Evolution is not science, its a religion

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Badfish


And real quick, I haven't seen the dragon history books, and I can tell you that Christianity is the overwhelming religion of choice, and there is a reason for that. 

So, if many people believe in a thing, that thing is true?

 

[HazyRigby]

Badfiah, since I know you won't take the time to read the book, I'd like to share with you one of my favorite passages. This is from a part of the book in which Paine is showing--using the text of the Bible alone--that the supposed authors could not have been the actual authors, and thus, the Bible is without merit:

...For example, Numb. chap. xii. v. 3. "Now the man Moses was very meek above all the men which were on the face of the earth." If Moses said this of himself, instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the most vain and arrogant of coxcombs; and the advocates for these books may now take which side they please, for both sides are against them. If Moses was not the author, the books are without authority; and if he was the author, the books are without credit; because, to boast of meekness is the reverse of meekness, and is a lie in sentiment.
(Author's emphasis, not mine.)

Keep in mind that this was ONE example of why Moses could not have been the author of the books that are attributed to him. One example out of many. So, which is it, Badfish, in this fallacy-free book of yours? Was Moses the author, and thus a liar, or was he not the author?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Badfish, I am not refuting God but bad science used to promote God.

Bad science is a lie, and a lie should never be used to help bolster God, for it will be shown to be a lie and make those who put it forth look bad and thus God look bad.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Badfish


I just did, all possibilities fit one of these catagories

No you didn't prove anything. You listed the three, but offered no proof or explaination as to why they cover every possible event.

In your opinion, either "man," "universe," or "creator" created the universe. What about "martians," "rabbits," "kittens," "chaos," etc? I'm looking for a discussion as to why those three choices fully partitian the realm of possibilities. Just because you can only think of three, does not mean that you have considered everything.

keep in mind that #2 still gives an out for evolutionists, as it is a theoretical posibility that the Universe created itself, whether by matter/ anti matter collision, or drwn from another Universe, or any combo.

Actually, evolution fits with all three you have presented, since (biological) evolution does not deal with the origin of the universe, only the origin of the diversity of life.

My assertion is that the Universe was created by some intelligent being, it is mathematically more probable, and mathematicians always trust the math.

You haven't even shown it is more mathematically probable. Since, even if those were the only three possibilities, they don't each have to be equally probable. For instance number two could have a 60% chance of being true, and thus the universe not being the product of intelligent creation would be more probable mathematically.

Your agument needs considerable work.

I gotta go to bed, thanks for the chat Rufus and Hazy, have great night! Thanks for the links and thoughts, I do listen and am a free thinker, so don't label me a closeminded Christian.
See ya's tommorrow,

I wont, GTX.

 

[OldBadfish]

I haven't done that Lewis.

How do you witness, as a Christian. I haven't seen you witness, only refute those that TRY to make a case for God, if you can make a better one I will read about it tommorrow, goodnight and God Bless all!

Hazy, your post is duly noted and I will check into this. Goodnight.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Am I the only one who noticed that JC stopped posting right after we asked him to test his creation hypothesis?

 

[OldBadfish]

I wont, GTX.

Very witty, why the useless reference to GTX? And why go back and edit after I post?

A Christian wouldn't put down a brother by using a useless reference to my non staff alias?

Christian huh? Your style and unchristianlike quips have hypocrite written all over it.

Hello, I am also GTX, big deal, get over it, move on, don't disrupt topics with useless inanities.

 

[OldBadfish]

Is that the best you can do Rufus? Oops my apologies Lewis, I thought you said that.

Rufus, have a great night

Yours truly,

~GTX~

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Am I the only one who noticed that JC stopped posting right after we asked him to test his creation hypothesis?

He always stops posting if ANYONE asks him to back up his claims.

 

[OldBadfish]

He only has 6 posts or so, how can you stereotype him

 

[OldBadfish]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Badfish, I am not refuting God but bad science used to promote God.

Bad science is a lie, and a lie should never be used to help bolster God, for it will be shown to be a lie and make those who put it forth look bad and thus God look bad.

There is no science to promote God. I just said it can be deduced to creation by math.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Badfish


Very witty, why the useless reference to GTX?. . . . Is that the best you can do Rufus?

Since you go by GTX on II and said the same thing to me in PMs on II. I'm suprised it got you so upset. Maybe you do need to get some sleep.

 

[OldBadfish]

Oh yes Infidels, ok, but you still had to know about the GTX fiasco last night or you wouldn't have blown my cover at Infidels. And how did you know it was me at Infidels?

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Badfish
He only has 6 posts or so, how can you stereotype him

 

Posts: 86

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Badfish


There is no science to promote God. I just said it can be deduced to creation by math.

 

Then would you please show us the math?

 

[OldBadfish]

Originally posted by armageddonman


 

Posts: 86

I stand corrected.

 

[OldBadfish]

Originally posted by armageddonman


 

Then would you please show us the math?

You can do it yourself, make a list of all known possibilities of the creation or appearance of the Universe, carefully put them all in one of the 3 catagories.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Badfish
Oh yes Infidels, ok, but you still had to know about the GTX fiasco last night or you wouldn't have blown my cover at Infidels. And how did you know it was me at Infidels?

I don't know about a GTX fiasco from last night. I'm sorry if the timing was off.

I didn't that you were hiding that you were GTX, nor even that you really were GTX. But how many creationist christians, from CF, do you know of who appeal that they are freethinkers?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Badfish


You can do it yourself, make a list of all known possibilities of the creation or appearance of the Universe, carefully put them all in one of the 3 catagories.

But where is the mathematical proof, that those are the only three possible categories? Just because we can't think of one that doesn't fit, does not mean there isn't one conceivable.

Wait I can think of one.

Three headed pink rabbits from Mars created the universe a half eternity ago with the aid of the divine river.

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Badfish


You can do it yourself

I don´t want to. You claimed you (or someone else) already did, so please show me the calculations.

What was the outcome for "Man"?
What was the outcome for "Creator"?
What was the outcome for "Time Loop"?