Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Upset ? I ? No, not at all ... Upset with what ?


No : you NEVER have given here that OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE I asked you to provide ... I have pointed that out several times before, but each time you simply prefer to ignore that ... Note that what you posted was all SUBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE (which is an euphemism for "wild claim").


:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D


·

---

You are being redundant and thereby proving that you really have no idea what you are saying.

First of all, we have provided "objective" evidence. Objective means that it is an object which can be inspected by anyone. In other words, it is something which is independently verifiable. And you don't have to go to the ends of the earth to inspect it. Simply look at your hand. Notice how beautifully it is designed both externally and internally.

By reviewing this small sampling of objective evidence we have come to the subjective conclusion that God exists because of the intelligence it would take to make something so wondrous.

But you erroneously call this evidence subjective. Have you any idea why? Is your hand not an object? Is your hand not available for you to inspect? Yet the probabilities are great that you have a hand with digits just as I and most people do. But if you don't have one, let me know, I'm sure we can together come up with other objective evidence you can inspect which is readily at hand.

Now your peculiar use of the terms "objective supported evidence" and "subjective supported evidence" is simply a redundancy and misuse of the word evidence. Since evidence is used to support one's conclusions, evidence is not supported. Evidence supports. So, you could say, "objective support" or "objective evidence" both mean the same thing in this context.

Here are examples of the proper use of the word evidence and support in the same sentence:

None of the group C tests had any evidence to support their use.
Use this code where there is objective evidence to support a history of an acute coronary...

So, it might be nice if before you continue this discussion, you get a handle on what exactly you are talking about. Because as of now, you are really just making gibberish and trying to make it sound intelligent. But I assure you, it doesn't. It simply proves you have no idea what you are saying.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

....You really have no idea what you are saying ....

---

I know who says that. And to reply to it with anything more than this single line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

... we have provided "objective" evidence. Objective means that it is an object which can be inspected by anyone. In other words, it is something which is independently verifiable.

---

So now you even have to introduce word games, while you know very well that I almost always refer to "objective" as in contrast to "subjective". The one and only true meaning of objective as in the term I always use (OBJECTIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE) is of course to exclude as far as possible any subjective based elements, i.e. to contain factual data instead of data based on belief and/or assumption.

The fact on itself that you do not provide the objective supporting evidence I asked for itself, but reply with posts like the one I refer to and quote from, is sufficient reason to completely dismiss your wild claim of any validity.

Of course - seeing your claims - it has to be easy to post in reply an example copy of what you suppose to be objective supporting evidence. To stay within the subject of the "religious discussion board" I therefore ask you once more to post your objective supporting evidence for the Christian God's existence and for that God being the Creator.

Please no "I already posted that". No more babble or accusations. Just the objective supporting evidence I ask you to provide above. I challenge you to provide that, though I already know that you won't do that...
And THAT on itself already validates my point !

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

Hi Cred :)

Something that induces certainty or establishes validity ( one definition of proof )

Cred, this may sound bizarre to you. But the proof I will try and offer you today is this...

I am able, and do, actually have a Christian love for you in my heart. I want your heart to be happy, peaceful and to be able to experience all the joy one can have.

Now, Cred, how is that possible. It's true, it is proof, I just said it, I have an endearing love for you, without even knowing you.

This is possible, because I have God's love in my heart and it is the type of love that can easily be shared.

Now how can you dispute that :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

Hi Cred

---

I'll come back to that, but let's wait first for De Maria's reply. I do not want him to use this to skip out of his reply!

:)

·

De Maria said good bye will be back in 8 days.

Thanks for that info, Nohelp4u ! Much obliged !

I have stored my post to De Maria to repost it here again upon his return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

something that induces certainty or establishes validity ( one definition of proof )

---

Thanks but I am not really interested in finding one of your "ways of proof".
I am referring to objective supported evidence, i.e. to scientific factual evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

... I want your heart to be happy, peaceful and to be able to experience all the joy one can have ...

---

I know you mean well, but I do not need your help with that. I am already very happy, peaceful and enjoying all I can. I do not need belief in a not-supported-to-exist-entity therefor !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

This is possible, because I have God's love in my heart and it is the type of love that can easily be shared.

---

Fine with me if you believe that. But it has no validity to the subject of this topic, which is supporting evidence.

