Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Oh YWC. Back at the same antics. Years of being on this board and the best you can continue to come up with is "THERE ARE COMPLEX THINGS IN THE BODY, AND I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THEM, THEREFORE IT MUST BE GOD!" Moronic. Your lack of intelligence is not an indicator for a higher being. Complexity does not denote design. There are countless flaws in the human body, structurally, and genetically.

Get some new content, YWC. Oh that's right, you can't. Educating yourself means questioning your loony belief system.

Ah, but specified complexity does denote design. DNA contains specified complexity which eliminates any observable or detectable naturalistic method for its origin, either now or in the distant past. Right now the best hypothesis for the origin of the specified complexity in DNA is an intelligent agent. There is no other known source for it so it at this point, it is currently the best explanation, since we observe it all around us.

Now one could propose an alien life form as that intelligence responsible for the first DNA, but then that opens up all kinds of infinite regression arguments. The only way out of the infinite regression arguments is an infinite being or entity. This entity must exist outside space, time matter and energy, since it caused the Big Bang.

Now speaking from a purely religious standpoint, and not a scientific one, the Hebrew God of the Bible makes this claim. When asked His name, He replies "I am". In context He makes the claim, "I have always been." And since He is outside time, He easily anticipates Hawly's, tired infinite regression arguments and goes further in Isaiah:

Isaiah 43 (NIV)

10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.

Christ also predates the Big Bang:

Colossians 1: (NIV)

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[daws101]

Oh YWC. Back at the same antics. Years of being on this board and the best you can continue to come up with is "THERE ARE COMPLEX THINGS IN THE BODY, AND I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THEM, THEREFORE IT MUST BE GOD!" Moronic. Your lack of intelligence is not an indicator for a higher being. Complexity does not denote design. There are countless flaws in the human body, structurally, and genetically.

Get some new content, YWC. Oh that's right, you can't. Educating yourself means questioning your loony belief system.

Ah, but specified complexity does denote design. DNA contains specified complexity which eliminates any observable or detectable naturalistic method for its origin, either now or in the distant past. Right now the best hypothesis for the origin of the specified complexity in DNA is an intelligent agent. There is no other known source for it so it at this point, it is currently the best explanation, since we observe it all around us.

Now one could propose an alien life form as that intelligence responsible for the first DNA, but then that opens up all kinds of infinite regression arguments. The only way out of the infinite regression arguments is an infinite being or entity. This entity must exist outside space, time matter and energy, since it caused the Big Bang.

Now speaking from a purely religious standpoint, and not a scientific one, the Hebrew God of the Bible makes this claim. When asked His name, He replies "I am". In context He makes the claim, "I have always been." And since He is outside time, He easily anticipates Hawly's, tired infinite regression arguments and goes further in Isaiah:

Isaiah 43 (NIV)

10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.

Christ also predates the Big Bang:

Colossians 1: (NIV)

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[daws101]

Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately? Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.

OH. I can see already that you are smarter than the average hick. So pardon me if I humor you a little.

How intelligent is it to assume that a thing is purposeless when you admit that you see no purpose to begin with. That admission is no guarantee of the lack of purpose is it?

Perhaps you should say something like "serves an immediate function which is apparent to me" or
"has some intrinsic meaning which makes sense to me" rather than use the term "purpose" which has different connotations.

As for vestigial organs, what is vestigial, or useless may be subject to some debate. The appendix was once considered to be useless. But the last time I heard there are some very credible people who have been having second thoughts about it.

I certainly wouldn't say that there are "tons" of vestigial organs in our bodies. To begin with, our bodies weigh no where near a ton despite the epidemic of obesity in this country.

There are certain products of our bodies that people deliberately rid themselves of which no longer serve any "purpose" too. But the process of ridding ourselves of them is very purposeful.


I'm sorry but I am unaware of any chromosomes in the human genome which could be fused together to form a great ape. I would think that if there were, there are many people who would like to see it done and others that would certainly give it a try.

Do you have something against apes?

I wouldn't say that an ape is at all a "simple" creation.

If it was that simple the boys in my neighborhood would have whipped one up to go with the tales of the great white ape that was supposed to have roamed the knobs behind our subdivision. All they could conjure up were stories. Most of them weren't creative enough to do even that.

