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?

[Danmark]

This just shows your lack of understanding or just your knee-jerk responses without thinking first. I was talking about atheism....you need to stay focused on the particular posts that you are replying to. Again I was referring to atheists versus theists. The % of people who are atheists are an extreme minority compared to those who are theists.

I thought you claimed the populist argument counted for nothing. But you continue to make it. If mere populism counted for anything, then the world used to be flat.

Even if your silly argument amounted to anything, you'd have to consider the billions who are atheist or irreligious. China and Japan alone have a population of about 1.5 billion.

Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):
China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64"88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46"82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%"81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54"61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43"64%[109] (53.5%)

[tokutter]

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.

And you still don't seem to understand that these so called "experts" are nothing more than imperfect biased humans. Humans that you just blindly believe everything that they teach because you like it. And around and around we keep going

And you still don't seem to understand that these so called "theological experts" are nothing more than imperfect biased humans. Humans that you just blindly believe everything that they teach because you like it. And around and around we keep going


.

[Sir Hamilton]

This just shows your lack of understanding or just your knee-jerk responses without thinking first. I was talking about atheism....you need to stay focused on the particular posts that you are replying to. Again I was referring to atheists versus theists. The % of people who are atheists are an extreme minority compared to those who are theists.

I thought you claimed the populist argument counted for nothing. But you continue to make it. If mere populism counted for anything, then the world used to be flat.

Even if your silly argument amounted to anything, you'd have to consider the billions who are atheist or irreligious. China and Japan alone have a population of about 1.5 billion.

Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):
China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64"88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46"82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%"81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54"61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43"64%[109] (53.5%)

You still don't seem to understand that there is a difference between atheism and without religion.

[Sir Hamilton]

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.

And you still don't seem to understand that these so called "experts" are nothing more than imperfect biased humans. Humans that you just blindly believe everything that they teach because you like it. And around and around we keep going

And you still don't seem to understand that these so called "theological experts" are nothing more than imperfect biased humans. Humans that you just blindly believe everything that they teach because you like it. And around and around we keep going


.

Yes....and it is a fun ride.

[Danmark]

This just shows your lack of understanding or just your knee-jerk responses without thinking first. I was talking about atheism....you need to stay focused on the particular posts that you are replying to. Again I was referring to atheists versus theists. The % of people who are atheists are an extreme minority compared to those who are theists.

I thought you claimed the populist argument counted for nothing. But you continue to make it. If mere populism counted for anything, then the world used to be flat.

Even if your silly argument amounted to anything, you'd have to consider the billions who are atheist or irreligious. China and Japan alone have a population of about 1.5 billion.

Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):
China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64"88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46"82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%"81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54"61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43"64%[109] (53.5%)

You still don't seem to understand that there is a difference between atheism and without religion.

This is a completely unwarranted statement. You certainly do not know what I know.
The list included agnostics and atheists, a fact which I faithfully reported. The fact I included both shows I understand there is a difference; however, you came to the opposite conclusion.

Are you still standing by your argument that if theists out number atheists and non theists, your position must be correct on the basis which belief is most popular?

There are about twice as many people who believe in Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism combined, then believe in Christianity.

And more than a billion more who are nonreligious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

It's high time you silenced yourself re: your silly argument that popularity of an idea makes it right. Using your 'logic' the average fast food worker knows more about physics than the latest Nobel Prize winner in Physics, because there is only one of him and over 4 million fast food workers in America alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_food

[Sir Hamilton]

This just shows your lack of understanding or just your knee-jerk responses without thinking first. I was talking about atheism....you need to stay focused on the particular posts that you are replying to. Again I was referring to atheists versus theists. The % of people who are atheists are an extreme minority compared to those who are theists.

I thought you claimed the populist argument counted for nothing. But you continue to make it. If mere populism counted for anything, then the world used to be flat.

Even if your silly argument amounted to anything, you'd have to consider the billions who are atheist or irreligious. China and Japan alone have a population of about 1.5 billion.

Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):
China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64"88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46"82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%"81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54"61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43"64%[109] (53.5%)

You still don't seem to understand that there is a difference between atheism and without religion.

This is a completely unwarranted statement. You certainly do not know what I know.
The list included agnostics and atheists, a fact which I faithfully reported. The fact I included both shows I understand there is a difference; however, you came to the opposite conclusion.

Are you still standing by your argument that if theists out number atheists and non theists, your position must be correct on the basis which belief is most popular?

There are about twice as many people who believe in Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism combined, then believe in Christianity.

And more than a billion more who are nonreligious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

It's high time you silenced yourself re: your silly argument that popularity of an idea makes it right. Using your 'logic' the average fast food worker knows more about physics than the latest Nobel Prize winner in Physics, because there is only one of him and over 4 million fast food workers in America alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_food

Your lack of understanding my original argument is amazing. You have taken my argument completely out of context and molded it into something that I never said nor intended it to mean....thank you for that. And you telling me to silence myself is rather rude and uncivil. If you disagree with my statements then so be it but don't take my statements out of context and try to build some kind of argument on them ...I find that rather dishonest of you.

[dianaiad]

It's high time you silenced yourself ...

...I find that rather dishonest of you.

Moderator Comment

"Silence yourself' is rude and uncivil.
Calling another poster dishonest is also rude and uncivil.

Rude responses to rude comments are still rude.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[dianaiad]

Yes....and it is a fun ride.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid one line comments. Please use the token system, or PM, to give simple comments of agreement/disagreement.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jax Agnesson]

Any evidence turned up yet? (ducks).
2013 is ending. 2014 begins. Best wishes to all.

[olavisjo]

.

Darwin is saying that every case he looked at was "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications." And that is the case.

So, can you support your claim?

You have been given ample evidence to support the claim of evolution and that creationism (ID) is not even science.
But there is more. In the law we have a principle called res judicata. It means the thing has already been decided. In Dover vs Kitzmiller the issue you claim there's no proof of was decided:
A portion of the decision in that case:
ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

The case is closed. It is over. You lose. No matter how many slogans from non scientific creationist blogs you continue to cite, no matter how many times you say, 'prove it,' Game Over.

BTW, the judge, a Christian, found key witnesses for 'ID' perjured themselves repeatedly.

May I be the first to congratulate you for being chosen as the best debater from 2013. I also have to say that I am very disappointed that you would choose to deliberately avoid your obligation to provide evidence for your claims. If you feel that you have provided evidence and I missed it, please provide a link to the post where this evidence was provided.

This is not a court of law and what happens in a Pennsylvania court house is irrelevant here. However, you may want to introduce the evidence that was presented there as your evidence and we can look at that, but you can't just consider the conclusions that they reached as evidence.

Your whole argument can be reduced to...
1. The courts have said it.
2. I believe it.
3. That settles it.

I am sure you can see how inappropriate such an argument would be.

So, can you support your claim?