:)

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Thanks for that info, Nohelp4u ! Much obliged !

I have stored my post to De Maria to repost it here again upon his return.


Thanks but I am not really interested in finding one of your "ways of proof".
I am referring to objective supported evidence, i.e. to scientific factual evidence.


I know you mean well, but I do not need your help with that. I am already very happy, peaceful and enjoying all I can. I do not need belief in a not-supported-to-exist-entity therefor !


Fine with me if you believe that. But it has no validity to the subject of this topic, which is supporting evidence.

:)

·

---

Hi Cred,

No, I wasn't suggesting that you didn't have peace and happiness, just letting you know that's what is truly in my heart for you and everyone.

See, Cred, and sorry that I may have been off topic, but the kind of "proof" that you are accustomed to may never be obtained in the way you seek. The proof that God exsist
Can be seen by eyes that believe and is actually all around you, but it's a spiritual proof,
And one that you would have to search within you to achieve. But I think you know all this, but still hammer for the type of proof that is more earthly.

May I ask what portions of the Bible you want supporting proof for? The Bible contains history, poetry, and prophecy, and of course doctrinal teachings.
Bible history has been found accurate about numerous things.
Poetry doesn't need substantiation.
Prophecy has been fulfilled many times.
How much substantitation do you require?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

... The proof that God exsist can be seen by eyes that beleive and is actually all around you, but it's a spiritual proof, and one that you would have to search within you to achieve. But I think you know all this, but still hammer for the type of proof that is more earthly.

---

Not really Allheart. You may believe from me whatever you want. No problem.
But if anyone here on these boards starts posting that (religious) claims are the truth, or a fact, or proved, than I ask for objective supporting evidence for that. So far that proof has never been posted.

I do not deny that to a believer what he/she believes is proof enough for him/her.
But that is something completely different than what someone believes is proof for everyone and for any religious claim.

I have never criticized anyone for posting "I believe that God ......... (just fill in).
But if anyone posts that God ......... (just fill in), than my standard reaction is "That is what you believe" , and/or "Can you prove that" ?

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

May I ask what portions of the Bible you want supporting proof for? The Bible contains history, poetry, and prophecy, and of course doctrinal teachings. Bible history has been found accurate about numerous things. Poetry doesn't need substantiation. Prophecy has been fulfilled many times. How much substantitation do you require?

---

I think with God being claimed to be the guiding factor of the Bible, it makes more sense to ask for objective supporting evidence for the existence of the Christian God, and for that God to be the Creator.
Why go through all these time-wasting sub-sections, when everyone knows that the existence of God and God being the Creator are the actual central issue??

:rolleyes:

·

Hi Everyone...

I have come to the conclusion that Credo has problems with accepting reallity. He is so zealous about his own beliefs that he becomes so blind and oblivious to reality... lol
We have given him Objective evidence for an intelligent designer and he just ignores and proceeds to CLAIM there is no objective evidence. So it is difficult to have an intelligent debate with someone like that.. especially one who claims a big bang created everything but has no conclusive evidence to show for it. :rolleyes:

So I wouldn't worry about him. He is just in his own closed minded world where everyone should believe what he believes. :rolleyes:

Hmmm

Reality (n): The state of things as they actually exist.

I think Credo accept reality just fine. It's the things that aren't real he has a problem with. :p
You can't use trees and birds as objective evidence when that evidence is used in the big bang, ID arguments as evidence also.

The truth is there isn't ANY evidence, proof, or concrete ANYTHING for God. Those that follow Him, BELIEVE in Him. And that's it. But that's all they need.

So there ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE of God. Just belief in Him. And if you believe in Him, that's all you need. If you don't, oh well.

And the BB, ID, Creationism stuff.. there is proof of some things evolving and proof of some things that have happened just like in the Bible. But is there real evidence or proof of everything just appearing and then evolving into what we are now? NO

So here it is

There is NO proof of God.
There is NO proof of no God.

It's up to each individual to decide on their own which one they want to believe in until someone or something establishes the proof.

Question for achampio... Did the faces on mount rushmore apear by chance or were they scupted by an intelligent artist?

They were sculpted; don't know if artist was intelligent, but he was talented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

They were scultpted don't know if artist was intelligent, but he was talented.

