User Tag List

Page 31 of 96 FirstFirst ... 21282930313233344181 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 1426

Thread: If Evolution

  1. #451
    Over 1500 post club Silent Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Somewhere out there beneath the pale moonlight.
    Posts
    1,761
    Thanks
    116
    Thanked 111 Times in 97 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    15878
    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Right Divider doesn't understand that the disagreeable odor he smells isn't from something in the room, rather it's from his brain frying in an attempt to develop another clever insult.
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    More childishness from SH.
    Well, not his best but there it is.

    "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

  2. #452
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    11,849
    Thanks
    8,920
    Thanked 15,480 Times in 8,592 Posts

    Blog Entries
    5
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147655
    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Well, not his best but there it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    Tambora (January 12th, 2018)

  4. #453
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,537
    Thanks
    985
    Thanked 3,297 Times in 2,003 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1301392
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian
    As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise says, this is strong evidence for evolution as Darwin predicted it to be.
    Nope... you are dishonest.


    Kurt Wise only suggests it is evidence within your belief system. He calls it an interpretation. He rejects that interpretation, and says an interpretation based on the Biblical account often seems a better fit... Dr Wise"It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis".


    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian
    (6days )Attempt to re-write Genesis as literal history. (6days quoting Moses 'For in six says, God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them")
    As Jesus said, 'If you don't believe what Moses wrote, how can you believe in Him.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian
    I know your modern revision of Genesis...
    You keep repeating arguments you have been proven wrong on. You are dishonest. Many of the very earliest church fathers argued against secular old earth beliefs and for literal six day creation.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian
    He honestly admits that the evidence is contrary to his personal understanding of Genesis.
    Nope... you are dishonest. Kurt Wise doea see. honest. He actually says that there are interpretations of fossils that can be understood to support macroevolution... But, "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis", and that fossil evidence often better fits the Biblical account.


    Barbie..... it seems you accepted some atheist web sites inaccurate depiction of Mr Wises article. Rather than read it yourself, you just keep trying to defend their (atheist web sites) dishonesty... and now your own dishonesty.


    Mr Wise, or honest Mr. Wise as you call him, says that there are scientific reasons for believing in a young Earth and that rejecting evolution is not rejecting science.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (January 12th, 2018)

  6. #454
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,794
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 8,344 Times in 6,448 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147801
    Blablabarian dishonest?

    Noooooooooooo.... That can't be.



    Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    6days (December 4th, 2017),Right Divider (December 5th, 2017),Tambora (January 12th, 2018)

  8. #455
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 50 Times in 36 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11747
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Let's talk about this:

    Spoiler
    "In terms of Christianity, yes the theory of evolution can seem dangerous to some Christians, and indeed it does threaten the foundation of certain versions of Christianity. But this is the case only for those Christians who understand their faith in oddly modern terms that are radically divergent from traditional Christianity and the creedal orthodoxy of the church. In this way, Darwin's idea will emerge as "pious", because it allows us to test the relative "orthodoxy" of our faith. Of course, we would be wrong to suggest that Darwinism is a sufficient "test" of Christian orthodoxy tout court- it is not even a necessary test. Rather, Darwinism is an interesting and useful test at this particular cultural moment. If Darwinism is "dangerous", it's dangerous because the popular version of Darwinism offered up by the most high-profile so-called Darwinists endeavors to turn Darwinism into a universal philosophy. These figures are generally referred to as "ultra-Darwinists", or "Darwinian fundamentalists" (epithets provided by fellow Darwinists and atheists, and not by religious people). This strain of Darwinism is "dangerous" not merely to religion, but to science and even to thinking atheists...Thankfully, ultra-Darwinism will be shown to be intellectually vacuous, misleading, old-fashioned, and more accurately thought of as a Christian heresy than as a true presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution."
    Connor Cunninghham Darwin's Pious Idea 2010
    Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing
    Grand Rapids, MI


    I'm not presenting this as my opinion, although I think the author makes several telling points therein. What's your take on this?
    I cannot give you an in depth take on this without reading further into the book; therefore, let me give you my thoughts about what he is saying in this instance to see if we are on the same page about the excerpt before I formulate any opinions therein.

