If you can provide evidence for lack of design, I will surely understand it. Just claiming that things are not designed because they simply are not, is not an argument.  It's always like that for you, isn't it. Why should I provide evidence for things that are not designed? You are assuming that everything is designed for no reason, I'm not the one trying to prove god you are. You shouldn't provide evidence for things not designed... for at least 2 reasons: 1. There aren't any, so you can't; 2. You should be spending all your time changing your heart to believe in God so that you can be saved. All the things that mankind designs operate through the things of nature. Everything is designed. If it weren't, mankind couldn't design anything, because he uses nature in his designs. Either mankind desing including the nature he uses, or no design, not even of mankind. Why? Because in mankind design, he uses nature. It's design or it isn't, both mankind and nature, because they are essentially the same at their core. ''Everything is designed. If it weren't, mankind couldn't design anything, because he uses nature in his designs'' What are these arguments lmao, you are desperate. If things weren't designed mankind couldn't design anything? Why, how does that work lol. A computer or a spoon aren't designed copying nature. Stop with this stupid shit. Some people use the phrase "connect the dots." You, it seems, can't even connect two dots. Let's try again, with the spoon you mentioned. Somebody designs the spoon. He doesn't only design the idea of a spoon. He designs an actual spoon. What is the spoon made out of? Atoms and molecules. They are part of the design. If they weren't, there would be no spoon or design. Atoms and molecules are part of design. We can see it in the spoon. Are these atoms or molecules and different than the atoms and molecules of the same type that are not in the spoon? No. They are all the same; they are all design. The spoon is a silver spoon. It is made of silver. Silver is of design. The silver spoon designer has proven it by designing the spoon. I don't think that you understand your own arguments. You are saying that because humans build stuff and because that stuff is made of molecules and atoms (like everything lol) means that they are designed? Worst argument and literally no logic. |
|
|
|
Oh really? God made the stars in 1 day, how did he do it? Basically popped them into existence from nothing, just like he created the universe as you claim, again from nothing, give me a break with your science fiction.
If we knew how God did it, we would be like the angels. Since you are the one who says the popping thing, maybe you should pop yourself up some popcorn. God didn't pop anything into existence. He simply created them rapidly, piece by piece. Read the 6 days of creation in the Bible. Why do you resist the idea of things coming into being from nothing? Even big bang suggests things popping into existence from nothing - we don't know what nothing is made up of. So, as I said, popping them into existence, we have yet to find an animal just popping into existence, we should find plenty of examples like that if creation was true. https://youtu.be/lIEoO5KdPvgVery easy video explaining the evolution of whales, something that shouldn't happen if god created everything, all the animals should be different and not related in time. |
|
|
|
If you already have all the knowledge about jesus before you are even born and you already pick whether you believe in god or not, what's the point of being here? God already knows before you are born if you are believing in him or not, he would just take us to heaven directly, again your argument doesn't work no matter how much shit you invent.
The point of being here is to recognize the greatness of God, and marvel at it. The praise God receives from us glorifies Him, and He turns around and blesses us in our lives so that we can praise Him more. Our existence is a win-win situation for God and people. One of the best examples of how to praise God is found in Revelation 7:11,12: 11All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12saying:
“Amen!
Praise and glory
and wisdom and thanks and honor
and power and strength
be to our God for ever and ever.
Amen!” Don't be misled into thinking that you are not glorifying God. Even if you are destroyed for your unbelief, this will bring glory to God, because those of us who remain, will see how much patience God had with you until you finally destroyed yourself. We will glorify God because of the Greatness that He is, in having so much patience with one who only defies Him. ''The point of being here is to recognize the greatness of God'' You already recognize god's greatness before you are born so no need. ''Our existence is a win-win situation for God and people.'' Unless it's not, I know plenty of religious people who were born with extremely bad diseases, without arms or died of really bad things, certainly not a win-win. |
|
|
|
If you can provide evidence for lack of design, I will surely understand it. Just claiming that things are not designed because they simply are not, is not an argument. It's always like that for you, isn't it. Why should I provide evidence for things that are not designed? You are assuming that everything is designed for no reason, I'm not the one trying to prove god you are. You shouldn't provide evidence for things not designed... for at least 2 reasons: 1. There aren't any, so you can't; 2. You should be spending all your time changing your heart to believe in God so that you can be saved. All the things that mankind designs operate through the things of nature. Everything is designed. If it weren't, mankind couldn't design anything, because he uses nature in his designs. Either mankind desing including the nature he uses, or no design, not even of mankind. Why? Because in mankind design, he uses nature. It's design or it isn't, both mankind and nature, because they are essentially the same at their core. ''Everything is designed. If it weren't, mankind couldn't design anything, because he uses nature in his designs'' What are these arguments lmao, you are desperate. If things weren't designed mankind couldn't design anything? Why, how does that work lol. A computer or a spoon aren't designed copying nature. Stop with this stupid shit. |
|
|
|
Evolution is happening all around you all the time, it always has, I have never seen an example of an instantaneous animal creation, they all evolve, they don't just pop into existence like the bible claims. So I don't believe in evolution, I know it exists.
