Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Post2762--There's nothing 'fictitious' about the staggering gulf between science and superstition, between astronomy and astrology, between mathematics and malarkey. You might just as well claim the divide between cosmology and cosmetology is fictitious.

The incoherence of your position here is breath taking. Look at this by way of example.

re Danmark 2689--Homo sapiens has been here on Earth for possibly as long as 200,000 years. We have recorded history for less than 10,000. In all that time, we don't have any confirmed reports of a visit from an alien civilization. Given the number of 'goldilocks planets' in the Milky Way, one could argue that the fact we have no clear contact from an alien species in all that time might suggest there are no aliens, or that the distances involved are so great that communication and travel are problematic. It's simply an area of thought genial to speculation rather than dogmatic claims of certainty.

I see at least three aliens in this but I am not allowed to associate the term with you in my responses. At another post to me you specifically state that you have a strong dislike of the term. Now you allow yourself the luxury of using terms such as superstition and malarkey. Research these words and they are completely unrelated to my attempts at a rational argument. I wonder why I should consider your posts seriously?

What is the clever code game that is being broadcast between yourself and dianaiad, I have tried unsuccessfully to decipher it. Perhaps dianaiad might explain. Thank You

re dianaiad Post 2759--
... And more importantly . . .

UW 31 - BYU 16


Yep, sad, that....but for many different reasons, I support USU, not BYU, and....

USU 21-NI 14 (in the Poinsettia Bowl)

(though BYU trounced 'em, 31-14, in October. Ick)

[olavisjo]

.

What is the clever code game that is being broadcast between yourself and dianaiad, I have tried unsuccessfully to decipher it. Perhaps dianaiad might explain. Thank You

re dianaiad Post 2759--
... And more importantly . . .

UW 31 - BYU 16


Yep, sad, that....but for many different reasons, I support USU, not BYU, and....

USU 21-NI 14 (in the Poinsettia Bowl)

(though BYU trounced 'em, 31-14, in October. Ick)

It is just college football, which they should not be talking about in this thread.

Just tell them to get a room. They can start here...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=8420

[Danmark]

[quote="zeromeansnothing"]
re Danmark Post2762--There's nothing 'fictitious' about the staggering gulf between science and superstition, between astronomy and astrology, between mathematics and malarkey. You might just as well claim the divide between cosmology and cosmetology is fictitious.

zeromeansnothing wrote: "The incoherence of your position here is breath taking."

Rather than make a conclusionary statement which you have not supported, why don't you try to explain HOW it is 'incoherent' to claim there is a genuine gulf between science and superstition, rather than your own absurd statement that the difference between science and superstition is 'fictitious?'
________________
BTW, your continued use of an oddball technical method of responding with underlines instead of quotes, makes it cumbersome to respond. This together with your demonstrated lack of analysis for which you substitute mere conclusions is likely to result in your posts being ignored. I have previously advised you I am willing to help you learn BBCode via private message. And there are others here who can teach you better than I can.

[Student]

- If the god is claimed to have intelligently designed life on earth, I would expect to see intelligently designed life.

Since the time that Darwinian evolution was debunked by Francis Crick in 1958, the only tenable theory of evolution is Intelligent Design.

Try as I might I have been unable to locate the publication in which Francis Crick supposedly debunks Darwinian evolution in 1958, or any year for that matter. Would you oblige by providing your reference?

[dianaiad]

re Danmark Post2762--There's nothing 'fictitious' about the staggering gulf between science and superstition, between astronomy and astrology, between mathematics and malarkey. You might just as well claim the divide between cosmology and cosmetology is fictitious.

The incoherence of your position here is breath taking. Look at this by way of example.

re Danmark 2689--Homo sapiens has been here on Earth for possibly as long as 200,000 years. We have recorded history for less than 10,000. In all that time, we don't have any confirmed reports of a visit from an alien civilization. Given the number of 'goldilocks planets' in the Milky Way, one could argue that the fact we have no clear contact from an alien species in all that time might suggest there are no aliens, or that the distances involved are so great that communication and travel are problematic. It's simply an area of thought genial to speculation rather than dogmatic claims of certainty.

I see at least three aliens in this but I am not allowed to associate the term with you in my responses.

Of course not, because it is inaccurate. After all, life on other planets are not 'aliens' any more than Frenchmen in France are. They are/would be native to their homes. "Alien" only becomes descriptive when natives go elsewhere.

As well, your use of 'alien,' is (and I certainly got this impression, and I'm not all THAT perspicacious) is an attempt to ridicule--as in, equating the belief in the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe with a belief in little green visitors here, complete with the wearing of tin foil hats. It's understandable that such implication would be unwelcome, since it is inaccurate.

Now, if you were talking to ME, rather than to Danmark, you might have a greater point. Perhaps. Or not...after all, my belief system (Mormon) teaches straight up that there is life elsewhere. A lot of it, on many different planets. Don't think that any of 'em have ever paid a visit here though.