Holston, please don't ever lose the perspective that Darwinists are just making up crap as they go along. Remember junk dna??? Evolutionists didn't have an understanding of its purpose at the time so therefore, since they have to have all the answers, it must be junk, right? "We don't know what does so it must do nothing."

And I love all the tired "The designer wouldn't do it this way" arguments. It goes perfectly with the narcissistic evolutionist who has declared himself the god of his own existence. If he wouldn't do it that way then it must not be valid, right?

From a design perspective, one would expect to find commonality among designs and even basic parts. Why wouldn't a designer include most of the code in a program and merely switch the needed portions on and off to fit the purpose or environment. Instead we hear, "This is the way evolution did it."

Back to the nipples argument, where is the fossil evidence for the Asexual Breast Feeding Mammalian? And please no "might have", "could have" or "probably arose" just-so evolution fairy tales.

 

[holston]

Wow! Look at those big red letters!
I guess that cinches it.

And there coming from a man in a flying saucer. Maybe he's one of those aliens that seeded the earth with people a long long time ago.
You know; the ones who built the pyramids and so forth and so on.

 

[daws101]

Wow! Look at those big red letters!
I guess that cinches it.

it has the unbeatable advantage of directness unlike your walls of typed diarrhea...

 

[daws101]

Wow! Look at those big red letters!
I guess that cinches it.

And there coming from a man in a flying saucer. Maybe he's one of those aliens that seeded the earth with people a long long time ago.
You know; the ones who built the pyramids and so forth and so on.

self portrait?

 

[UltimateReality]

I've asked you this countless times and you've avoided it every one: what litmus test do you have to determine if something is designed or not?

There is now a whole branch of science dedicated to quantifying the answer to your question. The test for determining if something is designed is mostly grounded in examining currently observable phenomena which we know to be designed. For example, every time we find information with specified complexity in our current environment, it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. Therefore, we can state with high probability that the information in DNA has an intelligent agent as its source, until such time as someone comes up with a instance where specifiable complex information is discovered that does not have an intelligent agent as its source, but a naturalistic source other than intelligence. If that was discovered, the current claim would be be falsified. But until such time, intelligence is the best explanation for the source code in DNA.

Humans can also detect design based on their past experiences. Upon standing and viewing Mt. Rushmore, would you need for someone to tell you that wind and erosion were not responsible for the shapes in the rocks?? Of course not, that is, if you had previously encountered images of the faces depicted there. Based on your past experience with the images, perhaps on currency or in a history book, you would recognize that the formations in the rock were highly specified and the odds of wind and erosion producing them so small as to be impossible.

Upon viewing this grass and flowers in the picture below, would you conclude that this randomly occurred? After all, grass and flowers occur in nature together all the time. What is the "litmus" test you would use to conclude there is a mind behind this particular grass and flowers?

The flowers are arranged to say "Welcome To Victoria". Why would you conclude there is a mind behind the arrangement?

What about these markings on a cave wall? Why would you conclude this was not the source of moss and mineral laden water or some other random process?

Archeologist recognize design all the time. For you at act like there is some mystery to the process is either ignorance or blatant intellectual dishonesty.

 

[daws101]

I've asked you this countless times and you've avoided it every one: what litmus test do you have to determine if something is designed or not?

There is now a whole branch of science dedicated to quantifying the answer to your question. The test for determining if something is designed is mostly grounded in examining currently observable phenomena which we know to be designed. For example, every time we find information with specified complexity in our current environment, it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. Therefore, we can state with high probability that the information in DNA has an intelligent agent as its source, until such time as someone comes up with a instance where specifiable complex information is discovered that does not have an intelligent agent as its source in which case the current theory will be falsified.

Humans can also detect design based on their past experiences. Upon standing and viewing Mt. Rushmore, would you need for someone to tell you that wind and erosion were not responsible for the shapes in the rocks?? Of course not, that is, if you had previously encountered images of the faces depicted there. Based on your past experience with the images, perhaps on currency or in a history book, you would recognize that the formations in the rock were highly specified and the odds of wind and erosion producing them so small as to be impossible.

