The Professor Said That There Is No God. The Student Gave Him an Awesome Answer!

[Deeje]

This is my post for @Deeje's op.
Maybe @Deeje cannot define "faith", "science", "preacher" and "preach" for the op.

Deeje think that the op is a great argument, but maybe she cannot explain what things the argument is great in argue for.

And since no one have been able to provide any source for "the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol" which "science" use it to conclude and say that God doesn't exist and the professor have no brain; nor any people cite the source where "science" making the statement that there is no evidence for God, as a result, where and when does "science" ever making those statement is a mystery to be solve.

And since the student in op said God did not create evil, Deeje also said she's with the student, it means she also believe God did not create evil.
I provide the Bible Scripture to show that the Bible says God did create evil and asking Deeje for explanation.
So far, Deeje haven't provide any explanation yet. Maybe it means Deeje don't believe what the Bible say.

Sorry but I am having difficulty with your phrasing. I really don't understand what it is you are asking for.....

If you want to take apart the OP...I didn't write it. I just think the points are valid.

 

[Deeje]

... and I demonstrated how the story was a logical fallacy, a point you both ignore.

Go through the thread Sapiens....you were late with this vital piece of information.....
Did you think I didn't hear you are were you too lazy to read the replies......how many of them pointed out that it wasn't Einstein.
Duly noted straight away.

What is your problem?

 

[ratiocinator]

I just think the points are valid.

What points and why?

I'm struggling to find any sense spoken by either the professor or the student.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

... and I demonstrated how the story was a logical fallacy, a point you both ignore.

I know the argument itself is a logical fallacy. That does not make Deejee a liar.

 

[Stevicus]

I have read this before, but thought I'd share it.....you cannot argue with this student's logic.


An atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand:



‘You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?’

‘Yes sir,’ the student says.

‘So you believe in God?’

‘Absolutely. ’

‘Is God good?’

‘Sure! God’s good.’

‘Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?’

‘Yes.’

‘Are you good or evil?’

‘The Bible says I’m evil.’

The professor grins knowingly. ‘Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. ‘Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?’

‘Yes sir, I would.’

‘So you’re good…!’

‘I wouldn’t say that.’

‘But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.’

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. ‘He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?’

The student remains silent. ‘No, you can’t, can you?’ the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax ‘Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?’

‘Er…yes,’ the student says.

‘Is Satan good?’

The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. ‘No.’

‘Then where does Satan come from?’

The student falters. ‘From God’

‘That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?’

‘Yes, sir…’

‘Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?’

‘Yes.’

‘So who created evil?’ The professor continued, ‘If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.’

Again, the student has no answer. ‘Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?’

The student squirms on his feet. ‘Yes.’

‘So who created them?’

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. ‘Who created them?’ There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. ‘Tell me,’ he continues onto another student. ‘Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?’

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. ‘Yes, professor, I do.’

The old man stops pacing. ‘Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?’

‘No sir. I’ve never seen Him.’

‘Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?’

‘No, sir, I have not…’

‘Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?’

‘No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.’

‘Yet you still believe in him?’

‘Yes.’

‘According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist… What do you say to that, son?’

‘Nothing,’ the student replies… ‘I only have my faith.’

‘Yes, faith,’ the professor repeats. ‘And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence…only faith.’

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. ‘Professor, is there such thing as heat? ’

‘Yes.’

‘And is there such a thing as cold?’

‘Yes, son, there’s cold too.’

‘No sir, there isn’t.’

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. ‘You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit d own to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest –458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, ‘cold’ is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.’

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

‘What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?’

‘Yes,’ the professor replies without hesitation… ‘What is night if it isn’t darkness?’

‘You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?’

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. ‘So what point are you making, young man?’

‘Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.’

The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. ‘Flawed? Can you explain how?’

‘You are working on the premise of duality,’ the student explains… ‘You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but it has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.’

‘Now tell me, professor… Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?’

‘If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.’

‘Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?’

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

‘Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?’

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. ‘To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.’ The student looks around the room. ‘Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?’ The class breaks out into laughter. ‘Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.’ ‘So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?’

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. ‘I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.’

‘Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,’ the student continues. ‘Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?’ Now uncertain, the professor responds, ‘Of course, there is. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.’

To this the student replied, ‘Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.’

The professor sat down.

The student was Albert Einstein. I'm with Einstein.

Speaking of classroom polemics regarding the existence of God, here is an interesting variation on the same theme (from the movie Europa Europa:

What do you think?

