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?

[Star]

.

I said our technology isn't there yet but will be relatively soon. I said to expect this to change with quantum computing, but of course, you edit this part out, so you can focus on this one sentence and make it easier misrepresent my argument.

Quantum computing at this point is just science fiction. But you can change my mind by just having Scotty beam me up and crank up the warp drives with some fresh dilithium crystals.

You're wrong again. The ignorance in your arguments is absolutely staggering. Why don't you Google stuff before posting in order to confirm it's true or not? (Or your favorite search engine.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... _computing
http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html

[Star]

Wow, talk about taking my posts out of context....that was cute danmark. I was only using the popularity thing because star was using the popularity thing.

You still don't understand the difference between appealing to popularity of non-experts in a general population, and that of appealing to scientific consensus and expertise? Wow. I really don't know what else to say to you at this point.

[Star]

Alas....if only others could be so candid. You speak of "facts" that you only know of because you have simply believed what others have told you or what you have read in a book. It would be a very big step in your advancement towards true wisdom if you would just admit that....

Here is a good link to information on critical thinking.

This is a skill taught in universities. While no human is infallible, and no science is absolute, this might help explain why we can have a higher degree of confidence in the information we learn and understand, especially when we demonstrate this knowledge.

http://learningcommons.ubc.ca/student-t ... ritically/

[Danmark]

You must not be aware that these so-called experts are nothing more than humans. Finite imperfect humans who are capable of honest mistakes and deliberate misinterpretation of data. Data that can be interpreted differently by other humans who are experts in the fields of cosmology, geology, physics, biology, etc. I think i will go with the experts that interpret the data in a way pleasing to my mind and you can go with the "experts" who interpret the data in a way pleasing to your mind. Like i am saying and i am going to keep on saying it....you appeal to authority and i appeal to authority. You don't know anymore about the origin of the universe, life, or humans than i do based on science. I have the added truth of divine revelation as well.

This is an excellent demonstration of your oft repeated position that the facts simply don't matter to you; that you will not seek truth, but rather facts that are "pleasing to your mind." In the 14 or 15 months I've been on this forum I don't think I have previously seen such clear admission that a debater will simply choose to believe whatever he wants and pretend those are correct facts. Thank you for your candor.

Alas....if only others could be so candid. You speak of "facts" that you only know of because you have simply believed what others have told you or what you have read in a book. It would be a very big step in your advancement towards true wisdom if you would just admit that....

Once again you are wrong. I am prepared to justify and explain anything I have written on this forum. You have refused to do that. I have several times challenged you to explain the reasoning of 'experts' you have cited regarding your absurdly pathetic 'young Earth' claims. You have declined to give any explanation beyond simply listing their names from a website you cut and pasted.

You wrongly and with no authority or explanation claimed I:

only know of because you have simply believed what others have told you or what you have read in a book.

You have no basis for this claim. Either retract it, or prove it.
I'll even issue you a further challenge which I predict you will not accept:

Publish here any quote from me that you claim I 'only believe because of what others told me or I have read.' I will prove you are wrong because I will demonstrate I understand what I believe and can explain it in my own words. This is a challenge I made to you and you have failed to respond to. I have thrice asked you to explain in your own words ANY idea from your long list of non experts you cut and pasted from the Examiner.

[Danmark]

....

[Joab]

are you aware that these young earth scientists have earned their degrees from accredited universities? You put alot of faith in these accredited universities and peer reviews...I admire your faith.

Are you aware that an overwhelming majority of scientists reject young-Earth creation myths wholeheartedly? There's a reason for that. 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences don't believe in a personal god. The percentage of scientists who accept evolution and an old Earth is much higher, above 99.8% (citations at end).

So what if you plagiarized a list of names from a tabloid? I bet none of those scientists even published anything for peer-review, anyway. I've checked my online database of my accredited university, which has a subscription to pretty much every journal, and found no religious fables masquerading as real science.

