Darwin vs DNA

[Hollie]

All of those things at once............
We ain't seen nothin yet. Revelation is no picnic. There won't be many humans left.

And yet there are those who think Revelation wasn't about the end of the world at all but the fall of the church in Rome that fed christians to the lions.

But we know better, by studying the Bible.
There have been many that have tried to figure the date of Christ's return, (which is the Reveal, that Revelation refers to). Since the Romans feeding Christians to the lions did not culminate in Christ's return, we know that THAT wasn't it, right? And when Christ returns He is going to chain Satan. If that's already happened, then Satan is on an awfully long leash don't you think?
Take those crazy Millerites, who's pastor had them sell everything they owned and sit on a rock at sunrise because he had figured it out........

Here's what they missed:
Matthew 24:33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.
Christ gave us a litany of thingS to look for. Not one or the other, but, when you see all these things.....
Sadly the Millerites didn't realize that earthquakes had not increased dramatically, or that the countries in Europe had not amalgamated, or that no temple had been rebuilt, or that there WAS NO ISRAEL at that time!

There is no "S" on the end of Revelation. The revelation is Christ returning. The rest is pure prophecy, < (to let us know how not to be caught unaware, or deceived.) There are over two thousand prophecies concerning the end times and Christ's return. There are about 500 left to be fulfilled before He shows up.

Reason dictates that a system that cannot uphold itself will fail. This is why the vast majority of religions have failed over time, and why all modern religions will eventually fail as well (there is no reason to believe Jesus will ever come back and as the years roll onward and he doesn't return, religions will fall further and further out of favor, just like the promises of Mithras are now dust).

Theists typically insist that their doctrine is backed 100% by whatever diety(ies) they embrace, much to the suffering of people the world over. Note that theists have been doing this all along, appealing to everything but proof and in fact insisting that non-believers prove there "is no god", which indicates you do not understand where the burden of proof lies [actually you do because in all other venues you would agree that the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion of the existence of something, but you always exempt god from that rule because you know you cannot do it]


Oh, BTW, Marshall Applewhite called. He has your travel reservation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are trying to move the goal posts, not me.

Prove that God does not exist. I am waiting.

ima, your opinion does not count with me at all.

You can't prove that God is imaginary, period.

So what you think is immaterial.

This looks to me like you're shifting the burden of proof.

And it reminds me, that among the literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, and special-pleading accounts of some "God" I've been exposed to, included are appeal-to-ignorance accounts as well.

OBVIOUSLY none of those accounts are rationally valid accounts of this "God" thing you and The Irish Ram are referencing. Right?

So, this "God" thing; I have no idea what you're talking about. Why won't you explain it to me? You all seem to possess such unqualified certainty. So help me out here.

Thanks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet no atheist has ever proved that God did not exist, either with empirical data or with logic.

Hollie, you haven't looked everywhere in the universe in the same nth second. 'sides, girl, God ain't hiding from you, only you from God.

Let it go.

 

[LOki]

You are trying to move the goal posts, not me.

Prove that God does not exist. I am waiting.

ima, your opinion does not count with me at all.

You can't prove that God is imaginary, period.

So what you think is immaterial.

This looks to me like you're shifting the burden of proof.

And it reminds me, that among the literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, and special-pleading accounts of some "God" I've been exposed to, included are appeal-to-ignorance accounts as well.

OBVIOUSLY none of those accounts are rationally valid accounts of this "God" thing you and The Irish Ram are referencing. Right?

So, this "God" thing; I have no idea what you're talking about. Why won't you explain it to me? You all seem to possess such unqualified certainty. So help me out here.

Thanks.

I'm not moving any goal posts. Not in any manner what-so-ever.

But it's clear to me that you have no rational account of this "God" thing of yours to offer, since you have every opportunity to bring one forth right now.

 

[CandySlice]

And yet there are those who think Revelation wasn't about the end of the world at all but the fall of the church in Rome that fed christians to the lions.

But we know better, by studying the Bible.
There have been many that have tried to figure the date of Christ's return, (which is the Reveal, that Revelation refers to). Since the Romans feeding Christians to the lions did not culminate in Christ's return, we know that THAT wasn't it, right? And when Christ returns He is going to chain Satan. If that's already happened, then Satan is on an awfully long leash don't you think?
Take those crazy Millerites, who's pastor had them sell everything they owned and sit on a rock at sunrise because he had figured it out........

