Creationists

[LOki]

FROM nothing, not BY nothing imbecile.

Ok then. If there was nothing, whence this creator? Try to avoid the question-begging, special-pleading appeals to ignorance you usually attempt to assert.

No time, matter, space or energy existed prior to the Big Bang. The Creator exists outside of Creation.

Special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.

 

[Hollie]

FROM nothing, not BY nothing imbecile.

Ok then. If there was nothing, whence this creator? Try to avoid the question-begging, special-pleading appeals to ignorance you usually attempt to assert.

No time, matter, space or energy existed prior to the Big Bang. The Creator exists outside of Creation.

.... because I say so.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?

That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.

This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.

Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.

This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.

Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.

Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.

You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.



Yes!!!

I think it’s obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.

Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.

The fundamental premises of the religious standpoint is not rational. The arguments that follow may be logical (they're really not), but conclusions remain as irrational as the premises.

Provide your valid evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you insist that ID is science, and you place an intelligent designer at the foundation of you science, then you are most certainly pretending that your belief in God is a scientific principle--for fuck's sake ... it's the identifying principle of ID "science."

This is where your confusion with ID arises. My belief that the Designer is the Judeo Christian God is a religious belief. ID makes no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer. It just claims the necessity for a designer is evident and arguable from a scientific standpoint. The designer could be an alien life form for all we know under ID, although this would go back to the question of how the aliens arose. Again, ID says we can infer a designer based on empirical evidence.

No. You can't. Not without accepting the existence of some designer as a necessary premise for accepting said "empirical evidence" as support for your conclusion.

If you could, you'd have presented your evidence long ago.

It won't make the claim about any of the attributes or identity of that designer.

This is just a lame attempt to deny that the necessary consequence of this "design" of yours is the "creation" you pretend you're not advancing.

Evidence has been presented but it goes ignored.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What a typically nonsensical comment.

In spite of the claims to supernaturalism, gods and magical events insisted upon by fundies, all completely without evidence and justification, we have every reason to reject such irrationality. There is no evidence of a personal, designer gods and no evidence of the necessary hierarchy of designers of designer gods. There is no reason to believe that we are created in the image if any God(s). In spite of the requirement for fundies to attach human emotions to their god(s), the universe does not have emotions, desires, feelings, thoughts, longings, or intentions. The universe is neither jealous nor angry, not forgiving or merciful. The universe does not demand sacrifice, prayer, worship or slaughter of animals.

All of the feelings, emotions and other human attributes heaped upon gods by superstitious fundies is not advancing of humanity.

At the end if the day, an uninterested, uninvolved and uncaring entity: a God or God(s) is synonymous with “nothing”. So why give “nothingness” human attributes?

You believe a natural process of evolution caused the diversity of living organisms.

Valid logic, applied to the evidence supports the conclusion. Yes.

AGAIN.

Non-sequitur. So, no.

Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce all the necessities for life to exist.

How can this process produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms ?

Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms.

Takes faith to believe natural processes produced all we can see with purpose in mind.

This is true, but no one but you is asserting the reality of the thinking unintelligent process you assert.

So you prove my point your belief is based on faith not valid evidence thank you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

loki, you're arguing with a guy who thinks that invisible people are real and you're losing!

Give it up already. Invisible beings in another dimension that no one has ever been to are hard to defeat!

Shoe on other foot,UR is arguing with someone willing to say the theory he defends is based on facts which in turn makes the explanations facts not opinions. This so called evidence is conjecture has never been observed.

Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form.

 

[Youwerecreated]

is it just me, or is all religious writing assumptive?

No because there were witnesses to some of the events written about.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok then. If there was nothing, whence this creator? Try to avoid the question-begging, special-pleading appeals to ignorance you usually attempt to assert.

No time, matter, space or energy existed prior to the Big Bang. The Creator exists outside of Creation.

Special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.

Special pleading where is this valid evidence you keep spouting about to the questions put to you ?

 

[LOki]

You believe a natural process of evolution caused the diversity of living organisms.

Valid logic, applied to the evidence supports the conclusion. Yes.

AGAIN.

Non-sequitur. So, no.

Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce all the necessities for life to exist.

Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms.

