• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God is disproven by science? Really?

MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
TagliatelliMonster said:
You keep claiming this. Post after post after post.... on some obscure religious internet forum.

When are you finally going to live up to your macho talk and actually DO IT and collect your Nobel?

All bark and no bite.



We don't need counter-offers.
The only thing that bare assertions such as yours deserve and require, is rejection at face value.

What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence
Click to expand...
In science, if you do not know intelligence, then, you will never know reality.

The New Intelligent Design and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
You did and your posts implied them that you cannot accept an Intelligent Designer. If you cannot accept my discoveries of intelligence, then, either you will invent your own and fight me. But you cannot and will never win. Why? You are ignorant of the topic of intelligence. I discovered it. I am the sole authority of that topic. Mark my word for that. Either I am a moron/stupid or a liar, or a genius. But I think I am the latter.
Click to expand...
How have any of my posts implied that? And I do not accept an Intelligent Designer because there is no evidence for one. Worse yet there is evidence against one. Lastly you have shown all of us that you know the least about intelligence here.

It is not your lack of education that dooms you in any debate that you enter. It is your refusal to learn that guarantees your loss.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
lol! You had never read and never seen my falsification article for Evolution. I bet that you do not know how to falsify Evolution. There is 100% possibility that you have the wrong criteria of falsification for Evolution, and also prediction. That is why you cannot falsify and replace Evolution.

Mark my word for that.
Click to expand...
How can I read that which does not exist? Please tell us which well respected peer reviewed professional journal published it and when. What issue number please.
 
MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
Subduction Zone said:
How have any of my posts implied that? And I do not accept an Intelligent Designer because there is no evidence for one. Worse yet there is evidence against one. Lastly you have shown all of us that you know the least about intelligence here.

It is not your lack of education that dooms you in any debate that you enter. It is your refusal to learn that guarantees your loss.
Click to expand...
I cannot loss or cannot be defeated since I discovered the topic of intelligence and its variants. I do not care if you cannot accept that, but you are totally ignorant of that topic.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
That is why before you post, try to know your opponent.
Click to expand...
I'm not concerned with all the blah.

I simply want to know in your own words what you mean when you say "intelligence".

And alas I'm growing more and more confident that you have no clear idea, which is why you haven't given me an articulate answer.

I'm happy if you now do so, right to the point, of course.

But otherwise, well, you're compelling the conclusion that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
 
ElishaElijah

ElishaElijah

Return
This is really funny! How many papers does a scientist have to write and explain to show what he found concerning intelligence. Defining and demonstrating and now it’s more unintelligent talk from some on here to explain again. Use your own words???
Well done @MrIntelligentDesign
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ElishaElijah said:
Even I could follow and understand the OP yet you really don’t get it or it’s willful ignorance. Then asking to your own words to define intelligence? He has.
Click to expand...

No, you couldn't since he has no clue.

But if you could follow the OP then see if you can do what he failed to do.

Properly define "Intelligence". It needs to be defined so that an event of "Intelligence" can be differentiated from an event that occurred naturally.


Second you need to come up with a reasonable way to test the existence of this "Intelligence". If you cannot do so you have also admitted that the idea is just an ad hoc explanation that does not explain anything.
 
ElishaElijah

ElishaElijah

Return
Subduction Zone said:
No, you couldn't since he has no clue.

But if you could follow the OP then see if you can do what he failed to do.

Properly define "Intelligence". It needs to be defined so that an event of "Intelligence" can be differentiated from an event that occurred naturally.


Second you need to come up with a reasonable way to test the existence of this "Intelligence". If you cannot do so you have also admitted that the idea is just an ad hoc explanation that does not explain anything.
Click to expand...
He did and also shared his link. All I see from you and others are the same failed talking points.
He did you a favor
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ElishaElijah said:
He did and also shared his link. All I see from you and others are the same failed talking points.
He did you a favor
Click to expand...
He never did any such thing. I saw a video where someone with supposedly the same name made the same incredibly stupid arguments. That is not support. And dude!! You two are the ones with the same failed talking points. You do not even understand what qualifies as evidence. You do not even understand the basics of the scientific method. Neither does he.

That is why both of you lose the debate. That is why both of you are not even qualified to debate. Debates are evidence based and if you do not even understand the concept of evidence you really cannot debate at all.
 
ElishaElijah

ElishaElijah

Return
Subduction Zone said:
He never did any such thing. I saw a video where someone with supposedly the same name made the same incredibly stupid arguments. That is not support. And dude!! You two are the ones with the same failed talking points. You do not even understand what qualifies as evidence. You do not even understand the basics of the scientific method. Neither does he.

That is why both of you lose the debate. That is why both of you are not even qualified to debate. Debates are evidence based and if you do not even understand the concept of evidence you really cannot debate at all.
Click to expand...
Why do you sound angry and do not seem to understand the meaning of words?
evidence
noun

ev·i·dence | \ ˈe-və-dən(t)s , -və-ˌden(t)s \
Definition of evidence
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: an outward sign : INDICATION
b: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONYspecifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witnessespecially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ElishaElijah said:
Why do you sound angry and do not seem to understand the meaning of words?
evidence
noun

ev·i·dence | \ ˈe-və-dən(t)s , -və-ˌden(t)s \
Definition of evidence
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: an outward sign : INDICATION
b: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONYspecifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witnessespecially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
Click to expand...
Wrong definition. This is a a debate about science. The standards one has to use are more specific. Would you like to try again or do you want me to supply you with the answer and a link?
 
ElishaElijah

ElishaElijah

Return
Subduction Zone said:
Wrong definition. This is a a debate about science. The standards one has to use are more specific. Would you like to try again or do you want me to supply you with the answer and a link?
Click to expand...
You said my testimony isn’t evidence on other non scientific threads and that’s what I’m talking about as an example.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
ElishaElijah said:
Why do you sound angry and do not seem to understand the meaning of words?
evidence
noun

ev·i·dence | \ ˈe-və-dən(t)s , -və-ˌden(t)s \
Definition of evidence
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: an outward sign : INDICATION
b: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONYspecifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witnessespecially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
Click to expand...
Evidence has to be real, available to ordinary senses or instruments, and not requiring assumptions as to what it is and means.

For example, some theists insist that a sunrise is evidence that a God exists. No, it's evidence of a heliocentric planetary system, yet the theist assumes certain things about the sunrise that are not part of the fact or data.

Those who advocate for ID and creationism make similar assumptions that objective thinkers and science does not do.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ElishaElijah said:
You said my testimony isn’t evidence on other non scientific threads and that’s what I’m talking about as an example.
Click to expand...
To be a bit more thorough. Your testimony is not reliable evidence. Since one can easily find testimony that is quite different the result is that it is the same as no evidence at all.

That is why you need to learn what qualifies as evidence in a scientific debate. Your testimony is not evidence in that sort of debate. At all. It does not qualify by the more rigorous standards that one has to use.

By the way, your "testimony" would not qualify as evidence in a legal case either. And the standard for evidence in law is laxer than the standards for evidence in the sciences.

Once more I will repeat: Would you like to try again or would you like me to supply the definition and a link? Right now you are on two strikes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top