    From the context, it looks as if he is talking about three groups of people. The orthodox religious, Darwinists, and the modern/post-modernists that believe the only choice when it comes to our world view is between God and Darwinism. The latter group including both the religious and atheist alike.

    It is clear that he objects to the latter group, but it is not clear as to whether or not he has any objections to the other two groups. I would have to know his stance on the other two before I could give you an in depth answer. The following are examples of why I need more information about his beliefs first.


    "Of course, we would be wrong to suggest that Darwinism is a sufficient "test" of Christian orthodoxy tout court- it is not even a necessary test. Rather, Darwinism is an interesting and useful test at this particular cultural moment."



    This quote makes me question his stance and opinion at all because it seems that he views Christian orthodoxy and Darwinism as two separate world views, but even that is unclear because he then goes right into this:


    "If Darwinism is "dangerous", it's dangerous because the popular version of Darwinism offered up by the most high-profile so-called Darwinists endeavors to turn Darwinism into a universal philosophy."



    This suggests that it isn't Darwinism in and of itself that is a separate world view from Christian orthodoxy, but a popular ultra-fundamental form of Darwinism.

    But then he says that he will show ultra-Darwinism as a Christian heresy rather than a true presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution...

    This guy is all over the place.

    As you said, he makes some telling points, but he fails to make clear where he stands given those points; at least in the context of this excerpt alone.

  9. #456
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 50 Times in 36 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11747
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Anyone with a three-digit IQ would be able to get it.
    This is wrong on so many levels, lol, but the main reason is that the average human being only has a 2 digit IQ. There are only 15 countries with an average of 100 or more... And the trend is that more countries are progressively getting lower that countries that are getting higher.

  10. #457
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,342
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 648 Times in 446 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    251117
    [QUOTE=Veritas veritate;5144207 There are only 15 countries with an average of 100 or more... And the trend is that more countries are progressively getting lower that countries that are getting higher.[/QUOTE]

    Citation please

  11. #458
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,232
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 1,522 Times in 1,061 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    274044
    Flynn Effect:
    The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day.[citation needed] When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.

    Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a study published in the year 2000 found that subjects born over a 100-year period were compared in Des Moines, United States, and separately in Dumfries, Scotland. Improvements were remarkably consistent across the whole period, in both countries.[1][better source needed] This effect of an apparent increase in IQ has also been observed in various other parts of the world, though the rates of increase vary.[2][better source needed]

    There are numerous proposed explanations of the Flynn effect, as well as some skepticism about its implications. Similar improvements have been reported for other cognitions such as semantic and episodic memory.[3] Recent research suggests that the Flynn effect may have ended in at least a few developed nations, possibly allowing national differences in IQ scores[4] to diminish if the Flynn effect continues in nations with lower average national IQs.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect


    This is clearly not evolutionary, but it reflects a remarkable increase in intelligence worldwide. The score needed to make 100 has increased markedly over the last few decades. (IQ scores are set so that 100 is the average in the population)

    (Barbarian checks)

    https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  12. #459
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,232
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 1,522 Times in 1,061 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    274044
    From the context, it looks as if he is talking about three groups of people. The orthodox religious, Darwinists,
    Ultra-Darwinists. What Gould (an orthodox Darwinist) calls "hyperselectionists." People who try to push Darwinism into some kind of worldview unlike anything Darwin himself advocated.

    and the modern/post-modernists that believe the only choice when it comes to our world view is between God and Darwinism. The latter group including both the religious and atheist alike.
    Pretty much, other than the comment I made.

    This suggests that it isn't Darwinism in and of itself that is a separate world view from Christian orthodoxy, but a popular ultra-fundamental form of Darwinism.
    Pope John Paul described them as Neo-Darwinians who denied any role to God in the formation of living things. Which is pretty close.