''Those examples of evolution are adaptation according to evolution as simple change, not evolution that fits evolution theory.'' That's a claim without anything to back it up.
Evolution in the form of simple change happens all the time. Evolution according to evolution theory has never been factually seen. In addition, simple searches of the Internet show many reasons why it is impossible. The so-called debunking of these impossibilities are full of way more flaws than evolution theory alone. Bible doesn't claim anything just popped into existence. Adaptation is found all over the place. A simple example is diseases becoming medicine resistant. But there is not even one factual sighting of evolution theory evolution. ''Bible doesn't claim anything just popped into existence.'' Yes it does, the bible clearly states how god made the earth and stars and animals instantly because he wanted, so yes, animals popped into existence. As I said I haven't seen an example of that yet, do you have one? Making things in a day or a week like the Bible says, isn't popping them into existence. You are trying to mix the Bible up with big bang. Oh really? God made the stars in 1 day, how did he do it? Basically popped them into existence from nothing, just like he created the universe as you claim, again from nothing, give me a break with your science fiction. |
|
|
|
...
Well, who is projecting the sun then, god?
Is it the teacher in the classroom projecting the lemon onto the screen or is it the projector manufactured by 3M that's doing it?   Are you stupid or trolling? Who made the projector 6000 years ago? Did it magically appear? You have no argument here, you are just making shit up lmao, dishonest troll. |
|
|
|
I see, hopefully someone can tag them because most of those accounts aren't newbies. |
|
|
|
I would agree with the fact that the earth is round . period.
Is it the cartoon pictures of Earth that you find the most convincing? Can you answer my question, tho? Y'er madder than a wet hen and fit to be tied, I never claimed the "sun were invented 6000 years ago"; that dog won’t hunt. I suspect the Earth and the Sun were constructed about 10,000 years ago, I could be wrong. So what was the sun 6000 years ago then? It's a hologram now, how about before? The Sun is and has always been a hologram, it's a projected image. Consider the the stupidity of your argument for a minute with this analogy: I claim the image of a lemon on the drop-down screen hanging from the wall is a projection i.e. it's not a real object. There's an illuminated overhead projector sitting on a desk in the middle of the room pointing at the screen and you're asking me to explain what the lemon was yesterday if it's just a projection now? I hope this clarifies how in no uncertain terms y'er madder than a wet hen. How were they able to project something like the sun 6000 years ago when they didn't even know about such thing as a projector? How was the sun projected 6000 years ago, are you insane? Who are "they" and why do "they" have to understand how a holographic projector works in order to view the image being displayed? The Earth, Sun and Man are all engineered creations. Well, who is projecting the sun then, god? |
|
|
|
Evolution is happening all around you all the time, it always has, I have never seen an example of an instantaneous animal creation, they all evolve, they don't just pop into existence like the bible claims. So I don't believe in evolution, I know it exists.
''Those examples of evolution are adaptation according to evolution as simple change, not evolution that fits evolution theory.'' That's a claim without anything to back it up.
Evolution in the form of simple change happens all the time. Evolution according to evolution theory has never been factually seen. In addition, simple searches of the Internet show many reasons why it is impossible. The so-called debunking of these impossibilities are full of way more flaws than evolution theory alone. Bible doesn't claim anything just popped into existence. Adaptation is found all over the place. A simple example is diseases becoming medicine resistant. But there is not even one factual sighting of evolution theory evolution. ''Bible doesn't claim anything just popped into existence.'' Yes it does, the bible clearly states how god made the earth and stars and animals instantly because he wanted, so yes, animals popped into existence. As I said I haven't seen an example of that yet, do you have one? |
|
|
|
I would agree with the fact that the earth is round . period.
