Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists Don't 100% Believe Hocus Pocus

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:51:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Atheists don't fully buy their own Hocus Pocus

1ST EXCHANGE:
Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that God doesn"t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it." Here is Professor Dawkins response, "Well, it"s hard to put a figure on it, but I"d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that." Mr. Stein responded with this question. "Well, how do you know it"s ninety-nine percent ("I don"t," Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?" Dr. Dawkins continues, "You asked me to put a figure on it and I"m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it"s" I just think it"s very unlikely." "But you couldn"t put a number on it?," Mr. Stein clarifies. "No, of course not," said Dr. Dawkins. "So it could be forty-nine percent?," Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, "Well, it would be" I mean I think it"s" it"s" it"s unlikely, but" but" I" and it"s quite far from fifty percent."
"How do you know?," Mr. Stein asks. "I don"t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book," Dr. Dawkins responds.[2]

2ND EXCHANGE:
BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

3RD EXCHANGE:
DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

-"Expelled: No Intelligenc Allowed" documentary-

QUOTE
"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:16:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Hocus Pocus was a downright charming film, and I resent the implication that my atheism must come into it. Can't I put my beliefs aside for one minute and enjoy a beloved Halloween themed 90's movie?
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:16:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I don't believe in any hocus pocus, that's religion and I'm an atheist. Has mummy given you permission to grow up yet?
Just keep the laughs coming.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:21:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:51:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheists don't fully buy their own Hocus Pocus

1ST EXCHANGE:
Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that God doesn"t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it." Here is Professor Dawkins response, "Well, it"s hard to put a figure on it, but I"d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that." Mr. Stein responded with this question. "Well, how do you know it"s ninety-nine percent ("I don"t," Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?" Dr. Dawkins continues, "You asked me to put a figure on it and I"m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it"s" I just think it"s very unlikely." "But you couldn"t put a number on it?," Mr. Stein clarifies. "No, of course not," said Dr. Dawkins. "So it could be forty-nine percent?," Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, "Well, it would be" I mean I think it"s" it"s" it"s unlikely, but" but" I" and it"s quite far from fifty percent."
"How do you know?," Mr. Stein asks. "I don"t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book," Dr. Dawkins responds.[2]

2ND EXCHANGE:
BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

3RD EXCHANGE:
DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

-"Expelled: No Intelligenc Allowed" documentary-

QUOTE
"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

OK, they admitted we don't know. That's just being honest, unlike religion which claims to know everything because of their holy writings and personal revelations, all of which are not provable and untestable.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:42:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:51:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheists don't fully buy their own Hocus Pocus

1ST EXCHANGE:
Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that God doesn"t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it." Here is Professor Dawkins response, "Well, it"s hard to put a figure on it, but I"d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that." Mr. Stein responded with this question. "Well, how do you know it"s ninety-nine percent ("I don"t," Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?" Dr. Dawkins continues, "You asked me to put a figure on it and I"m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it"s" I just think it"s very unlikely." "But you couldn"t put a number on it?," Mr. Stein clarifies. "No, of course not," said Dr. Dawkins. "So it could be forty-nine percent?," Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, "Well, it would be" I mean I think it"s" it"s" it"s unlikely, but" but" I" and it"s quite far from fifty percent."
"How do you know?," Mr. Stein asks. "I don"t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book," Dr. Dawkins responds.[2]

2ND EXCHANGE:
BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

3RD EXCHANGE:
DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

-"Expelled: No Intelligenc Allowed" documentary-

QUOTE
"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

Atheists don't believe that.
We just think Hocus Pocus is a lot more conceivable , and credible . Then your Far fetched views on things .
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:21:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:51:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheists don't fully buy their own Hocus Pocus

1ST EXCHANGE:
Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that God doesn"t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it." Here is Professor Dawkins response, "Well, it"s hard to put a figure on it, but I"d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that." Mr. Stein responded with this question. "Well, how do you know it"s ninety-nine percent ("I don"t," Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?" Dr. Dawkins continues, "You asked me to put a figure on it and I"m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it"s" I just think it"s very unlikely." "But you couldn"t put a number on it?," Mr. Stein clarifies. "No, of course not," said Dr. Dawkins. "So it could be forty-nine percent?," Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, "Well, it would be" I mean I think it"s" it"s" it"s unlikely, but" but" I" and it"s quite far from fifty percent."
"How do you know?," Mr. Stein asks. "I don"t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book," Dr. Dawkins responds.[2]

2ND EXCHANGE:
BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

3RD EXCHANGE:
DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

-"Expelled: No Intelligenc Allowed" documentary-

QUOTE
"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

OK, they admitted we don't know. That's just being honest, unlike religion which claims to know everything because of their holy writings and personal revelations, all of which are not provable and untestable.