    But then he says that he will show ultra-Darwinism as a Christian heresy rather than a true presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution...
    In the same sense that Marxism is a Christian heresy. Without Christianity, there would not have been Marxism. Not because Christianity in any sense supports Marxism, but because Marxism is very much like Christianity with all the God taken out of it.

    As you said, he makes some telling points, but he fails to make clear where he stands given those points; at least in the context of this excerpt alone.
    I'm still working though it. Obviously, he's been trained as a philosopher. The title is a play on Dennett's book, of course.

    I haven't read enough to decide what I think, but this guy knows things about the intellectual basis of a theism that accepts physical reality as God-given. I'll post more about this as I go on. If you have a chance to read the book, I'd encourage you to do it. Right or wrong, Cunningham seems to have found a way around the impasse so many scientists and Christians have become tangled into.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  13. #460
    Over 1500 post club Silent Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Somewhere out there beneath the pale moonlight.
    Posts
    1,761
    Thanks
    116
    Thanked 111 Times in 97 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    15878
    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas veritate View Post
    There are only 15 countries with an average of 100 or more... And the trend is that more countries are progressively getting lower that countries that are getting higher.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Flynn Effect:
    The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day.[citation needed] When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.

    Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a study published in the year 2000 found that subjects born over a 100-year period were compared in Des Moines, United States, and separately in Dumfries, Scotland. Improvements were remarkably consistent across the whole period, in both countries.[1][better source needed] This effect of an apparent increase in IQ has also been observed in various other parts of the world, though the rates of increase vary.[2][better source needed]

    There are numerous proposed explanations of the Flynn effect, as well as some skepticism about its implications. Similar improvements have been reported for other cognitions such as semantic and episodic memory.[3] Recent research suggests that the Flynn effect may have ended in at least a few developed nations, possibly allowing national differences in IQ scores[4] to diminish if the Flynn effect continues in nations with lower average national IQs.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

    This is clearly not evolutionary, but it reflects a remarkable increase in intelligence worldwide. The score needed to make 100 has increased markedly over the last few decades. (IQ scores are set so that 100 is the average in the population)

    https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
    Veritas veritate is less well informed than he thinks he is. He even believes water boils by sheer willpower. Dunning-Kruger is alive and well.
    "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

  14. #461
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,232
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 1,522 Times in 1,061 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    274044
    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Veritas veritate is less well informed than he thinks he is. He even believes water boils by sheer willpower. Dunning-Kruger is alive and well.
    I don't think he's trying to be obnoxious. I hope he sticks around.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  15. #462
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 50 Times in 36 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11747
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    Citation please
    https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

    No problem. Here is the link, so you can count them for yourself if you like, but I think The Barbarian has already provided it.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian
    This is clearly not evolutionary, but it reflects a remarkable increase in intelligence worldwide. The score needed to make 100 has increased markedly over the last few decades. (IQ scores are set so that 100 is the average in the population)
    I'm not trying to be misleading, trying to misinform anyone, or be deceptive in any way. And in the spirit of logic and reasoning, I feel compelled to say that though the trend seems to be going down for more countries than going up, it is not a true reflection of the over all trend of the IQ going up.

    First, as The Barbarian pointed out, tests are modified constantly to keep the average IQ at 100.

    Second, the numbers only reflect the average. Mathematically you can have more people with higher IQs and still have a downward trend if the group has people who scored extremely low.

    Third, IQ scores do not truly reflect intellect as a person can score differently (higher or lower) at each test progression.

    Fourth, Some countries have a bigger population than others, so places like China which has a national IQ average of 105 right now would weigh heavier if an actual world average was taken.

