In order for that situation to work, you will have to say that God cannot foretell the future.

If my existence does not harm anyone, does it matter if I care only for myself?

Acting out of ignorance on the other hand, will lead to no good

It's simple, gender neutral and not irritating to the eye

Still, I prefer white

It was not done by a small engineer, but was inspected and tested by qualified professors and scientists-including Nobel prize winners. All confirmed that it is beyond any explanation. The documents are readily available online. Why not try it?

Funny thing here is that despite all the emphirical evidence of NASA's attempt, they will still refuse to give any mention of it, and would rather keep their silence. Gee, I wonder why?

sigh

My links showed an additional 10% difference though when the wording changes.

41% said they are atheist

8% are agnostic

What 10% difference are you talking about?

Like what I said, the no matter how you put it, there would still be more scientists who believes than those who dont

What about it? It is just a painting.

Its not just a painting. Its the Tilma of the Guadalupe

Hundreds of scientists- NASA included- dared to explain its miracles.

And they all failed.

You mean by asking you to back up a comment you said I said, then you failed to show I said it.

Here you go

It is the only way you will address anything I say is when you think you don't have to fear a rebuttal. Seems you are keen on my trick now though.

I reply as long as the conversation is open. Lying about your words will devalue it. Keep it honest

I then gave many links of me in our debate saying my position is "I have not been shown evidence that a god exists"

I said Evolution works without needing a god to explain it.

This is clearly not me doing as you said"burst out and say that God does not exist".

How long do you plan to dwell in the past?

sigh

I do not mind it as reference but seriously, you know that denials can only get you so far, right?

Link to your proof?

Here you go

My responses were sufficient but you ignored them.

You're not even trying, aren't you?

You ignored this

You avoid talking about the Guadalupe

You kept on bringing up the past instead of leading the debate forward

You corrupted the our argument into a worthless flamewar

P.S

Stop lying about your goodbyes. It is good as a joke, but it has overstayed its welcome

1 You were never in the neutral zone, plenty of your arguments are on the other side of this debate claiming "there are too many unexplained things for their not to be a god."

Being a part of the neutral zone does not mean I should be barren of my personal opinions. True neutral are the ones who stands with the voice of reason.

Or should I remind you again of how I kept on saying that "God cannot be proven nor disproved?"

2 I then gave many links of me in our debate saying my position isI have not been shown evidence that a god exists then summed it up again after all my links showing my stance to not be what you say it is

But you did not include the parts where you insisted that God does not exist in an event that can be explained.

I noted that the statement only challenges the painting and not god,

So, where is your evidence that the Guadalupe is flawed?

Right after I showed where you did this exactly you ask for citations

You were claiming that a change of words will change the poll. I showed how it does not, then you skipped it. And yet, you are still saying that it is I who is at fault. Why?

Wow, you certainly do not read things well

The question remains:

Do you accept the Guadalupe or not?

Four posts up from yours I proved the wording changes results in the Gallup poll that states this explicitly, using the same terms even.

sigh

And would you mind explaining why you no longer argued against my response?

>"a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not"

Means that 51% are believers, 41% are atheist and 8% are agnostics. Even if you combine atheists and agnostics, the percentage of believers would still be superior. How was that supposed to change anything?

Stop digging the past already! It is unrelated and uneducational. The topic at hand is completely laid bare. Use it

I quoted and linked many in the last 2 rebuttals and a few in the middle of the debate

You are pointing out your statements that says you are open minded. But you left the parts where you insists that the results of the poll would change depending on the usage of word.

If my memories are to be exact, it is also the part where you kept on saying that I am wrong. Now, why did you skip it?

To challenge an idea is to oppose it.

But if you plan to challenge the divinity of the Guadalupe, please provide the reasons why you think its flawed so we can move the argument forward.

I just received an assignment. I will reply later or tomorrow.

Dont abuse bold face-it is meant only for dividing discussion. Italics would do just fine in quoting.