Is it the cartoon pictures of Earth that you find the most convincing? Can you answer my question, tho? Y'er madder than a wet hen and fit to be tied, I never claimed the "sun were invented 6000 years ago"; that dog won’t hunt. I suspect the Earth and the Sun were constructed about 10,000 years ago, I could be wrong. So what was the sun 6000 years ago then? It's a hologram now, how about before? The Sun is and has always been a hologram, it's a projected image. Consider the the stupidity of your argument for a minute with this analogy: I claim the image of a lemon on the drop-down screen hanging from the wall is a projection i.e. it's not a real object. There's an illuminated overhead projector sitting on a desk in the middle of the room pointing at the screen and you're asking me to explain what the lemon was yesterday if it's just a projection now? I hope this clarifies how in no uncertain terms y'er madder than a wet hen. How were they able to project something like the sun 6000 years ago when they didn't even know about such thing as a projector? How was the sun projected 6000 years ago, are you insane? |
|
|
|
I can accept that you and others don't want to understand the design that exists in all things. If you can provide evidence I will sure understand it, just claiming that other things are designed because they are it's not an argument. If you can provide evidence for lack of design, I will surely understand it. Just claiming that things are not designed because they simply are not, is not an argument. It's always like that for you, isn't it. Why should I provide evidence for things that are not designed? You are assuming that everything is designed for no reason, I'm not the one trying to prove god you are. |
|
|
|
It doesn't work like that. ''It's our choice regarding faith in Him or against Him'' Imagine you have no memories of anything right now, how are you going to choose to believe or not to believe in god without any knowledge of anything? You need external knowledge of things to even consider beveling in god or not, those outside things are things not determined by you.
Take this example 1 baby is born and kept in a cell for the first 10 years of his life, he only learns about Zeus and everyone is telling him Zeus is God and he should worship him. There is no way for that kid to ever believe in the God from the bible, he doesn't even know about that God.
Do you remember back when you were 10 years old? Didn't a year seem to take a lot longer to go by back then than it does now? Back when you were 5, didn't a year seem to take forever? If a person is distracted by being told about Zeus, distracted from the "hundreds of thousands of years" where He learned the truth while Jesus was growing him in his mommy's tummy, that's a flaw on the kid's part. Stop the indoctrination, and he will gradually move back towards his before-birth training from Jesus. So your argument is that while you are in your mom's womb, jesus is giving him your knowledge of him but you never remember that later on? One remembers it in the same way it was given... cellular memory; basic memory. The fact that one wants to focus on other things after being born, shows how generally corrupt we become, and how fast. If you already have all the knowledge about jesus before you are even born and you already pick whether you believe in god or not, what's the point of being here? God already knows before you are born if you are believing in him or not, he would just take us to heaven directly, again your argument doesn't work no matter how much shit you invent. |
|
|
|
''simple example'' First of all the big bang theory does have a few competing theories, unlike evolution theory which really doesn't. Second of all the big bang is not just a bunch of accurate math, it's far more than that- ''As for the Big Bang, like most theories within cosmology, it is derived from extrapolation, projection and conjecture. It represents the conjecture that if you reverse the expanding universe, then you get a shrinking universe and that if you extrapolate that shrinking universe long enough, you get a recombination of everything into one small entity - called a singularity.'' ''Once we made that assumption, we looked for evidence or confirmation that it did or could have happened…and we found it, we think. If it happened the way we think it did, then it would have produced something like the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)…and we found it. There are other math and empirical indicators also.'' But all of this has nothing to do with the fact that you were wrong, you were wrong about the definition of a scientific theory and also the difference between a scientific theory and a law, you were also wrong about entropy thinking that it disproves evolution. As you can see, you are wrong about a lot of things, factually, of course  Are we not all mistaken in many things? That someone would use extrapolation to think that evolution is real, when there is no example of evolution having ever been found, shows how deep mistakes run. I am not mistaken about scientific theory. Simply the fact that scientific theory includes the idea of constant changeability of scientific theories shows that scientific theories are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, simply theories... if even that much. What would be a ''real'' example of evolution exactly? http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-evolution.htmlhttps://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/You can find thousands. I'm sure you believe in