    Fifth, only a group of people in each country was tested, the group does not necessarily reflect the entire populous accurately; furthermore, the new group chosen for the next test could have more people with a higher or lower IQ than the last group. Besides that, one can train their brain and significantly raise their IQ. I have personally helped a friend increase his IQ by 10 points in a year, simply by forcing him to read more books instead of playing pointless video games (Note: that I am not calling video games pointless, just the ones that he was always playing)

    Sixth, it has been observed that there is a correlation between the economic status of a country and its citizen's IQs. They have found that rapid economic growth will cause IQs to rise. Poor countries tend to have poor IQs. It doesn't mean that poor people are stupid, it just means that they cannot engaged their brains in a way that that stimulates IQ growth.

    I grew up dirt poor (no running water or electricity in our home most of my life) but to this day my grandfather was one of the smartest people I have ever known, and it was he who encouraged me to be skeptical about everything, and use logic and reason to formulate my own convictions rather than stand on what he, the pastor, or anyone else believes.

    I just thought that it was comical that The Barbarian said that anyone with a 3 digit IQ could do it when the actual numbers given right now seems to disqualify at least 80% of the world's population.
    Last edited by Veritas veritate; December 5th, 2017 at 08:42 AM. Reason: Grammatical errors

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Veritas veritate For Your Post:

    Right Divider (December 5th, 2017)

  17. #463
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 50 Times in 36 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11747
    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Veritas veritate is less well informed than he thinks he is. He even believes water boils by sheer willpower. Dunning-Kruger is alive and well.
    To say that I believe water boils by sheer willpower is a complete perversion of what I said and a testament to your character. It makes me not want to dignify your last post of our discussion with a response, but there are those who could learn from it so I will anyway.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Veritas veritate For Your Post:

    Right Divider (December 5th, 2017),Yorzhik (January 11th, 2018)

  19. #464
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 50 Times in 36 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11747
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post

    I'm still working though it. Obviously, he's been trained as a philosopher. The title is a play on Dennett's book, of course.

    I haven't read enough to decide what I think, but this guy knows things about the intellectual basis of a theism that accepts physical reality as God-given. I'll post more about this as I go on. If you have a chance to read the book, I'd encourage you to do it. Right or wrong, Cunningham seems to have found a way around the impasse so many scientists and Christians have become tangled into.
    I would love to read it, but even the e-book is $28 (I hate e-books, I'm old fashioned and like to have a book in my hand that cannot turn off when the battery runs out) Like I said, that is my take on it based only on that single excerpt that you shared. I'm sure he explains everything as he goes on.

    Given the insight you have provided, and inferring from what I read, he is basically going to explain how ultra-Darwinism is nothing but a religious belief that must be rejected by orthodox Christianity as a heresy. That makes complete sense.

  20. #465
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 50 Times in 36 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11747
    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Not true and if you had ACTUALLY READ the definition and the link provided instead of inserting your own strawman you wouldn't be in need of being reminded how you continue to be misinformed.
    Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to post my citation, which comes from an actual credible source, not just the first link on Google that provides you with what you are looking for.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/t...arguments/#3.1
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

    If you will read the links provided, you will get the correct definition as well as the actual history behind the "god of the gaps" fallacy, which shows that it not used to discredit theism, but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.



    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    "God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to EXPLAIN some natural phenomena that science cannot..."

    It doesn't make your chosen personal idea of deity true, ("evidence for the existence of God"), it simply inserts a placeholder... just in case.

    See also: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy
    And now you know, or should know, your straw man here is not true.
    And if you care to read the link above (and there is a lot of information there) you might have a better understanding why you do not chose the first link that seems to prove your point as a credible source. It would be completely correct if it was just to say that the divine fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to EXPLAIN some natural phenomena that science cannot. Goddidit is certainly a divine fallacy, but you cannot equivocate "god of the gaps" with Goddidit.

    This means that I owe you an apology because I was the first one to equivocate you using Goddidit with "god of the gaps."


