Search results

The burden of proof in on the one making the claim. If you claim creator God then prove it. Science makes NO claim against creator God. From this then creationists only have to generate enough faith and say God created everything and they are right. So then anti-creationists only have...

In-credible indeed but even more incredible... ....... the "scientific and education establishment's main line of defense is ridicule and name calling" ???? The educational estblishment is the one which for hundreds of years has foisted a set of beliefs on its children in their own schools...

And if a definition of evolution was to be Change over time from hydrogen, ammonia, methane... into organic molecules.. into amino acids, along with evolution of other life supporting chemical compounds. Life from mud. I am sure there are a shit load of creationists who would not support...

aphie, Unfortunately, there is a rather large problem with your revelation. After further review of the entire situation, I just had a revelation. One of the real questions of ontology, "is there a god," can be interpreted in a far different way. If we define whatever event or "cause"...

ARogueTrader: It depends on what person you met on the street. Some might tell you that a plant is an atheist. me ..or that God is for real. ARogueTrader: Yes, some will tell you that they believe in God, quite right. me No. Please try to read what I wrote.... that God IS for...

No Again...please try again...nothing to do with BELIEF...I said some would say God IS for real. I am not talking of theory of evolution, or who or why evolution would be so, I did not mention evolution, evolution has nothing to do with what I said. It's not hard really.

No. Please try to read what I wrote.... that God IS for real... I didn't merntion they might tell you ....they BELIEVE God is for real.

..or that God is for real.

Each of your sentences depicts extremely well the defects of religion itself. You have a strange and rather lame approach to argument , that lists the conspicuously obvious essential requisites of religion..... and then pretends it applies to the contrary viewpoint.

I am here randy, watching the evolution of aphex, whilst witnessing the extinction of purile argument, as presented by the likes of ARogueTrader

You said “..this is not about using logic.” Then you say …… "they have deduced by logic reasoning that God should exist". Which is it Harry !?!? Then why not say that in the first place? I think there are ample ways of expressing that. You have just demonstrated one. No. I focus...

Harry, If you could ask of Descartes or Pascal about the question of God today and given a wider understanding of the universe, they may well come to different conclusions . They would surely come to different conclusions and understandings of mathematics as it is applied today. You accuse...

If you take as much care in checking scientific information as you do to checking your posts are complete, then it is not surprising you reach the conclusions you do.

I do not see why a 3 dimension thinker should necessarily find it difficult to talk to a 2 dimension thinker. The concept of a 3rd dimension should be interesting enough if the notion was shown to be founded upon something other than only the 3 dimensioner's blinded insistence that there...

There may be a logic which says "UNDETERMINED" in respect to a question of God, but for you to then add ..... "That some people chose to believe in God is not more irrational than those who chose not to believe in God since the nature or existence of God is not known scientifically"...

You say "God by definition is not bound by time and space. Then God is not defined. There is no definition present or possible in 'anything' outside of time and space. Everything that is definable must be within time and space, otherwise it is simply indefinable. If you say God is not...

That’s what existence is. If it is not in space and time, it is not in existence, it is in something else, which is not existence. The nature of the universe is that things can only exist in space and in time. The ‘states’ of infinity and omnipresence must be present - and available - and...

shoeshine, You are still going around and around in circles trying to use science and logic to show that science and logic is not scientific or logical. You have yourself locked up in a torrent of creationistic specious information and misrepresentation. After a vast number of posts you...

shoeshine, stop fiddling around with the God-did-it creationists' websites. The palm of your hand will get hairy and you'll go blind.

A first casuse is known as a first cause surfer. I know you know that, you know.