 

[Sapiens]

In your professional opinion, which could not possibly be swayed by bias.....this might be the case Sapiens.

I have over 50 years of training in eschewing bias as well as an earned right to a professional opinion. You have what? A religious brainwashing?

My thought processes are quite logical to me and to a whole lot of other people whom you and your learned colleagues might probably consider to be uneducated morons.

If that is how you wish to describe yourself I will not argue.

I have great respect for learning

That runs counter to your earlier statements where you literally bragged about your ignorance. Where you lying then? Or are you lying now? Or have you changed your mind without telling us?)

.....I just have no time for big egos who claim things that cannot be proven. Isn't that what education is for? To learn the truth about things? Evolution is at best a suggestion....it has never been proved to be true.

Evolution is as proven as anything in science is (or for that matter can be). This has been shown to you repeatedly.

In fact there is no real evidence that it ever happened.

In fact there is plenty of evidence which has been shown to you, yet you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and run in circles shouting denials. It would be funny were it not so tragic.

I think that macro-evolution is more 'bizarre and unsupported' than anything I have presented.....if you were confident about my posts being untrue, then I doubt you would need to post against them so strongly....
Yet here you are again....

that says more about your confidence than your bluster and insults about my intelligence.

Your state of ignorance is self described, I am merely repeating your own claims vis-a-vis your abilities.

I know the argument itself is a logical fallacy. That does not make Deejee a liar.

Her first mention of if does not, but her subsequent mention, post-correction, does.

 

[Pudding]

Deeje is again reject to define "faith", "science", "preacher" and "preach" for the op in her understanding about those words.

I said "Maybe it means Deeje don't believe what the Bible say".
So far Deeje haven't showing any disagreement.
Deeje indeed don't believe what the Bible say.

Deeje have provided 0 source for the claims in the op that science say God doesn't exist, there is no evidence for God and the professor have no brain. It renders the op's story to be making bold empty claims about what science say. I wonder whether or not Deeje believe in those bold empty claims.

Sorry but I am having difficulty with your phrasing. I really don't understand what it is you are asking for.....

If you want to take apart the OP...I didn't write it. I just think the points are valid.

I'm discussing with you about the story in the op and asking your opinion or understanding about it.

You said the op is a great argument, i cannot understand why you would think so. Please explain why you think the op is a great argument and elaborate the great argument you're talking about.

Please elaborate the points which you think are valid.

 

[viole]

A knowledge of evil must have always existed because the first rebel was a spirit being who dwelt in heaven in the direct presence of God. They were all endowed with free will, or else satan could not have exercised his options in Eden. There was just no way to exercise it in a bad way in heaven.

With the creation of intelligent lesser beings on earth, this rebel saw an opportunity to gain by deception, what he had wanted all along.....worship. (Luke 4:5-7 for the benefit of those who might be interested.)

So, it is entirely possible that those stories about Jesus are just a smart deception of Satan. And that you pray for salvation to a deception created by the master of all deceptions in person. Honestly, I would have done the same, just for fun, if I were mean enough.

I mean, a God that goes from total extermination to sending His Son to die for us, well, sort of , in order to correct things, seems to not know exactly what to do, or to be a tad bipolar. And I assume that God always knows what to do, and is not bipolar, by definition.

But how would you know that you are not worshipping a deception, if you are a lesser being than Satan?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

No. She dismissed the names and characters and focused on what the argument actually is. That is an admission the story is false, but a desire to focus on what the argument of the story presents.

Only after the original deception was exposed.

As someone who did formerly believe the OP, this "I know this isn't true" doesn't exist. In many cases, such things are so heavily and frequently circulated, and when you combine that with how some churches filter and censor outside information, the flock is mislead, but when it's all they know they cannot be held guilty of a lie.

Agreed. That's why I said I think "cluelessly deluded" is a better term.

 

[Deeje]

I have over 50 years of training in eschewing bias as well as an earned right to a professional opinion. You have what? A religious brainwashing?

Is that your education speaking or your ego? Nice bit of chest beating there BTW. (Don't you know who I am? )

What if your own educators got it all wrong from the get go?....would you really know? You believe everything they tell you, but the evidence they present is not terribly convincing.....unless you need to believe it. Isn't that what you would say to me....?

I see people post articles on the science behind evolution and I see huge gaps filled in with nothing but suggestion. How much do science students take for granted when they have educators like you who present supposition as if it were proven fact. They don't question it....and they should. Their trust in the education system is misplaced IMO.