Takes faith to believe natural processes produced all we can see with purpose in mind.

This is true, but no one but you is asserting the reality of the thinking unintelligent process you assert.

So you prove my point your belief is based on faith not valid evidence thank you.

Wrong. I prove your point that your strawman of my belief is based on faith not valid evidence. You're welcome.

 

[LOki]

That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.

This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.

Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.

This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.

Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.

Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?

The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter--and when you interrupt those natural processes life ends.

 

[LOki]

Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.

The fundamental premises of the religious standpoint is not rational. The arguments that follow may be logical (they're really not), but conclusions remain as irrational as the premises.

Provide your valid evidence.

The fundamental premises (faith) of the religious standpoint are independent of evidence and valid logic, hence irrational.

 

[LOki]

This is where your confusion with ID arises. My belief that the Designer is the Judeo Christian God is a religious belief. ID makes no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer. It just claims the necessity for a designer is evident and arguable from a scientific standpoint. The designer could be an alien life form for all we know under ID, although this would go back to the question of how the aliens arose. Again, ID says we can infer a designer based on empirical evidence.

No. You can't. Not without accepting the existence of some designer as a necessary premise for accepting said "empirical evidence" as support for your conclusion.

If you could, you'd have presented your evidence long ago.

It won't make the claim about any of the attributes or identity of that designer.

This is just a lame attempt to deny that the necessary consequence of this "design" of yours is the "creation" you pretend you're not advancing.

Evidence has been presented but it goes ignored.

No it has not. I have responded DIRECTLY to the evidence you submit, but YOU fail to address the observation that every bit of this "evidence" you submit is some species of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.

This has been demonstrated for you, but you just ignore it.

 

[LOki]

No time, matter, space or energy existed prior to the Big Bang. The Creator exists outside of Creation.

Special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.

Special pleading where is this valid evidence you keep spouting about to the questions put to you ?

It has been presented to you a thousand times. Literally.

I have answered you questions every time. Yet, I note, you fail to answer mine.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

 

[Hollie]

Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.

The fundamental premises of the religious standpoint is not rational. The arguments that follow may be logical (they're really not), but conclusions remain as irrational as the premises.

Provide your valid evidence.

You are the individual making claims to the existence of an alleged supernatural entity. Therefore the burden of validation for the claim falls to you. How many times does this simple requirement need to be pointed out to you?

Your supernatural, supermagical gods share the same consistency to rational discourse as similar claims to leprechauns and the Easter Bunny.

No one is under any obligation to prove the irrationality of your claims. You do remarkably well at that with not a single assist from anyone in this thread.

 

[Hollie]

loki, you're arguing with a guy who thinks that invisible people are real and you're losing!

Give it up already. Invisible beings in another dimension that no one has ever been to are hard to defeat!

Shoe on other foot,UR is arguing with someone willing to say the theory he defends is based on facts which in turn makes the explanations facts not opinions. This so called evidence is conjecture has never been observed.

Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form.

That's so silly.

 

[LOki]

loki, you're arguing with a guy who thinks that invisible people are real and you're losing!

Give it up already. Invisible beings in another dimension that no one has ever been to are hard to defeat!

Shoe on other foot,UR is arguing with someone willing to say the theory he defends is based on facts which in turn makes the explanations facts not opinions. This so called evidence is conjecture has never been observed.

Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form.

"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."

"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."

"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."

"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."

"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."

"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."

"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."

"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."

"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."

"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."

"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.

This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.

Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.

Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?

The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter--and when you interrupt those natural processes life ends.

Evidence that natural processes took non living matter and converted it to life please ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.

This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.

Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.

Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?

The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter--and when you interrupt those natural processes life ends.

Hey someone can build a car and the car will do what it was designed to do correct ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Valid logic, applied to the evidence supports the conclusion. Yes.

AGAIN.

Non-sequitur. So, no.

Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce all the necessities for life to exist.

Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms.

This is true, but no one but you is asserting the reality of the thinking unintelligent process you assert.

So you prove my point your belief is based on faith not valid evidence thank you.

Wrong. I prove your point that your strawman of my belief is based on faith not valid evidence. You're welcome.

Present the evidence or are you just bloviating once again ?