Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Thief]

Spirit is substance.



You aren't the beginning. You are the confusing continuation.

continuation happens after your last breath

 

[Darkstorn]

continuation happens after your last breath

Empty unsubstantiated claim.

So much for not being shallow?

 

[Thief]

Empty unsubstantiated claim.

So much for not being shallow?

as much as your grave.....

 

[Darkstorn]

as much as your grave.....

If your job is to try and act mysterious, you are being successful.

It's still a mystery to me what you're trying to do. To what end do you format your text as if it was poetics? It doesn't make you seem deep at all.

 

[Thief]

If your job is to try and act mysterious, you are being successful.

It's still a mystery to me what you're trying to do.

I'm not trying anything

you have stated.....spirit is substance
therefore....you will follow your substance into the box and the box into the grave

 

[Darkstorn]

I'm not trying anything

Okay, you are entirely successful at evading sense. You're not trying, you're doing. Yes?

you have stated.....spirit is substance

Only because you asked. Why did you even ask it? Is everything a dualism to you? One or the other?

therefore....you will follow your substance into the box and the box into the grave

Where does your spirit-substance go then? Better yet, don't answer. You're trying to derail the thread and make it into about you and your silly "Spirit or Substance" question.

But the question is silly and inane. Have you showed that there's a spirit? Because the substance has been shown. You skipped a part and assumed a premise, then formed your stance on that. Weak show, and intellectually dishonest.

It is not logical to assume that your premise is true "just because". Therefore your argument is inane and weak. You haven't shown spirit.

I propose you change your "rogue theologian" title to "broken record". You are giving you way too much credit to yourself when you define yourself as theologian.

 

[Thief]

Okay, you are entirely successful at evading sense. You're not trying, you're doing. Yes?



Only because you asked. Why did you even ask it? Is everything a dualism to you? One or the other?



Where does your spirit-substance go then? Better yet, don't answer. You're trying to derail the thread and make it into about you and your silly "Spirit or Substance" question.

But the question is silly and inane. Have you showed that there's a spirit? Because the substance has been shown. You skipped a part and assumed a premise, then formed your stance on that. Weak show, and intellectually dishonest.

It is not logical to assume that your premise is true "just because". Therefore your argument is inane and weak. You haven't shown spirit.

the evidence for creation is......you

and the 7billion copies of a learning device we call Man

no one survives the last breath?.....not one chance in billions?

and you would insist my reasoning is shallow?

 

[Darkstorn]

the evidence for creation is......you

That doesn't by definition count as evidence. Therefore your premise is still weak.

and the 7billion copies of a learning device we call Man

No, you WANT it to be evidence. But you haven't shown that it is. Until you can, it is not evidence.

no one survives the last breath?.....not one chance in billions?

I never made outlandish absolute statements like that. You did. I make no claims about even your first breath. There's no guarantees as to what happens after knowledge's end. You seem to think you know for certain what happens after last breath.

How did you come to this information? Certainly not through evidence as that would be impossible.

and you would insist my reasoning is shallow?

Especially now after your last post. You make almost no logical sense whatsoever. You are shallow, to the core.

/E: You are literally making the claim that your subjective assessment of reality around you, is evidence for your claims. It's not. It's evidence for the fact that you are a biased observer, and it's a damn big stretch to imagine it anything close to compelling evidence for your case. It's the opposite.

 

[Thief]

That doesn't by definition count as evidence. Therefore your premise is still weak.




No, you WANT it to be evidence. But you haven't shown that it is. Until you can, it is not evidence.



I never made outlandish absolute statements like that. You did. I make no claims about even your first breath. There's no guarantees as to what happens after knowledge's end. You seem to think you know for certain what happens after last breath.

How did you come to this information? Certainly not through evidence as that would be impossible.



Especially now after your last post. You make almost no logical sense whatsoever. You are shallow, to the core.

/E: You are literally making the claim that your subjective assessment of reality around you, is evidence for your claims. It's not. It's evidence for the fact that you are a biased observer, and it's a damn big stretch to imagine it anything close to compelling evidence for your case. It's the opposite.

and your stance leads to a grave
leaving Man as a mystery upon this earth.....with no purpose or resolve

no one will miss you

 

[Darkstorn]

and your stance leads to a grave

Empty threats.

leaving Man as a mystery upon this earth.....with no purpose or resolve

Sounds embellished. Most likely you just don't understand reality around you.

And just because i manage to argue your points to the ground doesn't mean i'm an Atheist Darwinist. You are assuming that those who would dare to speak against the high and mighty Thief MUST be godless unbelievers.

Well, i'm Buddhist.

no one will miss you

That's a lie. And bordering on being rude.

