Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar!


Share This Page

View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       Elegance Theme       Dark Theme

Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

Discuss religion and spirituality topics.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

User avatar
Contrarian Expatriate
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 5313
Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 9:57 pm

Re: Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

Post by Contrarian Expatriate »

Winston wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 3:11 am
Is your theory of Evolution (or fact as you like to call it) based on observable and testable science, through experimentation, or based on a series of presupposed assumptions?
To that I would respond, "Is your certainty about the existence of god based on observable and testable science, through experimentation, or based on a series of presupposed assumptions?

Keep in mind that evolution is only a THEORY. But you religious wackjobs see the existence of god as a settled fact. I guess in "crazy town" facts are subjective, but in the world of rational people, your whimsical facts mean little more your paranoid conspiracy theories.

Maybe your notion of god is a conspiracy too? :shock:



Special Offer! FREE 6 Month Membership on ForeignWomen.com! Sign up here.

Meet Foreign Women Now! Post your FREE profile on Happier Abroad Personals and start receiving messages from gorgeous Foreign Women today!

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 31916
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

Post by Winston »

flowerthief00 wrote:
November 16th, 2020, 6:31 am
Winston wrote:
November 16th, 2020, 3:37 am
But teapots orbiting the sun do not have 7 logical strong arguments for it. God does. Did you see the William Lane Craig video above? If not, watch it please and get educated. You are using the invisible pink unicorn argument which I debunked in the year 2000. See below.

https://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page4.htm

Have you been living in a cave? You are way behind on everything. Even philosophers 2000 years ago debunked such bad arguments and fallacies.
I can't gonna conceal my disappointment that you thought this article was worth linking to. It could be the single worst thing I've read online all year. The author has misframed the argument utterly.

"The premise behind this argument is that if a claim is unprovable, then it’s in the same category as everything that is deliberately made up or fictionalized."

No. That is NOT the premise of the argument, and there is no excuse for you to not know this after I linked to the Wikipedia article yesterday, good grief. The first paragraph in Wikipedia explains what the argument actually is: "Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others."

In other words, because "prove this negative" is a literally impossible task to be giving to anyone, burden of proof must lie with the side making the claim. If it were otherwise we would be obligated to entertain an infinite number of claims that cannot be disproven, some which are brazenly absurd. Yes, often used as examples are claims that are deliberately made up or fictional, such as orbiting teapots, pink unicorns, Puff the Magic Dragon, etc, although the argument doesn't require them to be fictional.

The reason skeptics like to use claims that are deliberately made up or fictional is to make the argument easy to understand.

I mean, that should be obvious. If skeptics were to use Chupacabras as an example, there might be some people out there who believe that somewhere out there in the world real Chupacabras exist and would then say "But wait, this claim IS true", and the point of the argument would be lost on them.

It's a low ploy the author of this "debunking skeptics" article has used to frame fictional examples that were intended to make the argument easy to understand as if comparison between them and phenomena that people believe in (god/ufos/the paranormal) were the argument itself, so as to discredit it.

Even worse, the author then accuses the other side of constructing a straw man--the very thing he has just done himself.

From there he goes on to use his false framing of the argument to pretend like there are 5 different reasons against it, but actually rewording the same reason over and over. Imho the author of this article is not simply misguided but is a willful dishonest actor. Russel's teapot is not that difficult a concept to grasp. The very least I expected was to see it addressed honestly.

Please do not waste my time on a bad faith link like this again.
You see what I mean? You have BAD reading comprehension. Didn't you see above where I said that I wrote that in the year 2000? And you also fail to recognize my writing style too? LOL. If you read it properly you would see that the author of that article is not a third person.

You missed the point of the article. You can't compare something like God that millions or billions of people throughout history experience in their heart, in visions, in NDE's, in psychedelic experiences, etc. with something YOU randomly make up for fun or satire or ridicule. I gave five reasons why. See below.
1) First, the main problem with this argument is that what people actually experience is NOT the same thing as what a skeptic deliberately makes up for the sake of argument! To put the two in the same category is both illogical and underhanded. Since the skeptic using this argument hasn’t really experienced invisible pink unicorns himself, everyone knows that he is deliberately making up something fictitious to put down something he doesn’t believe in while the paranormal experiencer or claimant is not. Regardless of whether what the claimant experienced was real or not, it is certainly NOT in the same category as what a skeptic makes up out of thin air. Comparing them would be like comparing my real life experience of visiting a foreign country to any fictitious story you can find such as Peter Pan or The Wizard of Oz. That simply makes no sense, even if misperception was involved on my part in my experience. Not only that, but it would be shady and underhanded as well.

