidence that's out there but maybe he's found 5 or ten of 1000 pieces of evidence he doesn't fully believe but honestly no theory he comes up with no matter how true does not prove a creator exists. If he had a good theory he'd be famous. Instead he's stuck here being mocked by us.

So it doesn't matter how much science he learns because he's wasting it looking for a god that doesn't exist.

Boss, ask God what number I'm thinking of 1- 1 million

Boss is wielding an overly general argument, and it is its own downfall. He tries to undermine the concept of evidence as "all subjective". This is complete nonsense, and nobody could actually function in life this way. Clearly it can not be so that Boss actually believes all evidence is equally subjective ("Either something is subjective , or it is not"), else he might be prone to jumping off of his roof, thinking he will fall up .... or staring right at the Sun during an eclipse... or drinking bleach. Therefore, he's not even being honest when he presents this philosophical dud as the reason he doubts scientific theories which do not suit him. But, it sounds fancier than, "Because I say so", so here we are.

Nailed it. God I appreciate people like you who come along and say it better than I can

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, with the knowledge that the top hypotheses are not chosen for how they make someone get a chubby in the 3rd pew on Sunday morning, but by how much sense they make and how well they explain the evidence.

Now we know you're science illiterate. The scientific method doesn't say something is true based on how much sense it makes. Evidence can mean whatever they hell you want evidence to mean... it's entirely subjective. Hypothesis are not validated on how well they explain evidence. It's the other way around and the hypothesis becomes a theory that is always assailable by new evidence.

There's also nothing in the scientific method about chubbys in the 3rd pew on Sunday and I never claimed any kind of stupid thing like that... but this is what you've been reduced to in this thread. You're not gonna be honest anymore, you're gonna do everything you can to lie about and distort everything I say, and hope that some idiot stumbles in late and doesn't notice the epic ass kicking I've given you. Because that's just the kind of mentally weak and pathetic little punk you are.

I never said that. When you have to lie amd misrepresent others to have a point, you don't really have a point. And this flailing and whining by you is embarrassing and futile. It doesn't matter that I am one who respects evidence-based knowledge, or that you are a lying charlatan trying to place your magical faith on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge. It stands, regardless of my opinion or of your goofy, bronze age beliefs. No, you have brought no real challenge to any accepted theory. You have merely equivocated and lied yourself into a pasty white little pretzel, forever frustrated that science doesn't fellate your nonsense.

It's like boss has read up extensively on evolution and he knows all the evidence that's out there but maybe he's found 5 or ten of 1000 pieces of evidence he doesn't fully believe but honestly no theory he comes up with no matter how true does not prove a creator exists. If he had a good theory he'd be famous. Instead he's stuck here being mocked by us.

So it doesn't matter how much science he learns because he's wasting it looking for a god that doesn't exist.

Boss, ask God what number I'm thinking of 1- 1 million

Boss is wielding an overly general argument, and it is its own downfall. He tries to undermine the concept of evidence as "all subjective". This is complete nonsense, and nobody could actually function in life this way. Clearly it can not be so that Boss actually believes all evidence is equally subjective ("Either something is subjective , or it is not"), else he might be prone to jumping off of his roof, thinking he will fall up .... or staring right at the Sun during an eclipse... or drinking bleach. Therefore, he's not even being honest when he presents this philosophical dud as the reason he doubts scientific theories which do not suit him. But, it sounds fancier than, "Because I say so", so here we are.

Nailed it. God I appreciate people like you who come along and say it better than I can

Thank you for the kind words

 

[Boss]

Boss this person is destroying you. It's your evidence that is subjective.

Stop calling other people science illiterate. You pervert twist and spin fact with fiction. No wonder your church has only one member.

And no you don't talk to any scientists who are experts in this area. You talk to other religious people who are used to agreeing with other religious people no matter what nonsense they say.

You know how I know this person is NOT destroying me? Because you had to interject your opinion.

ALL evidence is subjective. I've given numerous examples. I even took his examples and proved it. Now he's coming back with this caveat of "equally subjective" but "equality" is also subjective. He admitted that all evidence has a degree of subjectivity but then turned right around and tried to claim that it's not "equally subjective" which is not an argument I ever made... and how would we determine that anyway? We all have different opinions on "equality" ...it's one of our biggest social problems at the moment. There is no universal measure of equality when it comes to subjectivity. It all relies on the perceptions of the individual.

