Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
since you proven neither.....and there is no evidence for a someone...yours is the copout.I found it interesting that you selectively excuse your alleged gawds from meeting any standard of proof that you insist science must meet.
Why do we need to prove God exists if we can prove design ? someone gets credit for design. You can't hide behind the copout, well because we don't know now does not mean we will not know in the future.
you've been hedging your bet on the all will be reveled nonsense for the last 2000 years.
you'll be be spouting the same nonsense till the religion dies ,with no proof of your claims...
BTW when I use the word "you" I mean all Christianity not just you.
explain what?judging from your answer it appearers you have no idea what hollie said.I fully expected that you would reel into defensive posturing at yet another of your specious claims being refuted.
Then present what you find on google and I will explain it to you
another failed attempt at faking it..
So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
major masturbation fantasy...
yes your faith is...Same can be said for your designer
Nature and rationality neither presume nor require supernaturalism or magic in contrast to the Christian creationist worldview replete with gawds, demons and tactics formulated to instill fear and ignorance.
Just empty words hollie.
Definition of NATURALISM
It's a miracle life exists and your designer is naturalism.
Definition of NATURALISM
It's a miracle life exists and your designer is naturalism.
1: action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts
2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena
there is no "who" in naturalism, it's not a physical thing so it cannot be an engineer or a designer.
another wrong and ignorant assuption.Same can be said for your designer
A truly futile attempt to project the empty and unsupported conclusions you make about there being a designer onto those on the other side of the debate. Naturalism is not our designer, because it has no ontology, which precludes this very possibility of it being a "designer". Naturalism is an idea that potentially describes the universe. Stop projecting your silliness onto the other side because it makes you feel better to shrug off the burden of your own irrationality.
So you believe in miracles to.
you really can't read can you? there's nothing in that post that even hints at an excuse.I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Our ability or inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place.
Do you notice a trend ?you keep coming up with excuses why you believe as you do.
no you did not....you presented your subjective pov no real evidence.That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
You just put your foot in your mouth. You did not provide any evidence for you claims about there being a designer. I realize that what you see if evidence of your own claims, but this is not evidence to anyone else. It is mere interpretation by your part, and confirmation bias. For the last time, scientists don't claim to know how life came about. So, i'm not sure what you are babbling about. On the other hand, YOU DO CLAIM to know how life came about, even though we are all ignorant to how it happened. Hence, a fucking ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.
Stop trying to fend off this accusation with your silly appeals to ridicule. Your position is ripe with logical fallacy because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Therefore, it is your only option to employ logical fallacy after logical fallacy to try and convince yourself that your position is objectively valid when it isn't. What's laughable is how you haven't met your burden of proof with respect to any scientific claims about there being a designer. This is the arrogance of your side.
Really ? I presented design to you and you snub your nose at it. ok
no, you don't but "you" do know that it was designed by another human not an invisible god .since you proven neither.....and there is no evidence for a someone...yours is the copout.Why do we need to prove God exists if we can prove design ? someone gets credit for design. You can't hide behind the copout, well because we don't know now does not mean we will not know in the future.
you've been hedging your bet on the all will be reveled nonsense for the last 2000 years.
you'll be be spouting the same nonsense till the religion dies ,with no proof of your claims...
BTW when I use the word "you" I mean all Christianity not just you.
Let's see if this to goes over your head. When you look at a building do you have to know the designer to know it was designed ? engineered Enzymes do you have to know the designer= engineer to know they were designed ?
You have the density of
6.4 X 10^23 kg
4/3 pi (r^3) where r = 3.395 X 10^6 m
V = 1.639 X 10^20 m^3
not really, your inability to read has no bearing on my ability to follow and comprehend the conversation.explain what?judging from your answer it appearers you have no idea what hollie said.Then present what you find on google and I will explain it to you
another failed attempt at faking it..
You need to go back and follow along with the conversation.
falseDefinition of NATURALISMIt's a miracle life exists and your designer is naturalism.
1: action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts
2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena
there is no "who" in naturalism, it's not a physical thing so it cannot be an engineer or a designer.
