Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Wow, I had no idea you's so STUpid and uneducated. If you had a brain, you would have ignored my post quoting you putting your foot in your mouth and let it slip into oblivion.

Just to be clear, your quote below is what this is about. I'll call it STUpid's God delusion. No wonder you're so confused.

So which is more plausible. The existence of a Teapot or the existence of a God?
A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.

First of all, a Celestial God us NOT "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot." Russell's teapot is falsifiable because it involves a physical object is a specified, finite amount of space. A Celestial God is of unknown composition and unknown location. So that's your first STUpid mistake.

Second, even when one claim is "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as another, that does NOT by any stretch mean they're "equally implausible" because that ignores the content of the claims. Example. Claim #1 - underground boulders exist in the Andromeda Galaxy that on earth would weigh X pounds. Claim #2 - there are exact duplicates of Dorothy's house from the Wizard of Oz, with wax sculptures of STUpid in each room buried on planets in the Andromeda Galaxy. One claim is "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as the other but claim #1 is almost certainly true while claim #2 is almost certainly false. They're nowhere near "equally plausible." So that's your second STUpid mistake.

On the 96%, here's the link proving your STUpidity.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513&#post2952513

Maybe you should think about going back to school and getting an education, instead of posting endless STUpid drivel on the internet.
Quote from STUpid:

Lol!
All your silly insults and pathetic remarks and you're still angry after months and months for not fathoming the blindingly obvious.

So that's why you're confused. It's with unfalsifiable and implausible , because you couldn't discriminate two sentences from each other.

Of course a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot. They both are capable of being tested , verified by experiment or observation in reality as the other is.

In other words …they aren’t.
You must prefer English at 3rd grade level.

Honestly , you can't grasp even that and you think you've half an idea about 96% of the universe.
Don't make me laugh..
More...
 
Quote from Trader666:

First of all, a Celestial God us NOT "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot." Russell's teapot is falsifiable because it involves a physical object is a specified, finite amount of space. A Celestial God is of unknown composition and unknown location. So that's your first STUpid mistake.
More...
You're not being serious. Are you? I hope for your own sake you're not.

Unknown composition and unknown location does not mean something must in essence be unfalsifiable.

Russell's Celestial Teapot is described as " too small to be revealed ". That's just as unfalsifiable as unknown composition and unknown location.
For wherever Russell's Teapot is supposed to be, it's always too small to falsify, just as your God is always.... too unknown.

It's a Celestial Teapot. It relates to inhabiting a divine heaven. Did you think it an ordinary physical teapot?
The Celestial Teapot is every bit of the abstract concept as is your God.
The silly definitions for God go for Teapots too. Of course they are equally implausible.

Quote from Trader666:

Second, even if one claim is "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as another, that does NOT by any stretch mean they're "equally implausible" because that ignores the content of the claims. Example. Claim #1 - underground boulders exist in the Andromeda Galaxy that on earth would weigh X pounds. Claim #2 - there are exact duplicates of Dorothy's house from the Wizard of Oz, with wax sculptures of STUpid in each room buried on planets in the Andromeda Galaxy. One claim is "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as the other but claim #1 is almost certainly true while claim #2 is almost certainly false. They're nowhere near "equally plausible." So that's your second STUpid mistake.
More...
That's just hilarious. Pathetic but hilarious. You don't mean to suggest that requires any consideration do you.

Quote from Trader666:

On the 96%, here's the link proving your STUpidity.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...13&#post2952513
Maybe you should think about going back to school and getting an education, instead of posting endless STUpid drivel on the internet.
More...
No , that's just you repeating the same infantile insults and repeating the same link ,where your same comments are still shown to be the same...wrong.
Get over it.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Reread what you just wrote, I'll bold the important part--it's value driven. The "meta" part refers to the subjective choice made before facts are winnowed.
More...
I suppose calling a subjective choice to favor conclusions made devoid of fact as - "meta", in place of conjecture, supposition, wishful thinking, make-believe, fantasy or religion, is at least different.

