God Vs. Science

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
God Vs. Science

I'm looking forward to the responses on this one.  This was a fwd going around.  It has a good structure to it.  I personally had some critiques for some things mentioned, but I"ll leave those hanging for now.  Looking forward to your comments.  Cap.

 

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
http://www.atheistfellowship.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I doubt the conversation

I doubt the conversation actually happened and I believe this is all contrived, that said...the scientist is clearly not a very quick witted person.

This, to me, is just a fantasty situation.

Why would a scientist agree that we "come from monkeys" or that he uses "faith" to decide if he has a brain?

And to suggest that evil is the abscense of god is based on nothing at all.

I call bullshit on the whole thing and refuse to justify this with any further response.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Todangst utterly pwned this

Todangst utterly pwned this whole nonsense

 here

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
http://www.snopes.com/religio

Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle

Haha, thanks...now I feel good for calling bullshit on it =) 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Yep, christians sure like to

Yep, christians sure like to play word games, don't they?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Are you fucking kidding me,

Are you fucking kidding me, caposkia?

What you pose as some kind of challenging, interesting thing, is a wholly spurious and thoroughly debunked story, making its rounds with the "Bill Gates will give you $1,000" and "Timmy's needs a body transplant" through the e-mail trees of bored secretaries. You'd better reevaluate your criteria, dude, cos you're getting laughed at.


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Um... aren't you the person

Um... aren't you the person who believes you have to be a Christian to run for president?

Listen.  In all seriousness, if you're over the age of fifteen, please, for the love of all that is fact, get your sorry ass out of church for ten minutes and read a book.  I'm having a hard time thinking of anyone who has displayed more general ignorance than you, and that's saying a lot.

If you're under the age of fifteen, wake the fuck up while you're in class, ok?   There's some good shit in school.  You need it.  In quantity.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Look, caposkia, I don't

Look, caposkia, I don't have anything against you personally, but your arguments are just not sound. Even if I agreed with your conclusions, I wouldn't be able to agree with the way you arrived at them (which is actually a position one finds oneself in often when one tries to be logical). How you get to a conclusion is as important as the implications of the conclusion itself. I do suggest reading a logic or science book (you can use Darwin's audiobook listed in my sig, but any respected work will do) to understand how careful people reach their conclusions.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
wow people

heh.. yea ok.. and I'm the one that needs to open my eyes. Sorry for the sarcasm.... but you all apparently missed the point of my posting this. does the line;

It has a good structure to it. I personally had some critiques for some things mentioned, but I"ll leave those hanging for now.

ring a bell????

To catch everyone up. This does not necessarily represent my view. This was a fwd sent through. This had some interesting subject. Very verbose, an obviously ignorant professor, and a Christian clarifying how much we take for granted... or by faith.

I figured this would spark some critiquing from a few of you or at least a semi sarcastic and cynical tearing of the foundations of this view.

Just to level with some of you, one of my critiques demolished the foundation of the arguement be it that the consistency of scientific fact would confirm basically everything the Christian kid was saying. The counter arguement could be possible anomolies.

That's just one of a few. Anyway, it's apparent no one grabbed interest.

The problem is, the biggest picture that you all missed that really shocked me is...

You all obviously believe there is no God. If you are right, there are many holding a delusion of God. There are people out there that just hold onto stupid little fwds like this and say, "see, so God must be real." but they have no foundation thereafter. This is a problem on both ends

Instead of trying to help me figure out my flaws, you all decide to be sarcastic and cynical. This really makes me want to walk away from the only one I know to be there for me. (sarcasm intended)

Exception goes to Magilum and others who know me from other blogs. They would obviously expect more from me.

This in my interest was an experiment. I was curious to see how people would respond to one of the hundreds of Christian vs. ...whatever fwds out there. Whenever I get one that's obviously flawed. I reply to all with my honest critiques. I also respond with a sense of caring and understanding, so people don't see me as a heretic and actually consider what I have to say on the subject.