You deny a lot of miracles in nature had to happen for life to exist ?
Has it occurred to you that buildings are qualitatively different from biological organisms?since you proven neither.....and there is no evidence for a someone...yours is the copout.Why do we need to prove God exists if we can prove design ? someone gets credit for design. You can't hide behind the copout, well because we don't know now does not mean we will not know in the future.
you've been hedging your bet on the all will be reveled nonsense for the last 2000 years.
you'll be be spouting the same nonsense till the religion dies ,with no proof of your claims...
BTW when I use the word "you" I mean all Christianity not just you.
Let's see if this to goes over your head. When you look at a building do you have to know the designer to know it was designed ? engineered Enzymes do you have to know the designer= engineer to know they were designed ?
You have the density of
6.4 X 10^23 kg
4/3 pi (r^3) where r = 3.395 X 10^6 m
V = 1.639 X 10^20 m^3
"such is the power of the dark side..luke! "Has it occurred to you that buildings are qualitatively different from biological organisms?since you proven neither.....and there is no evidence for a someone...yours is the copout.
you've been hedging your bet on the all will be reveled nonsense for the last 2000 years.
you'll be be spouting the same nonsense till the religion dies ,with no proof of your claims...
BTW when I use the word "you" I mean all Christianity not just you.
Let's see if this to goes over your head. When you look at a building do you have to know the designer to know it was designed ? engineered Enzymes do you have to know the designer= engineer to know they were designed ?
You have the density of
6.4 X 10^23 kg
4/3 pi (r^3) where r = 3.395 X 10^6 m
V = 1.639 X 10^20 m^3
Your silly analogy is standard cut and paste from creationist ministries and is meaningless. We know that buildings are designed because mechanical components do not assemble themselves into complex objects, nor do they reproduce.
Were you somehow deluded into believing you made a rational argument?
there is no proof that human babies are any more or less sentient then other mammals .You just demonstrated my point for me,entirely. You are unable to take into account, the pain of animals, because of some bullshit excuse you give yourself about self-awareness, and the justification you receive from the bible. Here's the bullshit: First of all, you can't positively know the phenomenological experience of animals, despite self-awareness tests we may have done. Most farm animals are very social creatures, with rights to life just as much as the dogs or cats we bring into our home (in the Western World- I realize China eats dogs). Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet we love dogs and subject pigs to institutional torture and death? Cows are also very social animals too, that want to live.
Really though, intelligence has nothing to do with pain detection. It is an entirely different system in the brain. You are using Descartes argument or William Lane Craig's argument, where he says the animal isn't able to feel pain because it isn't self-aware. This is impossible to establish as a fact, because despite any tests we do, we will never know their subjective experience of the world and of themselves. The only thing that is important, is whether they can feel pain. This is demonstrably, yes. Also, animals have interests of their own, and we completely ignore them for our own. This is selfish, and narcissistic, and what's worse are the bullshit justifications such the ones you just provided.
Unborn babies certainly are not self-aware, so any argument that supports your justification for eating animals could also be applied to babies before they are around 2 years old, when they become self-aware. Your position is based on speciesism, plain and simple. It is special pleading that babies be taken into our moral account, even though most farm animals are smarter than babies and more self-aware. Obviously, I am not advocating we start eating babies, but any argument you try to provide that shows preference for the interests of human babies over adult animals is special pleading. You have no justification to do so, other than the "might makes right" fallacy (appeal to Ad Baculum: appeal to force).
Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does.
Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!
Also, I am not arguing unborn babies should be protected because they are self aware. I am arguing they should be protected because they are humans!!!
Dr James Kirkwood, chief executive and scientific director of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare (Ufaw), gives qualified approval to CIWF's approach.
He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.
"We can't prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.
"But the weight of scientific opinion is that it's certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates."
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'
tosspot
I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Our ability or inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place.
Do you notice a trend ?you keep coming up with excuses why you believe as you do.
Then what caused the Big Bang Einstein?to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist. Nothing predates the big bang.
Not smart enough to be an investigator?
That's a little rude.
Ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a Creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.
No, you're not bias!!!!
We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...
That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