gravity because I have seen you defend it, isn't gravity just a theory? What you seem to not understand is that a scientific theory, although it can be changed, it's the best explanation we have at the time of a certain phenomena, in this case evolution. Those examples of evolution are adaptation according to evolution as simple change, not evolution that fits evolution theory. I don't believe in gravity. Rather, I know that it exists because I use it all the time, have always used it, have never seen an example of it not working, have never heard of an example of it not working, etc. Why gravity works is explained by theory in its lesser form, called scientific theory. You are an example of why scientific theory is weaker than theory. Simple theory is known to be theoretical. Scientific theory is suggested to be truth at times simply because a bunch of people feel like it is truth. This means that theory express honesty - we don't know for sure - while you never know if scientific theory is being honest or not, especially if it expresses that the thing that it says is the truth. Wouldn't you rather have honesty than delusion? Evolution is happening all around you all the time, it always has, I have never seen an example of an instantaneous animal creation, they all evolve, they don't just pop into existence like the bible claims. So I don't believe in evolution, I know it exists. ''Those examples of evolution are adaptation according to evolution as simple change, not evolution that fits evolution theory.'' That's a claim without anything to back it up. |
|
|
|
Ok, I asked you how do you know things are designed, you answered with this:
''How do we know it is design? Because it uses all the mechanisms inside the things that we design'' So you claimed to know things are designed (plants, humans, rocks) because those things use the mechanisms inside the things that human design. Now you are saying that we are the ones incorporating natural design into our design, problem is how do you know there is such thing as ''natural design''?
''Well, the motions of atoms and their subatomic particles are mechanisms that we use inside everything that we design'' No they aren't. We don't use the motions of atoms to create a bottle, at least not on purpose, otherwise you can say you use the motion of atoms doing anything.
The fact is that humans design things, we know that because we can compare them to nature, that's why we say nature is not designed. Everything is filled with flaws, something that you wouldn't expect in a perfect design.
If you think that we don't use the motions of atoms in our creation of bottles, the only thing else that fits is miracles. When we compare our things to the things of nature, we only determine that we designed them rather than the designer of nature. We still use the basics of design of nature in everything we design. Why? Because design is all that there is. Everything is filled with flaws relationally, and on our scale of looking at things with our generally limited ability. However, there are no flaws in the laws of physics. If there were, everything would come crashing down in with the minutest of them. Our flaw/no-flaw universe works like this. Adam and Eve sinned - the first flaw - which should have crashed the universe. Jesus immediately promised the Father that He would fix the flaw... the reason the universe didn't crash. The Father piled up the flaw results, holding the universe in place against the flaw. Jesus took the disruption for the flaw at His crucifixion, and proved that He overcame the flaw and its disruption by His resurrection. All other flaws were included; the flaws were corrected, even though their correction isn't apparent to us in our limited ways of thinking and understanding, generally. The fact that the universe stands, and that the laws of physics remain unbroken, shows that this is so. Recycling the same bad design argument isn't going to prove god, sorry. There is no way to determine whether nature is designed or not and you clearly have no test, study or anything to prove plants or rocks are designed. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_designhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Suboptimal_designhttp://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2520And as I said many times, even if all of this showed a creator exists, in no way it shows that it's Yahweh as you claim. I can accept that you and others don't want to understand the design that exists in all things. If you can provide evidence I will sure understand it, just claiming that other things are designed because they are it's not an argument. |
|
|
|
I would agree with the fact that the earth is round . period.
Is it the cartoon pictures of Earth that you find the most convincing? Can you answer my question, tho? Y'er madder than a wet hen and fit to be tied, I never claimed the "sun were invented 6000 years ago"; that dog won’t hunt. So what was the sun 6000 years ago then? It's a hologram now, how about before? |
|
|
|
I would agree with the fact that the earth is round . period.
Is it the cartoon pictures of Earth that you find the most convincing? Can you answer my question, tho? |
|
|
|
It doesn't work like that. ''It's our choice regarding faith in Him or against Him'' Imagine you have no memories of anything right now, how are you going to choose to believe or not to believe in god without any knowledge of anything? You need external knowledge of things to even consider beveling in god or not, those outside things are things not determined by you.
