Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debunk Hitchens!

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 4:32:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Each Christian should try his hand at debunking this babbling oaf!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 4:42:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Um how about factual errors?
He first states that it is hard and takes alot of work to view the prime mover as the most plausible to even get yourself to deism. Which plays out as patently false as the academic consensus certainly lies with a designer...

The second factually inaccurate statement is that Aquinas 'gave up' trying to move from Deism to Theism (with misleading vividness fallacy, that is blatantly obvious). This deliberate dishonest misrepresentation scores the fact this person is a sophist of the highest order.

Aquinas was a confirmed Christian and natural philosopher. Natural philosophy does not deal with direct evidence and God 'manifest' that is the measuring of divine interaction and personal interaction, which Aquinas rightly discusses, throughout the most famous Historical work called 'Summa Theologica'.

I stopped watching as this guy is wrong every time I listen to him. Anti-theists find him entertaining. I see just childish petulance, but then again that is par for the course with atheism.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 5:02:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 4:34:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
That's like asking a liberal to debunk Ann Coulter.

lol, what?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Invalid
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 6:53:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 4:32:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Each Christian should try his hand at debunking this babbling oaf!


Aha, that's a good one.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
- Christopher Hitchens
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 8:24:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 4:42:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Um how about factual errors?
He first states that it is hard and takes alot of work to view the prime mover as the most plausible to even get yourself to deism. Which plays out as patently false as the academic consensus certainly lies with a designer...

The second factually inaccurate statement is that Aquinas 'gave up' trying to move from Deism to Theism (with misleading vividness fallacy, that is blatantly obvious). This deliberate dishonest misrepresentation scores the fact this person is a sophist of the highest order.

Aquinas was a confirmed Christian and natural philosopher. Natural philosophy does not deal with direct evidence and God 'manifest' that is the measuring of divine interaction and personal interaction, which Aquinas rightly discusses, throughout the most famous Historical work called 'Summa Theologica'.

I stopped watching as this guy is wrong every time I listen to him. Anti-theists find him entertaining. I see just childish petulance, but then again that is par for the course with atheism.

That's all you got? WORK HARDER! You have about a 1/3 of it.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 10:19:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Mind you all that Hitchens was an alcoholic and was almost always intoxicated throughout his conscious state. Most fallaciess/and or inaccuracies can be attributed to his bloated state of mind.

If you think he is a blabbering oaf, you obviously haven't seen his other works. He's a very admirable man, and I'll miss him so. RIP
turn down for h'what
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 10:40:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 5:02:46 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/25/2012 4:34:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
That's like asking a liberal to debunk Ann Coulter.

lol, what?

He's a rhetoricist. His "arguments" are not arguments, they're speeches and damn good ones at that.

Coulter's ridiculous claims are usually in service of rhetoric, not reality. Same goes for Hitchens, though I think Hitchens is infinitely more talented as a writer.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 11:04:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 10:40:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/25/2012 5:02:46 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/25/2012 4:34:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
That's like asking a liberal to debunk Ann Coulter.

lol, what?

He's a rhetoricist. His "arguments" are not arguments, they're speeches and damn good ones at that.

I will concur with this. He was a brilliant orator, though not in structure, to be able to capture the atheistic zeal with false information. Most of what he stated was for fame and flame not any factual accuracy.

I have come to a point in my life, that Truth is more important than fancy. There is no factual content to anything he espoused. Sadly, he will be remembered for blatant errors and illogical rhetoric, more than his orations.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 11:34:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 10:40:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/25/2012 5:02:46 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/25/2012 4:34:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
That's like asking a liberal to debunk Ann Coulter.

lol, what?

He's a rhetoricist. His "arguments" are not arguments, they're speeches and damn good ones at that.

Coulter's ridiculous claims are usually in service of rhetoric, not reality. Same goes for Hitchens, though I think Hitchens is infinitely more talented as a writer.

What non-arguments are you talking about?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:05:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 10:19:37 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
Mind you all that Hitchens was an alcoholic and was almost always intoxicated throughout his conscious state. Most fallaciess/and or inaccuracies can be attributed to his bloated state of mind.

If you think he is a blabbering oaf, you obviously haven't seen his other works. He's a very admirable man, and I'll miss him so. RIP

I have three of his books. He's a courageous man, and he was an inspiration to me. He made some bad arguments, but also some very good ones.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 10:30:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 4:42:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Um how about factual errors?
He first states that it is hard and takes alot of work to view the prime mover as the most plausible to even get yourself to deism. Which plays out as patently false as the academic consensus certainly lies with a designer...