---

LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

They were sculpted; don't know if artist was intelligent, but he was talented.

---

When I say "intelligent" I just mean a Monkey, or a rock, or a car, or a fruit fly could not have come up with the same work of art.

Okey so since you have concluded that it was sculpted by a tallented artist, how did you come to that conclusion?
Was it common sense that made you come to that conclusion or did you have to see "objective supported evidence" that a intelligent talented human being sculpted those faces?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

when i say "intelligent" i just mean a Monkey, or a rock, or a car, or a fruit fly could not have come up with the same work of art.

Okey so since you have concluded that it was sculpted by a tallented artist, how did you come to that conclusion?
was it common sense that made you come to that conclusion or did you have to see "objective supported evidence" that a intelligent talented human being sculpted those faces?

---

Well, actually we don't know if a monkey couldn't have done that. They seem to be able to do everything else humans can do. Little butt-heads. Next they'll be taking our jobs instead of machines or immigrants :eek: .

And I came to that conclusion about 2nd grade and from research...

Mount Rushmore National Memorial, near Keystone, South Dakota, is a monumental granite sculpture by Gutzon Borglum, located within the United States Presidential Memorial that represents the first 150 years of the history of the United States of America with 60-foot (18 m) sculptures of the heads of former United States presidents: George Washington (1732–1799), Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919), and Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865).[1] The entire memorial covers 1,278.45 acres (5.17 km²)[2] and is 5,725 feet (1,745 m) above sea level.[3] It is managed by the National Park Service, a bureau of the United States Department of the Interior. The memorial attracts approximately two million people annually.[4]

Wikipedia is freakin AWESOME!! :D

I want to add for the record Mr. Borglum used dynamite and tools to make that sculpture. He didn't just say "and there will be men's heads on that there rock" and they appeared.

I like this link
Making Mount Rushmore | Mount Rushmore | Oh, Ranger!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I like this link
Making Mount Rushmore | Mount Rushmore | Oh, Ranger!

---

I do too!! :D

But the one I used was short enough to paste because when you use links on here they usually don't get looked at. SO I just cut and paste. Then they HAVE to read it;)

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

Well, actually we don't know if a monkey couldn't have done that. They seem to be able to do everything else humans can do. Little butt-heads. Next they'll be taking our jobs instead of machines or immigrants :eek: .

---

I don't think it is right to liken immigrants to machines and monkeys.. but anyway.. show me a monkey with that kind of artistic ability and I will give you a million bucks. ;)

Quote:

---

And I came to that conclusion about 2nd grade and from research...

Mount Rushmore National Memorial, near Keystone, South Dakota, is a monumental granite sculpture by Gutzon Borglum, located within the United States Presidential Memorial that represents the first 150 years of the history of the United States of America with 60-foot (18 m) sculptures of the heads of former United States presidents: George Washington (1732–1799), Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919), and Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865).[1] The entire memorial covers 1,278.45 acres (5.17 km²)[2] and is 5,725 feet (1,745 m) above sea level.[3] It is managed by the National Park Service, a bureau of the United States Department of the Interior. The memorial attracts approximately two million people annually.[4]

Wikipedia is freakin AWESOME!! :D

---

Good, so you were taught at a young age that a scuptor did this marvelous work of art and you believed it with out question. You were not there to personally witness the carving and yet you did not demand to see "obejective supported evidence" to "prove" that a sculptor did and not the wind because common sense told you that the complexity and design of the sculpted faces could not have just appeared on that mountain by chance. Everything thing that has a design and/or a purpose on earth has an originator.
Even if you took a 5th grade chinese girl (or any reasonable, rational human being) who had never learned anything about Mount rushmore, to see the faces, she would conclude, using only common sense, that a skilled artists scupted the faces into the mountain. She would not automatically assume the faces appeared by chance and demand to see evidence that an artist did this work of art.
So if the faces could not appear on Mount Rushmore by chance given common sense, then would it not be true that the men themselves (wway more complex) could not have appear by chance given common sense?

Quote:

---

want to add for the record Mr. Borglum used dynamite and tools to make that sculpture. He didn't just say "and there will be men's heads on that there rock" and they appeared

---

God used dirt and His hands to create Adam so I don't know what your point is. :confused: ALso the scupter is a man, God is God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

God used dirt and His hands to create Adam

---

That is what you BELIEVE!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

i dont know what your point is. confused

---

Yes you are...

