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.
yes you, do since you've proven NEITHER.No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.
YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT LIVES OR DIES ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT AN "IINTELLIGENCE MUST HAVE DONE IT".
AGAIN wyc "WE" ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AND HAVE NOT PRESENTED EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN!
DESIGN BY DEFINTION HAS TO HAVE A DESIGNER.
NATURE IS NOT BOUND BY THAT RULE ..SINCE THERE IS NO "WHO" IN NATURE.
PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!
Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?
second hand accounts of Jesus are not evidence unless they can be linked to physical evidence...to this day there have been none found.. looks like your shit outa luck on that!simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to prove it. that's how.
There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
it's also not evidence of design..Well, yes I have, and you can't prove design. You haven't even gotten close, unless you use logical fallacies. There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, so stop lying!
I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intelligence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
there functions were not altered by intelligence .....intelligence by itself has no power.
so knock off the bullshit.
you've proven shit ...
Like what?second hand accounts of Jesus are not evidence unless they can be linked to physical evidence...to this day there have been none found.. looks like your shit outa luck on that!There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
By your reasoning how do we know many men of history existed with the lack of physical evidence ?
Once again it comes down to faith.
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief though they have not seen me!
I have had things happen in my life to know he exists.
funny how "ur" detective douche bag will bring up "Work" when his ass is in a crack...
Kind of like you are running and ducking for cover now. I'll be lucky if I hear from you in 8 or 10 hours until the shame wears off of you.
You are turning into bigger and bigger of a douchebag. I've been reading your "discourse" with Daws. You are a most unpleasant person, UR. I would have thought that the power of christ would have "cured" that. This god of yours must not be all powerful. I can't imagine how he could be intelligent enough to design species.
Your "suggestion" begs special pleading for supermagical intervention. As always, you presume your conclusion of gawds and then invent convenient scenarios whereby you can insert those gawds.So, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.
Yes Enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
Why are your hapless gawds so inept that their magical abilities require the mal-formed explanations and angry rhetoric of zealots to explain their magic?
Your "suggestion" begs special pleading for supermagical intervention. As always, you presume your conclusion of gawds and then invent convenient scenarios whereby you can insert those gawds.Yes Enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
Why are your hapless gawds so inept that their magical abilities require the mal-formed explanations and angry rhetoric of zealots to explain their magic?
Nope it is based on reason.
Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?
This question is unknown. You can think that it's LIKELY done by a god, but it's arrogant to say it for a fact. We simply do not know.
yes you, do since you've proven NEITHER.
YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT LIVES OR DIES ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT AN "IINTELLIGENCE MUST HAVE DONE IT".
AGAIN wyc "WE" ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AND HAVE NOT PRESENTED EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN!
DESIGN BY DEFINTION HAS TO HAVE A DESIGNER.
NATURE IS NOT BOUND BY THAT RULE ..SINCE THERE IS NO "WHO" IN NATURE.
PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!
Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?
There is no valid reason to accept any designer is required for nature. Quite clearly, if nature was designed by your gawds, that would only serve to describe your designer gawds as amateur and worse: incompetent.
It's just absurd that you make these bellicose claims with not a single supporting fact to buttress your argument. Such actions could be described as: pompous, irrelevant and meaningless.
Fanaticism, whether religious or otherwise is a disease of the mind.
Like what?second hand accounts of Jesus are not evidence unless they can be linked to physical evidence...to this day there have been none found.. looks like your shit outa luck on that!
By your reasoning how do we know many men of history existed with the lack of physical evidence ?
Once again it comes down to faith.
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief though they have not seen me!
I have had things happen in my life to know he exists.
Your "suggestion" begs special pleading for supermagical intervention. As always, you presume your conclusion of gawds and then invent convenient scenarios whereby you can insert those gawds.
Why are your hapless gawds so inept that their magical abilities require the mal-formed explanations and angry rhetoric of zealots to explain their magic?
Nope it is based on reason.
So what's the reason your god makes malformed babies and babies that die soon after birth? He fuck something up on purpose? Or just fell asleep?
i have shown that enzymes can be egineered by having their functions altered through intelligence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
so, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.
yes enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?
