The Language of God

ib1yysguy said:
suicide.png
Click to expand...

You'll probably miss.
You really should suck on it.
It's obvious that it's something you've practiced.
 
ib1yysguy said:
It says or. That means it can have aim, it can have reason, or it can have pattern. It doesn't have to have aim, reason, AND pattern. It can have one, and in this case it has pattern.

This is precisely why you fail the logic test. You can't read a definition without skewing it in your head to say the exact opposite of what it says. It says OR, which makes you 100 percent wrong.

Not to mention, it's totally douchy to pull up dictionary definitions then try to manipulate them to mean something they don't.

You even go on to continue to misrepeat the definition.



You are the most dishonest person I've ever encountered. You're not even ashamed to do it. It's incredible.
Click to expand...


LOL... I am dishonest???? You are debating what the fucking meaning of "AND" and "OR" have in a statement! You have apparently reduced your argument to this, because you couldn't argue the original point any further, so it became imperative to create a diversion!

Why are we arguing over this anyway? We both AGREE! Randomness is not responsible for the origin of life. It doesn't matter what IS, we both agree it's NOT random! The debate seems to be, if something is not random, what does that make it? From my perspective it is illogical to conclude it is anything other than planned, patterned, and with reason and aim, otherwise it would be RANDOM! From your perspective, being with reason, aim and pattern, doesn't mean it was planned or organized that way.... but nothing else in our universe of reality suggests that is possible or plausible. As I challenged earlier... give me a list of things that have reason and aim, that weren't planned, organized or designed to have reason and aim? Go for it!
 
Retarded. You twisted a definition to say something it didn't say, I called you on it, then you claimed that my argument was reduced to calling you on lying about a definition. Unbelievable.

What you see as "illogical" doesn't matter because we, the not retarded community, know better than you do. You have done nothing to show how natural selection needs any design to function, other than to say it's illogical to conclude that it can work by itself.

You are seriously retarded. And your question is totally without relevance to the argument about natural selection. Natural selection doesn't have an aim or a reason. It exists without these things, just like the universe does.
 
Dixie said:
Well you can call me all the names you like, you just can't refute what I said. That's good enough for me... thanks for playing, come again soon!
Click to expand...

There's nothing left to refute. All you've got is a definition that doesn't help you unless you lie about what it says and your unfounded statement that reality is "illogical."
 
Dixie said:
LOL... I am dishonest???? You are debating what the fucking meaning of "AND" and "OR" have in a statement! You have apparently reduced your argument to this, because you couldn't argue the original point any further, so it became imperative to create a diversion!

Why are we arguing over this anyway? We both AGREE! Randomness is not responsible for the origin of life. It doesn't matter what IS, we both agree it's NOT random! The debate seems to be, if something is not random, what does that make it? From my perspective it is illogical to conclude it is anything other than planned, patterned, and with reason and aim, otherwise it would be RANDOM! From your perspective, being with reason, aim and pattern, doesn't mean it was planned or organized that way.... but nothing else in our universe of reality suggests that is possible or plausible. As I challenged earlier... give me a list of things that have reason and aim, that weren't planned, organized or designed to have reason and aim? Go for it!
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a time when someone argued what the meaning of "IS" is!!
 
Dixie said:
I never stated "reality is illogical" ...why do you lie that way?
Click to expand...

Clearly, natural selection is real and functions without supernatural intervention every day. The fact that you are thrice divorced is natural selection at work. The fact that you wrecked your mustang is natural selection at work, though it's too bad for the rest of humanity you didn't die. There doesn't need to be any supernatural intervention for natural selection to occur. That is reality. You continue to claim it's illogical. Realty = illogical in Dixieland. So be it. You're a total waste of energy.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Clearly, natural selection is real and functions without supernatural intervention every day. The fact that you are thrice divorced is natural selection at work. The fact that you wrecked your mustang is natural selection at work, though it's too bad for the rest of humanity you didn't die. There doesn't need to be any supernatural intervention for natural selection to occur. That is reality. You continue to claim it's illogical. Realty = illogical in Dixieland. So be it. You're a total waste of energy.
Click to expand...

Thrice divorced? Wrecked my Mustang? Where do you get this stupid shit?

