Creationists

[LOki]

B.S.

Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution
(a rebuttal of Mark Isaak’s “Five Major Misconceptions” FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
© 2005-2007 T. Wallace. All Rights Reserved.

- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -

Nope. Your creation story is actually the fairytale ... it central character is a fairy (or empirically indistinguishable from one), which actually makes the assertion all the more accurate.

We know it takes intelligence to design and build whether its a language, a car or a home. To think that an unintelligent natural process designs and builds is to go against the evidence that is all around us. So who believes in the fairytale ? No form of design or things constructed happen without a designer and builder.

You're now arguing that the life on this planet, or the entire universe, appears man-made to you--that is after all what you're claiming when you point to "the evidence that is all around us" that looks just like the other man-made things you cite; "a language, a car or a home."

This is a good change of strategy for you, as there is evidence of the existence of human beings and the things that they have certainly designed and built that you can bring to bear in support of this argument. I think there's stronger evidence that the universe is not man-made; if you wish, we can get into that, but the second you insert your invisible friend, whose existence is without basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, who is entirely imaginary, then you are the one asserting a fairytale.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nope. Your creation story is actually the fairytale ... it central character is a fairy (or empirically indistinguishable from one), which actually makes the assertion all the more accurate.

We know it takes intelligence to design and build whether its a language, a car or a home. To think that an unintelligent natural process designs and builds is to go against the evidence that is all around us. So who believes in the fairytale ? No form of design or things constructed happen without a designer and builder.

You're now arguing that the life on this planet, or the entire universe, appears man-made to you--that is after all what you're claiming when you point to "the evidence that is all around us" that looks just like the other man-made things you cite; "a language, a car or a home."

This is a good change of strategy for you, as there is evidence of the existence of human beings and the things that they have certainly designed and built that you can bring to bear in support of this argument. I think there's stronger evidence that the universe is not man-made; if you wish, we can get into that, but the second you insert your invisible friend, whose existence is without basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, who is entirely imaginary, then you are the one asserting a fairytale.

What you are implying is false. What created DNA and the genetic code ?

What created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism ?

The same reasoning can be applied biologically. There is no evidence that all these things could arise by chance,none. While there is plenty of evidence that design and construction happens through an intelligent being. You are denying logic because you refuse to admit that things that show design could not have been created because you don't believe there was a creator or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.

 

[FurthurBB]

We know it takes intelligence to design and build whether its a language, a car or a home. To think that an unintelligent natural process designs and builds is to go against the evidence that is all around us. So who believes in the fairytale ? No form of design or things constructed happen without a designer and builder.

You're now arguing that the life on this planet, or the entire universe, appears man-made to you--that is after all what you're claiming when you point to "the evidence that is all around us" that looks just like the other man-made things you cite; "a language, a car or a home."

This is a good change of strategy for you, as there is evidence of the existence of human beings and the things that they have certainly designed and built that you can bring to bear in support of this argument. I think there's stronger evidence that the universe is not man-made; if you wish, we can get into that, but the second you insert your invisible friend, whose existence is without basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, who is entirely imaginary, then you are the one asserting a fairytale.

What you are implying is false. What created DNA and the genetic code ?

What created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism ?

The same reasoning can be applied biologically. There is no evidence that all these things could arise by chance,none. While there is plenty of evidence that design and construction happens through an intelligent being. You are denying logic because you refuse to admit that things that show design could not have been created because you don't believe there was a creator or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.

DNA was not created, it naturally occurs through known chemical reactions. Basic cells only need soap bubble like substances to keep their contents separate from the environment, soap bubble like substances occur naturally through known chemical reactions. Since everything to do with life and living happens through known, well studied chemical reactions, adding anything else is not logical at all. Believing that all the life we see today started with chemical reactions and continues through chemical reactions is not ignoring logic, it is applying logic.

