Happy Atheist Forum

How would you do it?

Like what would you bring up in order to prove it? Well, at least TRY to prove it.

I just want to know, really, to help strengthen my argument...
Thanks people.

Merry Christmas! (The holiday that ironically is supposed to be peaceful, even though it celebrates a man that because of him proclaiming he is the Son of God, millions of people have died. :p)

The easiest way, I find, is to disprove irreducible complexity (for example the bacterial flagelum), then specified complexity (non random selection of randomly varying systems results in a culmulative selection and retention of mutations).

These are really the only "evidence" for ID (I use the term in its loosest possible sense here),and both have been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community at large.

The remaining problem is, while ID can be proved to be a less than stellar alternative explanation to evolution, one can't really prove that god didn't "guide" evolution, due to his ineffeble nature etc. My preffered solution is fairly simple; if the options are that god had nothing to do with life, or god had everything to do with life, but made it look like he did not, the first assumption is more reasonable.

It should also be noted, that the burden of proof is very much on the ID proponent, not your good self. When they trot out the tired arguments above, you will have a counter to them.

Mostly the only people who deny evolution and support the ID theory are those who haven't studied evolution. Or at least not with an open mind. I have some theses of my own for disproving God but as far as proving evolution goes I would merely provide reference to places they could study and learn for themselves.

With God, All Things Are Possible.

... and therein lies the problem.

Aside from it being impossible to prove a negative hypothesis, when you introduce an all-powerful being into the equation, all bets are off.

I might, for example, tell you that my god created the universe on June 2nd, 1986.  He created it with a full history, and plenty of evidence to support that it was much older, but in reality, the universe is a little over 12 years old.  Or 12 seconds.  Or 6,000 years.  You pick!  It's GOD after all!

The best you can do is to give them supporting evidence for what we currently know through scientific discovery.  If they can't accept or understand that, you're not going to convince them that their "theory" is incorrect.

You just can't reason with unreasonable people,
JoeActor

Quote from: "joeactor"You just can't reason with unreasonable people,

Exactly!

I like to point out that if life was designed by god, god must not be all that intelligent.  In four legged animals look how the anus is located above the reproductive organs - all the better to plop feces across them and create bacterial infections.  Seriously, what dumbass would come up with that?  Reverse this and the animal would have nearly sterile urine washing across the anus (thus cleaning it without the need for a tongue bath) rather than feces going across the (female) animal's genital opening.  

Can you tell I grew up on a farm?

ha ha ha,  she said anus! Seriously, though, good point.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"

Quote from: "joeactor"You just can't reason with unreasonable people,

Exactly!

I like to point out that if life was designed by god, god must not be all that intelligent.  In four legged animals look how the anus is located above the reproductive organs - all the better to plop feces across them and create bacterial infections.  Seriously, what dumbass would come up with that?  Reverse this and the animal would have nearly sterile urine washing across the anus (thus cleaning it without the need for a tongue bath) rather than feces going across the (female) animal's genital opening.  

Can you tell I grew up on a farm?

 :D

if god existed then he would be logical. having millions of babies die stillborn or children die of disease or starvation doesn`t sound logical to me. if he wanted to have people prove themselves worthy of entering heaven then why kill them off young?. ergo not logical, ergo no god.

My approach depends on what the other person believes, their personality, and their extent of scientific knowledge.  With some people you can be very straightforward while others you'll want to find points you agree on before moving forward to what you disagree on.  If the person has no clue about evolution then I just advise that they quit making themselves look ignorant (while briefly pointing out why their view is ignorant) then direct them to information to read.  Usually they don't read it and I consider them a lost cause.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Seriously, what dumbass would come up with that?

You know you're bordering on blasphemy, don't you?  Do you know the implications?

I like the self-cleaning ass perspective.  I'm glad I'm not 4 legged, though.  Have you thought about being a "creator" or maybe a plastic surgeon (are there plastic surgeons for quadrupeds?)?