    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Equivocate much?
    Not much, but when I do I am the first one to admit it; see above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    You are confusing "want" with "why/how". Thermodynamics is the reason water boils not the desire for it to happen.
    I am certainly not equivocating anything here however. You are confusing "want" with "why/how" I have said multiple times that thermodynamics is the "why/how." I have never said that "I want a cup of tea" is the "why/how" answer; on the contrary, I have stated that "I want a cup of tea" is the "why/because" answer. I then pointed out that both are valid explanations for why the water is boiling, but you will only accept the "why/how" answer while completely ignoring the "why/because" aspect of the question. To put it another way, you only accept the process by which something happens and not the reason for which something happens. That is to say that the process by which the water is boiling is thermodynamics and the reason {first link in the causal chain) the water is boiling is because I want a cup of tea. Reasons cannot be quantified as they are only descriptions of the causal history, but are still valid answers to why. Processes are descriptions of the quantifiable mechanics behind the why.

    You might learn something about different kinds of answers if you read the link below.
    https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly...ft_final-1.pdf


    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    The BBT isn't thought of by the majority of humanity as AN EXPLANATION of the origin of the universe as it presently exists? Seriously??
    Actually, I pointed out that the majority of humanity does think of the BBT as an explanation of the origin of the universe, and that is why I included it with other world origin theories, but the BBT does not actually say anything about the origin of the universe at all. The BBT is actually a description of how quantum mechanics suggest that the expansion of the early universe occurred, not how it came into existence to begin with; seriously...

    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Of course the BBT has no "proof", no scientific theory does, however, it does explain the EVIDENCE and that is all it does.
    At least you are correct here and are willing to admit that it is only a theory, and only explains the evidence. Creation does the same thing, it explains the EVIDENCE and that is all it does. The difference is I admit that the creationist explanation is a belief, where as I am willing to bet that you will not admit that the BBT is as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    If you have a better explanation not involving "goddidit" I'm sure the Nobel committee will be extremely interested.
    Actually, I have the only logical explanation (for the origin of the universe, not the BBT) not involving "goddidit," but you would reject that as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Which part of "your lack of critical thinking skills" and/or "brain-washed by christian fundamentalism" isn't true? So far you've shown my evaluation of both to be accurate.
    All of it isn't true. I have proved that my critical thinking skills are honed much better than what you are used too, and it would seem much better than you can handle. As for the brain-washed by Christian fundamentalism goes, I am considered a heretic by most Christian fundamentalist simply because they cannot follow logic and reasoning very well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    Perhap, perhaps not. I don't care since it has no bearing on OUR discussion. (This appears to be red herring on your part in an attempt at diversion.)
    Trying to divert from what: you using the goddidit fallacy as a straw-man? I may have equivocated incorrectly (as did you, though you probably wont admit it) that the god of the gaps is the same as goddidit, but the fact still remains that your false claim that I am saying goddidit is a straw-man.


    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    ... and your interpretation isn't goddidit? You're kidding, right?
    Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't your position goddidit? If not, explain why not.
    No, my position is not goddidit. Based on logic and reasoning my explanation for the origin of the universe is nothing other than a necessary being. There are good reasons why I believe that necessary being is the God of the Bible, but it does not have to be and it does not mean that he is. Therefore, as to the origin of the universe, my explanation is an unidentified, eternal, immutable, perfect, self-sustaining existence (being) was the original cause for this contingent universe to come into existence (being). Furthermore, that necessary being is not even required to have intelligence, but it must exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    That you don't understand the difference is a testament to your lack of critical thinking skills. That no matter how clearly I might explain it you will never comprehend it is testament to the thoroughness of how well you have been brain-washed by christian fundamentalism.
    That you do not understand that you are using your goddidit (divine fallacy) as a straw-man shows the opposite. As a matter of fact, your goddidit argument actually produces more problems for atheism than it does for theism, but you probably do not see that either because you cannot quantify the reasons if I were to explain them to you.
    Last edited by Veritas veritate; December 5th, 2017 at 08:48 AM. Reason: Grammatical and coding errors

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Veritas veritate For Your Post:

    Right Divider (December 5th, 2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us