Intelligent Design Disproves Evolution and Atheism

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Atheists aren't obligated to believe that god exists unless they can prove that he doesn't, any more than Joe Random is obligated to believe that Puff the Magic Dragon exists (and lives by the sea) unless he can prove that he doesn't. Burden of proof works the other way around.

Not even close. And I can tell that you have never studied philosophy.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, and reading my post again, the way I worded things was too ambiguous. This...

In philosophy, one is NEVER called upon to prove a negative. The burden is ALWAYS on one to prove one's positive claim first.

...is exactly what I was trying to say.

Damn the English language.

Excuse my misreading...

[Yohan]

Btw, if you watch the video above by Dr. William Lane Craig, he does present 7 strong logical arguments for God's existence. That is proof in a sense. Please watch it and see that your statements are false.

Sorry, but it is a video clip from a Baptist theologian, who is running a website called https://www.reasonablefaith.org
This video contains only psycho drivel and is surely NOT a proof that God exists.

Interesting for this video, comments are turned off - for good reason.

His talk does not prove anything and is rather arrogant and evasive... as he admits what he says cannot be verified. So what?
He says, it is wrong to ask for verification what he says is the truth... What should that mean?

Well, up to him what he is telling to people, but it is up to me if I believe this or not.

by flowerthief00 » Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:32 pm
Atheists aren't obligated to believe that god exists unless they can prove that he doesn't, any more than Joe Random is obligated to believe that Puff the Magic Dragon exists (and lives by the sea) unless he can prove that he doesn't. Burden of proof works the other way around.

This argument is very true, for example if somebody tells me he can fly, I will ask him to show me that he can fly....

In return he tells me, it's not about him, he cannot fly yet - but it is about his bestfriend who told him that, and soon he will also be able to fly together with him and I should join them. - I will ask him in return to show me his bestfriend - but his bestfriend never shows up. Something like that.

This Baptist pastor is now telling me - just telling me without offering any proof - that his bestfriend (= God) can do everything and because of that he wants to teach me how to save myself for an afterlife - but this empty talk is not enough for me to believe it... Prove it! But you cannot....

Sorry, honestly, I have no intention to waste my time for BS. I am even not obliged to believe that your bestfriend does exist...L0L...

[Winston]

But atheists have zero arguments for the non-existence of God. Theists have many arguments, such as the 7 logical arguments above by Dr. William Craig. No comparison. That means atheists lose....

Are you being deliberately dense? You're telling me that you believe in everything by default for which you don't have an argument against? So this mean that you DO believe that a teapot is orbiting the sun? There are zero arguments for its non-existence. That means teapot-deniers lose...?

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.

[Winston]

So at least you agree that literal readings of the Bible are ridiculous, but I regret to inform you that @Neo, @MrMan, and a few other wackos here DO believe in literal readings of the bible. But to tell you the truth, metaphorical readings of the Bible are not much better!

The fact that you are trying to pepper me with a series of ridiculous questions because you can't prove the existence of god is quite telling. Either prove that god exists and come to terms with the fact that you are WRONG.

Going on fishing expeditions to try to find something you can win is a losing strategy.

You keep repeating false statements OVER and OVER and OVER again. Doesn't make them true. I already posted proof above and in other threads. If you CHOOSE to ignore them, that's YOUR PROBLEM, not mine. Your fault, not mine. If you pretend to be blind, that's your problem.

Honest atheists like Anthony Flew considered all the arguments on both sides, and concluded at the end, that his atheism was wrong and turned to theism. He is way more honest than you, because YOU REFUSE to consider any logical arguments or proof, such as intelligent design of the 7 that Dr. Craig gave above. YOUR PROBLEM and flowerthief's PROBLEM, not mine.

You keep repeating the same lies. Stop it please. If you have any legit arguments to the 7 logical arguments from Dr. Craig above, then post them please. Otherwise, you don't have shit and are just posting HOT AIR. Same with flowerthief.

I challenge you to logically rebut the arguments above. Not just ridicule them and pretend they aren't there. That's STUPID.