 

[LOki]

We know it takes intelligence to design and build whether its a language, a car or a home. To think that an unintelligent natural process designs and builds is to go against the evidence that is all around us. So who believes in the fairytale ? No form of design or things constructed happen without a designer and builder.

You're now arguing that the life on this planet, or the entire universe, appears man-made to you--that is after all what you're claiming when you point to "the evidence that is all around us" that looks just like the other man-made things you cite; "a language, a car or a home."

This is a good change of strategy for you, as there is evidence of the existence of human beings and the things that they have certainly designed and built that you can bring to bear in support of this argument. I think there's stronger evidence that the universe is not man-made; if you wish, we can get into that, but the second you insert your invisible friend, whose existence is without basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, who is entirely imaginary, then you are the one asserting a fairytale.

What you are implying is false.

Do you care to demonstrate?

Didn't think so.

What created DNA and the genetic code ?

Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything "created" DNA and/or the genetic code.

What created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism ?

Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism.

The same reasoning can be applied biologically. There is no evidence that all these things could arise by chance,none.

There's plenty of evidence of all sorts of things happening entirely by chance, without intent, specific purpose, or design.

While there is plenty of evidence that design and construction happens through an intelligent being.

Right. All the evidence of designs and construction that happens through an intelligent being are human designs and constructions.

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You are denying logic because you refuse to admit that things that show design ...

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

You have failed to demonstrate this "design" you keep harping about.

... could not have been created because you don't believe there was a creator ...

I don't PRESUME there was a creator. I allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion.

You have PRESUMED this Creator of yours; and having already presumed with absolute certainty the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless presumptions and conclusions.

... or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.

No. "Proof" is not the issue for me. I'm not running around demanding "proof" of anything--but you are.

You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH.

You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:

• El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
• Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
• Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
• Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
• Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
• Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
• The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
• Viracocha in Inca mythology;
• Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
• Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
• Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
• Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
• Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
• Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
• Rod in Slavic mythology;
• Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology

I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're now arguing that the life on this planet, or the entire universe, appears man-made to you--that is after all what you're claiming when you point to "the evidence that is all around us" that looks just like the other man-made things you cite; "a language, a car or a home."

This is a good change of strategy for you, as there is evidence of the existence of human beings and the things that they have certainly designed and built that you can bring to bear in support of this argument. I think there's stronger evidence that the universe is not man-made; if you wish, we can get into that, but the second you insert your invisible friend, whose existence is without basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, who is entirely imaginary, then you are the one asserting a fairytale.

What you are implying is false. What created DNA and the genetic code ?

What created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism ?

The same reasoning can be applied biologically. There is no evidence that all these things could arise by chance,none. While there is plenty of evidence that design and construction happens through an intelligent being. You are denying logic because you refuse to admit that things that show design could not have been created because you don't believe there was a creator or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.

DNA was not created, it naturally occurs through known chemical reactions. Basic cells only need soap bubble like substances to keep their contents separate from the environment, soap bubble like substances occur naturally through known chemical reactions. Since everything to do with life and living happens through known, well studied chemical reactions, adding anything else is not logical at all. Believing that all the life we see today started with chemical reactions and continues through chemical reactions is not ignoring logic, it is applying logic.

Whoa wait a minute,how did it happen to begin with at the very beginning ?

Are you forgetting the genetic code ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're now arguing that the life on this planet, or the entire universe, appears man-made to you--that is after all what you're claiming when you point to "the evidence that is all around us" that looks just like the other man-made things you cite; "a language, a car or a home."

This is a good change of strategy for you, as there is evidence of the existence of human beings and the things that they have certainly designed and built that you can bring to bear in support of this argument. I think there's stronger evidence that the universe is not man-made; if you wish, we can get into that, but the second you insert your invisible friend, whose existence is without basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, who is entirely imaginary, then you are the one asserting a fairytale.

What you are implying is false.

Do you care to demonstrate?

Didn't think so.

Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything "created" DNA and/or the genetic code.

Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism.

