Sharpshooter Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 As sure as you are about common ancestry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Does your mom love you? Does your wife? Do you love your friends? Do you have any empirical evidence for that? Say your wife or children or friends are mad at you. Do they not love you in that moment of time because of lack of empirical evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Are you aware of the definition of 'extraordinary'? If the existence of one being in the entire universe, that made the universe, isn't beyond the usual beings of the universe.....then who would be? Silly illogical theist. And it's been shown that the universe didn't necessarily require a creator to start or to evolve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I should certainly hope so. Their actions (and my actions towards my friends) is empirical evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 So a video titled - Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children doesn't come with any negative connotations to you? Then you sir are not only uninformed but also very calloused hearted and cynical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I wish I was still 30. And compared to you....i'm Albert freaking Einstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I agree, creationism isn't appropriate for children. I don't see a negative connotation in that anymore than I don't see any negative about considering it inappropriate to teach children that the moon is made of blue cheese, as an alternate version of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 What is more extraordinary - to think that an author of a book wrote it, or that by random chance a book with words in it randomly appeared out of thin air? The term extraordinary is reached by Atheists because they cannot accept God exists, therefore anything that cannot be explainable to atheists must be extraordinary. Check this out - I believe God exists, and so since God can do anything, nothing is extraordinary to God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 What if your mom is mad at you and doesn't exemplify those typical evidences of love? Does that mean she hates you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Sharpshooter, I'm still waiting on how you believe in the theory of evolution. Can you reproduce the notion of survival of the fittest and show any empirical evidence that micro-evolution on a near limitless scale leads to macro evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I accept your belief in God....that's not extraordinary....in fact, that's very ordinary. However, claiming that a being called 'God' who made the entire universe is somehow not a extraordinary being is inane and illogical because of the very definition of the word 'extraordinary'. And to your first question....is a book a natural object, like say the universe is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 In that moment, yes (more accurate to say she is mad at me). Generally, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Sharpshooter, I'm still waiting on how you believe in the theory of evolution. Can you reproduce the notion of survival of the fittest and show any empirical evidence that micro-evolution on a near limitless scale leads to macro evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 So you lack empirical evidence on weather you mom loves you. Let me tell you, that your mom loves you even if she is mad at you. Love transcends all empirical evidence and reason. Ever heard of a mom describe her love for her children? She can't. It isn't something that you can do justice with words OR evidence. When it comes to emotional, spiritual and philosophical matters, empirical evidence goes out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Define "microevolution" and "macroevolution" first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 if einstein were a bitter old man who argues about news articles with google.com at his side, 7 hours of the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Nope, I don't think you realize what empirical evidence means...it's evidence from observation or experience. If you can't observe a parent's love for a child, then it isn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Youtube it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Well, you can't expect someone to prove undefined terms. Creationists love to change the goalposts when it comes to the definitions of those words, so any proof is useless unless you clarify what it is you're referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 First of all it's such a misnomer to think religion = God Science can prove religion. My eyes can see a church and I can record for you a church service. Man made systems of worship is religion, not God. What a dumb thing to say.. that science cannot prove religion. What it means to say, is that science cannot prove God. Well duh. A 6 year old child can tell you that. You can't measure God with a ruler. You can't reproduce God over and over again by any human means. You can't conjure up God like rubbing a little bottle. Is this so new? If Atheist solely put their doubt in a lack of empirical evidence, then that is truly ignorant. Almost like declaring your wife doesn't love you because she doesn't buy you LCD TVs every anniversary. You need empirical evidence for everything? Silly Atheists. Extraodinary claims need extraordinary evidence? It isn't extraordinary to claim that God exists. It's in fact more reasonable to think matter and all things of existence required a maker rather than thinking we are all here by chance. The decaying universe points to one source. A God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.