18 Mar 17
Originally posted by chaney3This from the guy that doesn't understand even the most basic aspects of an eclipse and lies at the drop of a hat rather than admit he is ignorant of something or got something wrong.
It is my belief that atheists are rather closed minded, and seemingly ignorant of all that is around them. With giant egos as well.
Seriously now chaney3, there is no need to insult you as you made a fool of yourself without any assistance. Have the humility to admit it, or the cowardice to run away. Digging the hole deeper wont fix things.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
18 Mar 17
Originally posted by chaney3To clarify sir, you object to being insulted, but are fine with delivering 3 consecutive insults of your own?
Your atheism does not equate to stupidity.
You have insulted me again, and I don't know why.
It is my belief that atheists are rather closed minded, and seemingly ignorant of all that is around them. With giant egos as well.
Is that a religious thing?
18 Mar 17
How interesting it is that science proves that creation isn't by design.
Is it not true that at any given moment everything in existence is precisely where it should be? Does the fact that the moon is receding away from the earth by a cm a year disprove intelligent design?
Who invented the rules that science uses to measure everything in existence? Did man put the universe here as it exists?
I'd like to know what science it is that proves creation isn't by design.
18 Mar 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadDidn't make it up, and nobody told me that, but aren't you using science to prove that the universe came into existence by a means other than by creation?
And I'd like to know who told you that science proves that creation isn't by design. Or did you make that up?
That is what you believe isn't it? You do believe that science proves that the universe came into existence by evolutionary means don't you?
Isn't that the same thing as saying the universe wasn't created?
18 Mar 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn the sense that it doesn't just cease to exist.
'Should' in what sense?
Everyone knows the universe is by no means static, that it is moving and changing. Don't ask me for a scientific explanation. You know what I mean.
What I mean by 'should' is that the universe isn't as it is arbitrarily. If the universe didn't conform to a specific design it would cease to exist as it does.
18 Mar 17
5 edits
Originally posted by josephwWhy would that be?
I If the universe didn't conform to a specific design it would cease to exist as it does.
A beech pebble created and shaped natural erosion of rock doesn't conform to a specific design. So why doesn't that cease to exist as it does?
Does the fact that the moon is receding away from the earth by a cm a year disprove intelligent design?
As far as I am aware, nobody CLAIMS this.
However, a certain religious nut has claimed here that the exact orbit of the moon PROVES intelligent design, which would be contradicted by the moon receding away from the earth because that means orbit doesn't stay precisely the same implying there is nothing special about its precise i.e. exact orbit (he asserted there is something special about its precise i.e. exact orbit ) thus disproving that particular personal religious belief of his, NOT to be confused with disproving that there is intelligent design somewhere, which is a different matter and nobody here says/implies/believes that the moon receding away from the earth disproves design being somewhere involved.
18 Mar 17
Originally posted by josephwSo you 'deduced' it?
Didn't make it up, and nobody told me that,
but aren't you using science to prove that the universe came into existence by a means other than by creation?
No. What gave you that idea? Again, I think you are making it up.
That is what you believe isn't it? You do believe that science proves that the universe came into existence by evolutionary means don't you?
No. Again, what gave you that idea? I have never ever said nor implied that.
Isn't that the same thing as saying the universe wasn't created?
No. Not even close.
18 Mar 17
Originally posted by josephwWell, then, I disagree. There is no evidence whatsoever that arbitrariness does not exist.
What I mean by 'should' is that the universe isn't as it is arbitrarily.
So your statement:
Is it not true that at any given moment everything in existence is precisely where it should be?
is not agreed to. It is not known to be true that everything is where it is due to non-arbitrary laws.
If the universe didn't conform to a specific design it would cease to exist as it does.
No, that doesn't follow - nor does it even make much sense.
18 Mar 17
Originally posted by humy"A beech pebble created and shaped natural erosion of rock doesn't conform to a specific design. So why doesn't that cease to exist as it does?"
Why would that be?
A beech pebble created and shaped natural erosion of rock doesn't conform to a specific design. So why doesn't that cease to exist as it does?
Does the fact that the moon is receding away from the earth by a cm a year disprove intelligent design?
As far as I am aware, nobody CLAIMS this.
However, a certain religious nut ...[text shortened]... with disproving that there is intelligent design somewhere, which is a different matter.
It seems to me that everything occurring is according to and by design. To me that means that whatever is shaped or molded or bent or melted by anything in nature follows a set of rules governing matter. The pebble is shaped by forces acting in accordance with specific design rules, and if those rules changed beyond perimeters the universe would collapse and cease to exist in its current form.
No design, no form = no universe.
18 Mar 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow you're just being evasive and disingenuous.
So you 'deduced' it?
[b] but aren't you using science to prove that the universe came into existence by a means other than by creation?
No. What gave you that idea? Again, I think you are making it up.
That is what you believe isn't it? You do believe that science proves that the universe came into existence by evolutionary means don't you? ...[text shortened]...
[b]Isn't that the same thing as saying the universe wasn't created?
No. Not even close.[/b]
18 Mar 17
Originally posted by twhitehead"...nor does it even make much sense."
Well, then, I disagree. There is no evidence whatsoever that arbitrariness does not exist.
So your statement:
[b]Is it not true that at any given moment everything in existence is precisely where it should be?
is not agreed to. It is not known to be true that everything is where it is due to non-arbitrary laws.
If the universe didn't confor ...[text shortened]... ould cease to exist as it does.
No, that doesn't follow - nor does it even make much sense.[/b]
That's because you lost the meaning and intent of the thread by screwing up what I said so badly replying with completely erroneous statements.
For example: I asked, 'is it not true that at any given moment everything in existence is precisely where it should be'? To which you replied, "It is not known to be true that everything is where it is due to non-arbitrary laws."
Who said it was? You twisted it up. You're either lying or you're too ignorant to understand plain English.
It's just too simple for you isn't it? Everything in existence is as it is because of design, and would cease to exist as it is if and when that design changes.
It's a no-brainer.
18 Mar 17
Originally posted by josephwExactly where did you take English? Grade school then nothing? It was perfectly clear what he said. He said, if I can paraphrase, there is no proof of design in the universe.
[b]"...nor does it even make much sense."
That's because you lost the meaning and intent of the thread by screwing up what I said so badly replying with completely erroneous statements.
For example: I asked, 'is it not true that at any given moment everything in existence is precisely where it should be'? To which you replied, "It is not known to b ...[text shortened]... design, and would cease to exist as it is if and when that design changes.
It's a no-brainer.[/b]
And if I may add, the BB theory is just that, a theory that seems to agree with what we already know about the universe, which doesn't make it absolutely true. There are many other theories of how the universe came about, some of them positing a universe of infinite age and other, infinite number of universes like ours but some in different dimensions. It is an open scientific discussion and perhaps one day we will know exactly how the universe got here but for now, you can believe Goddidit all you want, there is no science to disprove it.
We just notice the total lack of an appearance of a god, leaving us to believe we are if anything, being isolated from the rest of the universe because we are not the pinnacle of creation but in fact more like bottom feeders.
Is that clear enough for you?
18 Mar 17
Originally posted by josephwWhat exactly have I been evasive about?
Now you're just being evasive and disingenuous.
Feel free to ask any question you like and I will do my best to answer it.
Calling me evasive because you don't like the answers is just plain dishonesty.
As for calling my honest answers 'disingenuous', you are outright wrong. I was being completely sincere.