There's plenty of evidence of all sorts of things happening entirely by chance, without intent, specific purpose, or design.

Right. All the evidence of designs and construction that happens through an intelligent being are human designs and constructions.

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

You have failed to demonstrate this "design" you keep harping about.

... could not have been created because you don't believe there was a creator ...

I don't PRESUME there was a creator. I allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion.

You have PRESUMED this Creator of yours; and having already presumed with absolute certainty the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless presumptions and conclusions.

... or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.

No. "Proof" is not the issue for me. I'm not running around demanding "proof" of anything--but you are.

You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH.

You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:

• El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
• Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
• Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
• Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
• Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
• Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
• The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
• Viracocha in Inca mythology;
• Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
• Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
• Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
• Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
• Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
• Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
• Rod in Slavic mythology;
• Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology

I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.

It's not just faith as has been demonstrated. You just dodge knowing there is no logic in your thinking. You admit it takes intelligence to build ,to design,and to create a code or language. But you don't buy it when it comes to biological design and construction which is what was necesssary or life would have never happened or would you care to demonstrate otherwise ?

 

[LOki]

What you are implying is false.

Do you care to demonstrate?

Didn't think so.

Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything "created" DNA and/or the genetic code.

Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism.

There's plenty of evidence of all sorts of things happening entirely by chance, without intent, specific purpose, or design.

Right. All the evidence of designs and construction that happens through an intelligent being are human designs and constructions.

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

You have failed to demonstrate this "design" you keep harping about.

I don't PRESUME there was a creator. I allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion.

You have PRESUMED this Creator of yours; and having already presumed with absolute certainty the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless presumptions and conclusions.

... or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.

No. "Proof" is not the issue for me. I'm not running around demanding "proof" of anything--but you are.

You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH.

You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:

• El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
• Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
• Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
• Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
• Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
• Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
• The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
• Viracocha in Inca mythology;
• Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
• Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
• Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
• Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
• Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
• Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
• Rod in Slavic mythology;
• Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology

I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.

It's not just faith as has been demonstrated.

It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.

You just dodge knowing there is no logic in your thinking.

The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.

You admit it takes intelligence to build ,to design,and to create a code or language.

I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.

But you don't buy it when it comes to biological design and construction which is what was necesssary or life would have never happened or would you care to demonstrate otherwise ?

Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you care to demonstrate?

Didn't think so.

Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything "created" DNA and/or the genetic code.

Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism.

There's plenty of evidence of all sorts of things happening entirely by chance, without intent, specific purpose, or design.

Right. All the evidence of designs and construction that happens through an intelligent being are human designs and constructions.

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

You have failed to demonstrate this "design" you keep harping about.

I don't PRESUME there was a creator. I allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion.

You have PRESUMED this Creator of yours; and having already presumed with absolute certainty the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless presumptions and conclusions.

No. "Proof" is not the issue for me. I'm not running around demanding "proof" of anything--but you are.

You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH.

You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:

• El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
• Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
• Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
• Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
• Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
• Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
• The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
• Viracocha in Inca mythology;
• Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
• Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
• Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
• Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
• Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
• Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
• Rod in Slavic mythology;
• Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology

I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.

It's not just faith as has been demonstrated.

It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.

The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.

You admit it takes intelligence to build ,to design,and to create a code or language.

I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.

But you don't buy it when it comes to biological design and construction which is what was necesssary or life would have never happened or would you care to demonstrate otherwise ?

Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

Imbecile ? Where is the logic that design you acknowledge is achieved through intelligence but you deny the design shown biologically was the product of intelligence

I have broken down design for you before and everything had to be in place at the beginning or there would be no life and by your thinking everything slowly and gradually evolved. What good was an organism without key organs ? Or body limbs ?

You believe in a fairytale. Wake up loki wake up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you care to demonstrate?

Didn't think so.

Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything "created" DNA and/or the genetic code.

Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism.

There's plenty of evidence of all sorts of things happening entirely by chance, without intent, specific purpose, or design.

Right. All the evidence of designs and construction that happens through an intelligent being are human designs and constructions.