I then showed you polls that differentiate between the wordings as they do matter and even account for the roughly 10 % difference in the wordings!

uhh....what?

a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not

Means that 51% are believers, 41% are atheist and 8% are agnostics. Even if you combine atheists and agnostics, the percentage of believers would still be superior. How was that supposed to change anything?

It only challenges that the lady of Guadalupe is legitimately a miracle.

So...are you saying that you recognize the Guadalupe as a valid evidence of the paranormal?

You consistently misrepresent my stances, misrepresent your sources stances, avoid any refutations I make or others make

Citation needed.

My claim was the terms were not synonymous and that could lead to a larger number due to one term being more inclusive.

All of them leads to the same play of words. You simply scrutinized the poll but have you not realize that no matter how much effort you give, its will still lead to the same question of "Are you an atheist of not?"

From there, there are three choices: Yes, No, and Agnostic. And it should have end there. But instead, you made it more complicated and divided the "No" into:

"I believe in God" vs "I believe in a Higher Power"

sigh

Stop scrambling the results, it will never be in your favor.

No matter on which angle you look at, there are still more scientist who believes than those who dont.

I have always been on the side that I have not seen any evidence of god existing.

Indeed, you started with a neutral view but your new argument:

"You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread."

Challenges mine as saying that there is an evidence that God does not exists and the Guadalupe is a hoax. Or have I misunderstood?

Please correct me if I am wrong

Yup. I do not see any evidence that there is a god.

So do I. But the problem here is how you act like explaining a process can disprove an intelligent being.

Do not be fooled I believe in one but I allow myself to be swayed by good reasoning. Or have you forgotten how many times I told you that God cannot be proven nor disproved?

First off by 'in this thread' I meant this debate, not just ours. LilMisfit destroyed your claim about the Lady of Guadalupe, you just assert they are all wrong with no line of reasoning other than 'christians laugh at those claims'.

sigh

You do realize that you are being biased, right?

I enumerated all the reasons why it became a laughing stock and gave him a chance to refine his answer. But instead, he end up using a research done by Dr. Callahan- a supporter of the Guadalupe.

Its self explanatory.

But hey, you do not accept my breakdown of it so here is a a bigger poll than yours that delineates the difference between the terms.

The poll is about Americans who have a strong belief in God and those who have a shaken faith. What happened to the poll about religious scientists?

I do not mind if you will jump on the bandwagon and say that those "who believe in a divine power" are not Christians. But in this case, are you saying that they are automatically atheists?

I have no reason to believe in a god, it is not up to me to disprove something that hasn't been proven, that is shifting the onus.

Actually, the proof lies on the one making the claim.

I stood on the neutral zone but you burst out and say that God does not exist. From here, it will be your responsibility to prove it.

P.S

what happened to our ID vs Natural Selection? Also, stop trying to act like a villain. It does not suit you.

Pseudoscience. Intelligent design is not testable, observable or falsifiable.

Sums up what every Darwinist says.

Your link seems to prey on those who are not science literate.

You can get sued for what you just said.

EvolutionNews is a credible source and quite famous in the world of science and faith. Or would you rather know them by their other channel:DiscoverInstitute

Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance, it does not take into account of how things can arise slowly, part by part, and then change over time

Neither does Natural Selection solves the mysteries of what Evolution aims to be.

When ID has tried to get into schools the courts have even noted that ID and IR are not recognized as sciences.

You mean the criticism of ID?

This are the people who forced Intelligent Design as a replacement to evolution and aimed to use it as a well-masked creationism. Not a surprising result if you ask me.

sigh

It takes only common sense to know that God cannot be proven nor disprove. Gaps in the scientific world does not prove a divine being but neither does explanations.

I had lots of examples of your wording not being true to what was claimed by the authors or theories

And so whats your point?

All throughout the argument, youve been criticizing every word of my sources and claims that it will change meaning. So I asked you whats the new definition, but up until now, you still haven't given me anything that would change something in the poll.

Its a simple question with simple answer. What's taking you so long?

You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread

1. So where is the evidence that God does not exist?

2. I never mentioned the Guadalupe in our thread. But if you are gonna claim it as fake, you will need to provide me some evidence.