Here's what they missed:
Matthew 24:33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.
Christ gave us a litany of thingS to look for. Not one or the other, but, when you see all these things.....
Sadly the Millerites didn't realize that earthquakes had not increased dramatically, or that the countries in Europe had not amalgamated, or that no temple had been rebuilt, or that there WAS NO ISRAEL at that time!

There is no "S" on the end of Revelation. The revelation is Christ returning. The rest is pure prophecy, < (to let us know how not to be caught unaware, or deceived.) There are over two thousand prophecies concerning the end times and Christ's return. There are about 500 left to be fulfilled before He shows up.

Reason dictates that a system that cannot uphold itself will fail. This is why the vast majority of religions have failed over time, and why all modern religions will eventually fail as well (there is no reason to believe Jesus will ever come back and as the years roll onward and he doesn't return, religions will fall further and further out of favor, just like the promises of Mithras are now dust).

Theists typically insist that their doctrine is backed 100% by whatever diety(ies) they embrace, much to the suffering of people the world over. Note that theists have been doing this all along, appealing to everything but proof and in fact insisting that non-believers prove there "is no god", which indicates you do not understand where the burden of proof lies [actually you do because in all other venues you would agree that the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion of the existence of something, but you always exempt god from that rule because you know you cannot do it]


Oh, BTW, Marshall Applewhite called. He has your travel reservation.

He's back???

 

[LOki]

Yet no atheist has ever proved that God did not exist, either with empirical data or with logic.

Hollie, you haven't looked everywhere in the universe in the same nth second. 'sides, girl, God ain't hiding from you, only you from God.

Let it go.

It's not the atheist's burden to "prove" that your "God" thing doesn't exist; just like it's not the atheist's burden to "prove" unicorns don't exist, or leprechauns don't exist, or Santa doesn't exist, etc.

The burden lies ENTIRELY upon those making the claim FOR existence--no matter how you want to rearrange the question.

And as far as I'm concerned, I didn't claim I had "proof" that there's no god, and I didn't ask you for "proof." Did I?

No. All I asked for was a rationally valid explanation for this "God" thing of yours. And I respectfully assumed that your "God" thing did not belong to the egregiously anti-rational variety I have already been exposed to, and I generously pointed out the reasons those anti-rational accounts were invalid. So don't try to weasel your way out with "moving the gaol posts," when you can't establish where I moved my goal posts to.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not with scientiic evidence. Bible quotations are not scientific evidence, not binding on anyone. Just the way it is.

I have given many explanations on mutations and cells in my own words in several different threads here that get ignored where your side resorts to rhetorical responses nothing of substance.

YWC uses the Bible in place of actually having to think.

I take offense to your assertion,care to back your claim with some sort of example ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The implication you're making here is obvious disinformation. Not at all surprising considering your robust record of intellectual dishonesty.

I have addressed each one of these dopey fallacies for you previously. Shall I provide a link(s)? Just ask.

Yes. Your record of responding with disingenuous evasions is well documented. Shall I provide a link(s)? Just ask.

At least for my part, you get appropriate responses.

What conjecture? "Don't make a blanket statement without anything to back your claim."

Yes provide these so called links.

Prove my responses are disingenuous.

"So called"? If you weren't so retarded, I wouldn't have expected you to actually ask for this. KLIK HERE

or your record of disingenuosity:

• Here you imply that to be consisten with my assertions, I should have to refute that life creates life ... as if the notion is even at issue.
  
• Here you claim evolutionists assert that the chimpanzee is a genetic ancestor to human beings.
  
• Here you pretend as if "real" science has failed to refute any assertions made in the Bible.
  
• Here you continue to bang "ancestor status of the chimp" drum despite having your misinformation cleared up for you.
  
• Here you just refuse to accept that the article you posted to support your claim (that evolutionists assert that the chimpanzee is a genetic ancestor to human beings), actually refutes it ... and then you suggest your opponent didn't bother to read it.
  
• And your dumb just continued with, "... chimps were in the line of the evolution tree according to your side."
  
• You claim to be educated, yet you posted this.
  
• This is gold. An opportunity for you to firmly put me in my place (if your demonstration that my beliefs are faith actually existed) and you bail like a punk. You knew no such demonstration was posted.
  