:D :D :D :D :D

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

That is what you BELIEVE !!!



·

---

Yes that is what I Believe. You BELIEVE a big bang made us.

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Quote:

---

I don't think it is right to liken immigrants to machines and monkeys.. but anyway.. show me a monkey with that kind of artistic ability and I will give you a million bucks. ;)

---

You obviously haven't lost a job to one of those said immigrants.
And I know of a monkey that gets a million dollars for every painting she does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

Good, so you were taught at a young age that a scuptor did this marvelous work of art and you believed it with out question.

---

At age 7 I didn't really have a choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

You were not there to personally witness the carving and yet you did not demand to see "obejective supported evidence" to "prove" that a sculptor did and not the wind because common sense told you that the complexity and design of the sculpted faces could not have just appeared on that mountain by chance. Everything thing that has a design and/or a purpose on earth has an originator.

---

My objective and supportive evidence was the teacher, the books, the pictures, and the collection of pictures and videos made of the making of the sculpture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

even if you took a 5th grade chinese girl (or any reasonable, rational human being) who had never learned anything about Mount rushmore, to see the faces, she would conclude, using only common sense, that a skilled artists scupted the faces into the mountain. She would not automatically assume the faces appeared by chance and demand to see evidence that an artist did this work of art.

---

I don't agree. I know fifth graders that believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. You know why they believe in those things? Because someone they trusted told them they were real. And they trust, and believe they are real. So, that same 5th grade chines girl could be convinced that the mountain just grew that way just as easily as she could be convinced that someone made it look that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

So if the faces could not appear on Mount Rushmore by chance given common sense, then would it not be true that the men themselves (wway more complex) could not have appear by chance given common sense?

---

Wait a minute... are you arguing for or against evolution at this point? Because against evolution would be that God made man "just appear" one day. Evolution says that man evolved over time. :confused: :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

God used dirt and His hands to create Adam so I don't know what your point is. :confused: ALso the scupter is a man, God is God.

---

So you were there when God made Adam? Or did you use common sense to come to that conclusion?

Quote:

---

My objective and supportive evidence was the teacher, the books, the pictures, and the collection of pictures and videos made of the making of the sculpture.

---

So that means I can also say my objective evidence for believe in God is the Teacher (Pastors) and the Book(Bible), Pictures of archeological findings confirming the Bible, collections of videos of people being healed by the power of God. Right?

Quote:

---

I don't agree. I know fifth graders that believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. You know why they believe in those things? Because someone they trusted told them they were real. And they trust, and believe they are real. So, that same 5th grade chines girl could be convinced that the mountain just grew that way just as easily as she could be convinced that someone made it look that way.

---

You are missing the point. Let me make this simple... A Chinese adult who rational, reasonable & possessing common sense who has never heard of Mt Rushmore, when seeing it would conclude that a skilled sculptor carved the faces on mount rushmore. He would not automatically assume that the faces appeared on the mountain by chance and proceed to demand evidence that an artist sculpted it.

Quote:

---

So you were there when God made Adam? Or did you use common sense to come to that conclusion?

---

Intelligent design by a supernatural intelligent being is simple and pure common sense. The same commons sense that tells you the faces on MT rushmore did not just appear on that mountain by chance. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

So that means i can also say my objective evidence for believe in God is the Teacher (Pastors) and the Book(Bible), Pictures of archeological findings confirming the Bible, collections of videos of people being healed by the power of God. Right?

---

Yes. But the Bible is not updated every year. And your pastors don't continue their education to stay current with the new education. And the video's of people being healed are people healing them and "claiming" it's the power of God. You don't actually "see" God do anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

You are missing the point. Let me make this simple...A Chinese adult who rational, reasonable & posessing common sense who has never heard of Mt Rushmore, when seeing it would conclude that a skilled sculptor carved the faces on mount rushmore. He would not automatically assume that the faces appeared on the mountain by chance and proceed to demand evidence that an artist sculpted it.