I have to say, I expected better. Sorry for taking your time

 

p.s. Magilum, are you expecting a book from me or a debate??? If you've ever watched a debate, they don't have long winded responses backing up every angle like they do in books... why? there's a little thing called time restraints. In my other blog, I referenced excessively to many things that many didn't respond to, others responded weakly. After so much referencing, people were complaining that I wasn't saying enough, before the excessive referencing, people were saying I was saying too much. you've got to pick a side my friend. What are you looking for?

If you want a detailed response on any of my views, give me an example on which.  I will give you a detailed response on why I believe that.

I need it specific however, I dont' have all year to explain to you why I belive God is real.  Something specific.  We can tackle the issues one at a time.  You might notice in your books, people coming to conclusions tend to do that.   

 

 

 


 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: heh.. yea

caposkia wrote:
heh.. yea ok.. and I'm the one that needs to open my eyes. Sorry for the sarcasm.... but you all apparently missed the point of my posting this. does the line;

It has a good structure to it. I personally had some critiques for some things mentioned, but I"ll leave those hanging for now.

ring a bell????

To catch everyone up. This does not necessarily represent my view. This was a fwd sent through. This had some interesting subject. Very verbose, an obviously ignorant professor, and a Christian clarifying how much we take for granted... or by faith.

It's not interesting.

caposkia wrote:
I figured this would spark some critiquing from a few of you or at least a semi sarcastic and cynical tearing of the foundations of this view.

Just to level with some of you, one of my critiques demolished the foundation of the arguement be it that the consistency of scientific fact would confirm basically everything the Christian kid was saying. The counter arguement could be possible anomolies.

Such ad hoc arguments aren't necessary to demolish what's already an ad hoc argument. It's a category mistake to lump a subjective concept, "evil," with brute realities like temperature; everything that follows is meaningless.

caposkia wrote:
That's just one of a few. Anyway, it's apparent no one grabbed interest.

The problem is, the biggest picture that you all missed that really shocked me is...

You all obviously believe there is no God. If you are right, there are many holding a delusion of God. There are people out there that just hold onto stupid little fwds like this and say, "see, so God must be real." but they have no foundation thereafter. This is a problem on both ends

Instead of trying to help me figure out my flaws, you all decide to be sarcastic and cynical. This really makes me want to walk away from the only one I know to be there for me. (sarcasm intended)

Exception goes to Magilum and others who know me from other blogs. They would obviously expect more from me.

I can't force you to care about logic.

caposkia wrote:
This in my interest was an experiment. I was curious to see how people would respond to one of the hundreds of Christian vs. ...whatever fwds out there. Whenever I get one that's obviously flawed. I reply to all with my honest critiques. I also respond with a sense of caring and understanding, so people don't see me as a heretic and actually consider what I have to say on the subject.

I have to say, I expected better. Sorry for taking your time

If you're interested in challenging your intellect, there are better ways to do it.

caposkia wrote:
p.s. Magilum, are you expecting a book from me or a debate??? If you've ever watched a debate, they don't have long winded responses backing up every angle like they do in books... why? there's a little thing called time restraints. In my other blog, I referenced excessively to many things that many didn't respond to, others responded weakly. After so much referencing, people were complaining that I wasn't saying enough, before the excessive referencing, people were saying I was saying too much. you've got to pick a side my friend. What are you looking for?

I have no idea what your complaint is. Your references in the other thread were to anonymous professors, and unidentified articles from National Geographic.

caposkia wrote:
If you want a detailed response on any of my views, give me an example on which.  I will give you a detailed response on why I believe that.

Questions for Theists

caposkia wrote:
I need it specific however, I dont' have all year to explain to you why I belive God is real.  Something specific.  We can tackle the issues one at a time.  You might notice in your books, people coming to conclusions tend to do that.

The irony of your request hurts my head.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: It's not

magilum wrote:

It's not interesting.

eh, no one's perfect

magilum wrote:

Such ad hoc arguments aren't necessary to demolish what's already an ad hoc argument. It's a category mistake to lump a subjective concept, "evil," with brute realities like temperature; everything that follows is meaningless.

right, but I excessively proved that True Christians (yea, I"m sorry, I know you don't like the True word) show compassion understanding and care towards anyone, no matter how dumb or incoherent they may seem to be where athiests show no love or care whatsoever just by posting this "pointless" fwd.   Heart vs. no heart, Christians win.  The question now is why such an overwhelming gap between the two?  

