Creationists

[Hollie]

You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.

Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.

really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...

So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....

What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?

Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.

 

[newpolitics]

You can't be both because one is unwilling to take a position and the other has a firm position.

No! That is not the definition of an Agnostic!!! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN THIS?

I will not debate you on this any further. You are unable to follow this discussion, and I will not waste my time. I have explained extensively the definitions and concepts of these terms, but you seem not to be able to follow or choose not to.

I am an agnostic atheist.

You know the difference between the two terms and that is why you are avoiding an answer to the proper phrasing of the questions.

Wait, so you're saying there are three options with respect to belief:

1. I believe
2. I don't believe
3. ?

If you can fill in that third one, then I'll grant you your definition.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.

really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...

So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....

What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?

Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.

The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.

The universe once did not exist it formed unnaturally.

 

[newpolitics]

really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...

So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....

What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?

Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.

The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.

you have zero evidence to make that claim, especially if you are asserting an unnatural cause in all of this

 

[Youwerecreated]

No! That is not the definition of an Agnostic!!! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN THIS?

I will not debate you on this any further. You are unable to follow this discussion, and I will not waste my time. I have explained extensively the definitions and concepts of these terms, but you seem not to be able to follow or choose not to.

I am an agnostic atheist.

You know the difference between the two terms and that is why you are avoiding an answer to the proper phrasing of the questions.

Wait, so you're saying there are three options with respect to belief:

1. I believe
2. I don't believe
3. ?

If you can fill in that third one, then I'll grant you your definition.

3. You are not sure to believe

 

[Hollie]

Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.

really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...

What modern day evolutionist have done is discovered mechanisms that work naturally,and they extrapolate from that they came about naturally denying they could have been designed to happen naturally. A watch was designed but it does what it was designed to do.

Do you proof read? Something could have been designed to happen naturally?

Try and think this through - there is no need to design something that happens naturally as that would be a (grab onto a firmly anchored desk), naturally occurring object.

I'm trying to understand how you conceptulalize "something being designed to happen naturally". Would a designer design something to happen unnaturally? What purpose would be served by an unnatural design? I suppose we humans could design a watch that runs "backward in time" but that would still be a completely natural object - just an irrational, pointless exercise.

 

[newpolitics]

You know the difference between the two terms and that is why you are avoiding an answer to the proper phrasing of the questions.

Wait, so you're saying there are three options with respect to belief:

1. I believe
2. I don't believe
3. ?

If you can fill in that third one, then I'll grant you your definition.

3. You are not sure to believe

If you are not sure whether you believe, then you don't believe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....

What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?

Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.

The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.

you have zero evidence to make that claim, especially if you are asserting an unnatural cause in all of this

Then give the explanation how the first cell formed naturally, you would be the first to do so if you can.

 

[newpolitics]

The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.

you have zero evidence to make that claim, especially if you are asserting an unnatural cause in all of this

Then give the explanation how the first cell formed naturally, you would be the first to do so if you can.

I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wait, so you're saying there are three options with respect to belief:

1. I believe
2. I don't believe
3. ?

If you can fill in that third one, then I'll grant you your definition.

3. You are not sure to believe

If you are not sure whether you believe, then you don't believe.

No you don't know whether God exists or not. Three different firm positions.

1. I believe
2. I don't believe
3. Not sure what to believe

Not sure does not mean you don't believe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you have zero evidence to make that claim, especially if you are asserting an unnatural cause in all of this

Then give the explanation how the first cell formed naturally, you would be the first to do so if you can.

I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.

Then consider your question answered.

 

[UltimateReality]

Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god

Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists

Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

I'm actually fascinated by your preoccupation with Dawkins. It seems that you assign to him a position of authority as it relates to your religious belief. Basically, your feverish, sweaty, chest heaving preoccupation with Dawkins belies the fact that you find his arguments convincing so that any hint of movement on his part (agnostic to atheist) is seen falsely as validation of your religion.

This is your dumbest, most uninformed post yet!!! You really need to listen to some of Dawkins speeches so you don't sound like such an ignoramus.

 

[Hollie]

really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...

So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....

What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?

Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.

The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.

The universe once did not exist it formed unnaturally.

As I expected, you cannot point us to one unnatural event so you're left to denying the challenge is even posed.

