NoGoodReligion - (that's your name, right?)

You claim that evolution requires a substantial burden of proof, which is commendable to do. But when you claim that your side needs no burden of proof to claim that God exists.. That is where the problem arises. You see, in logic, to be a logical person, you must apply the burden of proof evenly to all arguments.

You fail to believe in evolution because it doesn't have enough evidence for it. (in your own words - not mine)

Yet you are fully willing to believe in God which has absolutely no evidence for him existing.

Now to dispel some of the creationist claims by using a logical assessment.

Most creationists say that everything must be created because we are too complex to not be created. Yet, they fail to understand that an even more complex God would of had to of created us and in turn, would of had to of been created himself. This creates an infinite regression phenomenon within logic. This means that the argument itself is not a logical argument.

You then call the person who invented falsification, you know, the idea of taking away what doesn't fit then what is left is the true answer, a communist. This is a fallacious argument called an Ad'hominem circumstantial. This is completely against the rule of logic as well. Simply because he is a communist doesn't have any bearing on the actual argument.

Now on to disproving the notion of God in accordance with the bible.

The bible claims God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Meaning he is all powerful and he sees everything. So if he created man and earth, he also created the garden of Eden. If he created the garden of Eden, he also created the tree of good or evil. Since God can see into the past and the future, he knows that by doing all of this, he set in a series of events where eve will ultimately eat the apple. When she goes to eat it, God is nowhere in sight, yet he is all seeing and can see everything that is going on. He fails to stop her from eating the apple and instead, watches her eat it. He then punishes her for something God did and requires man to have a savior otherwise they will be tortured for all eternity.

So with this conclusion, God either sent everyone to burn in hell for all eternity because of a series of events of which he acted as the catalyst for and refused to remove sin and bring people to heaven... OR God is powerless against sin and used Jesus as a loop hole around the whole sin situation.

So do you worship an evil God? Or a powerless one?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 11:21am:


Now you suddenly believe in a God? I thought you were an atheist?

If you believe in God, you are religious. I am religious and proud of it.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 12:47pm:


You say you believe in God. I thought you were an atheist. What's wrong with being religious?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:




Agree!

Nogoodscience: The problem with your logic is this. You have stated previously that if evidence does not point toward God, then it is bad evidence and should be admissible. However, you being "good" in logic should understand what I mean by the following.

A, B, and C are facts. God is the conclusion.

A + B + C = God
If I find more evidence that points toward God, I can add D in there as well.

A + B + C + D = God
However, if I find evidence that contradicts the notion of God in the form of E, F, G, H, I, J, K and tag that in, then I have more evidence against the notion of God.
If you tell me that E, F, G, H, I, J, K is inadmissible because it disagrees with the conclusion then what you are saying is that the answer is God no matter what. So lets test your so called logic shall we? I shall think of an idea or notion that is absurd and toss it into the conclusion. Humans have a hive mind mentality is the conclusion. My theory behind this is that human beings share brain wave patterns.

So Hive Mind s is my conclusion.
I have evidence for this.

A = Deja Vu exists which is a perception of the mind adopting information from others around you.

B = Brain waves exist

So by combining those two variables I have A + B = Hive Mind hypothesis.

Now wait... I just found evidence linking toward the variables C, D, E, F, and G that contradict Hive Mind Hypothesis. Since they all contradict Hive Mind Hypothesis, they must be wrong in some way. The science that caused this evidence to surface must have a faulty process. So lets ONLY keep the evidence that points toward the Hive Mind hypothesis and throw the rest out as being inadmissible.
Do you see why this doesn't work? Because no matter what evidence I gather, the conclusion stays the same. I could come up with any idea or notion that I can think of and the conclusion would never change. I would just throw out the evidence and say that it must be faulty in an attempt to get my idea or notion heard or understood. This is bad science because it is directly ignoring the evidence against the conclusion. Science works like this.

A + B = Hive Mind Hypothesis.

Oh wait, we just found C which doesn't go with the current model of the Hive Mind hypothesis, so lets go ahead and plug in C
A + B + C = (NEW) Hive Mind Hypothesis. See how you need to change around the conclusion to make room for the new evidence? Now the way FALSIFICATION works is this... If I can prove one of the ideas or notions wrong, I can throw that out. So if later I figure out that A isn't true at all... then B + C = (NEWER) Hive mind hypothesis. All falsification means is if the evidence itself can be proven wrong. If it can't be proven wrong, it is not science. For instance, the supernatural cannot be proven to not exist. There is no instance in any way shape or form to prove that there are no ghosts. Why? Because there is no evidence for ghosts in the first place. If there is no evidence for ghosts, there will be no evidence 'against' the notion of ghosts either. Thus, the supernatural is not science.

I would highly suggest that you get an education. Even though it is hard to teach old dogs new tricks, you're wasting the little time you have left by arguing that mutations never happen despite being able to witness them ourselves.

"Nogoodscience: The problem with your logic is this. You have stated previously that if evidence does not point toward God, then it is bad evidence and should be admissible."
I meant inadmissible, I am truly sorry.

Any scientist who argues with creationists is an idiot

because you think there is only one or the other

otherwise there wold be no arguments.

If you want to show evolution, you have to get past me.

There is a huge problem for you, in that I know more about your religion than you do.

I suggest that you start with an apology for your behavior and we can get you clear of this delusional nonsense.