There is no valid reason to accept any designer is required for nature. Quite clearly, if nature was designed by your gawds, that would only serve to describe your designer gawds as amateur and worse: incompetent.
It's just absurd that you make these bellicose claims with not a single supporting fact to buttress your argument. Such actions could be described as: pompous, irrelevant and meaningless.
Fanaticism, whether religious or otherwise is a disease of the mind.
There are plemty reasons you just dismiss it because you have not personally met your creator.
so, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.
yes enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
no, that is not evidence they were programmed in the beginning. It is evidence that we are extremely good at manipulating the world around us. No other conclusions can be drawn from this, without tremendous logical fallacies.
There is no valid reason to accept any designer is required for nature. Quite clearly, if nature was designed by your gawds, that would only serve to describe your designer gawds as amateur and worse: incompetent.
It's just absurd that you make these bellicose claims with not a single supporting fact to buttress your argument. Such actions could be described as: pompous, irrelevant and meaningless.
Fanaticism, whether religious or otherwise is a disease of the mind.
There are plemty reasons you just dismiss it because you have not personally met your creator.
As with all of your baseless claims to the gawds, you lead your argument with presumptions and presuppositions.
As with all of your statements, you claim 'plenty of reasons" for the existence of your gawds but you never manage to provide anything more than "because I say so.".
These designer gawds of yours are always absent any validation except in your wants and desires.
Refutation of your claim that I have not personally met my creator/ designer gawds is a simple matter. I had them over for dinner last night. They had two servings of meatloaf.
They asked that I pass on to you that you are to stop presuming that you are the gawds spokesman on earth...or else.
There are plemty reasons you just dismiss it because you have not personally met your creator.
As with all of your baseless claims to the gawds, you lead your argument with presumptions and presuppositions.
As with all of your statements, you claim 'plenty of reasons" for the existence of your gawds but you never manage to provide anything more than "because I say so.".
These designer gawds of yours are always absent any validation except in your wants and desires.
Refutation of your claim that I have not personally met my creator/ designer gawds is a simple matter. I had them over for dinner last night. They had two servings of meatloaf.
They asked that I pass on to you that you are to stop presuming that you are the gawds spokesman on earth...or else.
My presuppositions changed over time. You are where I once was. I don't speak for God I do however offer my opinions.
It really comes down to this,do you believe everything we see is the result of an undirected process or a process that has been guided with purpose in mind.
I can't force someone to agree with me, nor can you force me to agree that everything just happened through errors and mistakes and that it was undirected.
Somewhere in our thought process we should be able to answer the question through common sense.
As with all of your baseless claims to the gawds, you lead your argument with presumptions and presuppositions.
As with all of your statements, you claim 'plenty of reasons" for the existence of your gawds but you never manage to provide anything more than "because I say so.".
These designer gawds of yours are always absent any validation except in your wants and desires.
Refutation of your claim that I have not personally met my creator/ designer gawds is a simple matter. I had them over for dinner last night. They had two servings of meatloaf.
They asked that I pass on to you that you are to stop presuming that you are the gawds spokesman on earth...or else.
My presuppositions changed over time. You are where I once was. I don't speak for God I do however offer my opinions.
You state your opinions as absolute fact. You claim to know things with certainty that you don't know and couldn't possibly know.
And yes, you do presume to speak on behalf of the gawds which makes you appear as quite the irrational, hair-on-fire, bible thumping caricature of the silly TV power preacher.
It really comes down to this,do you believe everything we see is the result of an undirected process or a process that has been guided with purpose in mind.
I can't force someone to agree with me, nor can you force me to agree that everything just happened through errors and mistakes and that it was undirected.
Somewhere in our thought process we should be able to answer the question through common sense.
As is expected, your revulsion for science makes you a poor candidate to critique the science environment.
Your phony and contrived characterization that "everything just happened through errors and mistakes and that it was undirected", is just more of your refusal / inability to understand the science behind nature. Your comments simply reflect the dishonesty and real appeals to ignorance that define the Christian creationist agenda.