It is claimed that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

But evil exists

- If God doesn't know about evil he is not omniscient.
- If God knows about evil but cannot stop it, he is not omnipotent.
- If God knows about evil and he can stop it but doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent.

QED: God does not exist.

Apologists have come of with dozens of explanations for this "problem of evil" (as it is known) but all of them have been successfully refuted and the conclusion holds good: God does not exist.

Proving god is easy because the definition of so fluid. "God is everything, man!" Everything exists, therefore the pantheistic definition of god demonstrates that god exists.

You'd have to lie and fake evidence to prove intelligent design. It's just not possible to make an honest and educated case for ID.

Don't bother trying.You can't disprove a negative. You can't disprove that there's not a flying spaghetti monster floating around my house. The burden of proof rests with me to prove it's true.

QuoteYou can't disprove that there's not a flying spaghetti monster floating around my house

FSM - possibly the only religion who's story of creation makes sense. It has no need for omnipotence but states that we were 'created for a laugh when the great FSM  was drunk'

Also, they have a very good theory on gravity    

My introduction to evolution was in High School. A Texas High School,  believe it or not! ( 70's). It was the story of the transition of  some strain of British moths  from light to dark because of sooty pollution and the contrast they faced on tree bark. They evovled in a few decades. My favorite Mr Science friend who is about my same age  has fond memories of the moth evolution explanation.
SO-- how do you insert "Intellegent Design" into curricula that has our old friends, the moths?

 

Would this be a good place to object to the meaty bits of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Love the Anti "intellegent Design" concept, but the meatballs  are, well, very meaty.
As a vegetarian I must say "Hail Seitan." And not in a Rosemary's Baby way.

WTF ! there's scientology banner on my last post. NO.

ID as it is constructed by the discovery institute, and Michael Behe, is not difficult to show the flaws with. In an attempt to construct a hypothesis that allowed them to make some sort of prediction they could verify, they have claimed that there is a certain level of complexity that could not have come about naturally. That it is not possible for it to have evolved. It seems to me that even Richard Dawkins, or any of the other atheist hardliners would never assert that it was impossible that a god had a hand in evolution, despite how furiously they may believe that one did not. Because the assertion would be completely unsupportable, and the assertion of a charlatan. It seems that ID proponents do not mind making the opposite assertion, and with no better support.

In order to call something "irreducibly complex", and to mean by this something that cannot have come about by a successive, natural process is claiming to know precisely what can, and cannot happen by natural means. When one makes such an assertion, they are saying that they have a complete knowledge of nature. For this reason, ID -- as it is formulated by said individuals -- is nothing more than a charlatan assertion. It is based on a claim to knowledge that they cannot possess.

As for "god", that depends on the definition, and any good theologian can formulate a definition that isn't disprovable.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"ID as it is constructed by the discovery institute, and Michael Behe, is not difficult to show the flaws with. In an attempt to construct a hypothesis that allowed them to make some sort of prediction they could verify, they have claimed that there is a certain level of complexity that could not have come about naturally. That it is not possible for it to have evolved. It seems to me that even Richard Dawkins, or any of the other atheist hardliners would never assert that it was impossible that a god had a hand in evolution, despite how furiously they may believe that one did not. Because the assertion would be completely unsupportable, and the assertion of a charlatan. It seems that ID proponents do not mind making the opposite assertion, and with no better support.

In order to call something "irreducibly complex", and to mean by this something that cannot have come about by a successive, natural process is claiming to know precisely what can, and cannot happen by natural means. When one makes such an assertion, they are saying that they have a complete knowledge of nature. For this reason, ID -- as it is formulated by said individuals -- is nothing more than a charlatan assertion. It is based on a claim to knowledge that they cannot possess.

As for "god", that depends on the definition, and any good theologian can formulate a definition that isn't disprovable.

Its great to see a "sort of Christian" (not sure what that means exactly, but oh well...) take the ID topic on with logic.

Magic is, by its very nature, unfalsifiable. It's like the invisible dragon in my garage.