At another post to me you specifically state that you have a strong dislike of the term. Now you allow yourself the luxury of using terms such as superstition and malarkey. Research these words and they are completely unrelated to my attempts at a rational argument. I wonder why I should consider your posts seriously?

What is the clever code game that is being broadcast between yourself and dianaiad, I have tried unsuccessfully to decipher it. Perhaps dianaiad might explain. Thank You

re dianaiad Post 2759--
... And more importantly . . .

UW 31 - BYU 16


Yep, sad, that....but for many different reasons, I support USU, not BYU, and....

USU 21-NI 14 (in the Poinsettia Bowl)

(though BYU trounced 'em, 31-14, in October. Ick)

Football and Alma Maters, Zero. University of Wisconsin, Brigham Young University, and Utah State University (where my daughters go, one of which is about to graduate with a second Bachelor's, in June). True, my interest in football in general is usually confined to listening to the guys watch games while I'm in the kitchen cooking, but I find the background noise somehow comforting. When it comes to USU, though, I sit and WATCH. When I can.

[olavisjo]

.

Try as I might I have been unable to locate the publication in which Francis Crick supposedly debunks Darwinian evolution in 1958, or any year for that matter. Would you oblige by providing your reference?

My error, it was 1953, but you can find it in Wikipedia...

• Francis Harry Compton Crick, OM, FRS (8 June 1916 " 28 July 2004) was an English molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist, most noted for being a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953 with James Watson. He, Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".

Darwin based his evolution on the idea that information was passed in an analog form, and under this premise evolution may have been plausible. But, when it was discovered that information is stored digitally, in DNA, his theory became unworkable and needed to be scraped. Darwin still has a following for religious reasons but not for scientific reasons.

[Danmark]

.

Try as I might I have been unable to locate the publication in which Francis Crick supposedly debunks Darwinian evolution in 1958, or any year for that matter. Would you oblige by providing your reference?

My error, it was 1953, but you can find it in Wikipedia...

• Francis Harry Compton Crick, OM, FRS (8 June 1916 " 28 July 2004) was an English molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist, most noted for being a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953 with James Watson. He, Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".

Darwin based his evolution on the idea that information was passed in an analog form, and under this premise evolution may have been plausible. But, when it was discovered that information is stored digitally, in DNA, his theory became unworkable and needed to be scraped.[sic] Darwin still has a following for religious reasons but not for scientific reasons.

That is the most misleading statement I recall you've published here, and is not typical of your style.
In Cricks view, Charles Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendels genetics and knowledge of the molecular basis of genetics, when combined, revealed the secret of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
It is certainly true that Darwin did not understand the exact mechanism that resulted in the variation of the species. We owe a debt to Crick and Watson and others for that. The DNA/RNA mechanism validated the theory of evolution, no matter how many crank creation sites would have it otherwise. This is nothing more than wishful thinking, the central modus operandi of the pseudo scientist. The silliest thing those sorts do, knowing they are beaten, is their concession to what they call 'microevolution.' They could scarcely do otherwise. Then they try to show that what they call 'macro' evolution is not established. The difference is simply one of scale.
Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... oscales_01

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Post 2766--rather than your own absurd statement that the difference between science and superstition is 'fictitious?'

I have been warned for misstating Danmark's position on this thread earlier. Where did I say the above, and if I did not then please withdraw it or have dianaiad check where I said anything that remotely corresponds to the above. You are making the rules on this thread and as I mentioned earlier, it is impossible for the other team to score.

[zeromeansnothing]

re dianaiad Post 2768--Now, if you were talking to ME, rather than to Danmark, you might have a greater point. Perhaps. Or not...after all, my belief system (Mormon) teaches straight up that there is life elsewhere. A lot of it, on many different planets. Don't think that any of 'em have ever paid a visit here though.


Is it logical to hold this position. Wikipedia on Mormon cosmology states that Lucifer came from the heavens to earth with "the third part" of the hosts of heaven with him to serve as tempters. Can we define these as aliens, probably not???

[olavisjo]

.

In Cricks view, Charles Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendels genetics and knowledge of the molecular basis of genetics, when combined, revealed the secret of life.

Charles Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection has NOT been demonstrated. If you know of any evidence to suggest otherwise please present it.

It is certainly true that Darwin did not understand the exact mechanism that resulted in the variation of the species. We owe a debt to Crick and Watson and others for that. The DNA/RNA mechanism validated the theory of evolution, no matter how many crank creation sites would have it otherwise. This is nothing more than wishful thinking, the central modus operandi of the pseudo scientist. The silliest thing those sorts do, knowing they are beaten, is their concession to what they call 'microevolution.' They could scarcely do otherwise. Then they try to show that what they call 'macro' evolution is not established. The difference is simply one of scale.
Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... oscales_01

If this were true, we could take a large computer and fill it with quine programs and randomly mutate the reproduction of these quine programs. Eventually this computer should produce new and even intelligent programs. And if that happens then we can say that the Theory of Intelligent Design has been falsified and Darwinism upheld.