Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[Cerpin Taxt]

The transformational power of God in peoples lives can be falsified by empirical study.

What the fuck?? You have absolutely no idea what "empircial study" is if you think the above is true.

If there were no profound life changing effects, this would argue against the truth claims of belief. Since that is not the case, we have a rational reason to believe that God is real.

No, empirically we might at best conclude that belief in god correlates with positive effects, but that is not the same as showing that the belief is true. It is quite easy to show that abandoning theism has "profound life changing effects" too. I guess that means "we have rational reason" to be atheists.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes, so?

So how would you know what something would look like if it were "undesigned"? Are there any examples of "undesigned" phenomena in the universe? You just said no! you have no idea what something "undesigned" would look like, because according to you EVERYTHING is designed.

See, this is where you betray your own scientific ignorance (again ). If you cannot conceive of an observation that would falsify your hypothesis, then it isn't scientific. You just admitted that there is no such conceivable evidence, which is why your ideas are scientifically useless. To say that they are scientific is to perpetrate a falsehood, and every source which has told you they are scientific is lying to you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I asked you to supply that evidence, and so far that request has been unanswered.

Still waiting for this alleged evidence of intelligent design you have observed. Where is it?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

What the fuck?? You have absolutely no idea what "empircial study" is if you think the above is true.


No, empirically we might at best conclude that belief in god correlates with positive effects, but that is not the same as showing that the belief is true. It is quite easy to show that abandoning theism has "profound life changing effects" too. I guess that means "we have rational reason" to be atheists.

I have no doubt that you feel you have a rational reason for your unbelief. Can you allow that I have a rational reason for my belief?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Still waiting for this alleged evidence of intelligent design you have observed. Where is it?

I have, the existence of coded genetic matter.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

So how would you know what something would look like if it were "undesigned"? Are there any examples of "undesigned" phenomena in the universe? You just said no! you have no idea what something "undesigned" would look like, because according to you EVERYTHING is designed.

See, this is where you betray your own scientific ignorance (again ). If you cannot conceive of an observation that would falsify your hypothesis, then it isn't scientific. You just admitted that there is no such conceivable evidence, which is why your ideas are scientifically useless. To say that they are scientific is to perpetrate a falsehood, and every source which has told you they are scientific is lying to you.

We've gone around and around the issue of falsifiability and I've provided examples of how ID can be falsified. I think it's time to move on.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

http://faatih.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/atheism11.jpg

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I have, the existence of coded genetic matter.

That's too bad, since the sun is evidence that no designer exists. Oh, that and RuPaul. Two examples to your one trumps your designer. Guess we can put that idea to bed.

Please demonstrate that DNA is "coded." Note, of course, that while all strings of characters contain information, not every string of characters is a code.

Please tell us what the DNA "code" is. I hope you realize that if anyone could actually do that, they'd surely be awarded a Nobel Prize.

I eagerly await your response. I'll be sure to send it on to Stockholm.

 

[destrekor]

Sometimes I wish I was blissfully ignorant.

And then I see this epic thread turn into pure gold. God must be telling me I am right in my ways.
Also, it has shown that alchemy is real.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

We've gone around and around the issue of falsifiability and I've provided examples of how ID can be falsified.

No, you didn't. You are lying. You just admitted that ID cannot be falsified, so it is not possible that you provided any examples of its falsifiability.

I think it's time to move on.

Go fuck yourself with a rusty barbed stake. You're a lying piece of shit.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

That's too bad, since the sun is evidence that no designer exists. Oh, that and RuPaul. Two examples to your one trumps your designer. Guess we can put that idea to bed.

Please demonstrate that DNA is "coded." Note, of course, that while all strings of characters contain information, not every string of characters is a code.

Please tell us what the DNA "code" is. I hope you realize that if anyone could actually do that, they'd surely be awarded a Nobel Prize.

I eagerly await your response. I'll be sure to send it on to Stockholm.

I don't know if you've studied genetics, but if you have, here's a refresher.

DNA's code

What does DNA code for?

