Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

He would care so that those who don't believe would believe.

Personal revelation is hardly a trustworthy source.

 

Here you go Gabby from the first page of the thread.

 

Outing peil for the fool that he is is equivalent to saying what time it is. In and of itself, it has no further connotations or implications. Even a hard-boiled creationist with half a brain (please excuse the redundancy) would seek to distance himself from peil.

 

They are equally implausible. If it was nonsense, there should be no problem in refuting it however, you've not been able to.
It's very apparent you also seem to think false assertion is a form of argument.

 

Translation: Gabby refuses to give credit where due as he would have to admit he was wrong with his baseless accusations.

Business as usual.

 

Great quote.

 

1. implausible? except for the fact you can't explain why our universe is so finely tuned for life without resorting to an implausible almost infinite other universes theory.

2. implausible? except for the fact if you discount the idea of a creator you have no explanation of why the universe is here or how it got here... you can't say the same about a teapot.

3. creator or no creator is a binary proposition. its not the same for a teapot.

the list goes on...

 

Actually, it's not implausible as it can be modeled mathematically using quantum mechanics. Can you say the same for a "Creator"?

Filling in our gaps of knowledge in regards to the universe with "God did it" is not an explanation at all. We might as well throw in the towel since we have the answer for everything. Fire all particle physicists for their heresy. We know why the universe is here. God did it! What do we need particle physicists for after that?

 

1. The universe is inconceivably vast and mostly full of space completely hostile to life. With only around an estimated 0.000000000000000000004 % matter in it, how is that 'fine tuned for life' exactly?
Life happens, apparently despite the overwhelming constraints of the universe.
As Douglas Adams describes ....

• It is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

2. A Creator is no explanation for the universe existing. Just as it is with the Teapot, that ugly regressive question pops up for them both; what made them. Mankind makes imaginary Teapots and imaginary Gods alike. The teapots get to actually exist, the Gods not to.

3. Teapot or no teapot, is every bit a binary position as, creator or no creator.

Russell's Teapot is a sound philisophical construct about a silly object's existence, to demonstrate how equally silly are the philosophical arguments for the existence of a silly imaginary concept called God, and the silly things said to defend it.

 

Science is not meant to prove or disprove the existence of Supreme Being. It is rather amusing to see how you both invoke science to defend your own beliefs. Disbelief in God is a belief after all. Faith is the foundation of religious belief. Faith is the foundation of science as well. After all, one needs certain beliefs (such as the structure of atom, etc.) to practice science. Other certain beliefs are required to practice religion. Beliefs are not real. The things people used to believe 50 years ago, or 100 years ago makes us laugh now. Roger White is a philosopher and his analysis is that of beliefs held by scientists. It doesn't sound like he knows much about biology and as a philosopher he is above that and doesn't really need to.