"Buy" in the context of "accepting" in as Paul used the word.
lol, no I was using the word buy because if I want to read them I need to buy as in pay money for the book.
"Buy" in the context of "accepting" in as Paul used the word.
lol, no I was using the word buy because if I want to read them I need to buy as in pay money for the book.
I am supposed to buy that????
I am 100% sure it's the same rehashed stupid faulty arguments you hear all the time and are all over the internet. Is there some sort of new argument that hasn't been shown to be wrong over and over again?
I read a few of the reviews on one of them, and it is filled with either intellectual dishonesty or the writer is just so badly misinformed it is not funny. They claim to view the 'problem' through unbiased eyes, painting themselves to be a skeptic, but only use information that is linked toward ID supporters, theologians claiming to be scientists, and a widely discredited biochemist who admitted (after the book was published) you have to have a 'wider view' of science to accept ID and that it hinges on your belief in God.
I suppose that is a bit easier to convince yourself you did the research than just blindly believing a book because it says so.
I read a few of the reviews on one of them, and it is filled with either intellectual dishonesty or the writer is just so badly misinformed it is not funny. They claim to view the 'problem' through unbiased eyes, painting themselves to be a skeptic, but only use information that is linked toward ID supporters, theologians claiming to be scientists, and a widely discredited biochemist who admitted (after the book was published) you have to have a 'wider view' of science to accept ID and that it hinges on your belief in God.
I suppose that is a bit easier to convince yourself you did the research than just blindly believing a book because it says so.
I am supposed to buy that????
I am 100% sure it's the same rehashed stupid faulty arguments you hear all the time and are all over the internet. Is there some sort of new argument that hasn't been shown to be wrong over and over again?
This reminds me of a conversation I saw an atheist having with a religious person.
Theist:"Yes, I do believe God created the world and humans".
Atheist: "Well, how do you know? Do you have any evidence of this creator?"
Theist: "This is what I believe...my faith in God and the Bible".
Atheists: "So you have no evidence, you just "believe"?.... See this is the arrogance in religion, they say they know something they can't prove".
Theist: "Well, you tell me how we got here for evolution to jump start".
Atheist: "I don't know"
Theist: "So you can't tell me how, but you know God didn't do it...how can you possibly know God didn't do it, while "not knowing" how we got here?"
Atheist: *Brief second of silence* "well, at least I can admit I don't know unlike you guys".
...with the atheist totally ignoring the ironic hypocrisy in his arguments, yet he still found a way to castigate the theist for "not admitting" to not knowing, while he himself claimed to know something he didn't know.
lol atheists.
You didn't create your dogs. Your knowledge is not infallible.This argument seems to confuse control with mere knowledge. I own dogs who love to eat. If you were to drop a hamburger in front of my dogs, I'm entirely certain they'd eat it. I do not coerce them into this outcome, but the outcome is certain regardless.
It's actually simple.
Not knowing is fine.
Claiming to know but having no evidence is NOT fine.
Not believing in the made up claim is what you should do until evidence is presented.
And for this example especially when we have already have parts of what may eventually lead to us figuring exactly how life began. Thus we have evidence for it coming about through chemistry, and not through god. Thus the belief in the evidence over the belief in something made up with no evidence the choice is clear.
Where did the atheist say he "know(s) God didn't do it"? If you're going to argue with imaginary people, you could at least try to make them resemble reality.This reminds me of a conversation I saw an atheist having with a religious person.
Theist:"Yes, I do believe God created the world and humans".
Atheist: "Well, how do you know? Do you have any evidence of this creator?"
Theist: "This is what I believe...my faith in God and the Bible".
Atheists: "So you have no evidence, you just "believe"?.... See this is the arrogance in religion, they say they know something they can't prove".
Theist: "Well, you tell me how we got here for evolution to jump start".
Atheist: "I don't know"
Theist: "So you can't tell me how, but you know God didn't do it...how can you possibly know God didn't do it, while "not knowing" how we got here?"
There's a difference that you are ignoring:Atheist: *Brief second of silence* "well, at least I can admit I don't know unlike you guys".
...with the atheist totally ignoring the ironic hypocrisy in his arguments, yet he still found a way to castigate the theist for "not admitting" to not knowing, while he himself didn't know anything.
And here I thought there was supposed to be a higher level of decorum on this forum.lol atheists.
Not knowing is fine, but essentially calling someone an idiot for knowing the exact same thing you know (which is nothing) is hypocritically dishonest.
Actually, DNA coming from an external source (aliens -- an argument rehashed by Richard Dawkins) is more absurd than invoking God.
Do you believe that too?
Where did the atheist say he "know(s) God didn't do it"? If you're going to argue with imaginary people, you could at least try to make them resemble reality.
What's absurd about panspermia? We've observed exactly zero disembodied minds of unlimited powers, but have observed at least one planet in the universe with life. Moreover, the mechanisms involved in panspermia are consistent with every known physical, chemical, and biological theory. The same can not be said for the alleged characteristics of your magical friend.Actually, DNA coming from an external source (aliens -- an argument rehashed by Richard Dawkins) is more absurd than invoking God.
Who are you quoting?Probably earlier in the conversation. Remember, I'm "quoting" someone else.
Your entire little script is an imaginary argument. Is that hard to understand?Where do I say I'm arguing with anyone?
There's a difference that you are ignoring:
Scientists will easily concede that there are things we do not know, but they have a reliable method for discovering objective knowledge.
Theists, on the other hand, want others to believe things for which there is no method for objective verification.
Scientists say we don't know. Theists say we can't know. Big difference.
What's absurd about panspermia? We've observed exactly zero disembodied minds of unlimited powers, but have observed at least one planet in the universe with life. Moreover, the mechanisms involved in panspermia are consistent with every known physical, chemical, and biological theory. The same can not be said for the alleged characteristics of your magical friend.
So, you want to revise that statement?
That's priceless. You bring up panspermia out of nowhere, making completely wrongheaded claims about it, and when corrected, you don't want to talk about it because "this thread has devolved enough."No, this thread has devolved enough.
That's priceless. You bring up panspermia out of nowhere, making completely wrongheaded claims about it, and when corrected, you don't want to talk about it because "this thread has devolved enough."
Fantastic.
Your entire little script is an imaginary argument. Is that hard to understand?
It reminds me of Clint Eastwood arguing with an empty chair.
You know, I figured that was the response I was going to get. Why would I expect anything different on AT?
Well, I tried. I hope somebody gets some good out of what I said.
I was arguing with an empty chair when you repeatedly ignored my earlier post in an attempt to redirect.
All that's already been addressed pages ago, JD. Sorry if my answers were not sufficient or did not meet with your satisfaction. Might be good for you to check out those books as well. Take care.
I don't see where I mentioned God at all - I was merely addressing the logic of the argument. Knowing outcomes =/= controlling outcomes.
I ignored your redirect, that is correct, so now that you're here, how about you answer the question, or are you still afraid?
IS OR IS NOT GOD ALL KNOWING?
Respond YES or NO. Simple question.