Points for a creator (Alaninnont and Subbie only)

Which is belief system. None were given or intended. Petty insults and tu quoque fallacies don't have much of an impact on me.While you made a number of good points and gave me some new ideas when discussing the original creation of the universe, I have found your other input somewhat sparse. You have spent a lot of time in accusations and asking for sources and evidence. While I think I understand your motives for this, it is not supplying the discussion with new information or moving it forward. As I said in a previous post, I have been finding it unproductive of late.

Really? You find my dismissal of something for which there is no evidence to be similar to their acceptance of something for which there is no evidence. Curious. Curious that you chose to ignore the fact that I laid out several different options. Also, the effect of parroting my words back at me is diminished considerably given that you obviously don't know what a tu quoque fallacy is. Perhaps after you've been debating for a while, you will understand that asking for evidence in support of a contention is a rather standard practice. My motives in doing so were to find out if there was any factual basis for the claims you made. When you failed to supply any the only reasonable conclusion is that you had none. In making it apparent that you have no support for some of your claims, I am in fact adding information to the discussion. Perhaps you might even realize it someday. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.I'm going to assume that you are satisfied that I responded to all of your "points" from your failure to identify any that I haven't responded to, particularly since I asked you to identify them.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Your evidence is that nobody has proven the contrary. A creationist could just as well say that they believe in God because nobody has proved that he doesn't exist. What's the difference? You're right. My latin is a bit rusty.(practically nonexistant) The comment was parroted to show you that you assumed an insult when none was given. Perhaps here is the problem. I don't see this as a debate while it seems you do. I'm looking for information and new ideas and these have been in short supply.

quote:

---

Your evidence is that nobody has proven the contrary. A creationist could just as well say that they believe in God because nobody has proved that he doesn't exist. What's the difference?

---

No, my position is that there is no evidence. That's not at all the same as saying "nobody has proven the contrary." While it's true that the absence of evidence isn't proof of non-existence, it is at least a rational reason for non-belief.

quote:

---

I'm looking for information and new ideas and these have been in short supply.

---

There's little point is adding new ideas until you understand those that I've already presented. And the first quote from you in this post is proof positive that you don't.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I'm going to stop posting on this thread Subbie. Thanks for the discussion and your input.