---

You said chinese 5th grader last time. This time you are saying Chinese adult. There is a difference. Children are easily influenced by "ANYTHING". Adults aren't as easily, but are still easy to convince.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

intelligent design by a supernatural intelligent being is simple and pure common sense. The same commons sense that tells you the faces on MT rushmore did not just appear on that mountain by chance. :)

---

Yet you still make comments to Credo about him not being there when the big bang happened so how can he believe it really happened. You can't say he shouldn't believe in something he didn't watch happen and justify you believing in something you have never seen in the very same breath.


Look I am not saying either of you is right or wrong. All I am saying is this... BOTH sides believe in or think they way they think because someone else convinced you that was the way it happened. NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH! Not you, not credo, not me!

All I am trying to point out is this... religion is based on books that are thousands of years old. And there isn't anything new aged being done to give proof of the things that happened all those years ago.

But there is scientific studies going on EVERY day that is finding new evidence of this or that which supports evolution and/or things similar to evolution.

Religion is based on a book that was written by men. The same men that lie, steal, kill, rape , etc... And the book or books are years old. They have been re-written and re-written but never added to. The book you read today is the same book they read 200 years ago. Scientific studies are being updated every hour.

Either way you go. DOES IT REALLY FREAKIN MATTER??

If you don't like what credo or other's have to say. Ignore him. Don't argue with him. You trying to convince him that he is wrong is the same as him trying to convince you that you are wrong. If you are going to continue arguing with him, then you enjoy the debate and just admit that neither one of you REALLY KNOW how we freakin got here. You believe God made us he feels that we came from something else. Credo has already said that he doesn't fully back evolution but that some of the facts behind it are really strong. You on the other hand refuse to admit that you don't know how we got here, you just believe God made us and that you refuse to admit that you really don't have any proof of God you just believe he's real because you freakin want to. It's really that simple.

SO you decide and have fun :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

Yes that is what i Believe. You BELIEVE a big bang made us.

---

No. I neither believe in the Big Bang, nor in a Big Bang that made "us".
Note : I NEVER have even suggested that "we" are made by a Big Bang...
Why you suggest that cr*p I do not know, but it shows perfectly the retarded basis of your wild claims.

:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

Yet you still make comments to Credo about him not being there when the big bang happened so how can he believe it really happened. You can't say he shouldn't believe in something he didn't watch happen and justify you believing in something you have never seen in the very same breath.

---

The only reason why I tell credo to provide factual evidence because he is always making it seem like his beliefs are some how more true that ours yet he fails to provide evidence to qualify his empty claims. He will never admit that he has BELIEFS and so he thinks he is better than everyone. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

Look I am not saying either of you is right or wrong. All I am saying is this... BOTH sides believe in or think they way they think because someone else convinced you that was the way it happened. NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH! Not you, not credo, not me!

All I am trying to point out is this... religion is based on books that are thousands of years old. And there isn't anything new aged being done to give proof of the things that happened all those years ago.

But there is scientific studies going on EVERY day that is finding new evidence of this or that which supports evolution and/or things similar to evolution.

Religion is based on a book that was written by men. The same men that lie, steal, kill, rape , etc... And the book or books are years old. They have been re-written and re-written but never added to. The book you read today is the same book they read 200 years ago. Scientific studies are being updated every hour.

Either way you go. DOES IT REALLY FREAKIN MATTER??

---

Where is evolution's explanation for echolocation, for the genetic code?

Here is a bit of science for you to peruse:

Quote:

---

Can You Hear Me Now? Primitive Single-Celled Microbe Expert In Cellular Communication Networks


Monosiga brevicollis has a leg up on animals composed of billions of cells. It commands a signaling network MORE ELABORATE AND DIVERSE THAN FOUND IN ANY MULTICELLULAR ORGANISM HIGHER UP ON THE EVOLUTIONARY TREE, researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies have discovered

---

Are you scratching your head? In evolution things go from simple to complex, right?
How did "beneficial" mutations and 4 billion years naturally select for a SINGLE CELL organism with this much complexity.


This is the objective evidence that so many want to see.
Which fits better, DESIGN or evolution?


IF no one knows the truth, how can you know that what you are seeing is truly real?
This and other "Matrix" questions for you. How come all the God deniers say all people really need to live by is the "golden rule?" How is that any more true than "to the victor belongs the spoils."


If you state that religion is based on a book written by fallible man, can you not say the same thing is true of "science?" How do these researchers avoid conflict of intrests with those that fund their research?