Right cause remember we know so much about the universe and humans that we now can conclude that it must be the product of intelligent design, what was that evidence and knowledge again Gil ?................hey you can't explain that therefore God did it
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 10:59:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 10:30:28 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/25/2012 4:42:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Um how about factual errors?
He first states that it is hard and takes alot of work to view the prime mover as the most plausible to even get yourself to deism. Which plays out as patently false as the academic consensus certainly lies with a designer...

Right cause remember we know so much about the universe and humans that we now can conclude that it must be the product of intelligent design, what was that evidence and knowledge again Gil ?................hey you can't explain that therefore God did it

I would encourage a thorough reading of the contingency argument and teleological argument again. There is no other more plausible conclusion but God and active designer.

As all of Theologians assert the evidence is clear for God, Natural philosophers validate the evidence for God and even scientists are seeing Intelligent Design an atheist is not well within his rights to maintain a denialist view.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 11:09:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 10:59:17 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/26/2012 10:30:28 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/25/2012 4:42:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Um how about factual errors?
He first states that it is hard and takes alot of work to view the prime mover as the most plausible to even get yourself to deism. Which plays out as patently false as the academic consensus certainly lies with a designer...

Right cause remember we know so much about the universe and humans that we now can conclude that it must be the product of intelligent design, what was that evidence and knowledge again Gil ?................hey you can't explain that therefore God did it

I would encourage a thorough reading of the contingency argument and teleological argument again. There is no other more plausible conclusion but God and active designer.

Yeah I know them.

Contingency - Can't have an infinite causes, ergo God did it.

Teleological argument - Bugger if I know what happened, ergo God did it.

Teleological argument 2) Don't want to use God of the gaps so do a big song and dance about how improbable is all is.........ergo God.

So what was that evidence again that proves that humans must be the product of intelligent design ?


As all of Theologians assert the evidence is clear for God, Natural philosophers validate the evidence for God and even scientists are seeing Intelligent Design an atheist is not well within his rights to maintain a denialist view.

Yes they do "ASSERT" that now don't they.

So what was that evidence again that proves that humans must be the product of intelligent design ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 11:20:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 11:09:02 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/26/2012 10:59:17 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/26/2012 10:30:28 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/25/2012 4:42:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Um how about factual errors?
He first states that it is hard and takes alot of work to view the prime mover as the most plausible to even get yourself to deism. Which plays out as patently false as the academic consensus certainly lies with a designer...

Right cause remember we know so much about the universe and humans that we now can conclude that it must be the product of intelligent design, what was that evidence and knowledge again Gil ?................hey you can't explain that therefore God did it

I would encourage a thorough reading of the contingency argument and teleological argument again. There is no other more plausible conclusion but God and active designer.

Yeah I know them.

Contingency - Can't have an infinite causes, ergo God did it.

That would be wrong.
http://conversionpoints.org...


Teleological argument - Bugger if I know what happened, ergo God did it.

Teleological argument 2) Don't want to use God of the gaps so do a big song and dance about how improbable is all is.........ergo God.

Again,
http://conversionpoints.org...


So what was that evidence again that proves that humans must be the product of intelligent design ?

There are a massive number of peer reviewed works that assert ID. It is why even in the NAS (the science guys who deliberately only hiring God deniers) the mathematicians are mostly agnostic with the highest % of believers of any category.

http://www.discovery.org...

That is nothing to speak of the mountains of great science out there that is based upon models and accepted theorems.

Even the designer of the argument 'presumption of atheism' recanted and holds that atheism gets no presumption due to the overwhelming amounts of evidence.



As all of Theologians assert the evidence is clear for God, Natural philosophers validate the evidence for God and even scientists are seeing Intelligent Design an atheist is not well within his rights to maintain a denialist view.

Yes they do "ASSERT" that now don't they.

That is like complaining that scientists merely 'assert' physics! The point is the consensus of scholars holds that indeed the evidence merits the fundamental existence of God.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 11:27:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
HEY GIL.

It's a simple question. Don't tell me what people believe.

What evidence do we have of that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design ?

You won't answer this question directly, I think we both know why.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 11:30:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 11:27:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
HEY GIL.

It's a simple question. Don't tell me what people believe.

What evidence do we have of that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design ?

You won't answer this question directly, I think we both know why.

I cited you the entire list from the discovery institute that is peer reviewed works on the evidence showing that we are the result of intelligent design....

I also cited you conversionpoints.org discussing the direct evidence of interaction with said designer.

Instead of actually reading the links you ask me the question again. Great level of scholasticism.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 11:35:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 11:30:29 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/26/2012 11:27:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
HEY GIL.

It's a simple question. Don't tell me what people believe.

What evidence do we have of that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design ?

You won't answer this question directly, I think we both know why.

I cited you the entire list from the discovery institute that is peer reviewed works on the evidence showing that we are the result of intelligent design....

I also cited you conversionpoints.org discussing the direct evidence of interaction with said designer.