Upon viewing this grass and flowers, would you conclude that this randomly occurred? After all, grass and flowers occur in nature together all the time. What is the "litmus" test you would use to conclude there is a mind behind this particular grass and flowers?

 

[UltimateReality]

OH. I can see already that you are smarter than the average hick. So pardon me if I humor you a little.

How intelligent is it to assume that a thing is purposeless when you admit that you see no purpose to begin with. That admission is no guarantee of the lack of purpose is it?

Perhaps you should say something like "serves an immediate function which is apparent to me" or
"has some intrinsic meaning which makes sense to me" rather than use the term "purpose" which has different connotations.

As for vestigial organs, what is vestigial, or useless may be subject to some debate. The appendix was once considered to be useless. But the last time I heard there are some very credible people who have been having second thoughts about it.

I certainly wouldn't say that there are "tons" of vestigial organs in our bodies. To begin with, our bodies weigh no where near a ton despite the epidemic of obesity in this country.

There are certain products of our bodies that people deliberately rid themselves of which no longer serve any "purpose" too. But the process of ridding ourselves of them is very purposeful.


I'm sorry but I am unaware of any chromosomes in the human genome which could be fused together to form a great ape. I would think that if there were, there are many people who would like to see it done and others that would certainly give it a try.

Do you have something against apes?

I wouldn't say that an ape is at all a "simple" creation.

If it was that simple the boys in my neighborhood would have whipped one up to go with the tales of the great white ape that was supposed to have roamed the knobs behind our subdivision. All they could conjure up were stories. Most of them weren't creative enough to do even that.

Holston, please don't ever lose the perspective that Darwinists are just making up crap as they go along. Remember junk dna??? Evolutionists didn't have an understanding of its purpose at the time so therefore, since they have to have all the answers, it must be junk, right? "We don't know what does so it must do nothing."

And I love all the tired "The designer wouldn't do it this way" arguments. It goes perfectly with the narcissistic evolutionist who has declared himself the god of his own existence. If he wouldn't do it that way then it must not be valid, right?

From a design perspective, one would expect to find commonality among designs and even basic parts. Why wouldn't a designer include most of the code in a program and merely switch the needed portions on and off to fit the purpose or environment. Instead we hear, "This is the way evolution did it."

Back to the nipples argument, where is the fossil evidence for the Asexual Breast Feeding Mammalian? And please no "might have", "could have" or "probably arose" just-so evolution fairy tales.

For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."

 

[UltimateReality]

I've asked you this countless times and you've avoided it every one: what litmus test do you have to determine if something is designed or not?

There is now a whole branch of science dedicated to quantifying the answer to your question. The test for determining if something is designed is mostly grounded in examining currently observable phenomena which we know to be designed. For example, every time we find information with specified complexity in our current environment, it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. Therefore, we can state with high probability that the information in DNA has an intelligent agent as its source, until such time as someone comes up with a instance where specifiable complex information is discovered that does not have an intelligent agent as its source in which case the current theory will be falsified.

Humans can also detect design based on their past experiences. Upon standing and viewing Mt. Rushmore, would you need for someone to tell you that wind and erosion were not responsible for the shapes in the rocks?? Of course not, that is, if you had previously encountered images of the faces depicted there. Based on your past experience with the images, perhaps on currency or in a history book, you would recognize that the formations in the rock were highly specified and the odds of wind and erosion producing them so small as to be impossible.

Upon viewing this grass and flowers, would you conclude that this randomly occurred? After all, grass and flowers occur in nature together all the time. What is the "litmus" test you would use to conclude there is a mind behind this particular grass and flowers?

Daws, there were actually questions in that post that you could attempt to give an intellectual rebuttal to and disprove my assertion. I went back and bolded them to make it easier for you to respond. I know looking for you to give an intelligent response is expecting alot but alas, one can always dream.

 

[daws101]

Holston, please don't ever lose the perspective that Darwinists are just making up crap as they go along. Remember junk dna??? Evolutionists didn't have an understanding of its purpose at the time so therefore, since they have to have all the answers, it must be junk, right? "We don't know what does so it must do nothing."