I respects everyone's claim and I am open to change my position based on new information. There's nothing new to be found here, though

Natural selection is a process in evolution that can be observed and tested.

So is Intelligent Design.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

-EvolutionNews

Only one of the statements is supported by evidence the other is just a assertion with no proof.

Wait, are you still referring to the survey about the population of religious scientists or not?

You are asking questions to things I have already outlined of why I disagree. This is just a continuation of you showing me you haven't mulled anything I said over.

I can say the same thing

I completely understand why you disagree. But your reasons does not carry enough weight to neutralize mine. And the same can be applied to my arguments

I already told you thrice: Until we found a way to test our ideals, no progress will be achieved.

Its up to you if you wish to prove me wrong, but be prepared to get exhausted

Evolution is testable, creationism is not.

I agree. But that is not our argument.

Our argument is Intelligent Design vs Natural Selection. It's an old debate that not once has ever made progress. And I doubt that it could ever be.

No matter on which angle you look at, this debate will never amount to anything more than a play of words.

I noted the change in meaning the words conveyed but you insist the end result is the same.

So....what does the new word mean and how does it make any difference in the end result?

We are just going in circles,

Precisely.

I already told you; "It is impossible to make progress in an argument that cannot be tested"

I do not mind if you are willing to explore the debate. But bear in mind that it will be an exhausting adventure

Evolutionary speaking there is no mystery why humans did so well.

Oh, but there is mystery as to why other animals were unable to match us.

For instance you keep bringing things like humans lack of speed as one of your criteria but ignore that biologists and anthropologists note we were persistance hunters

Because being persistance hunters only lasted until we invented agriculture. T is to say; the birth of civilization and modern man.

The Homo Erectus has met the extintion that is was meant to face, but the Homo Sapiens, didnt because it learned how to settle, make shelter and farm. Something that is unique in the animal kingdom.

That is your stance is based on sources of evolution you like and coincidences. I contest that they are not coincedences at all but explained through evolution.

Practically the same argument.

Both of us believe that Evolution was the result of need to adapt. Only difference is that I believe that there is a divine being planning the future and you dont.

Simple argument, isnt it? But then, since our stance cannot be tested, we will not be able to make any progress

One implies creation and predetermined intent the other implies neither but that something is a result of something that was beneficial.

So...both cases involves the same results.

Its merely the background of belief that differs it. In the end, both speaks the same words of changing for the better good

Of course the wording on a poll would matter more than a blog post, polls should be held to a higher scrutiny

So...in what way is that any different?

Based on how many threads you created, and how you lost all of them...the conclusion goes without saying.

Im bored. Why not do something funny?

I already have

Actually, you're all alone in your denials.

And up until now you still cannot disprove it

Just stop posting already. You know that the curtains have already fall.

Your take on evolution is still slightly off. Evolution does not favor the most adaptable it favors the most fit for the situation,

And we still havent made any progress.

No matter how you look at it, the body of a human being should have been doomed to extinction.

>no claws nor fangs

>no strength

>no speed

>low birth rate

And yet, here we are now; trying to conquer the vastness of space.

If evolution happens as a way to simply adapt to the ever changing world, then I see no reason aswhy nature would allow us to be the only type of animal that can create technology and question philosophies.

Unless it is intended by an intelligent being.

You assume these things were created for a purpose but in evolutionary terms they were left because they worked for our benefit.

That's practically synonymous.

created for a purpose = worked for our benefit

In the blog post the author said on average believers are happier in general

In terms of happiness, yes. Everyone is on equal grounds. But when it comes to rising up after a fall, it is the religious ones who has the most advantage.

The explanation is simple: A believer has someone/something to turn to

"Asking if you believe in God and then asking do you believe God or a higher power will net you different answers in population"

uhhh...what? Both words yield the same meaning. Correct me if im wrong, though.

I can say the same thing.

I can say the same thing.

Funny, you are the only one who claims it as fake. And yet, you are also the only with the most laughable excuses.

You have been reduced from an arrogant newbie to a troll that struggles to live. You know that it is only a matter of time until you left for good. Whats keeping you?