Instead of actually reading the links you ask me the question again. Great level of scholasticism.

I did a quick scan. All I saw is, well this can't explain this, this can't explain that.

My question isn't what are the gaps of our knowledge.

My question is, what evidence is there that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design.

Just give me ONE :)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 11:40:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 11:35:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/26/2012 11:30:29 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/26/2012 11:27:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
HEY GIL.

It's a simple question. Don't tell me what people believe.

What evidence do we have of that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design ?

You won't answer this question directly, I think we both know why.

I cited you the entire list from the discovery institute that is peer reviewed works on the evidence showing that we are the result of intelligent design....

I also cited you conversionpoints.org discussing the direct evidence of interaction with said designer.

Instead of actually reading the links you ask me the question again. Great level of scholasticism.

I did a quick scan. All I saw is, well this can't explain this, this can't explain that.

My question isn't what are the gaps of our knowledge.

My question is, what evidence is there that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design.

Just give me ONE :)

lol, then I would recommend more than simply scanning.
Additionally, like all things in real life, each discussion point represents a complicated discussion from a cumulative case.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 11:46:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 11:40:46 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/26/2012 11:35:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/26/2012 11:30:29 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/26/2012 11:27:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
HEY GIL.

It's a simple question. Don't tell me what people believe.

What evidence do we have of that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design ?

You won't answer this question directly, I think we both know why.

I cited you the entire list from the discovery institute that is peer reviewed works on the evidence showing that we are the result of intelligent design....

I also cited you conversionpoints.org discussing the direct evidence of interaction with said designer.

Instead of actually reading the links you ask me the question again. Great level of scholasticism.

I did a quick scan. All I saw is, well this can't explain this, this can't explain that.

My question isn't what are the gaps of our knowledge.

My question is, what evidence is there that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design.

Just give me ONE :)

lol, then I would recommend more than simply scanning.
Additionally, like all things in real life, each discussion point represents a complicated discussion from a cumulative case.

Cmon GIl, YOU ANSWER the question. Let's play a game called GIL fills in the blank.

The evidence that humans must be the result of intelligent design is (Blank)

You can sh*t on evolution all day long. You can point out what we don't understand all day long. You can reference all the people all day long who assert, we are, we are, we are the result of God it just can't be any other way.

But Gil, you will answer me in either two ways......

1) The evidence that humans must be the result of intelligent design is.......

2) There is no evidence that proves humans must be the result of intelligent design

Tick tock.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 11:57:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
An intelligent designer wouldn't have put the entertainment system in the same place as the sewage system.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 12:08:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the comparison of Hitchens to Coulter is apt. In both cases, critics are at a loss to consider the arguments presented point-by-point and attempt to refute them. Unable to do that, they have to stand way back and throw mud. They say it's just all wrong, but they don't say why it's wrong because they are incapable of finding the specific errors.

Intelligent design is as thoroughly dead as any idea in science. A poll showed 99.86% of earth and life scientists subscribe to the theory of evolution, and 0.14% do not. Of course, not even all the 0.14% of the non-evolutionists believe in intelligent design.

Hitchens did not say Aquinus gave up on being a Christian. He said gave up trying to logically derive the Christian God from the Deist God. If anyone had since succeeded in doing that it would be a settled issue, and clearly it is not.

Whether Hitchens is correct about opinion polls or historical details is irrelevant to the thrust of his arguments. His opponents just look away at that point.

Hitchens does not babble. He is one of the greatest essayists of the modern era. Conservatives like Christopher Buckley have said as much. Hitchens was a convert from socialism to capitalism, no doubt a worthy opponent on either side of the fence.

Hitchens is not always right. He's a worthy opponent that cannot just be dismissed. Same goes for Coulter.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 12:15:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 11:46:10 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/26/2012 11:40:46 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/26/2012 11:35:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/26/2012 11:30:29 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/26/2012 11:27:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
HEY GIL.

It's a simple question. Don't tell me what people believe.

What evidence do we have of that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design ?

You won't answer this question directly, I think we both know why.

I cited you the entire list from the discovery institute that is peer reviewed works on the evidence showing that we are the result of intelligent design....

I also cited you conversionpoints.org discussing the direct evidence of interaction with said designer.

Instead of actually reading the links you ask me the question again. Great level of scholasticism.

I did a quick scan. All I saw is, well this can't explain this, this can't explain that.

My question isn't what are the gaps of our knowledge.

My question is, what evidence is there that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design.

Just give me ONE :)

lol, then I would recommend more than simply scanning.
Additionally, like all things in real life, each discussion point represents a complicated discussion from a cumulative case.

Cmon GIl, YOU ANSWER the question. Let's play a game called GIL fills in the blank.

lol, that translates to anyone that reads this, illegalcombatant is too lazy to read.
The game should be properly called.
"Illegal gets someone to do his homework for him!"