Quote:

---

YouTube - Most of the Universe is Missing (1 of 5)

1:45 in:

"96% of our universe is unaccounted for"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

The only reason why i tell credo to provide factual evidence because he is always making it seem like his beliefs are some how more true that ours yet he fails to provide evidence to qualify his empty claims. He will never admit that he has BELIEFS and so he thinks he is better than everyone. :

---

Silly sassyT : You have already proved on this board to be a person who lies about her qualifications (a claimed degree in Biology).
You also proved several times on this board to be very willing to lie about statements by others, to twist words, to tell untruths, making you into a very unreliable witness for anything , including the religious based claim of creation.

I do not have religious beliefs. I am a Secular Humanist. A Freethinker. So my (religious) "beliefs" are non-existing. Therefore I can not make it seem that my (claimed religious) beliefs are somehow more true that yours. As to supporting evidence : there are more objective supporting evidence books and posts on the Internet for processes like Evolution and the Big Bang, than there are pages in the Christian Bible.
Why should I repeat that all here again, while all you can do is deny, ridicule, and wave away evidence, while at the same time believing in religious wild claims to be factual ?

NO I AM NOT BETTER THAN EVERYONE. But yes, I am a better debater on subjects like evolution and the origin of the universe, as I know what I am talking about, and as I can support my statements with facts, unlike you with your lies, and your religious claims and your hot air support...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

All I am saying is this... BOTH sides believe in or think they way they think because someone else convinced you that was the way it happened. NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH!! Not you, not credo, not me!!

---

Precisely my point : nobody knows ! Therefore I guide myself by logic, ratio, and objective supporting evidence.
And I do not claim - NEVER DID - that theories like evolution and Big Bang are fully factual .
Because I know there never can be full factual support for something that happened so long ago. But there is a considerable amount of support with cross matching confirming evidence for both theories. That in sharp contrast with religious wild claims on never-proved-to-exist deities.

Those who fiercely oppose science and it's findings, thereby demanding evidence for scientific conclusions and theories, have no problems in suggesting religious wild claims to be factual without any supporting evidence at all!!
Besides that : increasingly their intolerance, hypocrite dishonesty, and paranoia based aggression is dazzlingly shining through...

:rolleyes: :p ;)

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

But yes, I am a better debater on subjects like evolution and the origin of the universe, as I know what I am talking about, and as I can support my statements with facts, unlike you with your lies, and your religious claims and your hot air support...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

---

What do you think of dark energy? Is this your "evidence?"

Quote:

---

At Ten, Dark Energy "Most Profound Problem" in Physics


So far, one of the biggest challenges for dark energy researchers is marrying observations to theory.

We have two known, totally unsatisfactory explanations," Turner said.

One possibility is there is no dark energy, and gravity works differently than scientists think.. .



The trick is that no one has been able to unify the math used in quantum mechanics, which describes the physics of the very small, with the equations in general relativity, which deal with large-scale interactions.

---

A single celled organism with as much complexity as us?



Do you even dare to go there with "the evidence for evolution" argument? ;)



or you just smarter than pHD physicists, geneticist, microbiologist, evolutionary biologists that have no solid proof of evolution - only more design wonders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

What do you think of dark energy? is this your "evidence?"

---

Did I anywhere on this board make any reference to my opinion on "dark energy"??
Why do you suggest that that is part of "my" evidence??

:D

·

Being an excellent debator means that you have a good grasp of logic. So, I guess Credendovidis gets the spoils this round.

Your presented self is bracketed by your words. Words are symbols for meaning, not meaning itself. The Bible is a symbol too. Debating is different than argument. But those are both merely words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Did I anywhere on this board make any reference to my opinion on "dark energy" ???
Why do you suggest that that is part of "my" evidence ???

:D

·

---

Then show me the evidence for evolution, or the big bang? These things you have stated have more evidence for than the Bible.

I point / link to the scientific observed proof for DESIGN by a creator. A subject you seem unwilling or unable to converse in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Then show me the evidence for evolution, or the big bang? These things you have stated have more evidence for than the Bible.