Quote from: "spartacus"if god existed then he would be logical. having millions of babies die stillborn or children die of disease or starvation doesn`t sound logical to me. if he wanted to have people prove themselves worthy of entering heaven then why kill them off young?. ergo not logical, ergo no god.

I once asked a religious nut in high school why bad things happened if God supposedly was a good being.  Here's his response: "Sometimes, the Devil 'sneaks up' on God & does bad things."  

Yes, seriously, the devil sneaks up on God & fools him every time.  Kind of blows the whole theory of God being omnipresent & omnipotent out of the water, doesn't it??  

~C

Kevin,I really like this question no I really do not I think it is a waste of time for both sides. This question can neither be proven nor disproven because there would have to be someone that knows all things and no human has ever lived nor will he/she. We all should move on to topics that are better to discuss. I do want to say that I believe in the God of creation and Jesus Christ the saviour of all mankind for those who are willing to accept Him as saviour. I also know God will not force anyone to believe in Him because God want us to love Him freely.I say forced love is no love at all. Now I would like to make some comments about the answers others have given and I hope I do'nt offend anyone and if I do let me know so we can come to an understanding. I'm not here to make enemies, I want to be a friend!
     SSY: says that God tried to disguise His work. God never denied He created but quite the opposite He claims He created the entire universe.
     Kylyssa: says that some blankity blank came up with a very stupid idea, since Kylyssa believes in evolution that argument falls back on evolution,sorry evolution must be the blankity blank.
    Wraitchel: say you agree with Kylyssa,that evolution is not cutting the mustard.
    thirteen31: says I like the way Kylyssa thinks, Kylyssa said evolution messed up the poor four legged creatures.
    spartacus: please read the Bible no one can earn their way into heaven,salvation comes from the grace of God when we believe in His Son.
    Moigle: the truth is God's omniscient,omnipotent and omnipresent I'm not sure where you got omnibenevolent. He does know there is evil,He can stop evil and because He is omnipresent He knows when it is the right time to competely stop it and He will.
    Will: shame,shame evolutionist have faked evidence to misled people for a long time so isn't whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Of coarse not that's not a christians world view and I hope it's not an agnostics or atheist world view. Personally I do'nt believe that ID has anything to do with God.Your compairing intellegence to omniscient power and by definition enough said.
    verybigv: I like fairytales as much as the next person but "spaghetti monsters" everyone knows meatballs can't fly there to heavy. Ha Ha I liked that one.
    Ryytikki: Terry Pratchet is right no one likes a smart aleck.Read the Bible God reveals the truth to us we do not find it, therefore our omniscient God.
    Sally Mutant: Sally,Sally you are a great reason for ID people and I personally do not like ID because it infers that intelligence is the same as creation and that is as far away as evolution and creation. Sally the old iron butterfly (pepper moth) of evolution is long dead,even in most of Texas. Kettelwell only damaged the evolutionist point of view and so ID damages creation.Please do'nt do anything to encourage the people who support ID. See Will,what happens when people play the game of see what I've done"Kettlewell" just to prove a point. Only truth will stand in the end!
    Twiddler: you say that the ID proponents(and I agree) can not know everything that is possible in nature. Since you believe this is true then why do you refer to yourself as an atheist, you would have to know all things to dismiss God.
    Nulono: Be careful when you are working in the garage he might breath fire. Magic: poof the dragon is gone.
    Cemetery: Give him a break he was just a highschool boy who did not have the answer to the hardest question to answer. He should have said he did not know, but he did not, he felt pressure and did not want to look dumb,but in the end he did. The devil,evilone,satan,lucifer or what ever you might call him is the father of evil and preys on the weak minded and those who have a weakness he can take advantage of and those who have a weak moment like your highschool friend. He has never snuck up on God or tricked Him in any way. Read the Bible the answers to your questions are there. God does allow evil to happen and it is for a reason however the small mind of man can not conceive the reason, man would it be great if we could understand these things but not being omnipresent like God we can not see the whole picture.