Dude, there is literally a mountain of evidence. Start by reading. I will let you pick your best complaint and go from there.

If you are having a hard time finding your best complaint, you could also play, since you like games....
eeny meeny miny moe:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Pin the tail on the donkey:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, I gave you some research in case you were uncertain on how to play... though I am concerned you will not read the links...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 12:31:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
C'mon Gill. You can insult me all day long.

Name one piece of evidence that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design.

You can't do it. All you can do is the typical LIES.

Ignorance..........therefore God did it.

Evolution can't explain..........therefore God did it.

Such and such says.........Therefore God did it.

Oh it just can't of happened without a creator.........therefore God did it.

But but, its so improbable.........therefore God did it.

God did it............therefore God did it.

Cmon Gill fess up. There is no evidence that proves humans can only exist by intelligent design. Can you at least be honest here ? cmon.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 12:37:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 12:31:09 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
C'mon Gill. You can insult me all day long.

Name one piece of evidence that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design.

You can't do it. All you can do is the typical LIES.

Ignorance..........therefore God did it.

Evolution can't explain..........therefore God did it.

Such and such says.........Therefore God did it.

Oh it just can't of happened without a creator.........therefore God did it.

But but, its so improbable.........therefore God did it.

God did it............therefore God did it.

Cmon Gill fess up. There is no evidence that proves humans can only exist by intelligent design. Can you at least be honest here ? cmon.

I never insulted you. I used reductio ad absurdum to respond to your approach of insults. You first insulted scholasticism and entire academic fields of study with petulance claiming 'we don't know so God did it'.

The foolishness of that insult is obvious. Really hundreds of millions of academics rise or fall on your petulance? I think not.

Second you insult me, who gave you all of the information you asked for in clear and concise links, by saying we need to play a 'game'. That somehow, I need to spoon feed you a list of academic works.

As with your view of history, your understanding of a conversation leaves something to be desired.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 12:43:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 12:37:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/26/2012 12:31:09 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
C'mon Gill. You can insult me all day long.

Name one piece of evidence that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design.

You can't do it. All you can do is the typical LIES.

Ignorance..........therefore God did it.

Evolution can't explain..........therefore God did it.

Such and such says.........Therefore God did it.

Oh it just can't of happened without a creator.........therefore God did it.

But but, its so improbable.........therefore God did it.

God did it............therefore God did it.

Cmon Gill fess up. There is no evidence that proves humans can only exist by intelligent design. Can you at least be honest here ? cmon.

I never insulted you. I used reductio ad absurdum to respond to your approach of insults. You first insulted scholasticism and entire academic fields of study with petulance claiming 'we don't know so God did it'.

The foolishness of that insult is obvious. Really hundreds of millions of academics rise or fall on your petulance? I think not.

Second you insult me, who gave you all of the information you asked for in clear and concise links, by saying we need to play a 'game'. That somehow, I need to spoon feed you a list of academic works.

As with your view of history, your understanding of a conversation leaves something to be desired.

*Yawns*

Name one piece of evidence that proves....you know that MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE you talked about, name one piece, just one, only need one, not 10, not 5, just 1.

Name one piece of evidence that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:00:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 12:43:06 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/26/2012 12:37:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/26/2012 12:31:09 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
C'mon Gill. You can insult me all day long.

Name one piece of evidence that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design.

You can't do it. All you can do is the typical LIES.

Ignorance..........therefore God did it.

Evolution can't explain..........therefore God did it.

Such and such says.........Therefore God did it.

Oh it just can't of happened without a creator.........therefore God did it.

But but, its so improbable.........therefore God did it.

God did it............therefore God did it.

Cmon Gill fess up. There is no evidence that proves humans can only exist by intelligent design. Can you at least be honest here ? cmon.

I never insulted you. I used reductio ad absurdum to respond to your approach of insults. You first insulted scholasticism and entire academic fields of study with petulance claiming 'we don't know so God did it'.

The foolishness of that insult is obvious. Really hundreds of millions of academics rise or fall on your petulance? I think not.

Second you insult me, who gave you all of the information you asked for in clear and concise links, by saying we need to play a 'game'. That somehow, I need to spoon feed you a list of academic works.

As with your view of history, your understanding of a conversation leaves something to be desired.

*Yawns*

Name one piece of evidence that proves....you know that MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE you talked about, name one piece, just one, only need one, not 10, not 5, just 1.

Name one piece of evidence that proves that humans must be the result of intelligent design.

I already did.
http://www.discovery.org...

http://conversionpoints.org...
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 3:58:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
" Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming "points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer."

http://www.discovery.org...

Nice article Gil. Thanks for posting.