For the skeptic to claim that both are the same because they are unprovable would be like claiming that red cars and red apples are the same thing because they’re both red. Though even skeptics know that this is not true, as mentioned, they prefer their beliefs and word games over common sense reality. Alas, if these pseudoskeptics really lived according to their beliefs, then they could not function in society. For example, if they got lost and had to ask for directions, they would not believe any directions given to them, not even from the most credible and well-meaning long-time residents of the area they are lost in. They know this too, and thus this is all a word game to them, not a way to live in reality. So let’s just hope for their sake that they don’t carry their silly little theories over to real life …

2) Second, likewise what someone sincerely believes is NOT the same as what someone knowingly makes up. Since the skeptic who uses this argument don’t believe in invisible pink unicorns himself, it is pointless as well as inconsiderate to compare that to what people genuinely believe and experience, such as God, spirits, or ESP. Of course, just because someone genuinely believes something doesn’t make it true, but to compare an honest person to a deliberate fraud is not a valid comparison.

3) Third, if there were millions of credible intelligent adults out there claiming to have seen or experienced invisible pink unicorns, the Tooth Fairy entering homes through bay windows, or Santa Claus flying in the air, then this comparison would have merit. But there aren’t, so this comparison is without merit.

4) Fourth, another significant difference between experiencing God, the divine, or the mystical, and the fictional example of invisible pink unicorns is that throughout history millions of honest, sane, intelligent people have experiences with the former which resulted in life changing effects, but the same can't be said for invisible pink unicorns.

5) Fifth, just because something is unprovable does not automatically put it in the same category as everything else that is unprovable. For example, I can’t prove what I ate last night for dinner or what I thought about. Without witnesses, I can’t prove what I saw on TV or how high I scored in a video game either. But that doesn’t mean that these things are in the same category as every story in the fiction section of the library.
You did NOT address any of those points. All you did was repeat something that was already debunked and refuted.

Are you saying that something you make up like Santa Claus and the obvious objective proof of intelligent design and the prime mover argument, are all on the same level? LOL. If so, then you are hopelessly lost. Even I can't help you. Because that's dumber than dumb. Negative IQ below zero.

Look dude. If your reading comprehension is this bad, then this is a waste of time. All you're gonna do is ignore all the above and repeat the same mistakes again, which is STUPID. No offense, but it's stupid. Then you will force me to repeat all the above again. What a waste of time. Are you doing this on purpose? Are people THAT DUMB nowadays? Man you sure have devolved a long way from Adam and Eve, who were probably geniuses compared to you. LOL. Modern humans are soooooooooooooo dumb and degenerate, as @fschmidt said. No joke.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 31916
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

Post by Winston »

Contrarian Expatriate wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 3:17 am
Winston wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 3:11 am
Is your theory of Evolution (or fact as you like to call it) based on observable and testable science, through experimentation, or based on a series of presupposed assumptions?
To that I would respond, "Is your certainty about the existence of god based on observable and testable science, through experimentation, or based on a series of presupposed assumptions?

Keep in mind that evolution is only a THEORY. But you religious wackjobs see the existence of god as a settled fact. I guess in "crazy town" facts are subjective, but in the world of rational people, your whimsical facts mean little more your paranoid conspiracy theories.

Maybe your notion of god is a conspiracy too? :shock:
Why don't you answer the question first? Isn't it unfair for me to answer your question but you to dodge mine?

I can use science to prove intelligent design easily. See the Science Uprising series I posted.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... ture=share

Watch it and you will see it proves an intelligent design causation. We are not talking about the Christian God here, just about intelligent causation of the universe.

No it is not based on assumptions only. Many who have NDE's, visions, psychedelic experiences, etc have encountered God. We also feel God in our hearts too. But you deny it for some reason. But no one feels evolution in their hearts or has visions or NDE's that point to evolution.