             Thanks for listening, love in Christ Jesus!!!

Woa, wall of text!

QuoteKevin,I really like this question no I really do not I think it is a waste of time for both sides. This question can neither be proven nor disproven because there would have to be someone that knows all things and no human has ever lived nor will he/she. We all should move on to topics that are better to discuss. I do want to say that I believe in the God of creation and Jesus Christ the saviour of all mankind for those who are willing to accept Him as saviour. I also know God will not force anyone to believe in Him because God want us to love Him freely.I say forced love is no love at all. Now I would like to make some comments about the answers others have given and I hope I do'nt offend anyone and if I do let me know so we can come to an understanding. I'm not here to make enemies, I want to be a friend!

I'm currently inclined to think that specific gods, probably including the biblical god, can infact be more or less disproved due to some form of reducio ad absurdum - basically disproved through contradiction. It is only the most vague and and metaphorical interpretations of the bible that this could not be applied to. I would be particually interested to see what the other atheists (and also agnostic nonatheists (what a mouthful)such as Joeactor (wow what a bracket jungle this has become)) think of this. Can anyone come up with such a logical disproof of the biblical (or any other) god?

Wall of text crits for 9999!

Uhh, I can't really distinguish the arguments in the wall, and I don't think any are addressed to me anyway.  I definitely can't be arsed to figure out which particular statement from each person Godschild is responding to, so instead...

Quote from: "templeboy"Can anyone come up with such a logical disproof of the biblical (or any other) god?

Sure,
[li]God should have no emotion, as this is a reaction to new information.  
[li]God should never be surprised if he is all-knowing.  
[li]If God is all powerful and willing, then he should be able to pair up with some dude and take down some iron chariots (and the Bible assures us he was willing).
[li]If God is all-knowing then he cannot be free willed, since he cannot make a choice other than what he already knows he will make, therefore he is not all-powerful.
[li]God cannot have created everything as he would have to create his initiative as well.  Without his initiative, he would not have bothered to create his initiative, ergo, there is at least one state of affairs in all the universe for which God cannot be responsible (IE, he may have been able, through will, to make himself all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent, but without the will, he could not have done any of it, including making himself willful).
[li]If God can circumvent logic, then he may be so bad he is good and so much Satan that he is not Satan, and vice versa, but if God is bound by logic and reason so as not to contradict, then he has no power over it.  While not a contradiction, this would more suggest that logic is greater than God, ie, more worthy of admiration and homage, and God, if reasonable, could hardly begrudge us its use.
[li]God needed to create us for some reason, if only to satisfy his need to create with what power he has (why does an artist paint?).  If he has needs, he is imperfect, for he would be left wanting without it.

*waits for Hitsumei to demolish most of these contradictions (I'm sure I'm missing a reason why I can't make these arguments   ) or Godschild to say they don't matter*

Oh, yeah, and evolution is an observed fact, Godschild.  If ya like, we can discuss why.  We can also discuss how creationism is wholly invalid as a scientific theory and why it's good for nothing but endorsing the rest of the Bible.

Quote from: "templeboy"I'm currently inclined to think that specific gods, probably including the biblical god, can infact be more or less disproved due to some form of reducio ad absurdum - basically disproved through contradiction. It is only the most vague and and metaphorical interpretations of the bible that this could not be applied to. I would be particually interested to see what the other atheists (and also agnostic nonatheists (what a mouthful)such as Joeactor (wow what a bracket jungle this has become)) think of this. Can anyone come up with such a logical disproof of the biblical (or any other) god?

Yes, I'd agree.  As soon as you start defining your specific god, you place physical and logical constraints on them.  These can be proven or disproven.

For example let's take Zeus.  He lives on Mt. Olympus.  A search of Mt. Olympus turns up no evidence.  No Zeus, no dwelling, no artifacts.  Now, mind you, a beliver would say that we can't see Zeus, or he doesn't want us to find him, or he is beyond our senses.  Ok.  So why claim to know where he lives?  Why not just say he "is" and leave it at that?