Can you name one piece of work? Just one, by one creationist scientist? Don't tell me it's my homework, like you had the nerve to do to Goat. This is your homework, I assure you. You have come to debate woefully unprepared and we've already helped you out more than we're obligated to.

Delgado, C. "Finding evolution in medicine", NIH Record 58 (15) 28 July 2006

Larson, E.J. and Witham, L. “Leading scientists still reject God�, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

I could care less about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Their opinions mean nothing to me. What is this?? some kind of popularity contest?? It is estimated that atheists make up about 2% of the world population. So going by that atheism is backwards and wrong.

Are you here to debate or play games? "I don't care" isn't a valid counter-argument. If anything, it's incredulous and asinine.

I was trying to put into perspective for you just how abysmally small your list of scientists are. You can't avoid forming your own arguments in a debate because you think scientists agree without someone countering that a vast majority of the world's scientists actually don't.

The world's inhabitants aren't all experts, therefore, you are appealing to popularity, a fallacy. Also, you are committing a very similar fallacy, of appealing to the authority of your scientists, because you are not demonstrating a knowledge of their science in your arguments. You'll now accuse me of committing the same fallacies, even though I'm appealing to expertise and scientific consensus (which is much different), and on your silly game will go.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.

75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.

Where did you see me claim that 75% of the population are atheists?

Now declare your specific religious belief system and we may be able to continue the conversation.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark to Sir Hamilton Post2862-- You claimed you didn't care what the facts were, what the data was, you would simply choose to believe whomever is "pleasing to your mind


You persist in misstating this person's position despite my many efforts to help you here. Sir Hamilton's point within the context of the original post involved, related to subjectivity on both sides of the argument. That does not mean that he will believe whatever he likes without proviso. You were annoyed when I stated that your highly likely belief in there existing biogenesis in the universe was, within the context of your own maths a declaration of certainty. Re-consider the position of Sir Hamilton in this debate.

My final agreement with Sir Hamilton is as follows, I want nothing to do with an argument based on the above statement about my existence within the world. If you brought me proof, I would not believe it either. This position may seem rude and ignorant to you but I would ask you to try and consider it before you dismiss it. I do not want to pursue a point that will cause me to engage in idle speculation about the unseen ie scientific chit chat. There are others on this thread who are better equipped to deal with this stuff. I want nothing to do with biogenesis replication in the outer universe but I do think the suggestion falls within the scope of the opening post.
Please do not beam me up.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Sir Hamilton Post2749--I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.


This was the original contention of Sir Hamilton which in my opinion was the best on the thread that I am aware of. It shows the closeness of the two pursuits of science and religion. It rightly describes our antics here as theatrical and subjective and it makes a civil request for change within debate regarding these two belief systems. It explains to us that we are not experts, we are people who must constantly revisit our faith in these pursuits rather than proceed blindly appealing to authority. These are not the words of a person who reads only comics.

[Joab]

re Sir Hamilton Post2749--I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.


This was the original contention of Sir Hamilton which in my opinion was the best on the thread that I am aware of. It shows the closeness of the two pursuits of science and religion. It rightly describes our antics here as theatrical and subjective and it makes a civil request for change within debate regarding these two belief systems. It explains to us that we are not experts, we are people who must constantly revisit our faith in these pursuits rather than proceed blindly appealing to authority. These are not the words of a person who reads only comics.

How many parsecs do you consider close?

[zeromeansnothing]

re Joab Post2871--How many parsecs do you consider close?


This is a new word for me and I looked it up on Wikipedia because I was curious. My simple answer to your question is that I am completely out of my depth on most science subjects and especially so on any calculation involving parsecs which seem to be a new calibration of universal time or maybe not. Amazing that people can be that intelligent. Does this disqualify me from having an opinion on science? If a person knows little about the intricacies of a religious doctrine are they to be excluded from a discussion regarding religion. I do not think that you are saying this and I thank you for a new word. I still do not know what it means. If we remove all those who argue from ignorance as it is called then in this context I am guilty as charged and excluded by my own admission.