• Here you get right back to your retarded "the chimp is our ancestor" thing, but this time you also demonstrate that you just make up these notions about what you say evolutionary scientists assert.
  
• Here you disingenuosly avoid answering a straightforward question by issing a challenge over a point not in contention, and answering a question that wasn't asked.
  
• So I ask my question again. And then I remind you that you are remiss on your response to the question
  
• You, again, answer a question that wasn't asked instead. So, I let you know that you dodge was transparent.
  
• And then when had the opportunity to answer the question, you opted instead to make some shit up. But
• I just won't let you get away with your disingenuous dodging.
  
• And then you make up some more shit. And I'm also happy to point out your bullshit to you.
  
• So you just continue with straight up lying. Can't get much more disingenuos than that. Right?
  
• Wrong. What's more disingenuous, is admitting plainly that your question were actually answered, and in the same breath claim they weren't. NOW THAT'S DISINGENUOUS!
  
• But that wasn't disingenuous enough for you, so you doubled down.
  
• And here you disingenuosly assert a strawman as the premise of your questions for me. Not that I expected to make an impact on your impenetrable dumb,
• I pointed out your error to you any way ... and that you were still disingenuously dodging my questions.
  
• Then you offer yourself this hopeful delusion. LOLsome.
  
• And you continue to dodge answering my questions with this didingenuously offered red-herring. So I remind you about how transparent your tactics are.
  
• Yet you continue to dodge.
  
• And here you disingenuously claim you've been answering the questions asked of you. What a turd.

There's just so much more. Shall I continue? Just ask.

Conjecture is brought out in both of these videos your side has ignored.

Evolution - Considered and Rejected - YouTube

Well, Hebrews 11:3 just makes your accusations about conjecture ENTIRELY RETARDED.

Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution - YouTube

Not to mention that when these guys aren't attacking a strawman, they're just lying. Evidence enough that you're not the only intellectually dishonst superstitious retard trying to sell creationism.

Thank you for sharing these.

I'd like to point out that I don't find it terribly coincidental that you should bury the challenge I made to The Irish Ram under one of your copy/paste vomit piles--seeing as how uncomfortable you are with the similar challenge I made to you.

It's also worth noting your implied admission that your beliefs regarding the subject of evolution have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

So you don't believe your theory teaches we are related to chimps that supposedly we came from the same ancestors as chimps and we diverged from the chimps ?

Human, Chimp Ancestors May Have Mated, DNA Suggests

 

[Youwerecreated]

Micro-adaptations always ....

--MICRO-ADAPTATION IS A MEANINGLESS TERM SO EVERYTHING PREMISED UPON THE NOTION = SNIPPED

ALSO SNIPPED, YWC'S IGNORANT LECTURE ON BREEDING, AND BENEFICIAL MUTATION--​

Three false assumptions by macro-evolutionist.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.

3. Large spans of time millions of years.

1. Not a false assumption.

2. Not an assumption made by macro-evolutionists

3. Not a false assumption

Here is the proper theory.

DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I hope you got it this time.

I've got a better one for you:

Micro-Adaptation + Baraminology + Creationism = Retarded Superstition

or how about this one:

Youwerecreated + Evolution + Words = Retarded Strawman Argument

or this:

Strawman + Special-Pleading + Question-Begging + Appeal-To-Ignorance + Disinformation = Youwerecreated's Only Argumentative Tools

Care to respond ?

Yeah. You're still retarded.

Loki in basic genetics you learn that mutant genes must take hold in the gene pool of the population for evolution to happen. Do you not understand the basic tenets of evolution ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Also presented an argument on "mutation fixation" but can't seem to find it.

Why it can't take place but since I can't find it I will provide this article whch pretty much covers my argument.



Please rebuttal this info if you can.

--COPY/PASTE VOMIT PILE SNIPPED--​

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

For the moment, I'm going to limit my rebuttal to just the first of the nine conditions discussed because the errors of thought thoughout the nine are just as obvious as the error(s) of thought in the first.

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

Byles' assertions regarding natural selection are applicable ONLY to harmful mutations. Natural selection tends to FAVOR rather than "work against fixation of mutations" that have adaptive value, and is neutral regarding mutations that are neither valuable or harmful. Saying that natural selection works against advantageous genetics is patently retarded.

And B. Clark is just OBVIOUSLY wrong in his claim that "that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size." It's one of the dumbest assertions I've read outside of baraminology and your Lamarkian "micro-adaptaion" nonsense.