And I love all the tired "The designer wouldn't do it this way" arguments. It goes perfectly with the narcissistic evolutionist who has declared himself the god of his own existence. If he wouldn't do it that way then it must not be valid, right?

From a design perspective, one would expect to find commonality among designs and even basic parts. Why wouldn't a designer include most of the code in a program and merely switch the needed portions on and off to fit the purpose or environment. Instead we hear, "This is the way evolution did it."

Back to the nipples argument, where is the fossil evidence for the Asexual Breast Feeding Mammalian? And please no "might have", "could have" or "probably arose" just-so evolution fairy tales.

For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."

for those just joining us this as all of ur's comments are: bullshit, as the subject has been completely refuted.
it' boils down to this: there is no quantifiable or circumstantial evidence of a intelligent designer AKA god.
any and all reference to a god are conjectures based on an unprovable premise.
any so called evidence drawn for that premise is also conjecture.
on a purely speculative level there" could" be a god and he she or it "might have" or "probably" (two phrases repetitively describing the same action)have done it,
but there is no corroborating evidence to prove it .
the phrase" because I say so" is far more evident in religious dogma then in any science.
as a matter of fact most all biblical passages allude or directly mention god said or god did. with no proof of it's validity.

 

[UltimateReality]

For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."

for those just joining us this as all of ur's comments are: bullshit, as the subject has been completely refuted.
it' boils down to this: there is no quantifiable or circumstantial evidence of a intelligent designer AKA god.
any and all reference to a god are conjectures based on an unprovable premise.
any so called evidence drawn for that premise is also conjecture.
on a purely speculative level there" could" be a god and he she or it "might have" or "probably" (two phrases repetitively describing the same action)have done it,
but there is no corroborating evidence to prove it .
the phrase" because I say so" is far more evident in religious dogma then in any science.
as a matter of fact most all biblical passages allude or directly mention god said or god did. with no proof of it's validity.

The concept of God is purely a religious belief. I was careful to assert when I was speaking from a religious standpoint. Speaking purely scientifically, there is incredible evidence to support that an intelligent mind is responsible for the specifiably complex code in DNA. So far you have said nothing to rebut this scientific argument, but instead, argue against the strawman and persist in your childish temper tantrums.

 

[newpolitics]

Holston, please don't ever lose the perspective that Darwinists are just making up crap as they go along. Remember junk dna??? Evolutionists didn't have an understanding of its purpose at the time so therefore, since they have to have all the answers, it must be junk, right? "We don't know what does so it must do nothing."

And I love all the tired "The designer wouldn't do it this way" arguments. It goes perfectly with the narcissistic evolutionist who has declared himself the god of his own existence. If he wouldn't do it that way then it must not be valid, right?

From a design perspective, one would expect to find commonality among designs and even basic parts. Why wouldn't a designer include most of the code in a program and merely switch the needed portions on and off to fit the purpose or environment. Instead we hear, "This is the way evolution did it."

Back to the nipples argument, where is the fossil evidence for the Asexual Breast Feeding Mammalian? And please no "might have", "could have" or "probably arose" just-so evolution fairy tales.

For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."

This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.

 

[daws101]

For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."

for those just joining us this as all of ur's comments are: bullshit, as the subject has been completely refuted.
it' boils down to this: there is no quantifiable or circumstantial evidence of a intelligent designer AKA god.
any and all reference to a god are conjectures based on an unprovable premise.
any so called evidence drawn for that premise is also conjecture.
on a purely speculative level there" could" be a god and he she or it "might have" or "probably" (two phrases repetitively describing the same action)have done it,
but there is no corroborating evidence to prove it .
the phrase" because I say so" is far more evident in religious dogma then in any science.
as a matter of fact most all biblical passages allude or directly mention god said or god did. with no proof of it's validity.

The concept of God is purely a religious belief. I was careful to assert when I was speaking from a religious standpoint. Speaking purely scientifically, there is incredible evidence to support that an intelligent mind is responsible for the specifiably complex code in DNA. So far you have said nothing to rebut this scientific argument, but instead, argue against the strawman and persist in your childish temper tantrums.

again, there is no actual science to bolster you bogus claim, only the pseudoscience nonsense you blather endlessly about.
a quick check revels your info is from the usual BullShit sources.