Btw Carl Jung would disagree with you that metaphorical interpretations of the Bible are not good. Do you think you're smarter than Carl Jung? NO WAY! LOL. @hypermak do you think Contrarian Expatriate is smarter than Carl Jung? lol

[Winston]

Btw, if you watch the video above by Dr. William Lane Craig, he does present 7 strong logical arguments for God's existence. That is proof in a sense. Please watch it and see that your statements are false.

Sorry, but it is a video clip from a Baptist theologian, who is running a website called https://www.reasonablefaith.org
This video contains only psycho drivel and is surely NOT a proof that God exists.

Interesting for this video, comments are turned off - for good reason.

His talk does not prove anything and is rather arrogant and evasive... as he admits what he says cannot be verified. So what?
He says, it is wrong to ask for verification what he says is the truth... What should that mean?

Well, up to him what he is telling to people, but it is up to me if I believe this or not.

Yes Dr. Craig's site is ReasonableFaith.org. He is considered a top philosopher, speaker and debater. But his arguments are not his invention. They go all the way back to St. Thomas Aquinas and other Christian philosophers. They are basic Theology 101 taught in seminaries and philosophy departments. They are considered strong valid arguments. If you don't have the intellectual capacity to rebut them, then what are you doing here? Normally if you have no rebuttal then people assume you have no case and no supporting arguments for your beliefs.

What is your explanation for why we are here, how we got here, how life began, how human consciousness developed, etc?

Are you saying you believe in the religion of randomness? Does randomness explain everything?

How do you explain the design argument of IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY? See the Dr. Turek video above and his smart students. They blow you guys away for sure. They are way smarter than you and CE. No offense. It's just true.

Let me guess. The kind of proof you want is not from logic or evidence. What you really want is for God to show up at your doorstep and introduce himself right? lol

[Winston]

@Neo what's your view on the intelligent design argument and the irreducible complexity argument? You haven't commented on that. That's the crux of the issue here. No one has refuted them. Neither Yohan, CE or flowerthief has refuted them even one iota. They cannot so they ignore them. That's a losing argument.

CE has not presented any logical arguments. All he's done is used ridicule and ad hominem attacks which in logic is a fallacy.

[Neo]

@Neo what's your view on the intelligent design argument and the irreducible complexity argument? You haven't commented on that. That's the crux of the issue here. No one has refuted them. Neither Yohan, CE or flowerthief has refuted them even one iota. They cannot so they ignore them. That's a losing argument.

CE has not presented any logical arguments. All he's done is used ridicule and ad hominem attacks which in logic is a fallacy.

I believe that creation happened just the way it is stated in Genesis in the KJV Bible.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

@Neo what's your view on the intelligent design argument and the irreducible complexity argument? You haven't commented on that. That's the crux of the issue here. No one has refuted them. Neither Yohan, CE or flowerthief has refuted them even one iota. They cannot so they ignore them. That's a losing argument.

CE has not presented any logical arguments. All he's done is used ridicule and ad hominem attacks which in logic is a fallacy.

I believe that creation happened just the way it is stated in Genesis in the KJV Bible.

OMG, What are we back kindergarten here? And that serpent actually had a voice too right?

[Neo]

@Neo what's your view on the intelligent design argument and the irreducible complexity argument? You haven't commented on that. That's the crux of the issue here. No one has refuted them. Neither Yohan, CE or flowerthief has refuted them even one iota. They cannot so they ignore them. That's a losing argument.

CE has not presented any logical arguments. All he's done is used ridicule and ad hominem attacks which in logic is a fallacy.

I believe that creation happened just the way it is stated in Genesis in the KJV Bible.

And that serpent actually had a voice too right?

Yes, but some people cannot believe it.

Other people believe that all life on earth began with one single cell organism millions of years ago, and that humans evolved from chimpanzee-like primates, but nobody ever saw either of those happen.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

@Neo what's your view on the intelligent design argument and the irreducible complexity argument? You haven't commented on that. That's the crux of the issue here. No one has refuted them. Neither Yohan, CE or flowerthief has refuted them even one iota. They cannot so they ignore them. That's a losing argument.

CE has not presented any logical arguments. All he's done is used ridicule and ad hominem attacks which in logic is a fallacy.