You don't even see the flaws at ground level, let alone what has been added over the last 100 years or so. If the foundation is shaky, nothing you build on it will stand.

That runs counter to your earlier statements where you literally bragged about your ignorance. Where you lying then? Or are you lying now? Or have you changed your mind without telling us?)

Can you see that many evolutionists use these tactics when addressing those who question their beliefs? It gets personal. Why are you angry? Are you afraid that people will see through the fraudulent reasoning? Many people are, thankfully.

And, what is with this calling me a liar every five minutes? That says way more about you than it does about me or other ID supporters.
It's not lying to tell someone an inconvenient truth.

I like being ignorant about the rubbish you are pushing. It isn't science to suggest that something is true but then not have any real evidence to back it up. The "evidence" presented for macro-evolution is interpreted to fit the theory. Fossils are made to say things they never uttered. You have not one single shred of proof that your theory is true....you just believe it is. How does that make you any different from me? You are taught by someone you trust and so am I. The real evidence fits ID better IMO, than it does for evolution. Can an amoeba transform into a dinosaur Sapiens?......you really believe that?

Evolution is as proven as anything in science is (or for that matter can be).

That doesn't say much for science then....does it.

This has been shown to you repeatedly.In fact there is plenty of evidence which has been shown to you, yet you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and run in circles shouting denials. It would be funny were it not so tragic.

You have presented only what scientists "think" "might have" happened. The phrases used by those who write the articles are hardly the language of fact. "Might have"...."could have"...."leads us to the conclusion".....or "we believe" that this or that took place, is not stating facts but opinions. All you have is opinions. You are welcome to believe them....I cannot.

Her first mention of if does not, but her subsequent mention, post-correction, does.

How do you ever correct someone who is never wrong?

 

[Deeje]

Only after the original deception was exposed.

"Deception exposed".....You are behaving like I just committed treason, rather than making a genuine mistake. But I liked the argument none the less, as I said when I acknowledged my error.

Agreed. That's why I said I think "cluelessly deluded" is a better term.

You have obviously never made a mistake.....how wonderful to be so perfect....but perhaps some caution is in order......the judgement you give is usually the one you get back.

I could use the same terminology on those who want to be "cluelessly deluded" about evolution. But I don't need to. You guys are doing an excellent job at shooting yourselves in the foot.

 

[Deeje]

What points and why?

All of them....because I believe that the arguments are valid. I have said this several times.

I'm struggling to find any sense spoken by either the professor or the student.

Your comprehension issues are not my problem.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm wondering if anyone else notices how often Deeje contradicts herself, even within the same post. For example....

How much do science students take for granted when they have educators like you who present supposition as if it were proven fact. They don't question it....and they should.

So she's complaining about people who "present supposition as if it were a proven fact".

But then in the same post....

You have presented only what scientists "think" "might have" happened. The phrases used by those who write the articles are hardly the language of fact. "Might have"...."could have"...."leads us to the conclusion".....or "we believe" that this or that took place, is not stating facts but opinions. All you have is opinions.

Now she's complaining about the opposite!

IOW, if scientists present their findings as "fact", Deeje will complain that they're deliberately misleading and overselling. But if scientists present their findings as tentative, she'll complain that it's all just "opinions".

You know.....it's almost like Deeje just says whatever she thinks works at that given moment, with no regard at all to what she's said before or will say later.

 

[Jose Fly]

"Deception exposed".....You are behaving like I just committed treason, rather than making a genuine mistake. But I liked the argument none the less, as I said when I acknowledged my error.

You have obviously never made a mistake.....how wonderful to be so perfect....but perhaps some caution is in order......the judgement you give is usually the one you get back.

Except this isn't the first time you've done this. And with your previous "mistakes", you never bothered to apologize for posting deceptive material (Comfort's video).

There's a pattern here. The only potentially saving thing for you is that it's a pattern extremely common among creationists.

 

[Sapiens]

Only after the original deception was exposed.

Agreed. That's why I said I think "cluelessly deluded" is a better term.

That's fine, I'll happily change my description to, "lying or cluelessly deluded."

Is that your education speaking or your ego?

(Don't you know who I am? )

No, I don't know who you are, do you know who you are?

What if your own educators got it all wrong from the get go?....would you really know? You believe everything they tell you, but the evidence they present is not terribly convincing.....unless you need to believe it. Isn't that what you would say to me....?

No it is not.

I see people post articles on the science behind evolution and I see huge gaps filled in with nothing but suggestion.