I talk to everybody. I don't isolate myself from anyone. Scientists who are "experts in this area" don't impress me as far as validity of information because the so-called "experts" have often been totally wrong. I'm also not a "religious person" and you know that but you continue to throw that in my face because you think that helps your arguments. Nothing helps your arguments, sillyboob. You expose yourself for the idiot you are every time you post.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Let's start at the top

Why is 1) a lie

Because I don't even believe the Bible claims creation took 6 days. Not "days" as we define them... 24 hr. periods of Earth's revolution. IF you actually study the pathology, it doesn't even make rational sense. God created the Sun and Moon on Day 3... how can you have 3 days with no Sun? He created the light and dark before day and night. So we can clearly see, upon any kind of objective evaluation, something is amiss.

We can couple this further with the original Hebrew text which actually has no word for "day" and is called "yom." You've probably heard it used as "Yom Kippur" which is an important day to the Jewish people. But "yom" is actually an unspecified period of time. It CAN mean a day... it was also commonly used to mean an era. It's one of those words where the plural is the same... you don't have "yoms" you have many "yom." Therefore, "6 days" or "6 yom" can be completely different times.

ALSO.... I don't recall anything in the Bible or any argument I have EVER made that God's Creation was a one-time event. For all I know, God may have created trillions of universes and trillions of incarnations of life and mankind. Time means absolutely nothing to God. 14.5 billion years is less time to God than the time it takes for your perception of the reality happening around you.

You edited the post so I have to backtrack again. Here is what I said

1) creation only once and in 6 "days"

I put days in quotes for just this reason. Almost no Christian actually calls them days. I went with the Bible flow. I'm surprized you even went down that rabbit hole with more than three words.

You responded with universes! LOL I am talking about just ours (like in the Bible). How many times has God created in this universe, specifically this planet. You have never actually responded to the fossil record except to say it exists. You have a problem with what you call macroevolution (which makes me chuckle). The fossil record requires for your god to be creating every second with no rest on the last day, cuz you allow no macroevolution.

How long did original creation take? Perhaps 4.5 Billion - 6,000 years?

Did god create all the current life during original creation, or has the biota changed?

If the biota changed, what caused it?

Why do we see in the fossil record much evidence for evolution. Less to more. Small to Large. Primitive to complex. Water to land to air.

Again... Time is a physical dimension that is meaningless to a spiritual God. Your deductions that it would take God so much time, therefore it would be impossible, is totally meaningless. 14.5 billion years is less time to God than the time it takes for your brain to process it's perception of present reality. In the time it took you to read my last sentence, God could have created and destroyed a trillion universes. I don't know how else to make the point to you that time is a useless variable to God.

The Biblical story of creation is not a science documentary. It's impossible for it to be told as an observer's perspective. The purpose and intent of the story is not to accurately describe the actual process but to present the reader with the knowledge that God systematically created everything. But the bottom line is this... it wouldn't matter how the Bible outlined the creation story because you would still refuse to believe it.

You asked me a question and I answered it to the best of my ability as a non-Christian, then you accused me of editing your post. I didn't edit a damn thing.

This is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have seen from you and that is usually what you post.

Who cares what a year is to God?

I asked you, not God. Stop pretending you are God cuz you are not.

I posed FOUR questions and you answered ZERO.

 

[Boss]

Boss is wielding an overly general argument, and it is its own downfall. He tries to undermine the concept of evidence as "all subjective". This is complete nonsense, and nobody could actually function in life this way. Clearly it can not be so that Boss actually believes all evidence is equally subjective ("Either something is subjective , or it is not"), else he might be prone to jumping off of his roof, thinking he will fall up .... or staring right at the Sun during an eclipse... or drinking bleach. Therefore, he's not even being honest when he presents this philosophical dud as the reason he doubts scientific theories which do not suit him. But, it sounds fancier than, "Because I say so", so here we are.

Overly general arguments are the best arguments to wield.

I don't doubt scientific theories which have credible evidence to support them. I doubt empirical conclusions of fact based on scientific theories. This place is full of little shitstain Atheists living in momma's basement, teeing off daily on Christians for fun. They PRETEND to be scientists and try to present science theory as proven fact. I have a degree in Science and can pretty much hold my own in any science discussion. Although I am not religious, I also have a strong background in Comparative Religious Studies, and can hold my own in those type of debates as well. I'm also a Psychology major who loves to dabble in philosophy. In short, I'm a fairly smart mother fucker. This bugs the shit outta little twerps like you who are used to smearing and denigrating regular Christian folks because your condescending crap don't work on me.

I actually enjoy having honest dialogue and debate with people who have an opposing view. We can completely disagree and I'll have a beer with you at the end of the day. Sometimes, I will actually learn things and maybe even change my viewpoint after debating with someone I share mutual intellectual respect with. (Don't worry... that's not you or sillyboob.)