That's why I'm agnostic.  I believe, but I don't know.  And I don't try to prove it...
JoeActor

JoeActor

QuoteThat's why I'm agnostic. I believe, but I don't know. And I don't try to prove it...

Hmmm.

May I ask your definition of belief JoeActor?

Quote from: "dr.zalost"May I ask your definition of belief JoeActor?

Sure.

Belief and/or Faith have many definitions.  There's quite a lot of ambiguity about the two words.

I often use Belief as a contrast to Knowledge.
Belief requires no proof.  If proof were provided for a given belief, it becomes Knowledge instead.

Hence, the Gnostic/Agnostic (with/without knowledge), and Theist/Atheist (with/without god)... this gives you 4 permutations.  I am an Agnostic Theist, which means I believe there is a god, but do not claim to know it for certain.  I also do not define god (or for that matter even think god is definable).

Quote from: "Godschild"...the old iron butterfly (pepper moth) of evolution is long dead,even in most of Texas. Kettelwell (sic) only damaged the evolutionist point of view...

This is not correct.  You're using a fallacious argument based on allegations which have since been proven false.  Creationists, and others who would like to deny the reality of evolution often trot out this specious criticism, but in fact there is nothing at all wrong with Kettlewell's science.  Please give sources for your statement.

 

QuoteThe journalist Judith Hooper suggested in her book Of Moths and Men (2002) that Kettlewell committed scientific fraud. Careful studies of Kettlewell's surviving papers by Rudge (2005) and Young (2004) have revealed that Hooper's allegation of fraud is unjustified, and "that Hooper does not provide one shred of evidence to support this serious allegation”.

Young:  http://www.talkreason.org/articles/moonshine.cfm (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/moonshine.cfm)
Rudge, D.W. (2005). "Did Kettlewell Commit Fraud? Re-examining the Evidence.", Public Understanding of Science 14

(quoted from this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution).)

EDIT:  You can read a good review of the Hooper book by a respected researcher in this field (Bruce S. Grant Ph.D.) here (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5583/940?ijkey=edb725365a5ab765a39beaf73a3dc0e168f540a2&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha).

2)  Sorry for jumping in and answering something addressed to you, SallyMutant, but this particular point is one I find hard to resist, and it's quite common for Creationists to impugn Kettlewell unjustly.

Quote from: "joeactor"I also do not define god (or for that matter even think god is definable).

Then what do you mean by "I believe there is a god"? You must have some vague idea of what you mean by "god" or else it would be meaningless to say that you think that it exists.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "joeactor"I also do not define god (or for that matter even think god is definable).

Then what do you mean by "I believe there is a god"? You must have some vague idea of what you mean by "god" or else it would be meaningless to say that you think that it exists.

Exists?  So begins the definition of god...

I have a feeling, if you will, of something greater than ourselves.
Does god exist in the normal sense?  I don't know.
Did god create the universe?  I don't know.
Is the universe god?  I don't know.

... and neither does anyone else, IMHO.

Meaningless?  Sure.  If you're looking to define god.  I'm not.  I just believe.

"What am I doing?  I'm being.",
JoeActor

Quote from: "joeactor"I have a feeling, if you will, of something greater than ourselves.

In what sense, and by what standard?

QuoteDoes god exist in the normal sense?  I don't know.

What is the operative word here? "God" or "exist"? If it is god, then I don't know what the normal sense is, and if it is exist, then I'm not sure what would constitute an abnormal ontology.

QuoteDid god create the universe?  I don't know.

I still don't know what you mean by god, though since you are a theist, I presume that you believe it to be the case.

QuoteIs the universe god?  I don't know.

Again, I don't know what you mean by god, and since you are a theist, I presume that you believe this not to be the case. Also, the universe is not a thing in and of itself, is the compilation of all things known and supposed to exist throughout space/time. If "the universe" were god, then everything and nothing is.