But yet you've yet to post a single example that stands on its own feet.

How much do science students take for granted when they have educators like you who present supposition as if it were proven fact. They don't question it....and they should. Their trust in the education system is misplaced IMO.

Since you have no idea of what is taught and how it is taught your comment is meaningless.

You don't even see the flaws at ground level, let alone what has been added over the last 100 years or so. If the foundation is shaky, nothing you build on it will stand.

"If." But that is a case you been able to make beyond the clueless delusion that causes you to claim, without evidence, that it is so.

Can you see that many evolutionists use these tactics when addressing those who question their beliefs? It gets personal. Why are you angry? Are you afraid that people will see through the fraudulent reasoning? Many people are, thankfully.

Personal? Hardly. Personal? So what? That is a question of suffering fools gladly, and I do not. In any case you are dead wrong and your claims are never supportable.

I like being ignorant about the rubbish you are pushing. It isn't science to suggest that something is true but then not have any real evidence to back it up.

It is far from rubbish, it is science, there is overwhelming evidence to support it. You have struggled in vain to make a case against it and failed repeatedly.

The "evidence" presented for macro-evolution is interpreted to fit the theory.

You seem to have gotten that backwards.

Fossils are made to say things they never uttered.

While that is not true, you should note that today the fossil record is irrelevant in the face of the immunological and genetic data.

You have not one single shred of proof that your theory is true....you just believe it is.

I will let Jerry Coyne answer that for me (I highly recommend his book, "Why Evolution Is True", to you:

Michael Egnor is a neurosurgeon at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. For the sake of his patients, one must hope that he understands the brain’s anatomy better than its provenance. In an article on this site, “A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist,” he claims that the theory of evolution is bogus.

After studying Darwinism, Egnor apparently discovered that “claims of evolutionary biologists go wildly beyond the evidence.” Indeed, he says, the only way complex biological systems such as biochemical pathways could have arisen is via direct divine intervention. Egnor concludes that “Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science”–”atheism’s creation myth.”

While Egnor’s misguided attack on evolution tells us nothing about the truth of Darwinism, it does prove one thing: Doctors aren’t necessarily scientists. Some, like Egnor, seem completely unable to evaluate evidence. Why does he so readily dismiss a theory that has been universally accepted by scientists for over a century?

Apparently because a rather old book, Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, first published in 1985, convinced him that evolutionary theory was underlain by very weak evidence. If Egnor had bothered to look just a little into Denton’s book and its current standing, he would have learned that the arguments in it have long since been firmly refuted by scientists. Indeed, they were recanted by Denton himself in a later book more than 10 years ago.

Since Egnor is decades out of date and shows no sign of knowing anything at all about evolutionary biology in the 21st century, one wonders what could have inspired his declaration at this time.

 

[Sapiens]

The tenets of evolutionary theory are simple: Life evolved, largely under the influence of natural selection; this evolution took a rather long time; and species alive and dead can be organized on the basis of shared similarities into a tree whose branching pattern implies that every pair of living species has a common ancestor.

Among genuine scientists, there is not the slightest doubt about the truth of these ideas. In contrast to Egnor’s claim, the evidence for all of them is not only strong but copious–so much so that evolution has graduated from a scientific theory to a scientific fact.

My recent book, Why Evolution Is True, gives 230 pages of evidence for evolution–evidence from many areas of biology, including the fossil record, anatomy, biogeography and molecular biology. My main problem in writing the book was not deciding what to present, but what to leave out; I could easily have made it three times longer without even beginning to exhaust the data. There is so much evidence and so many kinds of evidence that one would have to be either willfully ignorant or blinded by faith to think otherwise. (I leave it to the reader to judge to which category Egnor belongs.)

Let’s examine Egnor’s main criticism of evolutionary theory. “The fossil record,” he writes, “shows sharp discontinuity between species, not the gradual transitions that Darwinism inherently predicts.”

This is sheer nonsense. As all biologists know, we have many examples not only of gradual change within species but also of “transitional forms” between very different kinds of species. These include fossil links between fish and amphibians, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals and, of course, the famous fossils linking apelike creatures with our own species, Homo sapiens. Does Egnor not know this, or is he simply trying to mislead the reader?

Another specious claim is his assertion that “Darwin’s theory offers no coherent, evidence-based explanation for the evolution of even a single molecular pathway from primordial components.” Nonsense–even the complicated pathway of blood clotting (an example much favored by creationists) is the subject of coherent, evidenced-based explanations.