Look Youwerecreated, if you have even a high-school understanding of genetics, and actually read this article, you would not have c/p'd it as anything that is in any way authoritative on any subject of reality.

Are you actually claiming intelligence on the part of natural selection ?

Here let me shoot a hole in your erroneous explanation. There are now over 6,000 genetic disorders in humans, how many proven beneficial mutations can you come up with in humans ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You believe that all you want. Thinking, intelligent Christians understand that the Bible is not a science book. End of story.

No, only true secualarist in sheeps clothing. If we were created through evolution would that not make creation science ?

So do you believe God created all or not ?

Eph 3:9 and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ;

Rev 4:11 O Lord, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You created all things, and for Your will they are and were created.

 

[Youwerecreated]

God is, science exists, evolution is fact, ID and creationism are philosophies, TIR is not a prophet or a scientist.

These are axioms for this discussion thread.

The answers have been there, long before we knew what questions to ask.
He's not hiding. He has given us everything we need to know. The degree in which we understand His answers to our questions, is directly related to the degree in which we study to show ourselves approved.
Since you have been studying, you've no doubt come across these Bible verses:
Romans 1:20 tells us “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”

and as for what could be worse:
“For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.“ (Matthew 24:21)

Sorry, imaginary proof doesn't count.

Only the blind can't see his works.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yet no atheist has ever proved that God did not exist, either with empirical data or with logic.

Hollie, you haven't looked everywhere in the universe in the same nth second. 'sides, girl, God ain't hiding from you, only you from God.

Let it go.

It's not the atheist's burden to "prove" that your "God" thing doesn't exist; just like it's not the atheist's burden to "prove" unicorns don't exist, or leprechauns don't exist, or Santa doesn't exist, etc.

The burden lies ENTIRELY upon those making the claim FOR existence--no matter how you want to rearrange the question.

And as far as I'm concerned, I didn't claim I had "proof" that there's no god, and I didn't ask you for "proof." Did I?

No. All I asked for was a rationally valid explanation for this "God" thing of yours. And I respectfully assumed that your "God" thing did not belong to the egregiously anti-rational variety I have already been exposed to, and I generously pointed out the reasons those anti-rational accounts were invalid. So don't try to weasel your way out with "moving the gaol posts," when you can't establish where I moved my goal posts to.

There really is no reason to try and prove God exist no matter what is presented people like you made up your mind and unfortunately it might be to late when you meet him.

 

[LOki]

Yes provide these so called links.

Prove my responses are disingenuous.

"So called"? If you weren't so retarded, I wouldn't have expected you to actually ask for this. KLIK HERE

or your record of disingenuosity:

• Here you imply that to be consisten with my assertions, I should have to refute that life creates life ... as if the notion is even at issue.
  
• Here you claim evolutionists assert that the chimpanzee is a genetic ancestor to human beings.
  
• Here you pretend as if "real" science has failed to refute any assertions made in the Bible.
  
• Here you continue to bang "ancestor status of the chimp" drum despite having your misinformation cleared up for you.
  
• Here you just refuse to accept that the article you posted to support your claim (that evolutionists assert that the chimpanzee is a genetic ancestor to human beings), actually refutes it ... and then you suggest your opponent didn't bother to read it.
  
• And your dumb just continued with, "... chimps were in the line of the evolution tree according to your side."
  
• You claim to be educated, yet you posted this.
  
• This is gold. An opportunity for you to firmly put me in my place (if your demonstration that my beliefs are faith actually existed) and you bail like a punk. You knew no such demonstration was posted.
  
• Here you get right back to your retarded "the chimp is our ancestor" thing, but this time you also demonstrate that you just make up these notions about what you say evolutionary scientists assert.
  
• Here you disingenuosly avoid answering a straightforward question by issing a challenge over a point not in contention, and answering a question that wasn't asked.
  
• So I ask my question again. And then I remind you that you are remiss on your response to the question
  
• You, again, answer a question that wasn't asked instead. So, I let you know that you dodge was transparent.
  
• And then when had the opportunity to answer the question, you opted instead to make some shit up. But
• I just won't let you get away with your disingenuous dodging.
  
• And then you make up some more shit. And I'm also happy to point out your bullshit to you.
  
• So you just continue with straight up lying. Can't get much more disingenuos than that. Right?
  