Natural selection has never been proven not to have 'supernatural intervention', that is an assumption you are making, and you have no real basis for drawing such a conclusion. Indeed, for natural selection to occur, it requires aim and reason, otherwise it would be random. We've established that much as logical fact. You continue to want to maintain the origin of the universe and life in general, has no reason or aim, it just happened. Like I said, that defies logic and everything we understand about reality.

From a purely philosophical standpoint, no there doesn't "NEED" to be a reason, but if something happens without reason, it is by definition, random. So which is it? Did the universe and life come into existence through random chance, or with reason, aim, and pattern?
 
Since you can't prove a negative, you're asking for the impossible. What you need to do is prove the affirmative, which cannot be done because you will never ever witness the suspension of the natural order (which is the definition of supernatural intervention). When you do, let the scientific community know 'cause they'll be very interested.

And no, the definition of "random" doesn't mean it has to have a reason if it's not random. That's where your intentional misreading of the definition becomes a problem.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Since you can't prove a negative, you're asking for the impossible. What you need to do is prove the affirmative, which cannot be done because you will never ever witness the suspension of the natural order (which is the definition of supernatural intervention). When you do, let the scientific community know 'cause they'll be very interested.

And no, the definition of "random" doesn't mean it has to have a reason if it's not random. That's where your intentional misreading of the definition becomes a problem.
Click to expand...

So you're admitting that you can't prove you scored 100%, on the test; because you didn't and that would be a negative.

Thanks for showing that not only are you a dumbass, but a liar also.

:lmao:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So you're admitting that you can't prove you scored 100%, on the test; because you didn't and that would be a negative.

Thanks for showing that not only are you a dumbass, but a liar also.

:lmao:
Click to expand...

You're in the wrong thread. I wasn't talking about the test, retard.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Since you can't prove a negative, you're asking for the impossible. What you need to do is prove the affirmative, which cannot be done because you will never ever witness the suspension of the natural order (which is the definition of supernatural intervention). When you do, let the scientific community know 'cause they'll be very interested.

And no, the definition of "random" doesn't mean it has to have a reason if it's not random. That's where your intentional misreading of the definition becomes a problem.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one making a conclusion which requires proof. YOU ARE! I have already stated, I don't know the answer! I am not making a claim that God created the heavens and the earth, I don't know what did it. I do know, that things with reason, aim, AND/OR pattern, are not "random" because I have a dictionary of English words which defines "random" very precisely. In light of the fact that we BOTH agree, natural selection and evolution are NOT random, I have challenged you to answer a perfectly legitimate question... if it's NOT random, what IS it? Of course, the dictionary would have me believe, if it is NOT random, it must be patterned, AND/OR with reason and aim, but you contend the universe doesn't have to have reason or aim, which would make it RANDOM!
 
Dixie said:
I'm not the one making a conclusion which requires proof. YOU ARE! I have already stated, I don't know the answer! I am not making a claim that God created the heavens and the earth, I don't know what did it. I do know, that things with reason, aim, AND/OR pattern, are not "random" because I have a dictionary of English words which defines "random" very precisely. In light of the fact that we BOTH agree, natural selection and evolution are NOT random, I have challenged you to answer a perfectly legitimate question... if it's NOT random, what IS it? Of course, the dictionary would have me believe, if it is NOT random, it must be patterned, AND/OR with reason and aim, but you contend the universe doesn't have to have reason or aim, which would make it RANDOM!
Click to expand...

Yes, run away. You're cornered, so it's time to run away from your claim and pretend you didn't make it.

You are claiming that natural selection can't exist without supernatural intervention-- a designer. That's a scientific claim that can be tested and proven. You will never do it, but go ahead and try.

Natural selection is observable, well documented, and if you need someone to teach you all about it that's not my job. You're welcome to go examine the preponderance of evidence on your own. Your claim is that it has to have a designer. This claim is scientific, so it can be tested.

I will not sit here and claim, as you lie and say I do, that there IS no designer. I will say, however, there is no evidence for him or her and no need for him or her since the process works in his absence. You sit here and say that there has to be one because it's illogical otherwise. You are making all sorts of claims and you failed to back up any of them.

When you feel like doing so, this conversation will continue. Until then, peace.
 
One small point of contention:

I need to point out your continual use of shifting language to mask your arguments. You cannot continue to do this. I said evolution is not random. Then you twist it around and say that I claim the universe is not random. This is not at all what I said. Evolution ≠ the universe. AND does not mean the same thing as OR, and it makes your entire argument fall apart.

Please stop being dishonest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top