 

[daws101]

For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."

This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.

true! but It' makes him feel like a martyr the ultimate rush for religofanatics..

 

[Big_D2]

Nobody answered why humans have genes for a tail if never evolved from animals with tails.

but we did, and that fact scares the beJesus (pun intended ) out of believers. consequently they make shit up!

If we are going to discuss genetics then we need to be more specific.

If you can provide a detailed description of these genes and give the rational behind the conclusion that you seem to be drawing from the alleged evidence, then I for one would much appreciate it.

Until you had more clarification to what you are trying to say, I cannot speculate as to the meaning you are trying to assign to these alleged findings.

You are welcome to prove your theory. It will remain a theory until you prove it.

I am no scientist. However, this view is shared among the scientific community.

Atavism: Embryology, Development and Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[UltimateReality]

For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."

This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.

Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".

Smear Tactic:

A smear tactic is an unfair characterization either of the opponent or the opponent’s position or argument. Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#SmearTactic

Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

 

[newpolitics]

Okay, so you are talking about the problem of consciousness and the teleological argument. The latter can be dismissed out of hand, as it has been addressed ad infinitum since it was formed millennia ago, but consciousness is an interesting problem for a materialist universe, and one I often contemplate, and would seem the only plausible reason to have faith in the supernatural, as the agent behind the doling out of "souls" from which to have a subjective experience. This has convinced me for a time, and still irks me, and is something which I, nor anybody, has an answer for. God would be a solution, but the that only puts the question And mystery a step back: what is god? Where is it? What can be known about it? How was it created? How exactly does it create consciousness? how does it interact with our material universe? Given these questions, you may have solved consciousness, but opened up a whole new set of questions which completely out of reach and unsolvable, making you worse off, epistemically, although perhaps emotionally satisfied, because you can identify with the concept of "another mind at work." We do it all the time when we talk to other people, yet positing this concept and projecting it ontologically into existence is a whole other step, which you have little warrant to do, aside from the emotional awards reaped from perceived existential security. You ask some good, honest questions, and I appreciate that. However, something seeming unsolvable does not mean "god did it," because you are only allaying the unsolvable onto another realm: the supernatural.

To attribute the creation to Creator (mind, power, source) does open the doors to questions concerning "It's", "HIS" nature.

It is somewhat of a cop out to just dismiss everything that exceeds the grasp of our knowledge as an "act of God". I don't attempt to do that. What I am doing is tempering my desire to know with the practical knowledge of the limits on my time and abilities. Reason itself compels me to admit that there is much more that I don't know than that which I do know, or even can possibly know in my lifetime.

So judging from what I do know and have experienced I ask myself whether it is reasonable to assume that there is a Creator Being. I have surmised that it is. That assumption carries with it the caveat that my knowledge and understanding of that Being is also finite. So it is necessary for me to leave room in my minds eye scheme of things to allow for growth.

I do not really know anything that would rule out that possibility to begin with. After having studied the matter, it seemed more rational to assume the existence of a creator than not. The acceptance of that idea provided a frame work from which to make practical decisions about how to conduct myself whereas the atheistic option reduced to this world and this life to an absurd practice in futility.

Regardless of which avenue one chooses to take, the kind of explanations that we are looking for so far as the tangible world goes remain about as deep one way as the other. Realistically speaking, I will doubtless die never knowing.

Science as we know it does not really address the metaphysical questions of existence or attempt to explain the spiritual nature of it. Therefore it is of little or no use to look to a book such as the Bible for explanations about the physical origin of the universe. One can approach those problems without having to jettison speculation about the supernatural.

Personally I believe that there IS a super natural aspect to the universe.
But I do not mean by that a belief in a sort of anything goes world where one can conjure into existence anything that the imagination can drum up. I think a lot of people who cannot find the spiritual answers they seek in science will embrace an acceptance of the supernatural that will admit to practically anything. I don't.

To clarify this idea, I would be as skeptical as you probably are of some peoples professing themselves to be "witches" or gifted with some other implausible connection to "other worlds". I'm long since past the stage where I have to whistle past grave yards as well.

But as I said, I leave room in my concept of the universe to include a revised and expanded version of it which DOES operate by certain rules.

