• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,182.00
Faith
Atheist
And bump again. Guess is it easier to agree with the one poster who happens to agree with him rather than answer legitimate questions from people who don't.
I notice this a lot. Questions about the foundations of an argument ignored in favour of incidentals and side-issues.
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I notice this a lot. Questions about the foundations of an argument ignored in favour of incidentals and side-issues.
Don't forget pretending to have answered the question at some point earlier in the thread but not being able to explain where. And the mutual back-patting between the two people on a thread who happen to agree with the OP (this includes the OP).
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Don't forget pretending to have answered the question at some point earlier in the thread but not being able to explain where. And the mutual back-patting between the two people on a thread who happen to agree with the OP (this includes the OP).
All those rudimentary defense mechanisms kicking in.
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
How true!


No, not at all. Do you realize that relying on the "fine tuning" argument refutes all sorts of Genesis myths?

Let's say that a god formed a fine tuned universe 13.82 billion years ago. That will end up in throwing out the Adam and Eve story and the Noah's Ark story for just two.

Are you sure that you want to do that?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,182.00
Faith
Atheist
Seems to me that an omnipotent creator god would have no need to 'fine tune' its creation... and from the anatomy and physiology (and history) of life on Earth (including humans) to the scattered features of the observable universe, it really doesn't give the impression of being intelligently designed - unless the intelligent designer was very drunk at the time.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
JWs accept the age of the universe as billions of years and accept both the Eden and the Flood accounts as historical.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
JWs accept the age of the universe as billions of years and accept both the Eden and the Flood accounts as historical.

So what? That only demonstrates that they cannot see the consequences of those beliefs. Didn't you learn anything from our flood discussion?
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So what? That only demonstrates that they cannot see the consequences of those beliefs. Didn't you learn anything from our flood discussion?
I am referring to the billions of years involved in the universe's creation. They have no difficulty reconciling it with the Genesis creation account.

BTW
Yes, from the flood discussion I learned certain valuable things. What I did not learn is that JWs are unable to reconcile the Genesis creation account with the concept of a very old universe.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I am referring to the billions of years involved in the universe's creation. They have no difficulty reconciling it with the Genesis creation account.

If they believe in the Adam and Eve myth, and I am fairly sure that they do, then they have no understanding of science. But I am not a JW and I don't think that you are one either. You are not in a very good position to state what they believe.

BTW
Yes, from the flood discussion I learned certain valuable things. What I did not learn is that JWs are unable to reconcile the Genesis creation account with the concept of a very old universe.

So nothing in other words. That is a pity.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

Yes I am in a position to know what JWs believe because I was a JW for many years and am thoroughly familiar with their doctrinal views. In fact I was a Bible study conductor at one point and in charge of leading a group of 12 sisters in the field service ministry.

BTW
I consider your mindless, billion happy accidents, abiogenesis idea a hilarious myth.
So I guess the opinions are mutual. Also, there are scientists who understand science and consider your idea of abiogenesis as silly and do believe in the Genesis account as historical. So your premise of scientific ignorance that you constantly and monotonously drone like a mantra in most of your responses is seriously flawed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

And yet you have no clue as to why they were wrong. They still accept the mythical parts of Genesis along with their beliefs. That only makes them a little less wrong than YEC's.

BTW
I consider your mindless, billion happy accidents, abiogenesis idea a hilarious myth.

And that is your problem. The only people that claim they were "happy accidents" are those that have no clue at all about abiogenesis. Why would you make such an assumption? No one that supports the idea uses that claim.

In fact I know that I gave links to you on abiogenesis that explained what was known about it now, and there were no such claims in that. You have been corrected on this and yet you insist on making the same error. That makes it look like you are lying. I hope that is not the case. But it does not bode well for you either way.

 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Another video in addition to the OPED one that deals with the subject:


Oh goodie, another video.

Does this video provide a scientific definition of ID? Does it describe the falsifiable test, to determine if ID is present or not?
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sometimes some atheists change their mind when they realize that the evidence is indeed overwhelming.
There is a God, leading atheist concludes

So you've converted to deism based on this? If the fact that some random person converted to a religion doesn't get you to switch to it why would you expect it to be convincing to anyone else?
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sometimes some atheists change their mind when they realize that the evidence is indeed overwhelming.
There is a God, leading atheist concludes

What about theist scientists who turn atheist? Does their opinion matter as well?

Anyhow.... how about that method of determining if "design" is present in a certain thing or process? Have you gotten around to sharing that already?

I lost count how many times I've asked now...
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
From a theological Christian viewpoint the condition of the present universe, although still sufficiently fine-tuned, is nevertheless understood biblically as an inferior imperfect version from its original form and in need of replacement. That includes mankind which is presently an inferior imperfect version of the original design.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.