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

You have failed to demonstrate this "design" you keep harping about.

I don't PRESUME there was a creator. I allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion.

You have PRESUMED this Creator of yours; and having already presumed with absolute certainty the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless presumptions and conclusions.

No. "Proof" is not the issue for me. I'm not running around demanding "proof" of anything--but you are.

You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH.

You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:

• El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
• Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
• Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
• Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
• Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
• Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
• The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
• Viracocha in Inca mythology;
• Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
• Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
• Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
• Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
• Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
• Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
• Rod in Slavic mythology;
• Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology

I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.

It's not just faith as has been demonstrated.

It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.

The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.

You admit it takes intelligence to build ,to design,and to create a code or language.

I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.

But you don't buy it when it comes to biological design and construction which is what was necesssary or life would have never happened or would you care to demonstrate otherwise ?

Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?and to design and build ?Why do we have emotions ?Why do we have the instinct to live not die ?

Why do we all at one point wonder if God exists ? don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.

 

[LOki]

It's not just faith as has been demonstrated.

It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.

The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.

I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.

But you don't buy it when it comes to biological design and construction which is what was necesssary or life would have never happened or would you care to demonstrate otherwise ?

Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?

Why must the having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason? You are putting the cart before the horse in your typical logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest manner.

... and to design and build ?

We design so that the things we build work properly and predictably to achieve our pre-specified purposes.

Why do we have emotions ?

An excellent question which is not answered in any way by inventing a "God", but is better explained as being a vestigial kind of intelligence that facilitates primal communication.

Why do we have the instinct to live not die ?

Because you die without regard to instincts anyway.

Why do we all at one point wonder if God exists ?

Because we are told at some point that this "God" thing of yours exists, and then we discover the unambiguous discontinuity between the actual world we were born into and the world we are told this "God" thing of yours made.

We were all born without any belief in this "God" thing of yours in the first place ... we are all born atheists. That's why we all at one point wonder if his "God" thing of yours exists.

don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.

Careful there Cupcake, between us, I'm not the documented liar.

 

[FurthurBB]

What you are implying is false. What created DNA and the genetic code ?

What created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism ?

The same reasoning can be applied biologically. There is no evidence that all these things could arise by chance,none. While there is plenty of evidence that design and construction happens through an intelligent being. You are denying logic because you refuse to admit that things that show design could not have been created because you don't believe there was a creator or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.

DNA was not created, it naturally occurs through known chemical reactions. Basic cells only need soap bubble like substances to keep their contents separate from the environment, soap bubble like substances occur naturally through known chemical reactions. Since everything to do with life and living happens through known, well studied chemical reactions, adding anything else is not logical at all. Believing that all the life we see today started with chemical reactions and continues through chemical reactions is not ignoring logic, it is applying logic.

Whoa wait a minute,how did it happen to begin with at the very beginning ?

Are you forgetting the genetic code ?

The genetic code happens through well studied chemical reactions.

 

[daws101]

It's not just faith as has been demonstrated.

It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.

The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.

I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.

But you don't buy it when it comes to biological design and construction which is what was necesssary or life would have never happened or would you care to demonstrate otherwise ?

Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?and to design and build ?Why do we have emotions ?Why do we have the instinct to live not die ?

Why do we all at one point wonder if God exists ? don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.

what's this "we" shit ?
you've spent this whole thread expounding on how your erroneous myth sets the faithful apart from "us" sinning atheists and now you use "WE" like we're all at a tent revival ,singing "shall we gather at the river"...

 

[Youwerecreated]

It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.

The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.

I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.

Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?

Why must the having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason? You are putting the cart before the horse in your typical logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest manner.

We design so that the things we build work properly and predictably to achieve our pre-specified purposes.

An excellent question which is not answered in any way by inventing a "God", but is better explained as being a vestigial kind of intelligence that facilitates primal communication.


Because you die without regard to instincts anyway.

Why do we all at one point wonder if God exists ?