Where's the proof of True Christians being so??? just look around.  If they don't show you the aforementioned, then I'd question the validity of their following.  

magilum wrote:

I can't force you to care about logic.

especially when no one seems to use it.  Sad part is, I love logic, it unfortunately seems to take a back seat on here.

magilum wrote:

If you're interested in challenging your intellect, there are better ways to do it.

You'd be surprised.  Just by this, I'm convinced that Atheism has nothing to offer me except for cold hearted, feeble pleas for religion to go byebye.  In Christianty, I have a world wide family that cares for me and I know would take me in when I needed them to.  Sound sappy? sure, but is it true..  yea, sorry, you'd have to show me a True Christian that wouldn't do that for me.  

magilum wrote:

I have no idea what your complaint is. Your references in the other thread were to anonymous professors, and unidentified articles from National Geographic.

among others.  I didn't exactly have access to all the information I wished to have either.  Nova as well.  Other sites were referenced to to back up the "anonymous prof."  

magilum wrote:

 

Questions for Theists

k... should i have a response series involving those???? 

magilum wrote:

The irony of your request hurts my head.

The irony of the response to this blog is truely too much to handle.   


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: magilum

caposkia wrote:
magilum wrote:

It's not interesting.

eh, no one's perfect

magilum wrote:

Such ad hoc arguments aren't necessary to demolish what's already an ad hoc argument. It's a category mistake to lump a subjective concept, "evil," with brute realities like temperature; everything that follows is meaningless.

right, but I excessively proved that True Christians (yea, I"m sorry, I know you don't like the True word) show compassion understanding and care towards anyone, no matter how dumb or incoherent they may seem to be where athiests show no love or care whatsoever just by posting this "pointless" fwd.   Heart vs. no heart, Christians win.  The question now is why such an overwhelming gap between the two?

Where's the proof of True Christians being so??? just look around.  If they don't show you the aforementioned, then I'd question the validity of their following.

Blatant No True Scotsman fallacy.

caposkia wrote:

magilum wrote:

I can't force you to care about logic.

especially when no one seems to use it.  Sad part is, I love logic, it unfortunately seems to take a back seat on here.

A vague, empty, rhetorical assertion.

caposkia wrote:
magilum wrote:

If you're interested in challenging your intellect, there are better ways to do it.

You'd be surprised.  Just by this, I'm convinced that Atheism has nothing to offer me except for cold hearted, feeble pleas for religion to go byebye.

Your convictions don't impress me, Mr. "Some professor from the Midwest said so."

caposkia wrote:
In Christianty, I have a world wide family that cares for me and I know would take me in when I needed them to.  Sound sappy? sure, but is it true..  yea, sorry, you'd have to show me a True Christian that wouldn't do that for me.

No True Scotsman.

caposkia wrote:
magilum wrote:

I have no idea what your complaint is. Your references in the other thread were to anonymous professors, and unidentified articles from National Geographic.

among others.  I didn't exactly have access to all the information I wished to have either.  Nova as well.  Other sites were referenced to to back up the "anonymous prof."

Without specifics, you only have fallacious arguments, like the appeals to authority you relied on.

caposkia wrote:
magilum wrote:

Questions for Theists

k... should i have a response series involving those????

What?

caposkia wrote:
magilum wrote:

The irony of your request hurts my head.

The irony of the response to this blog is truely too much to handle.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Your

magilum wrote:

Your convictions don't impress me, Mr. "Some professor from the Midwest said so."

you come up with a lot of excuses, but where's your logic?  Where's the evidence?  I do remember however to void the "some professor from the midwest said so" person who was a professor in Biology and had a doctoral in such, I had posted at least 3 or 4 other links that backed up his claims from other sources.  

magilum wrote:

No True Scotsman.