I believe that creation happened just the way it is stated in Genesis in the KJV Bible.

And that serpent actually had a voice too right?

Yes, but some people cannot believe it.

Other people believe that all life on earth began with one single cell organism millions of years ago, and that humans evolved from chimpanzee-like primates, but nobody ever saw either of those happen.

Sorry Neo. You are a nice enough poster, but you are 100% insane based on your wacky beliefs.

[Winston]

@Neo what's your view on the intelligent design argument and the irreducible complexity argument? You haven't commented on that. That's the crux of the issue here. No one has refuted them. Neither Yohan, CE or flowerthief has refuted them even one iota. They cannot so they ignore them. That's a losing argument.

CE has not presented any logical arguments. All he's done is used ridicule and ad hominem attacks which in logic is a fallacy.

I believe that creation happened just the way it is stated in Genesis in the KJV Bible.

OMG, What are we back kindergarten here? And that serpent actually had a voice too right?

Whether the story of Genesis is literal or metaphorical doesn't matter. Either way, randomness did NOT create this universe and definitely did not create life. Anymore than computers are made by random forces. Look up a human anatomy textbook and you will be forced to agree. Nothing that complex can ever come from chance.

I think the concept of a talking serpent is more plausible than bacteria evolving into Mozart by chance and natural selection. That's an even more ridiculous idea. Also the notion of the Big Bang creating order and complexity. We all know that explosions create chaos, not order. Do you think a nuclear bomb can create civilization? LOL. See how totally DUMB your beliefs are? LOL. Soooooooooo DUMB!

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I think the concept of a talking serpent is more plausible than bacteria evolving into Mozart by chance and natural selection. That's an even more ridiculous idea. Also the notion of the Big Bang creating order and complexity. We all know that explosions create chaos, not order. Do you think a nuclear bomb can create civilization? LOL. See how totally DUMB your beliefs are? LOL. Soooooooooo DUMB!

So a talking snake is more plausible to you than evolution?

Ok, you have officially entered "clown world."

[flowerthief00]

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.

[Winston]

I think the concept of a talking serpent is more plausible than bacteria evolving into Mozart by chance and natural selection. That's an even more ridiculous idea. Also the notion of the Big Bang creating order and complexity. We all know that explosions create chaos, not order. Do you think a nuclear bomb can create civilization? LOL. See how totally DUMB your beliefs are? LOL. Soooooooooo DUMB!

So a talking snake is more plausible to you than evolution?

Ok, you have officially entered "clown world."

It's definitely more plausible than a nuclear bomb creating an entire civilization of humans and many species of plants and animals all over the world, ala the Big Bang. That's for sure. If evolution is true, then why could snakes not evolve intelligence like humans? lol. Gotcha.

Btw one killer question for your atheists and evolutionists:

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?

M.S. King says that question is a killer and always stumps evolutionists in their tracks.

[Winston]

Great points!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ivgQFIST1g

Top five lies of evolution (none of them verified by experiment, of course).

1. Life from non-life is possible.
2. Natural process can create a code.
3. Mutations generate information.
4. Natural Selection has a solid scientific support.
5. Evolution is a testable theory.

In fact no scientific evidence supports evolution. There's no lab experiment, no rigid mathematical model and no computer simulation supporting evolution. All these have been tried and show that this theory has no chance of working even in theory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question to all evolutionists:

Humans carry 100 mutations which originated in our parents (50 in each parent), 10 of these mutations are deleterious. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare and practically immeasurable.
Mutations are noise, and noise never creates information. Noise does NOT improve the signal. Noise is an unwanted and damaging change to the initial signal, which is mathematically identical to entropy and its damage to a signal is irreversible.
"In signal processing, noise is a general term for unwanted (and, in general, unknown) modifications that a signal may suffer during capture, storage, transmission, processing, or conversion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_(signal_processing)

The random genetic mutation process is a subject to the law of increasing entropy. This is fundamentally irrefutable as we observe it on a daily basis.

Beneficial mutations are so rare that they practically never happen. Given these basic facts, how do you expect evolution to increase biological information?

This is why the "Errors did it" theory is illogical and unscientific.