Testicles proves intelligent design not very intelligent (Buddhism, believer, heaven)

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Oh I'm sure you know exactly what I've meant. The bottom line is you have no conclusive proof that we evolved from primates. Period. OTOH, there is plenty of evidence to support the supernatural. And if the supernatural is possible then you have to allow for the possibility that God exists.

You keep making the assertion there is proof about God. In fact you promised us you would post 100 proofs.

another Christian broken promise?

[bulmabriefs144]

I have made at least 1 proof. I dunno about 100. But moot point. It is sufficient to prove that something exists beyond the empirical.

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by cupper3

You keep making the assertion there is proof about God. In fact you promised us you would post 100 proofs.

another Christian broken promise?

I never promised you 100 proofs. I said I would be glad to present them once you demonstrate that you can fairly examine them with an open mind and unbiased attitude. When I presented the James Bond story a few weeks ago, it was rejected immediately, didn't phase you people one bit. That shows me that any evidence I bring to the table no matter how remarkable will be cast aside.

You don't want evidence. You just want me to post evidence so you can shoot it down.

[bornincali]

Eusie: your single cell to man is dumb. As if we are the pinnacle of evolution. The fact that that does not occur is additional proof positive for the theory. I could give evidence for the basic transitions needed to get from a cell to a human. But to expect it to happen again is stu.

If evolution is stone age, please give up a vast amount of modern medical understanding of disease. Please do not eat any crops or livestock. Please stop purchasing fish from managed fisheries. The practical applications ofbthis theory are immense. It is the grand unifying theory of biology.

Evolution could be disproven if any of the following could be shown to be false.
-that no genetic mutations are beneficial
-that organisms do not vary
-that selection does not produce differences in genetic frequencies

All these are inequivocably true. The only possible contention is the details of how it occured, not whether things evolve.

Go jump off a cliff and maybe gravity will suddenly be disproven. To suggest evolution will be is just S ridiculous.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

I never promised you 100 proofs. I said I would be glad to present them once you demonstrate that you can fairly examine them with an open mind and unbiased attitude.

No. You said you would post them.

You later hedged on that when people were disagreeing with you. Then you changed your mind and said you would post them only when people had an open mind. Which means you will only post them on your own terms.

If you insist people do things on your on terms in real life..... I can't imagine many people go along with that.

If you have evidence...post it. If people pick it apart.....the evidence isn't very strong. If your evidence is solid...you should have confidence enough to post it.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

I never promised you 100 proofs. I said I would be glad to present them once you demonstrate that you can fairly examine them with an open mind and unbiased attitude. When I presented the James Bond story a few weeks ago, it was rejected immediately, didn't phase you people one bit. That shows me that any evidence I bring to the table no matter how remarkable will be cast aside.

You don't want evidence. You just want me to post evidence so you can shoot it down.

Jeff, part of the problem is that there are different understandings of what did term evidence means.

Perhaps it would be best if I start a new thread, which I ask you to come into, that deals with that issue. If two people or two groups can agree on what a word means, and implies, then perhaps a cogent discussion can be held.

There you go. This might be an interesting discussion.


What constitutes 'Evidence': is it different for science and religion?

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by DewDropInn

No. You said you would post them.

You later hedged on that when people were disagreeing with you. Then you changed your mind and said you would post them only when people had an open mind. Which means you will only post them on your own terms.

If you insist people do things on your on terms in real life..... I can't imagine many people go along with that.

If you have evidence...post it. If people pick it apart.....the evidence isn't very strong. If your evidence is solid...you should have confidence enough to post it.

I never said I would post them. I am quite confident in my evidence and also intelligent enough to know it would be a waste of time here.

[Snowball7]

Originally Posted by cupper3

You keep making the assertion there is proof about God. In fact you promised us you would post 100 proofs.

another Christian broken promise?

Do you really want that ? I doubt it.
Give me your first name and state of residence and it will happen.

[303Guy]

Thing is, we keep asking for proof and we keep getting told we need to prove our stand point then when we do, we get told to prove something else of we get shouted down. Proof of God or proof of creation does not lie in shouting louder or making false science claims or simply denial of science.

To me, creation is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof. But just some small proof or evidence would go a long way.

I'm afraid to say but quotations from an old book that has been translated and changed a number of times and was in any case written a few thousand years after the alleged event, just doesn't pass as evidence or proof.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Snowball7

Do you really want that ? I doubt it.
Give me your first name and state of residence and it will happen.

Why the conditions? Either you are an honest broker or you are not. Seeing your Christian, it is apparent what the real answer is.