It's a good excuse, but so far, in all the conversations I've had, this has brought no progression to the topic

magilum wrote:

Without specifics, you only have fallacious arguments, like the appeals to authority you relied on.

which means you'd have to be claiming the same about the responses I got be it there really wasn't anything more presented in the post to contradict my claims.

magilum wrote:

Questions for Theists

I read through them, I'll definitely have to ponder them.  After I answer, you'll have to tell me where you want to start, and stay specific.

magilum wrote:

k... should i have a response series involving those????

What?

In other words, your questions require a lot of random topics to be touched, it would be pretty confusing for anyone trying to follow.  We'd have to takle many of them one step at a time if you even wanted to consider having a discussion. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: magilum

caposkia wrote:
magilum wrote:

Your convictions don't impress me, Mr. "Some professor from the Midwest said so."

you come up with a lot of excuses, but where's your logic?  Where's the evidence?

For?

caposkia wrote:
I do remember however to void the "some professor from the midwest said so" person who was a professor in Biology and had a doctoral in such, I had posted at least 3 or 4 other links that backed up his claims from other sources.

You were refuted in that thread, but you're welcome to post a new one on any topic you want. You don't, however, get to dictate the outcome, or expect no one to notice a laundry list of failures in logic.

caposkia wrote:
magilum wrote:

No True Scotsman.

It's a good excuse, but so far, in all the conversations I've had, this has brought no progression to the topic

What topic?

caposkia wrote:

magilum wrote:

Without specifics, you only have fallacious arguments, like the appeals to authority you relied on.

which means you'd have to be claiming the same about the responses I got be it there really wasn't anything more presented in the post to contradict my claims.

What claims are you referring to?

caposkia wrote:

magilum wrote:

Questions for Theists

I read through them, I'll definitely have to ponder them.  After I answer, you'll have to tell me where you want to start, and stay specific.

magilum wrote:

k... should i have a response series involving those????

What?

In other words, your questions require a lot of random topics to be touched, it would be pretty confusing for anyone trying to follow.  We'd have to takle many of them one step at a time if you even wanted to consider having a discussion.

You must have missed the part about that thread not being for debate. It's for theists to explain their positions, sans judgement.

But hey, your new tactic is working out well. No one can refute you if you don't manage to say anything. And e-mail forwards? LOL.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   I Like this crap ,

   I Like this crap , ZERO ?

..... this argument dies here ....

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

>>>  "No sir, there isn't."

Geezz bells , .... There is no such thing as zero or absence. "Absolute zero" is a place of measurement. Show me absolute zero ? .... there is no such thing .....

plus 1 , minus 1 , a nothing in the middle ehh ? a place of absolute zero ?  , NO NO NO

Ever hear of anti matter ?

Where is DG on this ?

I need to get half sober for this one Tongue out

not .....

 

 


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: you come

caposkia wrote:

you come up with a lot of excuses, but where's your logic? Where's the evidence? I do remember however to void the "some professor from the midwest said so" person who was a professor in Biology and had a doctoral in such, I had posted at least 3 or 4 other links that backed up his claims from other sources.

This is a complete lie.

You posted one link to a small newspaper editorial that didn't list any credentials or other information aside from the person's name. In addition, the argument had nothing to do with your point and was pointed out to be wrong anyway, both by presenting evidence and by simple logic.

It's one thing to make up random arguments and pretend that they make sense. People can just ignore that. Making false statements like this is just insulting to everyone, however, which is why I felt it necessary to comment.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry guys, but I have

I'm sorry guys, but I have to support Caposkia.

I have sone a lot of rearch, and have discovered the truth.

God wins over science. 


munky99999
munky99999's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
I saw the highlights reel of

I saw the highlights reel of the boxing match of god and science... it was 20 rounds believe it or not... For roughly 18 rounds God was kicking science's ass big time... than God got tired and science was about to throw it's first punch. Science came on light and slowly... suddenly in the 19th round... science knocked God on his ass this put god on the defensive... the 20th round and science KO'd god so bad that he is currently in the hospital on life support.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote: you come up

Fish wrote:

you come up with a lot of excuses, but where's your logic? Where's the evidence? I do remember however to void the "some professor from the midwest said so" person who was a professor in Biology and had a doctoral in such, I had posted at least 3 or 4 other links that backed up his claims from other sources.