I am not attempting to trap you, or even attempt to disagree with your conception, I understand that you don't claim to know, I am just curious about your musings.

Quote... and neither does anyone else, IMHO.

But, I presume that you don't claim to know whether or not anyone else knows?  :P

Quote from: "Hitsumei"In what sense, and by what standard?
...
What is the operative word here? "God" or "exist"? If it is god, then I don't know what the normal sense is, and if it is exist, then I'm not sure what would constitute an abnormal ontology.
...
I still don't know what you mean by god, though since you are a theist, I presume that you believe it to be the case.
...
Again, I don't know what you mean by god, and since you are a theist, I presume that you believe this not to be the case. Also, the universe is not a thing in and of itself, is the compilation of all things known and supposed to exist throughout space/time. If "the universe" were god, then everything and nothing is.

Your questions, by their very nature, are an attempt to define god.
By attempting to define god I would cease to be an agnostic.
My definition would be testable, and therefore fall into the realm of (potential) knowledge.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote... and neither does anyone else, IMHO.

But, I presume that you don't claim to know whether or not anyone else knows?  

!  Yuppers  !  Abso-lutely!  ;-)

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I still feel that my original question was not answered, so I still don't understand how this can be.

You are correct.  I don't have an answer.  That's kinda my point.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote"What am I doing?  I'm being."

"being" is not an action, it isn't something things "do", it is a state of affairs.

"I Am That I Am" - God

"I Yam What I Yam" - Popeye

"I Am Being" - JoeActor

Joe, to me, the word "theist" implies belief in a specific deity. All you have said is that you have some vague sense that there is some sort of power greater than you. Would it not be more accurate to term yourself a deist?

*Stops self in mid-post, and looks up deist on wikipedia*

QuoteDeism is a philosophical belief in the existence of a God on the basis of reason,

OK, now, that is not the basis of your belief...so maybe theist is infact a better term...

*Goes off into corner and mumbles under breath  :upset:

Quote from: "verybigv"Don't bother trying.You can't disprove a negative.

Yes you can.

Negative : "There is no number greater than 2."

Disproof by counter example : 3.

 

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "verybigv"Don't bother trying.You can't disprove a negative.

Yes you can.

Negative : "There is no number greater than 2."
Disproof by counter example : 3.

Indeed... in fact, here's a great 4-page little primer on the topic:
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosoph ... gative.pdf (http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf)

(props to Steven Hales, professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania)

Quote from: "joeactor"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "verybigv"Don't bother trying.You can't disprove a negative.

Yes you can.

Negative : "There is no number greater than 2."
Disproof by counter example : 3.

Indeed... in fact, here's a great 4-page little primer on the topic:
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosoph ... gative.pdf (http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf)

(props to Steven Hales, professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania)

I corresponded with Dr. Hales for a brief time a couple of years ago. Good guy. Somewhere in here I posted something of that, but I won't even try to find it.

I think it's funny how Joe and I have very similar beliefs, yet pin different labels on ourselves. That has no implication whatsoever that I think Joe's self-definition is wrong. In fact, I find it quite tenable. I think my label is pretty flexible in that I use the general term Atheist, but am really more of an Apatheist, and live like an Agnostic, or maybe even an Apagnostic if there is such a thing. I don't know there is no god or gods, but I'd bet money there isn't, and additionally, I don't really care.  

But I love to learn about the universe and everything in it, and if I ever find out there is something of a god somewhere I guess I'd change my opinions.