But still , it’s only hippy talk.

I suggest you don't subscribe to any "meta part " as it refers to a subjective choice suggesting jumping 500 feet over a cliff edge on to jagged rocks is ok because it isn't value driven.
 
Quote from Betapeg:

I do not understand how any scientist, in the face of quantum mechanics alone, could postulate a fine-tuned universe. The quantum level is far from fine-tuned. It's impossible to predict anything with 100% certainty. You call that fine-tuned?? It looks to me like the chaotically random quantum reality results in seeming order which we see at our macro level. Order can certainly come from randomness. The creation of this universe cannot be disconnected from this fact.



I understood the argument. "The cosmological constants are seemingly set at values which facilitate life as we know it. Any deviation from these values negates life, stars, or planets."

That is a very interesting observation, but is not evidence of a designer, because our perception of such seeming design does not prove anything as to whether or not there is a designer or not. Your feelings on the matter mean nothing in regards to the actual truth. Feelings aren't enough. So I'm sorry. This isn't evidence.

This designer has to come itself and show itself to us. Otherwise, you have nothing but your feelings and again, feelings mean nothing unless you can prove them.
More...

Well said.

This designer has to come itself and show itself to us.
..as it has.
It's called nature.

But Jem like some other over religious people on ET, just wants to call it something else and pray to it , for some weird primitive reason.
 
I didn't say that, moron. What I did was show that one claim is NOT "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as the other as you originally and incorrectly stated.
Quote from STUpid:

Unknown composition and unknown location does not mean something must in essence be unfalsifiable.
More...

Wrong again. He only described it as "too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes." Which makes it falsifiable now (in principle at least) with current technology.
Quote from STUpid:

Russell's Celestial Teapot is described as " too small to be revealed ".
More...

Your original STUpid claim that it refutes (that equally unfalsifiable claims are equally implausible) is what's really hilarious. But you lack the integrity to admit it.
Quote from STUpid:

That's just hilarious. Pathetic but hilarious. You don't mean to suggest that requires any consideration do you.
More...
In addition to an education, you may want to seek professional help for your pathological lying.
Quote from STUpid:

No , that's just you repeating the same infantile insults and repeating the same link ,where your same comments are still shown to be the same...wrong.
Get over it.
More...
 
The designer has shown himself through our current scientific understanding...

If you choose not to study the science... that is your choice...




“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.

---
here is a very famous former atheist...

It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.”

“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

-Anthony Flew
Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater

--
“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”

- Christian de Duve. “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell” (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)


---

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

- Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
 
Quote from Trader666:

I didn't say that, moron. What I did was show that one claim is NOT "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as the other as you originally and incorrectly stated.


Wrong again. He only described it as "too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes." Which makes it falsifiable now (in principle at least) with current technology.


Your original STUpid claim that it refutes (that equally unfalsifiable claims are equally implausible) is what's really hilarious. But you lack the integrity to admit it.

In addition to an education, you may want to seek professional help for your pathological lying.
More...
Russell's Teapot is Celestial. It an analogy. It's a mythological concept to illustrate a philosophical point.
Of course it isn't falsifiable, with the most powerful telescopes modern or not.

You're making very immature comparisons to assert petty ridiculous arguments and missing the whole point. You cannot falsify any mythical concept.
All mythical things are in the end just as unfalsifiable as the next. That is they all are not falsifiable.

And by the way, you'll never insult your way to rectifying all the silly mistakes and ignorance you display so much of.
 
Quote from jem:

The designer has shown himself through our current scientific understanding...

If you choose not to study the science... that is your choice...

“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.

---
here is a very famous former atheist...

It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.”

“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

-Anthony Flew
Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater

--
“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”

- Christian de Duve. “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell” (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)

---

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

- Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
More...

There is not one bit of science or a specific scientific statement amongst any of that cut&paste quote mining.

Can't you help yourself from just repeating the same nonsense over and over.

It's old and it's lame.
Apart from being fundamentally dishonest of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top