 

 

This is a complete lie.

You posted one link to a small newspaper editorial that didn't list any credentials or other information aside from the person's name. In addition, the argument had nothing to do with your point and was pointed out to be wrong anyway, both by presenting evidence and by simple logic.

It's one thing to make up random arguments and pretend that they make sense. People can just ignore that. Making false statements like this is just insulting to everyone, however, which is why I felt it necessary to comment.

I know for a fact I posted more than one link backing up the Dr's claims.  If they're not there, then they must have disappeared, but I know I put them there.  Please look again.  Just in case I'm misunderstanding what you're saying... the articles that backed up the claim were not from the 'annonymous random unknown etc. midwest prof." but from other sources that were clearly referenced.

I'm not sure how you could claim the argument had nothing to do with my point be it that everyone was all over the place with their points anyway and could not stick to a topic if their life depended on it.  As far as I understand, it was relevent.

oh, and just for the record, the evidence was weak at best and I believe I expressed that.  Also, logic does seem to be lacking here.  Excuses take over pretty quickly. e.g. "no true scotsman", "science doesn't say ____" science doesn't say a lot!, "Strawman" which I could just as easily claim as well, etc...  

If one should feel the urge to use those claims, back it up.  Tell us all why the strawman is there, or why your scotsman doesn't actually play the bagpipe.  If science doesn't say something, why bother refuting with that arguement then?   


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
The main discussion was

The main discussion was evolutionary theory versus Special Creation, taking place on the Todd Allen Gates page. The link will take you to the thread in which you introduce your "professor from the Midwest," and make various claims, which I'll summarize.

Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design according to Caposkia:

1. Miracles described in the bible: parting of the Red Sea and a global flood.

2. Claim about supernova being star of Bethlehem. No source provided.

3. Rant about evolutionary theory: Darwin's deathbed renunciation; weird composition fallacy about humans and apes; "professor from Midwest" makes argument from incredulity about evolutionary theory.

You stop numbering your arguments, none of which supported ID by the way, and bring up entropy.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:   you come

magilum wrote:

 

you come up with a lot of excuses, but where's your logic? Where's the evidence?

For?

 well, I think we were talking about the evidence that unknown prof. presented... though, it seems we're all still stuck on the Professor and who he is.  Does this mean his arguement holds water for you if he's a credible source?  If not, why do you care so much about this professor?  I used his comment because it was a well worded version of something I studied a while ago.  

It's apparent to me that the topic at hand is actually lost and it's come down to the existence and credibility of this Prof.  Not that that's the issue.  

Seems to me that I HAVE in fact presented good information and the only excuse people can come up with is my one poorly referenced source that I rectified.  It however did take me longer to rectify than other sources that weren't clear at first.... yea, that must be it.  Gotta find any weakness to take down the house.  Who's scotsman is in the fire now???

magilum wrote:

 

You were refuted in that thread, but you're welcome to post a new one on any topic you want. You don't, however, get to dictate the outcome, or expect no one to notice a laundry list of failures in logic.

 

 

yea, I was refuted in that thread... poorly.  However, that doesn't seem to matter because poor or not, they apparently hold more water.  

No one should be able to dictate the outcome of any post.  Though I see many people trying very hard.  I understand, it is a non-believing site.  

magilum wrote:

What topic?

aaah!!!! good question.  It seems that when excuses don't work to give their view victory, the topic is abandoned altogether.

I did try to bring this post to compare differences in responses to obvious bad references between True followers of Christ and non-believers.  That was quickly taken as a direct shot at non-believers and not taken as a possible discussion on why such a personality difference.  or, to be politically correct; why it seems to me to be that case.

but the statement was actually referencing in general to any topic I have tried to stick to. 

There's more to Christianity than the history and science behind it.   

magilum wrote:

Without specifics, you only have fallacious arguments, like the appeals to authority you relied on.