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
be_diligent
Posts: 399
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:47:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:51:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheists don't fully buy their own Hocus Pocus

1ST EXCHANGE:
Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that God doesn"t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it." Here is Professor Dawkins response, "Well, it"s hard to put a figure on it, but I"d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that." Mr. Stein responded with this question. "Well, how do you know it"s ninety-nine percent ("I don"t," Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?" Dr. Dawkins continues, "You asked me to put a figure on it and I"m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it"s" I just think it"s very unlikely." "But you couldn"t put a number on it?," Mr. Stein clarifies. "No, of course not," said Dr. Dawkins. "So it could be forty-nine percent?," Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, "Well, it would be" I mean I think it"s" it"s" it"s unlikely, but" but" I" and it"s quite far from fifty percent."
"How do you know?," Mr. Stein asks. "I don"t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book," Dr. Dawkins responds.[2]

2ND EXCHANGE:
BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

3RD EXCHANGE:
DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

-"Expelled: No Intelligenc Allowed" documentary-

QUOTE
"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

Good post!
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:11:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Science and truth are not synonimous.

Survey data collected from 1986 to 2005 revealed disturbing information about scientific reporting across a host of fields. Almost two percent of scientists personally admitted to having "fabricated, falsified, or modified data or results."1 And when asked about their colleagues" actions, the falsification figure jumped to 14 percent.
Additionally, up to 72 percent perceived their fellow scientists as guilty of other questionable research practices. An analysis of the survey data published online in PLoS One concluded that "it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct."1
This study verifies the sentiment of the late evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Gould, who wrote in 1994, "The stereotype of a fully rational and objective "scientific method," with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology."2 In other words, scientists are human and capable of deception, just like people in any other field.
The published analysis also found that medical and pharmacological researchers reported a higher rate of misconduct, "supporting fears that the field of medical research is being biased by commercial interests."3
If commercial interests can encourage the manipulation of research data, then why not other ideological interests? There have been many examples where a "scientific" conclusion was more the result of evolutionary bias than it was a deduction from the data that was examined. Fossils such as Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man, as well as embryonic recapitulation, vestigial organs, and the supposed evolutionary behavior of the peppered moth, were all widely-accepted evidence for evolutionary concepts until they were debunked by later research.
These are historical examples of data manipulation to fit a preselected conclusion. Coupled with the find that "around 46 per cent [of scientists] say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in"presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure,"3 they demonstrate the potential fallibility of scientists and their dependence, like all other people, upon starting assumptions in their interpretation of data.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:16:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:42:57 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:51:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheists don't fully buy their own Hocus Pocus

1ST EXCHANGE:
Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that God doesn"t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it." Here is Professor Dawkins response, "Well, it"s hard to put a figure on it, but I"d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that." Mr. Stein responded with this question. "Well, how do you know it"s ninety-nine percent ("I don"t," Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?" Dr. Dawkins continues, "You asked me to put a figure on it and I"m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it"s" I just think it"s very unlikely." "But you couldn"t put a number on it?," Mr. Stein clarifies. "No, of course not," said Dr. Dawkins. "So it could be forty-nine percent?," Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, "Well, it would be" I mean I think it"s" it"s" it"s unlikely, but" but" I" and it"s quite far from fifty percent."
"How do you know?," Mr. Stein asks. "I don"t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book," Dr. Dawkins responds.[2]

2ND EXCHANGE:
BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

3RD EXCHANGE:
DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

-"Expelled: No Intelligenc Allowed" documentary-

QUOTE
"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

Atheists don't believe that.
We just think Hocus Pocus is a lot more conceivable , and credible . Then your Far fetched views on things .

