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.
conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.
Sound familliar ?
con·jec·ture
/kənˈjekCHər/
Noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Verb
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
You've done one thing correctly: you decided to avoid further embarrassment by not attempting to defend your ridiculous and fraudulent "facts".
I gave the person asking for the mechanism of change within a kind or group how did you refute what I said ? How would you explain microadaptations ?
Examples of evolutionary change (adaptation over time), have been presented to you on many occasions. How is it you choose to remain ignorant of these examples?
You've done one thing correctly: you decided to avoid further embarrassment by not attempting to defend your ridiculous and fraudulent "facts".
I gave the person asking for the mechanism of change within a kind or group how did you refute what I said ? How would you explain microadaptations ?
Examples of evolutionary change (adaptation over time), have been presented to you on many occasions. How is it you choose to remain ignorant of these examples?
conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.
Sound familliar ?
con·jec·ture
/kənˈjekCHər/
Noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Verb
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
Sound familliar ?
con·jec·ture
/kənˈjekCHər/
Noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Verb
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?
conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.
Sound familliar ?
con·jec·ture
/kənˈjekCHər/
Noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Verb
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?
If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?
Sound familliar ?
con·jec·ture
/kənˈjekCHər/
Noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Verb
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
What they also observe are natural processes but don't have a clue how these natural processes could of ever got started naturally.
I gave the person asking for the mechanism of change within a kind or group how did you refute what I said ? How would you explain microadaptations ?
Examples of evolutionary change (adaptation over time), have been presented to you on many occasions. How is it you choose to remain ignorant of these examples?
Wrong this evidence don't exist you believe in a fairytale.
And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?
If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?
If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
The proto-typical argument from ignorance.Sound familliar ?
con·jec·ture
/kənˈjekCHər/
Noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Verb
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
What they also observe are natural processes but don't have a clue how these natural processes could of ever got started naturally.
The proto-typical argument from ignorance.Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
What they also observe are natural processes but don't have a clue how these natural processes could of ever got started naturally.
The proto-typical argument from ignorance.What they also observe are natural processes but don't have a clue how these natural processes could of ever got started naturally.
Really, then you can shed light on as to how these natural processes got their start,Go.
And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?
If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?
If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?
If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
If there are designers, there is no reason to believe they are your designer gawds. As we see, your unsupported theories of designer gawds are pointless.
The proto-typical argument from ignorance.
Really, then you can shed light on as to how these natural processes got their start,Go.
Read a science book.
"Precision in nature" is proof of nature.
That you can't feel the presence of nature is a function of your own limitations.
Therefore, the natural world is proof of nature.
If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?
If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.
So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.
Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."
Fallacies:
a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your real gawds for making such an egregious error
b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
If there are designers, there is no reason to believe they are your designer gawds. As we see, your unsupported theories of designer gawds are pointless.
If there is a designer who could it be if not God Hollie ?
It needs no attempt.If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.
So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.
Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."
Fallacies:
a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your “real” gawds for making such an egregious error
b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
Still no attempt at your assertion.