That said, I am a bit of a smart ass. When I encounter some internet blowhard who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, I can't help but rain on his little parade. It's fun to dismantle his silly arguments and watch him slowly devolve into a sniveling little troll and his little buddies jumping in to defend him. Sometimes I think I ought to feel guilty about that but I don't.

 

[Boss]

Let's start at the top

Why is 1) a lie

Because I don't even believe the Bible claims creation took 6 days. Not "days" as we define them... 24 hr. periods of Earth's revolution. IF you actually study the pathology, it doesn't even make rational sense. God created the Sun and Moon on Day 3... how can you have 3 days with no Sun? He created the light and dark before day and night. So we can clearly see, upon any kind of objective evaluation, something is amiss.

We can couple this further with the original Hebrew text which actually has no word for "day" and is called "yom." You've probably heard it used as "Yom Kippur" which is an important day to the Jewish people. But "yom" is actually an unspecified period of time. It CAN mean a day... it was also commonly used to mean an era. It's one of those words where the plural is the same... you don't have "yoms" you have many "yom." Therefore, "6 days" or "6 yom" can be completely different times.

ALSO.... I don't recall anything in the Bible or any argument I have EVER made that God's Creation was a one-time event. For all I know, God may have created trillions of universes and trillions of incarnations of life and mankind. Time means absolutely nothing to God. 14.5 billion years is less time to God than the time it takes for your perception of the reality happening around you.

You edited the post so I have to backtrack again. Here is what I said

1) creation only once and in 6 "days"

I put days in quotes for just this reason. Almost no Christian actually calls them days. I went with the Bible flow. I'm surprized you even went down that rabbit hole with more than three words.

You responded with universes! LOL I am talking about just ours (like in the Bible). How many times has God created in this universe, specifically this planet. You have never actually responded to the fossil record except to say it exists. You have a problem with what you call macroevolution (which makes me chuckle). The fossil record requires for your god to be creating every second with no rest on the last day, cuz you allow no macroevolution.

How long did original creation take? Perhaps 4.5 Billion - 6,000 years?

Did god create all the current life during original creation, or has the biota changed?

If the biota changed, what caused it?

Why do we see in the fossil record much evidence for evolution. Less to more. Small to Large. Primitive to complex. Water to land to air.

Again... Time is a physical dimension that is meaningless to a spiritual God. Your deductions that it would take God so much time, therefore it would be impossible, is totally meaningless. 14.5 billion years is less time to God than the time it takes for your brain to process it's perception of present reality. In the time it took you to read my last sentence, God could have created and destroyed a trillion universes. I don't know how else to make the point to you that time is a useless variable to God.

The Biblical story of creation is not a science documentary. It's impossible for it to be told as an observer's perspective. The purpose and intent of the story is not to accurately describe the actual process but to present the reader with the knowledge that God systematically created everything. But the bottom line is this... it wouldn't matter how the Bible outlined the creation story because you would still refuse to believe it.

You asked me a question and I answered it to the best of my ability as a non-Christian, then you accused me of editing your post. I didn't edit a damn thing.

This is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have seen from you and that is usually what you post.

Who cares what a year is to God?

I asked you, not God. Stop pretending you are God cuz you are not.

I posed FOUR questions and you answered ZERO.

Well apparently I don't know what you're asking. I thought I answered. You seemed to be having trouble with time and didn't seem to understand that God created time... it's a meaningless parameter to Him. It means something to us because we're physical creatures operating in a space-time continuum. I also don't know where you get that I'm pretending to be God. I'm just trying to answer your questions about God.

 

[sealybobo]

Boss this person is destroying you. It's your evidence that is subjective.

Stop calling other people science illiterate. You pervert twist and spin fact with fiction. No wonder your church has only one member.

And no you don't talk to any scientists who are experts in this area. You talk to other religious people who are used to agreeing with other religious people no matter what nonsense they say.

You know how I know this person is NOT destroying me? Because you had to interject your opinion.

ALL evidence is subjective. I've given numerous examples. I even took his examples and proved it. Now he's coming back with this caveat of "equally subjective" but "equality" is also subjective. He admitted that all evidence has a degree of subjectivity but then turned right around and tried to claim that it's not "equally subjective" which is not an argument I ever made... and how would we determine that anyway? We all have different opinions on "equality" ...it's one of our biggest social problems at the moment. There is no universal measure of equality when it comes to subjectivity. It all relies on the perceptions of the individual.

I talk to everybody. I don't isolate myself from anyone. Scientists who are "experts in this area" don't impress me as far as validity of information because the so-called "experts" have often been totally wrong. I'm also not a "religious person" and you know that but you continue to throw that in my face because you think that helps your arguments. Nothing helps your arguments, sillyboob. You expose yourself for the idiot you are every time you post.