Egnor also declares that “intricate biomolecules such as enzymes are so functionally complex that it’s difficult to see how they could arise by random mutations.” He is right here: such complex adaptations could not have arisen under the power of random mutation alone.

What he seems to have forgotten is the process of natural selection, which filters those mutations, preserving the good ones and eliminating the bad ones. It is the combination of mutation and the selection filter that produces the extraordinary instances of adaptation we can document in nature. Bacteria, for example, evolved brand-new enzymes to break down nylon–an artificial polymer that was never encountered by bacteria before 1930.

How does Egnor account for the natural world? He does not, in fact, offer a scientific theory. Rather, he subscribes to the creationist view that complex things, which are difficult to explain, are the domain of God. If we don’t understand something, there’s no point trying to understand it–we should just throw up our hands and say, “God did it.”

Imagine what would have happened if, over the history of science, we imputed to God’s hand everything we didn’t understand. We would never have cured the plague, which–like most diseases and disasters–was once thought to reflect God’s anger rather than bacteria-carrying fleas. “Barrenness” in women was thought to reflect divine displeasure; it is now treated effectively by scientific means, not by propitiating the gods.

There are no observations in nature that refute Darwinism, but there are plenty that refute Egnor’s creationist alternative. How does he explain the persistence of “dead genes” in species (like our own broken one for making vitamin C)–genes that were functional in our ancestors? What explains those annoying hominin fossils that span the gap from early apelike creatures to modern humans? Why do human fetuses produce a coat of hair after six months in the womb, and then shed it before birth? Why didn’t the creator stock oceanic islands with mammals, reptiles and amphibians? Why did He give us vestigial ear muscles that have no function? Why do whales occasionally sprout hind legs? Did God design all creatures to fool us into thinking that they evolved?

The good news is that Egnor is just one benighted physician. Far more disturbing is Forbes’ ham-handed policy of “balancing” the views of evolutionists by giving a say to Egnor and four other creationists. (Their articles, found here, are at least as misleading as Egnor’s.) Perhaps Forbes sees Darwinism as “controversial.” But it’s not, at least not in a scientific sense. Scientifically, evolution is a settled issue–a fact.

The only “controversy” is social and political: Will Americans, in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, be allowed to impose a false, religiously based view of biology in the public schools? This “teach the controversy” approach, so popular among fundamentalists, ill suits a publication with the gravitas of Forbes.

Can we expect that it will balance stories on medicine with the competing views of shamans, Christian Scientists and spiritual healers? Will articles on the Holocaust be rebutted by the many Holocaust deniers? When the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing rolls around this July, will Forbes give a say to paranoids who think the landing was a fraud, staged on a movie lot?

This, in effect, is what Forbes has done by giving equal time to evolution-deniers. Journalists have an obligation to be fair, but this doesn’t mean that they must give charlatans a prestigious platform from which to broadcast their lies. By doing so, Forbes has debased both journalism and science.

How does that make you any different from me? You are taught by someone you trust and so am I. The real evidence fits ID better IMO, than it does for evolution.

How would you know?

You have presented only what scientists "think" "might have" happened. The phrases used by those who write the articles are hardly the language of fact. "Might have"...."could have"...."leads us to the conclusion".....or "we believe" that this or that took place, is not stating facts but opinions. All you have is opinions. You are welcome to believe them....I cannot.

That is, as has been repeatedly explained to you, not the language of indecision, but rather or politeness.

How do you ever correct someone who is never wrong?

You are the only one making that claim.

 

[Deeje]

So she's complaining about people who "present supposition as if it were a proven fact".

IOW, if scientists present their findings as "fact", Deeje will complain that they're deliberately misleading and overselling. But if scientists present their findings as tentative, she'll complain that it's all just "opinions".

Yes indeed. It's a real rock and a hard place for science, isn't it?
They want so much to be able to call macro-evolution a fact, but that would be a big fat lie, so they have to tell the truth and say it's tentative....it's the truth at this moment....it might not be 10 minutes from now.

Are real facts alterable? Can you call something a fact, just because you believe it is? I call it faith. Funny but that is what I base my beliefs on too.

If you have ever read a thing I have posted (that wasn't taken as a shot to your ego,) you would know that I have always taken the position that my beliefs are just as "provable" as yours......IOW, neither of us can produce actual "proof" that what we believe is true. We both take our beliefs on faith, though scientists protest that it isn't the case....we all know it is.