Yes evolution is only a theory. However, academics and science popularizers such as Neil De Grass Tyson and Bill Nye and the late Carl Sagan consider it to be a fact. Their words, not mine.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Contrarian Expatriate
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 5313
Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 9:57 pm

Re: Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

Post by Contrarian Expatriate »

Winston wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 3:32 am
Contrarian Expatriate wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 3:17 am
Winston wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 3:11 am
Is your theory of Evolution (or fact as you like to call it) based on observable and testable science, through experimentation, or based on a series of presupposed assumptions?
To that I would respond, "Is your certainty about the existence of god based on observable and testable science, through experimentation, or based on a series of presupposed assumptions?

Keep in mind that evolution is only a THEORY. But you religious wackjobs see the existence of god as a settled fact. I guess in "crazy town" facts are subjective, but in the world of rational people, your whimsical facts mean little more your paranoid conspiracy theories.

Maybe your notion of god is a conspiracy too? :shock:
Why don't you answer the question first? Isn't it unfair for me to answer your question but you to dodge mine?
Again, I would gladly address your barrage of questions as soon as you prove that god exists which you still have not done. You have a very bad habit of trying to deflect or veer a discussion away from something you cannot overcome. I won't hold my breath......

You don't get to make a wholly irrational claim about god, completely fail to prove it, then try to pull in other debates to get the heat off of your initial, ridiculous claim.

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 31916
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

Post by Winston »

Contrarian Expatriate wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 5:09 am
Winston wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 3:32 am
Contrarian Expatriate wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 3:17 am
Winston wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 3:11 am
Is your theory of Evolution (or fact as you like to call it) based on observable and testable science, through experimentation, or based on a series of presupposed assumptions?
To that I would respond, "Is your certainty about the existence of god based on observable and testable science, through experimentation, or based on a series of presupposed assumptions?

Keep in mind that evolution is only a THEORY. But you religious wackjobs see the existence of god as a settled fact. I guess in "crazy town" facts are subjective, but in the world of rational people, your whimsical facts mean little more your paranoid conspiracy theories.

Maybe your notion of god is a conspiracy too? :shock:
Why don't you answer the question first? Isn't it unfair for me to answer your question but you to dodge mine?
Again, I would gladly address your barrage of questions as soon as you prove that god exists which you still have not done. You have a very bad habit of trying to deflect or veer a discussion away from something you cannot overcome. I won't hold my breath......

You don't get to make a wholly irrational claim about god, completely fail to prove it, then try to pull in other debates to get the heat off of your initial, ridiculous claim.
DNA and INFORMATION are TOTAL PROOF of the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer or Intelligent Source. See below. There's no way around this. You lose for sure. Guaranteed 100 percent.



Question for you atheists:

- We all know that DNA is the digital code that is the software for life. Software cannot be created randomly or by unguided processes. Only intelligence can create software programs. Because INFORMATION ALWAYS REQUIRES INTELLIGENCE. How do you explain that?

- Do you honestly believe that glitches or erroneous program code can benefit a program and make it more efficient and complex? lol. We all know that glitches and errors are NEVER beneficial. They are always detrimental. ALWAYS. There's no way that errors and glitches can be beneficial and increase complexity and efficiency. So how can chance mutations be beneficial and increase survival and add info to the genome? It can't of course. So how do you explain that? That's like saying that errors and glitches turned the game of Pong in the 70's into the video games we have today. That's preposterous don't you think? Have you ever seen an error in a computer program source code result in anything beneficial? Even once?! Of course not! NEVER!

Checkmate. Game over. You lose.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 31916
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

Post by Winston »

This totally BLOWS atheists away and leaves their jaw dropping so that they will exclaim "holy shit I was wrong!"

"In this bonus interview footage from Science Uprising, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer discusses DNA, biological information, and how the information encoded in DNA points to an intelligent cause. He appears in Science Uprising EP3 DNA: The Programmer. Is the software that runs life the result of accumulated copying errors? Or does it require a programmer? Be sure to visit https://scienceuprising.com/ to find more videos and explore related articles and books."

Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 31916
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

Post by Winston »

@Ghost if you're still here, then here is an important point:

In short, Theistic Evolution is a contradiction in terms and is self-refuting, because if Evolution is guided by God, then it's intelligent design. But if it's an unguided process, then God isn't involved. You can't have it both ways.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 31916
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

Post by Winston »

Visit https://www.discoveryu.org/courses/meyer for the full course.