A gene is a length of DNA that contains the instructions to make a chemical in your body. The DNA in a gene usually codes for a protein.
In our cells, proteins are the workforce; they get everything done. Proteins break down our food to release energy. Proteins organise the transport of useful chemicals between cells. Often, these useful chemicals are themselves proteins.
As well as doing things, proteins are the building blocks for most of your body. In the same way that a wall is made mostly of bricks, your body is made mostly of protein.

We talk about genes having different characteristics. For instance, if you hear about 'genes for eye colour', it means that these genes code for protein pigments in the iris of each of our eyes. Genes can come in different versions. Some people's versions code for proteins that make their eyes look blue while other people's versions make proteins that make their eyes look brown.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

No, you didn't. You are lying. You just admitted that ID cannot be falsified, so it is not possible that you provided any examples of its falsifiability.

Go back through the thread.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't believe there ever existed nothing, so obviously your silly little image is not telling you the truth. Of course, as you have made so brilliantly clear in this thread, you do not care about the truth. You want to surround yourself with lies so you can maintain your delusion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Go back through the thread.

I did. Your example could not falsify ID, because as you yourself admitted, the designer could have done anything. Proving that he didn't do it one way does not rule out the possibility that he did it differently.

You are a liar.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Go back through the thread.

You told me that ID was falsifiable, then you admitted that you proved it wasn't falsifiable. Which is it? Can you even get that straight?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I don't believe there ever existed nothing,

So what do you believe?

 

[Nik]

So what do you believe?

The best part about the origin of species and the theory of evolution is that there's room for "we don't know yet" instead of having to invent some wild, baseless LIE to fill the holes of the unknown.

You like to lie, don't you Dave.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't know if you've studied genetics, but if you have, here's a refresher.

I have, and you haven't answered my question. What is the DNA "code"? Your little plagiarized cut'n'paste doesn't answer the question, either.

What is the "code"? Hmm?

 

[darkswordsman17]

And why are you fucking with fonts, failing miserably, then posting your failure without bothering to correct it before you post?

Its because he's just copy pasting stuff from some other source.

As evidenced by basically everything that he's posted in this thread, he's not even capable of thinking up the stuff he's using as his arguments.

But, he can sure tell us how attractive he finds his kids.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So what do you believe?

I believe you are a liar.

 

[Tweak155]

While I haven't read all the way back, one glaring difference I notice is that the people arguing Phineas seem to just shout out names at him/her as though it proves their point better. Belittling someone doesn't make you more right. In fact, it adds nothing to the argument other than your own negative character.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

The best part about the origin of species and the theory of evolution is that there's room for "we don't know yet" instead of having to invent some wild, baseless LIE to fill the holes of the unknown.

You like to lie, don't you Dave.

When I look at the probabiity of randomly creating one short strand of protein and then look at the complexity of the simplest one celled oraganism, I can only conclude that there was an intelligent designer.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

http://faatih.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/atheism11.jpg

Because it's impossible to get something from nothing?

But it's ok to believe there's a magical man who lives in the sky, watching everything you do, giving children cancer, letting rapists and murders live to an old age? Who created the magical man? You can't get something from nothing else you'd believe in the big bang.

If you say god always existed then we can just asset that the big bang singularity always existed.

Q.E.D. dumbass.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Because it's impossible to get something from nothing?

But it's ok to believe there's a magical man who lives in the sky, watching everything you do, giving children cancer, letting rapists and murders live to an old age? Who created the magical man? You can't get something from nothing else you'd believe in the big bang.

If you say god always existed then we can just asset that the big bang singularity always existed.

Q.E.D. dumbass.

It was a joke. Can't we have a little humor here.

I respect your right to believe whatever you want without insulting you and calling you names. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to me?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

When I look at the probabiity of randomly creating one short strand of protein and then look at the complexity of the simplest one celled oraganism, I can only conclude that there was an intelligent designer.

What's the threshold? What's the minimum probability at which you would not conclude an intelligent designer? Even if you have a number, what makes that the number, and not some smaller or larger probability?

If you do not know the answer to this, then obviously your conclusion is not sound. It's plainly a dressed-up argument from ignorance fallacy. You've almost verbatim said "I cannot conceive how this can happen naturally, therefore it did not happen naturally."

Do you know what an argument form ignorance is, moron?