I am not asserting that the phenomenon of consciousness cannot be derived from matter or that it is impossible for it to be understood. I am saying that this problem and many others are realistically beyond us at this stage and that we should not be overly presumptuous in assuming that the explanation for it lies strictly within our concepts of how the material universe operates. I suspect that there may be concepts involved in grasping it which may include regions that touch on the supernatural. Some developments, like progress in technology, have to wait on other developments to take place first.

Baring some miracle it will be well beyond our lifetimes before anyone will be in the position to approach the problem with any hope of success.
I expect that someone will master gravity and discover the means to travel beyond the stars before that happens.

When I look up at the black sky at night and try to contemplate where the "end" of the universe may be, or how tiny can a thing get before it can't get any tinier, I feel dwarfed if not awestruck. It's very difficult for me to debunk every sensation like that or others that overcome me when I am forced to confront the numinous.

I would define the term "miracle" as being applied only to those things which could be attributed to "God" in which He preforms a deed which lies totally outside the realm of the laws of the physical universe. I do not mean those which may only lie outside of that which is known but those which lie outside the realm of all that could be known. I mean only those acts which would by any conceivable means BE impossible under natural law even with a full knowledge of it. Those are the kinds of acts which I would ascribe to "God", as I conceive Him; the master of all that is, that could be, or which may be possible by any means which one less than God Himself could conceive.

Somewhere between the tangible universe and the one in which miracles may occur, I would place the supernatural. That isn't to say that this realm is illogical or is not governed by principles which are analogous to the physical laws as we are acquainted with such as those introduced by Newton, Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg and those other guys. I bet they would be the first to admit that mankind still has a long way to go before he approaches the status of a Creator God.

Some people imagine the pinnacle of creation to be man. But what if their are aliens on distant worlds that are as far above us as we think we are above ants?
What prevents one from imagining powers derived from knowledge which is even greater than that?
If there is a limit to what can be known, or if all that is knowable is a finite amount, just how far would that go, and what would place the limit on it?

If you proceed in Science on the assumption that all may eventually be understood, then it is only a matter of time until one would acquire the knowledge needed to master any aspect of nature. Doesn't the knowledge of science enable one to control those forces which are sought to be understood? Take the atom bomb for example or light and heat from electricity. Just try to follow the logical conclusion of this procession in your mind. So far all we can do is theorize about these things.

I wouldn't say its "unreasonable" to believe in some type of creator or intelligence. We are emotional, human creatures that feel fear and emptiness, and god may be a way to quell such disconcerting emotions, but that does not make our realizations at all true about the actual universe. Intuition is not a good pathway to truth, only hypothesis'. I would say it is unreasonable to believe in the Christian or Islamic conception of god, given that the theological framework is internally inconsistent in a multitude of ways, whether it be in gods supposed ontology (omniscience/omnipotence paradox), his supposed revelation when compared against his supposed attributes (the atrocity committed by god in the bible), or the state of existence (the problem of evil, which has not been refuted).

 

[newpolitics]

For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."

This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.

Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".

Smear Tactic:

A smear tactic is an unfair characterization either of the opponent or the opponent’s position or argument. Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#SmearTactic

Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

You're a buffoon! Almost nothing you just wrote is true. Calling someone's argument bullshit is not calling someone a liar at all. That is an illogical and unnecessary conclusion. Stop being a little bitch. He "unfairly" characterized your argument as bullshit... According to who? You? That's an entirely subjective determination. You don't like it, so you bitch about it and call it "unfair" Too fucking bad. Further, a smear tactic is not an ad hominem fallacy. This isn't a political campaign. You are being very overdramatic. We don't have to sit here and listen to your bullshit arguments over and over again. If you weren't such a dick head yourself, maybe people would take you more seriously. Before you go off calling this an ad hominem and crying to ywc... It isn't. I'm not saying that your arguments are bad because your a dickhead. I'm saying your arguments are bad AND you're a dickhead.

 

[daws101]

For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."

This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.

Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".

Smear Tactic:

A smear tactic is an unfair characterization either of the opponent or the opponent’s position or argument. Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.

Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

the facts are not a smear. though they are often times painful. fact: you are a liar.