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?

[Sir Hamilton]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh- ... -universe/ here is an excellent site for you to study and learn more about scientific support for ID. Enjoy....can't wait to hear you "expert" trashing of this science.

Hugh Ross??? Really?? Mark Perkha deals with his misunderstanding of
thermodynamics, which is involved in his 'orgin of the universe' nonsense
here

And further analysis of Hugh Ross can be found here

Yes Hugh Ross. I have one of his books. A very intelligent scientists who makes a very good argument against the nonsense of abiogenesis and evolution. Mark Perkha??? Never heard of him and could careless about his opinions.

[Goat]

re Goat Post2960-- Now, when it comes to another religions beliefs, you don't have the factors of 'evidence, testability and falsification'


That is a debate for another day and I take your point that science offers me a doorway that is open. The point many have made here is that the entry gradient is too steep. I will very quickly be forced to employ a faith to scientific authority because of two things. My own ineptitude regarding high science and the blatantly obvious gap between the testable evidence and the speculation that this supports. I cannot and will not sell myself to what I would consider for many believers in science to be a faith held belief. Think about this, we did not even get close to questions regarding the ethical reliability of these things. You can look at antiquated religious practices such as the exchange of indulgences for money and at least assess them retrospectively as a crude attempt at fundraising. You do not have to concern yourself too much with this as I am not susceptible to conversion to what I consider the highly dubious doctrines of science.

So, your entire argument is 'I don't understand it, so it must be dubious'?? That does not seem to be a very good argument. It is the logical fallacy known as 'the argument from ignorance'.

[Sir Hamilton]

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.

Declare to me who these 75% are and I will declare to you my belief system.

Anybody who has a different belief system to you, which at a minimum must be at least 75% even if you are Catholic and comprise approx 25% of the population. That's who.

Your turn.

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. Whether that theists worships Thor or Jesus they are still a theists....get it??? Now to answer your question....just look at me as a disciple of Jesus the Son of the Most High God.

So that makes you a minority of one. OK atheists rule. LOL

That comment doesn't make any sense. How does this comment advance this particular discussion? Could you please elaborate on what you are trying to convey or would you like to retract that statement? And also back up your claims that theists are a minority to atheists...thank you.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Goat Post2964--So, your entire argument is 'I don't understand it, so it must be dubious'??

My entire inquiry on this matter is not as you state it. I inquire whether or not Danmark's speculation regarding the replication of abiogenesis in the outer universe falls within the scope and evidential demands of the opening post. Do you like Catholicism. Let us assume you do not. Why would you try to understand it. It would be dubious to you from your instincts. Advanced scientific hypothesis are this to me and I adopt a hyper mistrust of them. You are correct in stating this fact about my outlook. I am guilty as charged. Now consider my inquiry. If I reject this science it is an argument from ignorance, if I run the other way it is the logical fallacy of 'equivocation'. All that I seek here is the comfort of an exit sign. The first reasoned explanation to my question and I will be out of your hair on this thread.

[Sir Hamilton]

re Goat Post--So, your entire argument is 'I don't understand it, so it must be dubious'??

My entire inquiry on this matter is not as you state it. I inquire whether or not Danmark's speculation regarding the replication of abiogenesis in the other universe falls within the scope and evidential demands of the opening post. Do you like Catholicism. Let us assume you do not. Why would you try to understand it. It would be dubious to you from your instincts. Advanced scientific hypothesis are this to me and I adopt a hyper mistrust of them. You are correct in stating this fact about my outlook. I am guilty as charged. Now consider my inquiry. If I reject this science it is an argument from ignorance, if I run the other way it is the logical fallacy of 'equivocation'. All that I seek here is the comfort of an exit sign. The first reasoned explanation to my question and I will be out of your hair on this thread.

You are correct to have a 'hyper mistrust of them'. They are nothing more than conclusions drawn by men. Yes educated men but still men with their own preconceived beliefs and biases. There are many educated scientists who have come to the conclusions that abiogenesis and evolution of life from lower forms to more complex forms is absurd.

[Joab]

re Goat Post--So, your entire argument is 'I don't understand it, so it must be dubious'??

My entire inquiry on this matter is not as you state it. I inquire whether or not Danmark's speculation regarding the replication of abiogenesis in the other universe falls within the scope and evidential demands of the opening post. Do you like Catholicism. Let us assume you do not. Why would you try to understand it. It would be dubious to you from your instincts. Advanced scientific hypothesis are this to me and I adopt a hyper mistrust of them. You are correct in stating this fact about my outlook. I am guilty as charged. Now consider my inquiry. If I reject this science it is an argument from ignorance, if I run the other way it is the logical fallacy of 'equivocation'. All that I seek here is the comfort of an exit sign. The first reasoned explanation to my question and I will be out of your hair on this thread.

You are correct to have a 'hyper mistrust of them'. They are nothing more than conclusions drawn by men. Yes educated men but still men with their own preconceived beliefs and biases. There are many educated scientists who have come to the conclusions that abiogenesis and evolution of life from lower forms to more complex forms is absurd.

Yeah don't trust conclusions drawn by men, stick with the fables invented by ignorant men thousands of years ago.

[Sir Hamilton]

re Goat Post--So, your entire argument is 'I don't understand it, so it must be dubious'??

My entire inquiry on this matter is not as you state it. I inquire whether or not Danmark's speculation regarding the replication of abiogenesis in the other universe falls within the scope and evidential demands of the opening post. Do you like Catholicism. Let us assume you do not. Why would you try to understand it. It would be dubious to you from your instincts. Advanced scientific hypothesis are this to me and I adopt a hyper mistrust of them. You are correct in stating this fact about my outlook. I am guilty as charged. Now consider my inquiry. If I reject this science it is an argument from ignorance, if I run the other way it is the logical fallacy of 'equivocation'. All that I seek here is the comfort of an exit sign. The first reasoned explanation to my question and I will be out of your hair on this thread.

You are correct to have a 'hyper mistrust of them'. They are nothing more than conclusions drawn by men. Yes educated men but still men with their own preconceived beliefs and biases. There are many educated scientists who have come to the conclusions that abiogenesis and evolution of life from lower forms to more complex forms is absurd.

Yeah don't trust conclusions drawn by men, stick with the fables invented by ignorant men thousands of years ago.

So men who believe that there is a God and that this God created life are 'ignorant'? Instead of calling us 'ignorant' maybe you could be a little more civil and just agree to disagree because after all you have no evidence to prove that we are wrong.

[dianaiad]

And I say humans were created by God....so what now?

Moderator Comment

This one line answer neither advances the conversation nor responds to the post.

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]

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.

Declare to me who these 75% are and I will declare to you my belief system.

Anybody who has a different belief system to you, which at a minimum must be at least 75% even if you are Catholic and comprise approx 25% of the population. That's who.

Your turn.

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. Whether that theists worships Thor or Jesus they are still a theists....get it??? Now to answer your question....just look at me as a disciple of Jesus the Son of the Most High God.

[dianaiad]

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. Whether that theists worships Thor or Jesus they are still a theists....get it??? Now to answer your question....just look at me as a disciple of Jesus the Son of the Most High God.

Moderator Warning


Your point could have been made without the personal remarks. Using uncivil and personal attacks is unacceptable. Address the post, not the writer of it.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.