Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 374. (Read 845654 times)

I put it to you that you are unable to fully comprehend and distill the article.

I did read the article, his main argument (it was very boring to pick through Pyes' garbage padding) is that there are unexplainable gaps in the development of farming/domestication, a few posts back I explained in my own words how those gaps could be naturally filled without having to resort to spirituality or other such nonsense.

Read that post and argue against it...

Not interested in that. More interested in this:


Debates should use the Socratic Method.

If it is truth, it does not matter the source; why do you try to get me to re-hash the truth for you? For the truth, you go to the source, not to me.

On the AECES site, you can see the salient points (explicitly identified) for the Eisenbeiss case. The headings can suffice as points for the Pye article.

I will not distill anything for you, because it is all right there; enjoy.

Any proof of that, BADecker? Proof that the Bible is the WORD?

When will you expose my truth as a fraud or a joke?

I have already told you that the Bible has nothing to do with God; it was written by men.

Interesting question. Let's see what comes back.
 

Fair enough, thread finished, superstar says he exists, he has the proof! (can't be bothered writing it though).

Note the "he"... so we can all be pretty certain god has cock and balls, just like many of us, he must be a chronic fapper unless there's a mrs god also. Yes that'll be it mr and mrs god, I hear they plan on resurfacing their driveway in spring, a thouroughly nice couple.

I have instances of both - exist and not exist but fairly yes he does , i am not in mood to write the whole proof, but yeah he is !!

Decksperiment, I have a simple question.

Do you burden the same quality of proof that oYo and I are the same person, as you do that your god exists?

Again, I will restate, please distill any salient points, let's take them one at a time, no need to rush. Bring forth your argument to the table, let an orderly debate commence, it is you who called for it.

If I require a link I will ask.

EDIT: let's not either of us consider ourselves students or teachers, let's have a debate... mmmkay.

I will address an article penned by your good self.

If you want a link war then I'm not the droid you are looking for.  If you want a dick waving competition then at least have the good manners to wave your own dick around instead of some other mans.

But really... all that you think is "true" is a subjective opinion based on your perceptions, that's 101 philosophy.

For example, just let's say that tomorrow everyone had a small popup appear in their vision that read:

"you are in a simulation"

You would probably start to change your opinion of what you consider "real" pretty quickly.

I'm not saying this will happen, just as you can't say (with absolute 100% certainty) that it won't.

So we all have opinions and we are all ignorant of some things, I will be ignorant of subjects you may be well versed in and vise verse.

I await your debate.

All you need to do is apply all the negatives that you say about the Bible to anything that you present, and then things come to an even ground. You can do this because your stuff comes from questionable sources, way more than the Bible does. Once on even ground, the Bible has way more evidence than anything that you preach.

And before that there was Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee) in Ian Fleming's The Man with the Golden Gun, along with James Bond (Roger Moore) who donned an extra tit temporarily, just to make his way through the bad guys' world.

I am happy to post the truth here (in full) and let truth-seekers investigate for themselves.

Students have to ask good questions, teachers only need to show the path.

You may debate with me but I prefer that you ask good questions and read it ALL so that you can judge in wisdom of knowledge.

In comes cooldgamer with... ignorance


The whale.to site is controversial, that is for sure.

You can read Pye's article elsewhere, like here.

There are many points in that article; you would do well to address all of them if you want a well-substantiated opinion. Of course, you are free to speculate, but don't try to pass that off as "the full truth". Speak for yourself. Opinions and ignorance is all that YOU have...

Do you realize who you're citing as a credible source?  This guy is a fucking lunatic, not even going to bother reading that wall of text.  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lloyd_Pye

I got a WOT warning just trying to go to that site, that says something

But I'm the truth bearer!

I am happy to debate with you BlackJaguar, but you only need to post links if I ask you for them, I would prefer it if you could distill the salient points of any texts into easy reading posts, it will speed things up that way.

OK,

Opinions and ignorance are all that we all have I'm afraid, that may hurt your ego but it's the full truth.

Here's my opinion:

Domestication is a subset of evolution it is NOT mutually exclusive to it.

The point buried deep within one of the the texts you linked to is:


No vision was needed, the final model itself evolved:

The animals were already breeding fine in nature. The herdsmen then had to hunt them down, expending energy and time to do so.

As soon as human brain thought "if I could stop these animals running away it would be easier." ... it began ...

This thought may have first been acted upon by using nets or portable fences made of sticks bound together.

A farm is just a permanent large net around an animal.

Thoughts and ideas are just information, this is memetic information and it propogates and evolves over generations in a very similar fashion to genetic information.

Perhaps the first "farm" was a geographically quite contained area where animals came for water. A place that could be closed in with only a modest fence or wall. The herdsmen could fence a herd or animals in that area and then just supply food into the area or if the area were big enough with a water source flowing through it then it may have even been a perfect few acres of self replenishing hunting ground, where animals could be corralled to the edges in order to catch, kill and then eat.

A domesticated animal is still operating within evolution, be it a domesticated cat or ape (human).

Even if humans gain complete understanding and control of the genome then we have not stepped outside of evolution, the only way a species can leave the evolutionary game is by going extinct.

You see it's fun to speculate on possible mechanisms to fill in the gaps, rather than saying.... DUH! GOD DID IT!

There is almost zero open debate in this thread, only opinions and ignorance.

All are encouraged to debate the things that I have posted in this thread, because so far they have NOT been openly discussed. Here are some of the things I posted:

^^ Were you dropped on your head as an infant or just born stupid? ^^