What are my far fetched views on things?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:19:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:16:43 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:42:57 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:51:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheists don't fully buy their own Hocus Pocus

1ST EXCHANGE:
Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that God doesn"t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it." Here is Professor Dawkins response, "Well, it"s hard to put a figure on it, but I"d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that." Mr. Stein responded with this question. "Well, how do you know it"s ninety-nine percent ("I don"t," Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?" Dr. Dawkins continues, "You asked me to put a figure on it and I"m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it"s" I just think it"s very unlikely." "But you couldn"t put a number on it?," Mr. Stein clarifies. "No, of course not," said Dr. Dawkins. "So it could be forty-nine percent?," Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, "Well, it would be" I mean I think it"s" it"s" it"s unlikely, but" but" I" and it"s quite far from fifty percent."
"How do you know?," Mr. Stein asks. "I don"t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book," Dr. Dawkins responds.[2]

2ND EXCHANGE:
BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

3RD EXCHANGE:
DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

-"Expelled: No Intelligenc Allowed" documentary-

QUOTE
"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

Atheists don't believe that.
We just think Hocus Pocus is a lot more conceivable , and credible . Then your Far fetched views on things .

What are my far fetched views on things?

Just god
be_diligent
Posts: 399
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:26:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?

He needs a lot of books, one on maturity would be good. How about suggesting that he buy a book on intelligent conversation? That might be good for him too.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:27:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:19:15 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:16:43 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:42:57 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:51:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheists don't fully buy their own Hocus Pocus

1ST EXCHANGE:
Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that God doesn"t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it." Here is Professor Dawkins response, "Well, it"s hard to put a figure on it, but I"d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that." Mr. Stein responded with this question. "Well, how do you know it"s ninety-nine percent ("I don"t," Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?" Dr. Dawkins continues, "You asked me to put a figure on it and I"m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it"s" I just think it"s very unlikely." "But you couldn"t put a number on it?," Mr. Stein clarifies. "No, of course not," said Dr. Dawkins. "So it could be forty-nine percent?," Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, "Well, it would be" I mean I think it"s" it"s" it"s unlikely, but" but" I" and it"s quite far from fifty percent."
"How do you know?," Mr. Stein asks. "I don"t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book," Dr. Dawkins responds.[2]

2ND EXCHANGE:
BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

3RD EXCHANGE:
DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

-"Expelled: No Intelligenc Allowed" documentary-

QUOTE
"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

Atheists don't believe that.
We just think Hocus Pocus is a lot more conceivable , and credible . Then your Far fetched views on things .

What are my far fetched views on things?


Just god

Perhaps virtual reality video game characters could say the same about the programmer whom they have never seen. "Far fetched ideas" seems like a narrow minded religious philosophy. Are you sure your beliefs aren't guided by a preconceived ideology?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:31:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?

The Religion forums make me feel gullible as . I'll give you that Christians, I can't picture you writing about god and not chuckling. Its a joke on us hey? I'm sure it is.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:33:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

So intelligent design must be based off of the Bible. Why is that?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:39:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
ID is most certainly a bible christian creation, that has even been decided by the courts in america, what that has to do with atheism (the rejection of the man made claim that gods exist) I'll leave to you to fabricate.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:55:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:39:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
ID is most certainly a bible christian creation, that has even been decided by the courts in america, what that has to do with atheism (the rejection of the man made claim that gods exist) I'll leave to you to fabricate.

Do you conside ID as a valid theory if it is left as just that: a theory?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:03:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:55:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:39:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
ID is most certainly a bible christian creation, that has even been decided by the courts in america, what that has to do with atheism (the rejection of the man made claim that gods exist) I'll leave to you to fabricate.

Do you conside ID as a valid theory if it is left as just that: a theory?
You are obviously not talking in scientific terms, so perhaps you could expand a little.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:16:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:03:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:55:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:39:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
ID is most certainly a bible christian creation, that has even been decided by the courts in america, what that has to do with atheism (the rejection of the man made claim that gods exist) I'll leave to you to fabricate.

Do you conside ID as a valid theory if it is left as just that: a theory?
You are obviously not talking in scientific terms, so perhaps you could expand a little.

Is intelligent design a legitimate pursuit as a theory? Let us say there is a god or intelligent designer, in theory, that is not based off of any "holy book". Let's say the designer/god is kind logical, and reasonable. Is the pursuit of this kind of designer a legitimate pursuit in your opinion?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:21:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:16:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:03:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:55:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:39:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
ID is most certainly a bible christian creation, that has even been decided by the courts in america, what that has to do with atheism (the rejection of the man made claim that gods exist) I'll leave to you to fabricate.

Do you conside ID as a valid theory if it is left as just that: a theory?
You are obviously not talking in scientific terms, so perhaps you could expand a little.

Is intelligent design a legitimate pursuit as a theory? Let us say there is a god or intelligent designer, in theory, that is not based off of any "holy book". Let's say the designer/god is kind logical, and reasonable. Is the pursuit of this kind of designer a legitimate pursuit in your opinion?