WOW! I wasn't expecting such a response,it will take some time to digest all this.I do want to add this about myself.I am a Creationist and I am not religious I do not like religion because it detracts from God.Religion belongs to all the other gods people have in there lives what ever they may be.So when I refer to God it will be the One who created all things,the God of the Holy Bible.I have a personal relationship with God,I know to those who do not believe,this is hard to understand.
  Hey PipeBox come out from under the chair your opinions and beliefs are always welcome.
  templeboy how can you reduce something I can not prove and how can you reduce something you can not disprove.
   JoeActor I do know the God of creation look at it this way,you can't see it but you believe in it because you can fill it and see the results of its action and so you know there is wind.For me I can not see God but I do believe in Him because I fill Him in my life and I see His actions all around me so I know there is God.
                                                      to all love in Christ Jesus

Quote from: "McQ"I think it's funny how Joe and I have very similar beliefs, yet pin different labels on ourselves. That has no implication whatsoever that I think Joe's self-definition is wrong. In fact, I find it quite tenable. I think my label is pretty flexible in that I use the general term Atheist, but am really more of an Apatheist, and live like an Agnostic, or maybe even an Apagnostic if there is such a thing. I don't know there is no god or gods, but I'd bet money there isn't, and additionally, I don't really care.  

But I love to learn about the universe and everything in it, and if I ever find out there is something of a god somewhere I guess I'd change my opinions.

Yeah, very similar...

We just fell on different sides of Occam's razor ;-)

Quote from: "Godschild"Kylyssa: says that some blankity blank came up with a very stupid idea, since Kylyssa believes in evolution that argument falls back on evolution,sorry evolution must be the blankity blank.
    Wraitchel: say you agree with Kylyssa,that evolution is not cutting the mustard.
    thirteen31: says I like the way Kylyssa thinks, Kylyssa said evolution messed up the poor four legged creatures.

Since evolution has no intelligence driving it, it's unsurprising that things are not "well designed" - because they aren't designed at all!  That is the entire point.

Life on earth has so many, many faults that only a very stupid or cruel being would design it that way.

But there's no cruel and/or stupid designer - there's no designer at all.  Evolution doesn't design.  Evolution is the description of a process, not a thing in and of itself.  It's like erosion.  Erosion isn't a thing, it is a process.

We're stuck with faulty, sometimes hilariously sad bodies precisely because they were not designed.  We're an amazing gobble-de-gook of patchwork bits and pieces that is incredibly fragile.

Just started a new blog to discuss Ricky Gervais and his views on Atheism

theworldofrickygervais.blogspot.com/

Quote from: "dohboy3000"Just started a new blog to discuss Ricky Gervais and his views on Atheism

theworldofrickygervais.blogspot.com

Wtf dude?

5 posts of exactly the same thing?

Quote from: "PipeBox"[li]If God is all-knowing then he cannot be free willed, since he cannot make a choice other than what he already knows he will make, therefore he is not all-powerful.

I like the idea of applying predestination to God.

I'll have to use it next time I talk to a Calvinist.

Quote from: "Godschild"WOW! I wasn't expecting such a response,it will take some time to digest all this.I do want to add this about myself.I am a Creationist and I am not religious I do not like religion because it detracts from God.Religion belongs to all the other gods people have in there lives what ever they may be.So when I refer to God it will be the One who created all things,the God of the Holy Bible.I have a personal relationship with God,I know to those who do not believe,this is hard to understand.
  Hey PipeBox come out from under the chair your opinions and beliefs are always welcome.
  templeboy how can you reduce something I can not prove and how can you reduce something you can not disprove.
   JoeActor I do know the God of creation look at it this way,you can't see it but you believe in it because you can fill it and see the results of its action and so you know there is wind.For me I can not see God but I do believe in Him because I fill Him in my life and I see His actions all around me so I know there is God.
                                                      to all love in Christ Jesus

What is it with Creationists?  Do they have a propensity for keyboards with faulty spacebars?  Then - even with spaces embedded to allow tired eyes to read the blather it is always a chore - almost like trying to speed read a Dostoyevsky novel!  No matter where you go on the interwebz they are all the same!

For gawdsake creos and IDers - learn how to use your opposable thumbs already!  I don't care if you think god designed 'em or they evolved - just use 'em!  Once you've got that mastered, a little bit of attention to detail, remedial grammar and sentence construction will be gratefully appreciated.