Because we are told at some point that this "God" thing of yours exists, and then we discover the unambiguous discontinuity between the actual world we were born into and the world we are told this "God" thing of yours made.

We were all born without any belief in this "God" thing of yours in the first place ... we are all born atheists. That's why we all at one point wonder if his "God" thing of yours exists.

don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.

Careful there Cupcake, between us, I'm not the documented liar.

No I am not putting the horse before the cart. If we didn't possess the brain and many of the other organs,blood,arms,legs,or eyes, we could not function properly and go extinct.

Awfully nice of this non intelligent,natural process, to think of all the things we needed for life and to function properly no ?

God designed and built us to live forever as long as we did not sin. Now that we sinned we now grow old and die we suffer from genetic disorders because we are no longer perfect.

We humans have emotions so we know right from wrong, so we also can love and care about each other.

Yes we die anyways but that had nothing to do with the question, Dodge.

Wrong , God has put himself in our mind and hearts and some choose to believe in him and some don't. The ones that don't believe in him is because they need proof and they lack faith. But they have faith we are related to monkeys even though they have not observed the relationship and can't prove it.

Yes you're the liar you admitted it earlier in this post. So you're the cupcake that might want to ease up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

DNA was not created, it naturally occurs through known chemical reactions. Basic cells only need soap bubble like substances to keep their contents separate from the environment, soap bubble like substances occur naturally through known chemical reactions. Since everything to do with life and living happens through known, well studied chemical reactions, adding anything else is not logical at all. Believing that all the life we see today started with chemical reactions and continues through chemical reactions is not ignoring logic, it is applying logic.

Whoa wait a minute,how did it happen to begin with at the very beginning ?

Are you forgetting the genetic code ?

The genetic code happens through well studied chemical reactions.

You are still denying the genetic code is a language full of information even though most all the science community agrees with me on this issue.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.

The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.

I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.

Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?and to design and build ?Why do we have emotions ?Why do we have the instinct to live not die ?

Why do we all at one point wonder if God exists ? don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.

what's this "we" shit ?
you've spent this whole thread expounding on how your erroneous myth sets the faithful apart from "us" sinning atheists and now you use "WE" like we're all at a tent revival ,singing "shall we gather at the river"...

Ok you are a liar,at some point in your meaningless life you have questioned whether God really exists or not.

 

[LOki]

If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?

Why must the having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason? You are putting the cart before the horse in your typical logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest manner.

We design so that the things we build work properly and predictably to achieve our pre-specified purposes.

An excellent question which is not answered in any way by inventing a "God", but is better explained as being a vestigial kind of intelligence that facilitates primal communication.


Because you die without regard to instincts anyway.

Because we are told at some point that this "God" thing of yours exists, and then we discover the unambiguous discontinuity between the actual world we were born into and the world we are told this "God" thing of yours made.

We were all born without any belief in this "God" thing of yours in the first place ... we are all born atheists. That's why we all at one point wonder if his "God" thing of yours exists.

don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.

Careful there Cupcake, between us, I'm not the documented liar.

No I am not putting the horse before the cart.

Really? Then why must having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason?

If we didn't possess the brain and many of the other organs,blood,arms,legs,or eyes, we could not function properly and go extinct.

Oh. So NOW you're not putting the cart before the horse--as you clearly were previously.

Awfully nice of this non intelligent,natural process, to think of all the things we needed for life and to function properly no ?

No. And I mean "NO" to your retarded, superstitious, anthropomorphizing.

God designed and built us to live forever as long as we did not sin. Now that we sinned we now grow old and die we suffer from genetic disorders because we are no longer perfect.

What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? What evidence can you produce of "design" that does not require the question-begging acceptance of the existence of this "Designer" you keep referencing?

We humans have emotions so we know right from wrong, so we also can love and care about each other.