• Wrong. What's more disingenuous, is admitting plainly that your question were actually answered, and in the same breath claim they weren't. NOW THAT'S DISINGENUOUS!
  
• But that wasn't disingenuous enough for you, so you doubled down.
  
• And here you disingenuosly assert a strawman as the premise of your questions for me. Not that I expected to make an impact on your impenetrable dumb,
• I pointed out your error to you any way ... and that you were still disingenuously dodging my questions.
  
• Then you offer yourself this hopeful delusion. LOLsome.
  
• And you continue to dodge answering my questions with this didingenuously offered red-herring. So I remind you about how transparent your tactics are.
  
• Yet you continue to dodge.
  
• And here you disingenuously claim you've been answering the questions asked of you. What a turd.

There's just so much more. Shall I continue? Just ask.



Well, Hebrews 11:3 just makes your accusations about conjecture ENTIRELY RETARDED.

Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution - YouTube

Not to mention that when these guys aren't attacking a strawman, they're just lying. Evidence enough that you're not the only intellectually dishonst superstitious retard trying to sell creationism.

Thank you for sharing these.

I'd like to point out that I don't find it terribly coincidental that you should bury the challenge I made to The Irish Ram under one of your copy/paste vomit piles--seeing as how uncomfortable you are with the similar challenge I made to you.

It's also worth noting your implied admission that your beliefs regarding the subject of evolution have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

So you don't believe your theory teaches we are related to chimps that supposedly we came from the same ancestors as chimps and we diverged from the chimps ?

Human, Chimp Ancestors May Have Mated, DNA Suggests

Did I even SUGGEST that?

No.

PROOF that you are a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest superstious retard.

 

[LOki]

Micro-adaptations always ....

--MICRO-ADAPTATION IS A MEANINGLESS TERM SO EVERYTHING PREMISED UPON THE NOTION = SNIPPED

ALSO SNIPPED, YWC'S IGNORANT LECTURE ON BREEDING, AND BENEFICIAL MUTATION--​

1. Not a false assumption.

2. Not an assumption made by macro-evolutionists

3. Not a false assumption





I've got a better one for you:

Micro-Adaptation + Baraminology + Creationism = Retarded Superstition

or how about this one:

Youwerecreated + Evolution + Words = Retarded Strawman Argument

or this:

Strawman + Special-Pleading + Question-Begging + Appeal-To-Ignorance + Disinformation = Youwerecreated's Only Argumentative Tools

Care to respond ?

Yeah. You're still retarded.

Loki in basic genetics you learn that mutant genes must take hold in the gene pool of the population for evolution to happen. Do you not understand the basic tenets of evolution ?

Yes, but you clearly do not.

 

[LOki]

Also presented an argument on "mutation fixation" but can't seem to find it.

Why it can't take place but since I can't find it I will provide this article whch pretty much covers my argument.



Please rebuttal this info if you can.

--COPY/PASTE VOMIT PILE SNIPPED--​

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

For the moment, I'm going to limit my rebuttal to just the first of the nine conditions discussed because the errors of thought thoughout the nine are just as obvious as the error(s) of thought in the first.

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

Byles' assertions regarding natural selection are applicable ONLY to harmful mutations. Natural selection tends to FAVOR rather than "work against fixation of mutations" that have adaptive value, and is neutral regarding mutations that are neither valuable or harmful. Saying that natural selection works against advantageous genetics is patently retarded.

And B. Clark is just OBVIOUSLY wrong in his claim that "that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size." It's one of the dumbest assertions I've read outside of baraminology and your Lamarkian "micro-adaptaion" nonsense.

Look Youwerecreated, if you have even a high-school understanding of genetics, and actually read this article, you would not have c/p'd it as anything that is in any way authoritative on any subject of reality.

Are you actually claiming intelligence on the part of natural selection ?

Non-sequitur much?

Here let me shoot a hole in your erroneous explanation. There are now over 6,000 genetic disorders in humans, how many proven beneficial mutations can you come up with in humans ?

Where's the hole?

 

[LOki]

Yet no atheist has ever proved that God did not exist, either with empirical data or with logic.

Hollie, you haven't looked everywhere in the universe in the same nth second. 'sides, girl, God ain't hiding from you, only you from God.

Let it go.