So you are not interested in testing a theory you wish that I accept the validity of your claim that ID has some sort of merit?
Is this your position?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:24:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:55:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:39:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
ID is most certainly a bible christian creation, that has even been decided by the courts in america, what that has to do with atheism (the rejection of the man made claim that gods exist) I'll leave to you to fabricate.

Do you conside ID as a valid theory if it is left as just that: a theory?

ID is not a theory in the scientific sense. It would be a hypothesis much like the "designer" it is built on - and both are completely unsubstantiated at that. ID has provided nothing in the way of advancement to humanity. If anything it is a detriment to humanity because it is ignorance submitted as knowledge. "Valid" and "theory" are not appropriate descriptors for ID. I'd suggest "confirmation biased speculation".
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:25:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:21:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:16:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:03:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:55:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:39:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
ID is most certainly a bible christian creation, that has even been decided by the courts in america, what that has to do with atheism (the rejection of the man made claim that gods exist) I'll leave to you to fabricate.

Do you conside ID as a valid theory if it is left as just that: a theory?
You are obviously not talking in scientific terms, so perhaps you could expand a little.

Is intelligent design a legitimate pursuit as a theory? Let us say there is a god or intelligent designer, in theory, that is not based off of any "holy book". Let's say the designer/god is kind logical, and reasonable. Is the pursuit of this kind of designer a legitimate pursuit in your opinion?

So you are not interested in testing a theory you wish that I accept the validity of your claim that ID has some sort of merit?
Is this your position?

I am taking the position that an intelligent designer that is given no attributes, because they would be unknown, is a legitimate pursuit whether scientifically or philisophically.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:33:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:24:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:55:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:39:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
ID is most certainly a bible christian creation, that has even been decided by the courts in america, what that has to do with atheism (the rejection of the man made claim that gods exist) I'll leave to you to fabricate.

Do you conside ID as a valid theory if it is left as just that: a theory?

ID is not a theory in the scientific sense. It would be a hypothesis much like the "designer" it is built on - and both are completely unsubstantiated at that. ID has provided nothing in the way of advancement to humanity. If anything it is a detriment to humanity because it is ignorance submitted as knowledge. "Valid" and "theory" are not appropriate descriptors for ID. I'd suggest "confirmation biased speculation".

In theory, an intelligent designer may not choose to be "findable" within his/her/its creation based on "scientific" means for an unknown reason. Based on that hypothesis, is it fair to say, in theory, that if an intelligent designer did design our reality, that designer is worth pursuit by other or "deeper" means?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:46:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:33:21 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:24:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:55:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:39:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
ID is most certainly a bible christian creation, that has even been decided by the courts in america, what that has to do with atheism (the rejection of the man made claim that gods exist) I'll leave to you to fabricate.

Do you conside ID as a valid theory if it is left as just that: a theory?

ID is not a theory in the scientific sense. It would be a hypothesis much like the "designer" it is built on - and both are completely unsubstantiated at that. ID has provided nothing in the way of advancement to humanity. If anything it is a detriment to humanity because it is ignorance submitted as knowledge. "Valid" and "theory" are not appropriate descriptors for ID. I'd suggest "confirmation biased speculation".

In theory, an intelligent designer may not choose to be "findable" within his/her/its creation based on "scientific" means for an unknown reason. Based on that hypothesis, is it fair to say, in theory, that if an intelligent designer did design our reality, that designer is worth pursuit by other or "deeper" means?

Do you accept other things on such a weak standard of evidence? It is only with god (creator, designer ..whatever you want to call it) that we allow such strong beliefs on such poor standards.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:49:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:33:21 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:24:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:55:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:39:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
ID is most certainly a bible christian creation, that has even been decided by the courts in america, what that has to do with atheism (the rejection of the man made claim that gods exist) I'll leave to you to fabricate.

Do you conside ID as a valid theory if it is left as just that: a theory?

ID is not a theory in the scientific sense. It would be a hypothesis much like the "designer" it is built on - and both are completely unsubstantiated at that. ID has provided nothing in the way of advancement to humanity. If anything it is a detriment to humanity because it is ignorance submitted as knowledge. "Valid" and "theory" are not appropriate descriptors for ID. I'd suggest "confirmation biased speculation".