 

which means you'd have to be claiming the same about the responses I got be it there really wasn't anything more presented in the post to contradict my claims.

What claims are you referring to?

I don't know... pick one 

magilum wrote:


But hey, your new tactic is working out well. No one can refute you if you don't manage to say anything. And e-mail forwards? LOL.

obviously this lack of topic seems to be of interest to you becasue you're still responding to it.  I do have another post that is making progress.  This one I'm just intregued to see where it'll end up and how far.   

..."and e-mail forwards"  yea... I expected a few laughs... but I also expected someone to feel sorry for this unknown and try to explain to them why that was such a terrible support for Christianity.  yea... um... anyone???  eh... guess it's too late now, I've already reveiled myself. sorry... there was ONE person who at least gave me a link to check out.

True followers of Christ on the other hand would have actually tried to help this person.  

It's all about looking good on here it seems. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: magilum

caposkia wrote:
magilum wrote:

 

you come up with a lot of excuses, but where's your logic? Where's the evidence?

For?

 well, I think we were talking about the evidence that unknown prof. presented... though, it seems we're all still stuck on the Professor and who he is.  Does this mean his arguement holds water for you if he's a credible source?  If not, why do you care so much about this professor?  I used his comment because it was a well worded version of something I studied a while ago.  

It's apparent to me that the topic at hand is actually lost and it's come down to the existence and credibility of this Prof.  Not that that's the issue.[...]

The professor is an example of your inept criteria for evidence.

The rest of your post is noise, which I won't address. The link to the other thread is up, and now anyone can see what is being referenced if they choose to. If you have any substantive claims, make them. Otherwise, I'm through spending time responding to you.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: The main

magilum wrote:

The main discussion was evolutionary theory versus Special Creation, taking place on the Todd Allen Gates page. The link will take you to the thread in which you introduce your "professor from the Midwest," and make various claims, which I'll summarize.

Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design according to Caposkia:

1. Miracles described in the bible: parting of the Red Sea and a global flood.

2. Claim about supernova being star of Bethlehem. No source provided.

3. Rant about evolutionary theory: Darwin's deathbed renunciation; weird composition fallacy about humans and apes; "professor from Midwest" makes argument from incredulity about evolutionary theory.

You stop numbering your arguments, none of which supported ID by the way, and bring up entropy.

oh yea, I also made it clear that I was not very familiar with the ID claim... then later claimed to not agree with everything they had to offer and that I was trying to support Christianity and NOT ID... hmmm....

yea, I didn't reference everything either.  why?  a few reasons

1.  I have a life outside this site.  We went in and out of so many random topics, it was hard to keep up

2.  I don't believe the star topic held on long enough to search for.  Though if you do the research into astronomy of  that time, I'm sure you'll easily find it, regardless of what source it is as long as it's credible.  

Also, yea, big issue with trying to explain... yea I lost count THE BIBLE SUPPORTS EVOLUTION!!!! did you get it yet??? It's the part of evolution that claims one species transforms/evolves/ etc... whatever you want to call it... into another species that I have yet to see ANY evidence for.  

but just for the record EVOLUTION EXISTS!!! THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE FOR IT!!!  THE BIBLE BACKS IT UP!!! (which by the way I think is the only time I DIDN'T hear people claim that the Bible was not a credible source to back up a claim)

...but I digress... just for my clarification... What topic are we focusing on here??? 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: The

magilum wrote:

The professor is an example of your inept criteria for evidence.

which I did back up if it's still there

People, the links up, please check... I'll have to as well, I appologise if it's not.

magilum wrote:

The rest of your post is noise, which I won't address. The link to the other thread is up, and now anyone can see what is being referenced if they choose to. If you have any substantive claims, make them. Otherwise, I'm through spending time responding to you.

more like trying to take the static out of the noise.  Anway, all that aside.

What SPECIFIC topic do you want to discuss. I will start a new post with that topic and we can talk.  

I still will be responding to your questions at some point as well.

 If nothing... well then.. It's been real.   I did appreciate your input.