posted
Vote if you want. But truth is not determined by majority vote, in any case. The universe is not a democracy. You may vote that the sun has always risen in the east, but there is a fellow named Velikovsky who presented some very good evidence that it used to rise in the west.
NobleHunter, I am surprised you do not see the logical connection between the idea of a Big Bang with evolution. All evolutionists agree on the necessity for there to be vast ages for the universe--billions of years--so the improbable idea of chance mutations rewriting DNA to produce more complex and advanced species from less complex species can somehow be made to appear plausible.
Evidence such as the fact that no stellar nebula spreading from a single, identifiable explosion center has ever been observed to have been expanding for more the 12,000 years (even assuming the ejecta is traveling close to the speed of light) is anathema to evolutionists, because it pretty strongly indicates there is not billions of years to play around with, and the essential, mathematical IMPROBABILITY of evolution cannot be gotten around.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, you never "pinned me to the wall." This is just you trying to rewrite history, and claim a victory you never attained. That is a pretty lazy way of debating. I gave you a multitude of evidences that are not honestly arguable. Just because you babble something does not mean you have given an intelligent answer to what was actually said.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Aldous Huxley? Do you appreciate his instrumental role in the development of naturalistic evolution as a philosophy of science?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't talk about mathematical improbability, Ron. It is incredibly less probable that the cause of so much complexity is a being of *infinite, inexplicable* complexity.
You can complain and scoff, "Aha! The world is far too complex to have arisen by 'mere chance'!" (Setting aside that this is not the scientific explanation.) But you can't answer that problem of complexity with God, because the Christian God is incalculably more complex than the supposedly too-complex universe.
Now yes, I realize that you don't quite do this. In keeping with your profoundly dishonest discussion practices you will initially refer to complexities when dismissing something you don't like, but when you hold up your infinitely more complex explanation suddenly the complexity problem doesn't matter.
And yes, I know that if you respond to this at all you'll lie and refuse to acknowledge the shifting goalposts of evidence you've used, isn't it sad liberals God etc etc. Just wanted you to hear it pointed out that you didn't get away with it.
Still waiting to hear from a scientist who states they support evolution because they fear the possibility of God'a Judgement. And none of your horseshit about evolution as a 'philosophy', either. One of these hedonistic scientists you talk about.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have to let you put words in my mouth, Rakeesh. You don't know who Aldous Huxley was, so you are not informed enough to be qualified to engage in this present discussion. It is sad that your professors did such a poor job of educating you about the basics of the history of science.
Which is more likely? That immense complexity emerged out of nothing all by itself? Or that God existed to begin with, all by Himself, the First Thing of all, and all existence came from Him? We are here--the universe is here. So something did come first. Which was it? Which was first? Nothing, or God?
You may believe that you are a child of nothing, a spawn of blind chance, if you wish. I believe it is infinitely more reasonable to conclude that I am a child of God. Why don't you want to see yourself that way?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I said I didn't know much about him, but that he wasn't a scientist. Which he wasn't. And, again, don't talk about qualifications when you make sure to exclude tens of thousands of scientists despite their qualifications because they WrongThink.
Also for god's sake it's times like this that makes me wonder if you're trolling: you tried to use Milton Bradley board gaming experience as valid experience in the study of history. Qualified, pah.
Anyway, I notice that you're doing exactly as predicted: pretending you didn't try to shift the goalposts. Before I answer your question, answer one for me: which is more complex? A living world that operates on the basis of evolution, or a supernatural deity outside time and space and natural law that created the world? I wait with held breath.
To answer your question, my response is to point out first that you posed another dishonest question in that there are only two choices-nothing or God. But my own answer is that I don't know how Reality started.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Just because you babble something does not mean you have given an intelligent answer to what was actually said.
Are you just repeating things that people say to you when you are debating badly? Anyway, like I said, I figured you'd find some way to excuse not putting it to a vote.
That's the benefit to that what actually happened in this thread actually happened. I'll bet you still even deny that people had you pinned to the wall over that you were falsely claiming your video showed us obama's grandmother saying he was born outside of the U.S., because you're Ron Lambert.
quote:Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Aldous Huxley? Do you appreciate his instrumental role in the development of naturalistic evolution as a philosophy of science?
I am very versed in Aldous Huxley. It's why I know that your attempt to shoehorn him into the issue of evolutionary science is typical Ronlambertian scientific and intellectual bankruptcy.
You saying to Rakeesh 'you don't know who Aldous Huxley was, so you are not informed enough to be qualified to engage in this present discussion' is like saying 'you don't play Milton Bradley tabletop wargames so you are not informed enough to be qualified to engage in this World War 2 discussion'
which is just to remind people that just this week you tried to use your tabletop wargaming experience to make 'qualified' arguments on WW2 history
like that is totally a thing you just did
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
and before i forget what else you did this week, you also got your facebook account phished and decided that there was sufficient concern that i was the one who hacked your account, because i was able to put any words into a quote box that said 'ron lambert' let me also mention that happened
if you get tired of people bringing up all this stuff that you do, you should consider not constantly doing things which make you look ridiculous in ways you don't even really understand, and which provide a constant supply of your baffling inability to debate rationally in any way, shape, or form about a host of subjects.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, you said nothing substantive to counter my arguments and evidences. Once again, you are merely pretending you won a debate when you never did. Let anyone read through the thread and see for themselves who has the real weight of evidence behind him.
Challenge accepted.
I will read the posts tonight and declare a winner tomorrow
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