Take this example 1 baby is born and kept in a cell for the first 10 years of his life, he only learns about Zeus and everyone is telling him Zeus is God and he should worship him. There is no way for that kid to ever believe in the God from the bible, he doesn't even know about that God.
Do you remember back when you were 10 years old? Didn't a year seem to take a lot longer to go by back then than it does now? Back when you were 5, didn't a year seem to take forever? If a person is distracted by being told about Zeus, distracted from the "hundreds of thousands of years" where He learned the truth while Jesus was growing him in his mommy's tummy, that's a flaw on the kid's part. Stop the indoctrination, and he will gradually move back towards his before-birth training from Jesus. So your argument is that while you are in your mom's womb, jesus is giving him your knowledge of him but you never remember that later on? |
|
|
|
Ok, I asked you how do you know things are designed, you answered with this:
''How do we know it is design? Because it uses all the mechanisms inside the things that we design'' So you claimed to know things are designed (plants, humans, rocks) because those things use the mechanisms inside the things that human design. Now you are saying that we are the ones incorporating natural design into our design, problem is how do you know there is such thing as ''natural design''?
''Well, the motions of atoms and their subatomic particles are mechanisms that we use inside everything that we design'' No they aren't. We don't use the motions of atoms to create a bottle, at least not on purpose, otherwise you can say you use the motion of atoms doing anything.
The fact is that humans design things, we know that because we can compare them to nature, that's why we say nature is not designed. Everything is filled with flaws, something that you wouldn't expect in a perfect design.
If you think that we don't use the motions of atoms in our creation of bottles, the only thing else that fits is miracles. When we compare our things to the things of nature, we only determine that we designed them rather than the designer of nature. We still use the basics of design of nature in everything we design. Why? Because design is all that there is. Everything is filled with flaws relationally, and on our scale of looking at things with our generally limited ability. However, there are no flaws in the laws of physics. If there were, everything would come crashing down in with the minutest of them. Our flaw/no-flaw universe works like this. Adam and Eve sinned - the first flaw - which should have crashed the universe. Jesus immediately promised the Father that He would fix the flaw... the reason the universe didn't crash. The Father piled up the flaw results, holding the universe in place against the flaw. Jesus took the disruption for the flaw at His crucifixion, and proved that He overcame the flaw and its disruption by His resurrection. All other flaws were included; the flaws were corrected, even though their correction isn't apparent to us in our limited ways of thinking and understanding, generally. The fact that the universe stands, and that the laws of physics remain unbroken, shows that this is so. Recycling the same bad design argument isn't going to prove god, sorry. There is no way to determine whether nature is designed or not and you clearly have no test, study or anything to prove plants or rocks are designed. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_designhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Suboptimal_designhttp://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2520And as I said many times, even if all of this showed a creator exists, in no way it shows that it's Yahweh as you claim. |
|
|
|
''simple example'' First of all the big bang theory does have a few competing theories, unlike evolution theory which really doesn't. Second of all the big bang is not just a bunch of accurate math, it's far more than that- ''As for the Big Bang, like most theories within cosmology, it is derived from extrapolation, projection and conjecture. It represents the conjecture that if you reverse the expanding universe, then you get a shrinking universe and that if you extrapolate that shrinking universe long enough, you get a recombination of everything into one small entity - called a singularity.'' ''Once we made that assumption, we looked for evidence or confirmation that it did or could have happened…and we found it, we think. If it happened the way we think it did, then it would have produced something like the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)…and we found it. There are other math and empirical indicators also.'' But all of this has nothing to do with the fact that you were wrong, you were wrong about the definition of a scientific theory and also the difference between a scientific theory and a law, you were also wrong about entropy thinking that it disproves evolution. As you can see, you are wrong about a lot of things, factually, of course Are we not all mistaken in many things? That someone would use extrapolation to think that evolution is real, when there is no example of evolution having ever been found, shows how deep mistakes run. I am not mistaken about scientific theory. Simply the fact that scientific theory includes the idea of constant changeability of scientific theories shows that scientific theories are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, simply theories... if even that much. What would be a ''real'' example of evolution exactly? http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-evolution.htmlhttps://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/You can find thousands. I'm sure you believe in gravity because I have seen you defend it, isn't gravity just a theory? What you seem to not understand is that a scientific theory, although it can be changed, it's the best explanation we have at the time of a certain phenomena, in this case evolution. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