"Right and wrong" is not validated emotionally, but rather rationally. "Right and wrong" when validated by emotion is "rationalizing," and is only coincidentally valid in objective reality; it usually proves incorrect in the long-run, and is ALWAYS morally meaningless.

Yes we die anyways but that had nothing to do with the question, Dodge.

No dodge at all, and perfectly pertinent to the question.

Wrong , God has put himself in our mind and hearts and some choose to believe in him and some don't.

Nonsense. You have literally no verifiable evidence what-so-ever to support your claim.

The ones that don't believe in him is because they need proof and they lack faith.

I can agree with this; I am incapable of faith--to put it in terms you'll understand, I was "created" without the capacity to exercise faith.

But they have faith we are related to monkeys even though they have not observed the relationship and can't prove it.

Remember, no evidence OR proof was required for you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if they should be considered valid in the first place. Only you require that the relationship be "proven." The verifiable evidence, OTOH, clearly makes a very strong suggestion that the assertion of common descent between monkeys and humans is valid.

It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.

This is why you are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for retards like you; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate your retarded intellectual and moral hubris.

You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH. You can't even bring valid evidence to support the claim.

You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:

• El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
• Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
• Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
• Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
• Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
• Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
• The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
• Viracocha in Inca mythology;
• Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
• Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
• Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
• Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
• Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
• Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
• Rod in Slavic mythology;
• Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology

I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.

Yes you're the liar you admitted it earlier in this post.

Yet despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you had to clearly reference this alleged lie--to quote it, and expose it for examination, you failed to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?

ANSWER: Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.​

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why must the having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason? You are putting the cart before the horse in your typical logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest manner.

We design so that the things we build work properly and predictably to achieve our pre-specified purposes.

An excellent question which is not answered in any way by inventing a "God", but is better explained as being a vestigial kind of intelligence that facilitates primal communication.


Because you die without regard to instincts anyway.

Because we are told at some point that this "God" thing of yours exists, and then we discover the unambiguous discontinuity between the actual world we were born into and the world we are told this "God" thing of yours made.

We were all born without any belief in this "God" thing of yours in the first place ... we are all born atheists. That's why we all at one point wonder if his "God" thing of yours exists.

Careful there Cupcake, between us, I'm not the documented liar.

No I am not putting the horse before the cart.

Really? Then why must having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason?

Oh. So NOW you're not putting the cart before the horse--as you clearly were previously.

No. And I mean "NO" to your retarded, superstitious, anthropomorphizing.

What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? What evidence can you produce of "design" that does not require the question-begging acceptance of the existence of this "Designer" you keep referencing?

"Right and wrong" is not validated emotionally, but rather rationally. "Right and wrong" when validated by emotion is "rationalizing," and is only coincidentally valid in objective reality; it usually proves incorrect in the long-run, and is ALWAYS morally meaningless.

No dodge at all, and perfectly pertinent to the question.

Nonsense. You have literally no verifiable evidence what-so-ever to support your claim.

I can agree with this; I am incapable of faith--to put it in terms you'll understand, I was "created" without the capacity to exercise faith.

But they have faith we are related to monkeys even though they have not observed the relationship and can't prove it.

Remember, no evidence OR proof was required for you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if they should be considered valid in the first place. Only you require that the relationship be "proven." The verifiable evidence, OTOH, clearly makes a very strong suggestion that the assertion of common descent between monkeys and humans is valid.

It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.

This is why you are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for retards like you; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate your retarded intellectual and moral hubris.

You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH. You can't even bring valid evidence to support the claim.

You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:

• El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
• Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
• Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
• Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
• Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
• Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
• The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
• Viracocha in Inca mythology;
• Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
• Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
• Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
• Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
• Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
• Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
• Rod in Slavic mythology;
• Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology

I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.

Yes you're the liar you admitted it earlier in this post.

Yet despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you had to clearly reference this alleged lie--to quote it, and expose it for examination, you failed to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?

ANSWER: Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.​

 

[Woyzeck]

If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?

Why must the having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason? You are putting the cart before the horse in your typical logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest manner.