---

Why ? What has that to do with your request to post my opinion on "dark energy"??
You do not want my opinion on "dark energy" at all. You want to see a statement by me that you can use in your anti-evolution or anti-big bang campaign. That, while you do not object at all to wild religious claims that are all completely unsupported by even the slightest iota of scientific supported evidence. You are totally biased and can't accept my logical approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

I point / link to the scientific observed proof for DESIGN by a creator.

---

There is no scientific observed proof for design by a creator. You BELIEVE there is.

You refer to links to personal statements, to websites and/or books where people post their personal views, and ergo post their own subjective based beliefs, not objective supported evidence.

Show me any link to WHERE that "scientific observed proof for design by a creator" can be found on the Internet. Or in which SCIENTIFIC book that "proof" can be found. It simply does not exist !
Note : I refer here to SCIENTIFIC support and not to pseudo-scientific babble, like that on sites as A-in-G , the ICR, or "You Tube").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

A subject you seem unwilling or unable to converse in.

---

I do not deny anyone the right to BELIEVE in deities. No problem with that at all. But as a non-believer I fail to see the logic in basically debating the existence of an entity that in essence by it's own description can not be proved to exist in a logical and factual way, but only can be BELIEVED in.

My participation here is mainly to convince all participants that it is appropriate to post "I believe that" in front of every religious statement.
And of course I reply to statements made here on these boards, and sometimes even post additional topics myself.

:rolleyes:

·

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Silly sassyT : You have already proved on this board to be a person who lies about her qualifications (a claimed degree in Biology).

---

This is another one of your BELIEFS.

Quote:

---

You also proved several times on this board to be very willing to lie about statements by others, to twist words, to tell untruths, making you into a very unreliable witness for anything , including the religious based claim of creation.

---

This is another one of your CLAIMS

Quote:

---

I do not have religious beliefs.I am a Secular Humanist.

---

Secular Humanism is a RELIGION as stated by the signers of the manifesto.

Quote:

---

As to supporting evidence : there are more objective supporting evidence books and posts on the Internet for processes like Evolution and the Big Bang, than there are pages in the Christian Bible.

---

Again this is your SUBJECTIVE opinion on the matter..
You have no evidence for this wild CLAIM.

Quote:

---

Why should I repeat that all here again, while all you can do is deny, ridicule, and wave away evidence, while at the same time believing in religious wild claims to be factual ?

---

Repeat? I have seen ZERO evidence from you. You just make wild empty claims and try and pass them off as facts. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

NO I AM NOT BETTER THAN EVERYONE.

---

You are RIGHT you are not better than everyone else. That is the most rational statement you have made on this site!
You have Beliefs that are not factual like everyone else. So the sooner you realise that, the soon you will quit waisting your time trying to pass your beliefs as facts while harassing people about what they believe.

Quote:

---

But yes, I am a better debater on subjects like evolution and the origin of the universe, as I know what I am talking about, and as I can support my statements with facts, unlike you with your lies, and your religious claims and your hot air support...

---

Again.. you have provided absolutely no support for the wild claims your have been making here. No one can even have an intelligent debate with you because:
1. you don't even offer support for your claims
2. you refuse to any acknowledge evidence that is contrary to your beliefs
3. you do not even give intelligent rebutals to any points made.
All you do is claim you beliefs have "objective evidence" and yet 3 months later I am still waiting for this so called evidence. :rolleyes:

I don't agree with people like Michaelb and WYH but at least they know how to have an intelligent debate. You Don't :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

My participation here is mainly to convince all participants that it is appropriate to post "I believe that" in front of each and every religious statement.
And of course I reply to statements made here on these boards, and sometimes even post additional topics myself.



·

---

It is also appropriate for you to post "i believe that.." in front each wildCLAIM you make about big bangs, 14. Billion year uniniverses or what ever your BELIEFS are... lol

Because you have failed to provide factual evidence for your BELIEFS. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Therefore I can not make it seem that my (claimed religious) beliefs are somehow more true that yours.

---

Quote:

---

A Freethinker. So my (religious) "beliefs" are non-existing.

---

CREDO

You BELIEVE there is no God ---- But you can not prove that to be factual
You BELIEVE a big bang created the universe --- I am yet to see conclusive evidence
You BELIEVE we evolved from a one cell creature--- fossil evidence denies this
You BELIEVE there is no life after death---- you have zero evidence of this
You BELIEVE the universe is 14.3 billion years old ---- but you ignore the assuptions used
You BELIEVE Secular Humanism is not a religion ---- and yet it has the same tax except status as religious organisations.