You cannot "prove" that evolution ever took place.....you assume that it must have because you deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer, even though creation itself testifies to his existence. You have simply chosen a different belief system.....but none of you can admit it. Your "overwhelming" evidence, upon close examination, is nothing of the sort.

 

[Deeje]

Except this isn't the first time you've done this. And with your previous "mistakes", you never bothered to apologize for posting deceptive material (Comfort's video).

I actually watched the video that supposedly refuted Mr Comforts video. It was a joke. I found the students more than the professors to be completely brainwashed about evolution....none of them had a clue how to prove it.....the professors had no answers either. You can complain all you want, I think he showed science up to be what it has become.....a fraud factory where the teachers are as clueless as the students. You've all swallowed the concept hook line and sinker, and there is no one going to tell you any different....that's OK, it's your choice.

But should I ask you the same question as he asked them?

Please answer with real evidence for macro-evolution that does not require faith or belief.

There's a pattern here. The only potentially saving thing for you is that it's a pattern extremely common among creationists.

You mean us poor deluded souls who can't quite grasp the concept of amoebas turning into dinosaurs and anything else you can name? Silly us.

Your fantasy is way sillier than ours IMO. You say science requires intelligence to understand the natural world, yet the processes you need brains to study were not guided by any intelligence at all.....

Science can intelligently copy nature, but the ingenuity that they are copying didn't need an intelligent mind to invent it. Go figure.

My logic is obviously way different to yours.

 

[Pudding]

All of them....because I believe that the arguments are valid. I have said this several times.

What points and why?

I just think the points are valid.

Deeje thinks all the points are valid, because she believes that the arguments are valid.

Why do she believes that the arguments are valid?
She probably will answer that is because she think all the points are valid.

All the points are valid because the arguments are valid.
The arguments are valid because all the points are valid.

That is circular reasoning.

When asking Deeje why she thinks the arguments/points are valid, she cannot explain why nor elaborate how the details of the arguments/points is valid.

 

[Deeje]

The tenets of evolutionary theory are simple: Life evolved, largely under the influence of natural selection; this evolution took a rather long time; and species alive and dead can be organized on the basis of shared similarities into a tree whose branching pattern implies that every pair of living species has a common ancestor.

I notice that Jerry Coyne, (in his video of the same name linked below) referred to "shared sililarities" quite a bit as "evidence" that one species evolved into another. When does "similarity" mean relationship? There are many 'similar' creatures in the world who aren't related. Relationship is therefore "implied", not proven....but you would never know it.

He referrs to the 'similarity' of ear bone structure as "evidence" that whales evolved from land animals. It's hard to watch a video like this without cringing. You see him constantly leading his audience, which I assume are students, by suggesting that evolution is fact, but repeating that creation is only for "dumb" people.
Perception management much?

It is also interesting to see that in his presentation Coyne admits that only 16% of Americans accept evolution. 40% believe that God created everything and 38% believed that God guided evolution.

So how many evolutionists in the US actually accept evolution with no intelligent direction whatsoever? The stats do not indicate that there are many at all. So what percentage of the population in the US are scientists then? These figures are interesting to say the least.
It is far from accepted and Coyne suggests that Americans are basically "dumb". Not a nice assertion to make about his own nation. Makes me wonder why they don't all desert that country full of "dumb" creationists?

Among genuine scientists, there is not the slightest doubt about the truth of these ideas. In contrast to Egnor’s claim, the evidence for all of them is not only strong but copious–so much so that evolution has graduated from a scientific theory to a scientific fact.

Not even close, except in the minds of those who want to believe it. What is a "genuine scientist" after all? Who wants to be relegated to the ranks of those disagree with "genuine scientists"?

He is leading his audience again....but not with facts....only by asserting that you have to be brainless to accept ID and reject all the supposition put up by the likes of Jerry Coyne. He might be your idol, but he is certainly not mine.

There is nothing more than conjecture to back up anything he says.
"Branching" is not supported by real evidence. "Similarities" in structure prove nothing. "Divergence" cannot be seen except within a species as adaptation, only adding variety to a species. "Embryology" again points to similarities and suggestions, but nothing more substantial than assertion is presented as fact. This is pure deception. A con job....and you think we are easily fooled!

It is clear to me that egos drive science, not truth or facts.

The power of suggestion, made by a good salesman (especially someone with celebrity status in academia) is worth its weight in gold....ask any advertising agency.

Is this really the best you can do?.....sorry, not impressed.