You're definitely frustrating to me. That other guy explains it perfectly how and why you are fos. I know that's subjective too.

All I know is it's no fun after awhile with guys like you so it's nice to see others think your hypothesis is just as ridiculous as I do.

Explain to us all again what you believe please. It's easy to forget what your theory is.

 

[sealybobo]

...and tell us there's no God.

That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.

So far, after decades of listening with radio telescopes, the skies have been totally silent.

Either aliens don't exist at all anywhere in the universe, or they are so far away their transmissions will never reach us.

And in either case, we will never have aliens visit us.

We are probably alone.

How do the aliens know there is no God?

I'm an atheist and I don't want aliens to visit. I'm scared of anything advanced enough to pull off that feat. We can't even go to Mars so maybe you don't want to learn dad has another family

 

[BreezeWood]

.
evolution / the genome of life combine to prove beings are the product of design of one type or another. a committee led by an Almighty through morality is the most likely explanation by the evidence available. creators of life, not necessarily the universe.

 

[Boss]

You're definitely frustrating to me. That other guy explains it perfectly how and why you are fos. I know that's subjective too.

All I know is it's no fun after awhile with guys like you so it's nice to see others think your hypothesis is just as ridiculous as I do.

Explain to us all again what you believe please. It's easy to forget what your theory is.

Oh, this is funny. So you like the other guy explaining things to me how I'm full of shit, you think my hypothesis is ridiculous.... but you can't recall what my theory is? That's rich!

Neither you or other guy have presented any valid science to show how life originated. Fun bags tried to argue for 2 pages that evidence isn't subjective. You both want to try and claim science theories are basically proven facts. Neither of you seem to be able to wrap your minds around the fact that science doesn't conclude and when you've drawn a conclusion you've stopped practicing science and have adopted a faith.

Yep... you two are birds of a feather, you deserve each other. Get a room!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Boss is wielding an overly general argument, and it is its own downfall. He tries to undermine the concept of evidence as "all subjective". This is complete nonsense, and nobody could actually function in life this way. Clearly it can not be so that Boss actually believes all evidence is equally subjective ("Either something is subjective , or it is not"), else he might be prone to jumping off of his roof, thinking he will fall up .... or staring right at the Sun during an eclipse... or drinking bleach. Therefore, he's not even being honest when he presents this philosophical dud as the reason he doubts scientific theories which do not suit him. But, it sounds fancier than, "Because I say so", so here we are.

Overly general arguments are the best arguments to wield.

I don't doubt scientific theories which have credible evidence to support them. I doubt empirical conclusions of fact based on scientific theories. This place is full of little shitstain Atheists living in momma's basement, teeing off daily on Christians for fun. They PRETEND to be scientists and try to present science theory as proven fact. I have a degree in Science and can pretty much hold my own in any science discussion. Although I am not religious, I also have a strong background in Comparative Religious Studies, and can hold my own in those type of debates as well. I'm also a Psychology major who loves to dabble in philosophy. In short, I'm a fairly smart mother fucker. This bugs the shit outta little twerps like you who are used to smearing and denigrating regular Christian folks because your condescending crap don't work on me.

I actually enjoy having honest dialogue and debate with people who have an opposing view. We can completely disagree and I'll have a beer with you at the end of the day. Sometimes, I will actually learn things and maybe even change my viewpoint after debating with someone I share mutual intellectual respect with. (Don't worry... that's not you or sillyboob.)

That said, I am a bit of a smart ass. When I encounter some internet blowhard who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, I can't help but rain on his little parade. It's fun to dismantle his silly arguments and watch him slowly devolve into a sniveling little troll and his little buddies jumping in to defend him. Sometimes I think I ought to feel guilty about that but I don't.

"Overly general arguments are the best arguments to wield. ""


No, they are the worst, for precisely the reason I gave. And, the irony is that you just did it again. Of course, you have no idea you are doing it, just as you had no idea you were doing it earlier. This had to be pointed out to you.

They reveal that you are dishonest and will say literally anything to forward a point you cannot otherwise support. It's like a dog lover who says he hates spiders because, 'I hate all animals". They make you look dishonest or stupid. Pick your poison. And I know you will. You have already proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you will hang onto your precious claims and arguments, even after they are shown to be false and fallacious.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

.
evolution / the genome of life combine to prove beings are the product of design of one type or another. a committee led by an Almighty through morality is the most likely explanation by the evidence available. creators of life, not necessarily the universe.

"a committee led by an Almighty through morality is the most likely explanation by the evidence available."

Well then, I guess we can discard all of these non-magical explanations that explain all the evidence, because.... well... because Shaman BreezeWood said so?