We design so that the things we build work properly and predictably to achieve our pre-specified purposes.

An excellent question which is not answered in any way by inventing a "God", but is better explained as being a vestigial kind of intelligence that facilitates primal communication.


Because you die without regard to instincts anyway.

Because we are told at some point that this "God" thing of yours exists, and then we discover the unambiguous discontinuity between the actual world we were born into and the world we are told this "God" thing of yours made.

We were all born without any belief in this "God" thing of yours in the first place ... we are all born atheists. That's why we all at one point wonder if his "God" thing of yours exists.

don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.

Careful there Cupcake, between us, I'm not the documented liar.

No I am not putting the horse before the cart. If we didn't possess the brain and many of the other organs,blood,arms,legs,or eyes, we could not function properly and go extinct.

Awfully nice of this non intelligent,natural process, to think of all the things we needed for life and to function properly no ?

It's called natural selection, and there isn't a divine force guiding it. You know what guides it? An organism not dying. If there was a mutation that impeded the use of an organ, that mutation (unless the impediment only showed in old age or after a chance for reproduction) would never get a chance to spread it to the rest of the local gene pool. The reason is, it would die before it could find a mate and would never get a chance to carry on the mutation.

God designed and built us to live forever as long as we did not sin. Now that we sinned we now grow old and die we suffer from genetic disorders because we are no longer perfect.

Genetic disorders arise from mutations in DNA.

By the way, have you written or spoken in the language of DNA yet?

Wrong , God has put himself in our mind and hearts and some choose to believe in him and some don't. The ones that don't believe in him is because they need proof and they lack faith. But they have faith we are related to monkeys even though they have not observed the relationship and can't prove it.

God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that becomes more obsolete as science progresses.

 

[LOki]

No I am not putting the horse before the cart.

Really? Then why must having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason?

Oh. So NOW you're not putting the cart before the horse--as you clearly were previously.

No. And I mean "NO" to your retarded, superstitious, anthropomorphizing.

What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? What evidence can you produce of "design" that does not require the question-begging acceptance of the existence of this "Designer" you keep referencing?

"Right and wrong" is not validated emotionally, but rather rationally. "Right and wrong" when validated by emotion is "rationalizing," and is only coincidentally valid in objective reality; it usually proves incorrect in the long-run, and is ALWAYS morally meaningless.

No dodge at all, and perfectly pertinent to the question.

Nonsense. You have literally no verifiable evidence what-so-ever to support your claim.

I can agree with this; I am incapable of faith--to put it in terms you'll understand, I was "created" without the capacity to exercise faith.

Remember, no evidence OR proof was required for you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if they should be considered valid in the first place. Only you require that the relationship be "proven." The verifiable evidence, OTOH, clearly makes a very strong suggestion that the assertion of common descent between monkeys and humans is valid.

It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.

This is why you are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for retards like you; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate your retarded intellectual and moral hubris.

You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH. You can't even bring valid evidence to support the claim.

You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:

• El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
• Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
• Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
• Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
• Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
• Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
• The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
• Viracocha in Inca mythology;
• Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
• Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
• Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
• Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
• Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
• Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
• Rod in Slavic mythology;
• Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology

I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.

Yes you're the liar you admitted it earlier in this post.

Yet despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you had to clearly reference this alleged lie--to quote it, and expose it for examination, you failed to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?

ANSWER: Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.​

Taking yet another

, Youwerecreated signifies his capitulation.

 

[daws101]

If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?and to design and build ?Why do we have emotions ?Why do we have the instinct to live not die ?

Why do we all at one point wonder if God exists ? don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.

what's this "we" shit ?
you've spent this whole thread expounding on how your erroneous myth sets the faithful apart from "us" sinning atheists and now you use "WE" like we're all at a tent revival ,singing "shall we gather at the river"...

Ok you are a liar,at some point in your meaningless life you have questioned whether God really exists or not.

another dodge!
but to answer your question, religion it's self gave me the first hints about why there is no god.