In theory, an intelligent designer may not choose to be "findable" within his/her/its creation based on "scientific" means for an unknown reason. Based on that hypothesis, is it fair to say, in theory, that if an intelligent designer did design our reality, that designer is worth pursuit by other or "deeper" means?
You keep using the word theory in the vernacular, what you mean is idea.
The term theory in science is completely unrelated to the word theory in the vernacular.
For arguments sake let's say that ID is an idea that can be studied and explored and that an INTELLIGENT designer created everything?
That would mean that an intelligent designer would create Yersinia pestis, Variola major and Variola minor?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 5:00:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:21:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:16:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:03:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:55:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:39:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
ID is most certainly a bible christian creation, that has even been decided by the courts in america, what that has to do with atheism (the rejection of the man made claim that gods exist) I'll leave to you to fabricate.

Do you conside ID as a valid theory if it is left as just that: a theory?
You are obviously not talking in scientific terms, so perhaps you could expand a little.

Is intelligent design a legitimate pursuit as a theory? Let us say there is a god or intelligent designer, in theory, that is not based off of any "holy book". Let's say the designer/god is kind logical, and reasonable. Is the pursuit of this kind of designer a legitimate pursuit in your opinion?

So you are not interested in testing a theory you wish that I accept the validity of your claim that ID has some sort of merit?
Is this your position?

I have had a theory about Atheists vs. Intelligent design. It says that Atheists reject the hypothesis of an intelligent designer because it typically has a religious ideology attached to it, so in reality they are rejecting the religion. Religion tends to attach characteristics or traits to a designer. Is this your main rejection of any claims of a designer?

I demonstrate other hypothesises for you to look over and ask your opinion.

1)There is an intelligent designer that doesn't punish or reward. But you still die, and that's it.

2)You are the designer. One day you got bored and created this reality in order to appease your boredom by taking your conscious knowledge of who you are and where you came from away. The experiment was simply something you designed in order to kill about a hundred years worth of time, seemingly, in your eternal existance in a place with no birth, death, or time.

3)All religions or a particular religion got some of it right, but added ideas that were used to control the masses. The actual intelligent designer does exist but is pretty much like us.

4)The designer is a super genius super computer programmer. Quantum creation theory.

5)There is a god and you will never see or know him/her/it.

So essentially, if we take out any thoughts you might deem mythological and just hypothesize that there is an intelligent designer not defined or given attributes, is that a legitimate pursuit?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 5:03:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:49:49 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:33:21 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:24:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:55:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:39:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:36:24 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:31:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:19:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:57:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:43:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

To say God created it says nothing about we know how. Just because you believe in Creationism, that doesn't mean you claim anything about "how". It's the equivalent to saying Getenburg created the printing press. The creationist is saying Gutenburg did invent the printing press, but not claiming how. Creationists do theorize how an intelligent designer could have done something or use science to depict how something might have been done. Scientifically this is just as practical to theorize a "god done it" as opposed to "nuttin done it". Both are valid theories, but are just that: theories.
Read the stupid book that tells ya how, sheesh
godidit.

Why would one need a book to consider intelligent design, and which book do you propose?
ID is creationism, that comes from the book of fables called the bible.
Try to keep up.

It seems you are considering the Bible as the threat to Atheism. I notice ID does not come from Hinduism, Budhism, Scientology, ancient Egyptian gods based ideology, or Islam. Your assessment seems to consider ID as solely Bible vs. Atheism. Interesting.
ID is most certainly a bible christian creation, that has even been decided by the courts in america, what that has to do with atheism (the rejection of the man made claim that gods exist) I'll leave to you to fabricate.

Do you conside ID as a valid theory if it is left as just that: a theory?

ID is not a theory in the scientific sense. It would be a hypothesis much like the "designer" it is built on - and both are completely unsubstantiated at that. ID has provided nothing in the way of advancement to humanity. If anything it is a detriment to humanity because it is ignorance submitted as knowledge. "Valid" and "theory" are not appropriate descriptors for ID. I'd suggest "confirmation biased speculation".

In theory, an intelligent designer may not choose to be "findable" within his/her/its creation based on "scientific" means for an unknown reason. Based on that hypothesis, is it fair to say, in theory, that if an intelligent designer did design our reality, that designer is worth pursuit by other or "deeper" means?
You keep using the word theory in the vernacular, what you mean is idea.
The term theory in science is completely unrelated to the word theory in the vernacular.
For arguments sake let's say that ID is an idea that can be studied and explored and that an INTELLIGENT designer created everything?
That would mean that an intelligent designer would create Yersinia pestis, Variola major and Variola minor?

An intelligent designer could create a system but never build anything, letting the system do what it does with randomness within the boundries of the system.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...