 

[newpolitics]

3. You are not sure to believe

If you are not sure whether you believe, then you don't believe.

No you don't know whether God exists or not. Three different firm positions.

1. I believe
2. I don't believe
3. Not sure what to believe

Not sure does not mean you don't believe.

"I am not sure that a god exists" means I do not possess knowledge or claim to know that a god exists, therefore am unsure. This has to do with knowledge, not belief, and thus, eludes to agnosticism or gnosticism, and proves my point.

Think of it this way:

Take any object, thing, idea, or belief. It either exists or it doesn't. It cannot exist and not exist at the same time, and there isn't a third option. These are the three immutable laws of logic:

1. The Law of Identity (A=A)
2. The Law of Non-Contradiction (A can not equal not A at the same time)
3. The Law of Excluded Middle (there is no third option)

Therefore, either a belief exists, or it doesn't exist. It can't be neither, and it can't be both at the same time. There isn't a third option. We are talking about a dichotomy here, because we are talking about the existence of something.

 

[UltimateReality]

He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.

FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".

Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.

Thanks.

You are living in a dream world.

Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:

1. Things look designed
2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
3. Therefore, there must be a creator.

Evolutionists Argument:

1. Things look designed.
2. We can't possibly accept that anything outside are limited worldview, as in, an Intelligent Agent is responsible.
3. Therefore, it must be some random process that we can't measure or test, or witness a modern example of.
4. Therefore, therefore, even when our evidence is shown to be totally false, we must continue with the party line, cramming our so called science in even when it doesn't fit the TOE, so that we can continue to deny the most logical explanation, an explanation that would force us to change our lives and reconcile with evil in the world.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....

What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?

Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.

The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.

The universe once did not exist it formed unnaturally.

As I expected, you cannot point us to one unnatural event so you're left to denying the challenge is even posed.

If something never existed it came into existence unnaturally,it never existed in nature.

 

[UltimateReality]

You are living in a dream world.

Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:

1. Things look designed
2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
3. Therefore, there must be a creator.

I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.

Do seas spontaneously part? Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.


It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.

Can you measure a thought?

 

[Hollie]

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

I'm actually fascinated by your preoccupation with Dawkins. It seems that you assign to him a position of authority as it relates to your religious belief. Basically, your feverish, sweaty, chest heaving preoccupation with Dawkins belies the fact that you find his arguments convincing so that any hint of movement on his part (agnostic to atheist) is seen falsely as validation of your religion.

This is your dumbest, most uninformed post yet!!! You really need to listen to some of Dawkins speeches so you don't sound like such an ignoramus.

Settle down or its a time out, sweety.

Have your read your own posts? Go back through this thread and identify for us how many times your referenced Dawkins.

If Dawkins proclaims today that he has embraced Christianity, that won't suddenly validate your gods.

 

[UltimateReality]

Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:

1. Things look designed
2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
3. Therefore, there must be a creator.

Like professor lennox said in his debate with dawkins God is the agent of design. You can't exclude the agent on any design. How do you know it was not designed if it appears to have been designed for a purpose ?

The argument for design is easily excluded when there is no evidence to support the claim. You're promoting religious belief which hangs on supposition and faith. Science has standards of proof (to acknowledge the term "proof" is not consistent with the scientific paradigm) and verification.

There is nothing in nature that appears to have been designed.

You're just plain ignorant. You can stomp your feet up and down all you want and make outrageous claims but they will never be true. DNA is a digital code, more complicated than our intelligent agent created binary code. The information is stored and retrieved and used to assemble proteins and micro machines. You are in TOTAL DENIAL if you can't see the appearance of design here.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No! That is not the definition of an Agnostic!!! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN THIS?

I will not debate you on this any further. You are unable to follow this discussion, and I will not waste my time. I have explained extensively the definitions and concepts of these terms, but you seem not to be able to follow or choose not to.

I am an agnostic atheist.

You know the difference between the two terms and that is why you are avoiding an answer to the proper phrasing of the questions.

Wait, so you're saying there are three options with respect to belief:

1. I believe
2. I don't believe
3. ?

If you can fill in that third one, then I'll grant you your definition.

1. I believe=Theism
2. I don't believe=atheism
3. I'm not sure what to believe=agnostic=can't say either way