It's not the atheist's burden to "prove" that your "God" thing doesn't exist; just like it's not the atheist's burden to "prove" unicorns don't exist, or leprechauns don't exist, or Santa doesn't exist, etc.

The burden lies ENTIRELY upon those making the claim FOR existence--no matter how you want to rearrange the question.

And as far as I'm concerned, I didn't claim I had "proof" that there's no god, and I didn't ask you for "proof." Did I?

No. All I asked for was a rationally valid explanation for this "God" thing of yours. And I respectfully assumed that your "God" thing did not belong to the egregiously anti-rational variety I have already been exposed to, and I generously pointed out the reasons those anti-rational accounts were invalid. So don't try to weasel your way out with "moving the gaol posts," when you can't establish where I moved my goal posts to.

There really is no reason to try and prove God exist no matter what is presented people like you made up your mind and unfortunately it might be to late when you meet him.

I didn't ask for "proof." Did I?

You're such a retard.

You use this disingenuous excuse continuously. Such transparent intellectual dishonesty.

I note your implied admission that your beliefs regarding the subject of evolution have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you. You have firmly established your intellectually dishonest superstitious retard credentials already; you don't need to continue proving them valid.

All I asked for was a rationally valid explanation for this "God" thing of yours. And I respectfully assumed that your "God" thing did not belong to the egregiously anti-rational variety I have already been exposed to, and I generously pointed out the reasons those anti-rational accounts were invalid.

You say there's no use in you trying because I won't be convinced; I say there's no use in you trying because you don't have an anti-rational account for your "God" thing, and you just lack the honesty of intellectual integrity to admit it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the atheist says God does not exist, yet demands the believer is somehow defective in believing so, then, hey, the atheist needs to be told publicly he or show cannot prove that God does not exist. Go for it.

Yet no atheist has ever proved that God did not exist, either with empirical data or with logic.

Hollie, you haven't looked everywhere in the universe in the same nth second. 'sides, girl, God ain't hiding from you, only you from God.

Let it go.

It's not the atheist's burden to "prove" that your "God" thing doesn't exist; just like it's not the atheist's burden to "prove" unicorns don't exist, or leprechauns don't exist, or Santa doesn't exist, etc.

The burden lies ENTIRELY upon those making the claim FOR existence--no matter how you want to rearrange the question.

And as far as I'm concerned, I didn't claim I had "proof" that there's no god, and I didn't ask you for "proof." Did I?

No. All I asked for was a rationally valid explanation for this "God" thing of yours. And I respectfully assumed that your "God" thing did not belong to the egregiously anti-rational variety I have already been exposed to, and I generously pointed out the reasons those anti-rational accounts were invalid. So don't try to weasel your way out with "moving the gaol posts," when you can't establish where I moved my goal posts to.

There really is no reason to try and prove God exist no matter what is presented people like you made up your mind and unfortunately it might be to late when you meet him.

 

[LOki]

If the atheist says God does not exist, yet demands the believer is somehow defective in believing so, then, hey, the atheist needs to be told publicly he or show cannot prove that God does not exist. Go for it.

It's not the atheist's burden to "prove" that your "God" thing doesn't exist; just like it's not the atheist's burden to "prove" unicorns don't exist, or leprechauns don't exist, or Santa doesn't exist, etc.

The burden lies ENTIRELY upon those making the claim FOR existence--no matter how you want to rearrange the question.

And as far as I'm concerned, I didn't claim I had "proof" that there's no god, and I didn't ask you for "proof." Did I?

No. All I asked for was a rationally valid explanation for this "God" thing of yours. And I respectfully assumed that your "God" thing did not belong to the egregiously anti-rational variety I have already been exposed to, and I generously pointed out the reasons those anti-rational accounts were invalid. So don't try to weasel your way out with "moving the gaol posts," when you can't establish where I moved my goal posts to.

There really is no reason to try and prove God exist no matter what is presented people like you made up your mind and unfortunately it might be to late when you meet him.

I do not accept the strawman premise of your challenge.

I also note the intellectual cowardice in your attempts to dodge the challenge I presented to you.

 

[ima]

God is, science exists, evolution is fact, ID and creationism are philosophies, TIR is not a prophet or a scientist.

These are axioms for this discussion thread.

Sorry, imaginary proof doesn't count.

Only the blind can't see his works.

He said "god is", as though no proof is required. So he is exhibiting blind faith and therefore "can't see his works"?