For the first time, you can have living room access to over seven hours of teaching by intelligent design pioneer Stephen Meyer in a brand-new online course. A favorite of students young and old(er), Meyer will delight both as he explores the scientific evidence for intelligent design (ID) found in physics, cosmology, biology and the chemical origin of life.

Join Stephen as he investigates the scientific evidence for intelligent design in the origin of life, the development of biological complexity, and physics and cosmology. In 42 short video lectures, Meyer explores the scientific basis for the theory of intelligent design—the idea that key features of life and the universe are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an unguided process. In this course, Meyer will guide you through the major concepts and information presented in his path breaking books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, as well as previewing some of the material about physics and cosmology in his book The Return of the God Hypothesis. Each video lecture is accompanied by a short quiz, and a special digital certificate of completion is offered for those who finish the course. For more about the course visit https://www.discoveryu.org/courses/meyer.

Check out these videos as well:

Information Enigma: Where does information come from?
https://youtu.be/aA-FcnLsF1g

Michael Behe Investigates Evolution & Intelligent Design (Lecture 1)
https://youtu.be/XCTTy0ylf7A

Stephen Meyer Shatters The Myth Of The Multiverse (Science Uprising EP4)
https://youtu.be/WR51OrawqIg

Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Contrarian Expatriate
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 5313
Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 9:57 pm

Re: Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

Post by Contrarian Expatriate »

Winston wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 6:55 am
Contrarian Expatriate wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 5:09 am
Winston wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 3:32 am
Contrarian Expatriate wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 3:17 am
Winston wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 3:11 am
Is your theory of Evolution (or fact as you like to call it) based on observable and testable science, through experimentation, or based on a series of presupposed assumptions?
To that I would respond, "Is your certainty about the existence of god based on observable and testable science, through experimentation, or based on a series of presupposed assumptions?

Keep in mind that evolution is only a THEORY. But you religious wackjobs see the existence of god as a settled fact. I guess in "crazy town" facts are subjective, but in the world of rational people, your whimsical facts mean little more your paranoid conspiracy theories.

Maybe your notion of god is a conspiracy too? :shock:
Why don't you answer the question first? Isn't it unfair for me to answer your question but you to dodge mine?
Again, I would gladly address your barrage of questions as soon as you prove that god exists which you still have not done. You have a very bad habit of trying to deflect or veer a discussion away from something you cannot overcome. I won't hold my breath......

You don't get to make a wholly irrational claim about god, completely fail to prove it, then try to pull in other debates to get the heat off of your initial, ridiculous claim.
DNA and INFORMATION are TOTAL PROOF of the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer or Intelligent Source. See below. There's no way around this. You lose for sure. Guaranteed 100 percent.



Question for you atheists:

- We all know that DNA is the digital code that is the software for life. Software cannot be created randomly or by unguided processes. Only intelligence can create software programs. Because INFORMATION ALWAYS REQUIRES INTELLIGENCE. How do you explain that?

- Do you honestly believe that glitches or erroneous program code can benefit a program and make it more efficient and complex? lol. We all know that glitches and errors are NEVER beneficial. They are always detrimental. ALWAYS. There's no way that errors and glitches can be beneficial and increase complexity and efficiency. So how can chance mutations be beneficial and increase survival and add info to the genome? It can't of course. So how do you explain that? That's like saying that errors and glitches turned the game of Pong in the 70's into the video games we have today. That's preposterous don't you think? Have you ever seen an error in a computer program source code result in anything beneficial? Even once?! Of course not! NEVER!

Checkmate. Game over. You lose.
Intelligent design proves the complexity of nature but it does not prove the existence of god.

Please tell me you have a better argument. I am still waiting for you to PROVE that god exists. Showing things that suggest that god MIGHT possibly exist are not proof. Sorry.....

Man With a Plan
Freshman Poster
Posts: 289
Joined: April 15th, 2017, 6:14 pm
Location: It could be worse.

Re: Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

Post by Man With a Plan »

So this is what two idiots playing tag looks like. I see.
Back in it.

The Grey Menace | Lone Wolf

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Religion and Spirituality”