You couldn't defend your argument, you attack my person. Good luck with that.

 

[Thief]

Empty threats.



Sounds embellished. Most likely you just don't understand reality around you.

And just because i manage to argue your points to the ground doesn't mean i'm an Atheist Darwinist. You are assuming that those who would dare to speak against the high and mighty Thief MUST be godless unbelievers.

Well, i'm Buddhist.



That's a lie. And bordering on being rude.

You couldn't defend your argument, you attack my person. Good luck with that.

as soon as your associates join you in the grave....it's all over

it's not personal

it's cause and effect

 

[Darkstorn]

as soon as your associates join you in the grave....it's all over

Nice to see you think so highly of yourself. Talk about shallow. Why are you even arguing if you're not prepared to argue the argument? You just go straight to attacking others' beliefs. Now you're threatening me with your god's wrath.

it's not personal

it's cause and effect

If it's not personal, then how does this relate to the argument?

Because it sure as hell seems that you're now attacking me because of my beliefs, and ignoring the argument...

Basically, your last post is one of those "lots of text, way too short on content" type of things. And it's not even that much text. But the message is empty and done with malice in mind. You are not righteous. You're a hypocrite.

 

[Thief]

Nice to see you think so highly of yourself. Talk about shallow. Why are you even arguing if you're not prepared to argue the argument? You just go straight to attacking others' beliefs. Now you're threatening me with your god's wrath.



If it's not personal, then how does this relate to the argument?

Because it sure as hell seems that you're now attacking me because of my beliefs, and ignoring the argument...

Basically, your last post is one of those "lots of text, way too short on content" type of things. And it's not even that much text. But the message is empty and done with malice in mind. You are not righteous. You're a hypocrite.

there is no wrath here.....

if you don't believe in life after death
then there won't be any

I on the other hand, believe in continuance

 

[Darkstorn]

I on the other hand, believe in continuance

You are welcome to. The problem is, you're doing more. You're here arguing for it. Not very well.

You make claims about my future, as if they were certainties. That's more than just talking about your beliefs. You are arguing for your position, and you have also attacked my position. Here you try to backpedal and make it seem like it's just your belief.

But you treated your belief as if it was certain fact in a debate. You made assumptions about me, and said what WILL happen. Not what might happen.

TLDR: This is a debate forum, you're in a debate arguing. Your last few posts have been nothing except telling me what will happen because of my beliefs. You are attacking my beliefs. You're still being hypocritical, and you're still doing it.

 

[Sapiens]

you might want to narrow that down a bit

or maybe rephrase altogether

how many times do people make denial?......for lack of something in front of their noses

as if they can't see much further
or can't fill in the blanks

Then I must ask you for a third time: The real question is how many times has science effectively falsified a claim of religion and how many times has religion effectively falsified a claim of science?

You will find that the answer is that science has effectively falsified a claim of religion many, many times ... but religion has never effectively falsified a claim of science. Since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior it is only reasonable to expect religion to wither and science to grow, just as has been observed.

 

[leibowde84]

you might want to narrow that down a bit

or maybe rephrase altogether

how many times do people make denial?......for lack of something in front of their noses

as if they can't see much further
or can't fill in the blanks

That is not the question he asked you. Can you answer his question, or no?

 

[leibowde84]

there is no wrath here.....

if you don't believe in life after death
then there won't be any

I on the other hand, believe in continuance

The argument that common sense is the proof for God is just about the most pathetic of all. Honestly it is nothing more than a vain attempt to insult the intelligence of those who do not believe in God or creationism. Sad part is, it says more about the one using it as an argument. As, obviously, it isn't an actual argument, and, thus, has no merit.

 

[Thief]

The argument that common sense is the proof for God is just about the most pathetic of all. Honestly it is nothing more than a vain attempt to insult the intelligence of those who do not believe in God or creationism. Sad part is, it says more about the one using it as an argument. As, obviously, it isn't an actual argument, and, thus, has no merit.

honestly.....when it comes to God all you can do is think about it

and my line of reasoning is sound
and will not be adjusted to questions

so....anyone else headed to the grave?.....without continuance

 

[Thief]

how many times do people look up and fail to apply cause and effect?

how many times do people assume they are their own creation?

 

[Darkstorn]

how many times do people assume they are their own creation?

How many times do you assume that they are not?

Your selective ignorance masked in supposedly artistic and poetic trappings is getting funnier the more you try.

and my line of reasoning is sound
and will not be adjusted to questions

Your reasoning isn't sound if you can't find a single person who thinks your argument is logical... And it's not. You just assert something, and then tell everyone that your line of thought is beyond questioning.