These are a few among many beliefs you have Credo. So I don't know why you keep denying it... lol All of the above you Believe BY FAITH because all of the above BELIEFS are not FACTS. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Where is evolution's explanation for echolocation, for the genetic code?

Here is a bit of science for you to peruse:





Are you scratching your head? In evolution things go from simple to complex, right?
How did "beneficial" mutations and 4 billion years naturally select for a SINGLE CELL organism with this much complexity.


This is the objective evidence that so many want to see.
Which fits better, DESIGN or evolution?


IF no one knows the truth, how can you know that what you are seeing is truly real?
This and other "Matrix" questions for you. How come all the God deniers say all people really need to live by is the "golden rule?" How is that any more true than "to the victor belongs the spoils."


If you state that religion is based on a book written by fallible man, can you not say the same thing is true of "science?" How do these researchers avoid conflict of intrests with those that fund their research?

---

Inthebox: you want the truth from me?

I have absolutely no freakin idea what you are talking about. :confused: :D I was invited to this board a long,long,long time ago. I am but a bystander arguing the point that everyone has the right to think or feel or believe how they want. And I kind of got involved in it. Everyone is wanting proof for something that cannot be proven. And lots of people are getting frustrated. I keep seeing the same questions posed over and over again.

I said it before and I will say it again. I don't know ANYTHING about evolution, creationism, ID or whatever you want to call it or associate it with except what I have researched, learned in school, and read on here. Now I have my own IDEAS about where things orginiated. But I also BELIEVE there is a God. But I think there is some of both that have happened. I believe that God created the very first everything, but I also think that man takes far too much credit for things he didn't do. I think evolution(or whatever) played a MAJOR role in what exists today.

Scientists are but mere men, yes. And I believe that men(and women) are exactly what the bible says they are. Sinners. Liars, murderers, sloths, selfish, etc... So, no I really doubt that all of the evidence that they have put forward is the total truth either. I don't trust anyone but God and myself. Society has made it that way.

I believe that wondering where we all came from is probably a major waste of time. (NeedKarma made me realize some of that ;) ) Because all that really matters is living life to it's fullest. Doing what you can to live the "right" way. (however you decide that way may be) And I will learn the truth when I freakin die. But I LOVE A GOOD DEBATE!! :D :D So I am arguing the fact that believers (myself included) CANNOT prove God's or Jesus' existence. And from what I have seen the believers arguing against the non-believers keep demanding evidence that evolution is real and that there isn't a God, when no one said any of that. All the non-believers have said is that they don't believe in a higher power creating anything and then it went crazy from there. So then the demands came and when the demands of proof of no god shot out the non-believers made demands of a god and blah blah blah.

I just keep saying if you believe in God admit you cannot prove He exists and just leave it at the fact that you believe in Him. And if you don't believe in God then oh well for you. Neither have proof of anything. Credo has already admitted that, I have admitted that. But the beleivers keep wanting more form poor Credo. Now they want him to admit he has beliefs. I don't agree with that. Because Belief is defined by ol' webster as to have faith. And faith is defined by ol' webster as belief in God. So therefore if Credo doesn't believe in God he Doesn't HAVE ANY BELIEFS. :p

(okay please let that finally be the end of the credo has beliefs arguement)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

CREDO

You BELIEVE there is no God ---- But you can not prove that to be factual
You BELIEVE a big bang created the universe --- i am yet to see conclusive evidence
You BELIEVE we evolved from a one cell creature--- fossil evidence denies this
You BELIEVE there is no life after death---- you have zero evidence of this
You BELIEVE the universe is 14.3 billion years old ---- but you ignore the assuptions used
You BELIEVE Secular Humanism is not a religion ---- and yet it has the same tax exept status as religious organisations.


These are a few amoung many beliefs you have Credo. So i dont know why you keep denying it...lol All of the above you Believe BY FAITH because all of the above BELIEFS are not FACTS. :)

---

BELIEF(n) to have faith.
FAITH(n) loyalty; belief in God
(I don't like all the red:p )

Credo does not have faith in nor does he believe in God or any god.
THEREFORE HE HAS NO BELIEFS!!