The Evolution Computer Simulator

[Balloon guy 158]

it's not a sweeping generalization... when you exhibit dishonesty in a post... I call you on it. You aren't dishonest in every post, when you are I say it... case by case basis

In order for you to call me dishonest, you must make the case that I knew different and intentionally said something different.So are were you saying that I really do know about evolution and am lying about it?Or do I not know about evolution and am being dishonest about what I think evolution is?Then after choosing your options, could you tell me how I was being dishonest?

[Balloon guy 158]

everyone arguing against you here will agree that you are intellectually dishonest and manipulative in your approach to debate, including in your characterization of your opponents positions and statements. if you doubt that feel free to ask. the only mystery is how much of your BS is intentional deceit and how much you have deluded yourself into actually believing.

LOL, this is your response to defend your position that I misrepresent you when I say you try to speak for entire groups of people?This is so much fun, you are purposefully looking like a fool in order to prove my point that you are an arrogant dweeb who can't make an argument so you use propagandist techniques to try to make yourself look smarter than you really are.This must be your early Christmas present for me.I didn't get you anything.

[vbnautilus 48]

I actually have a pretty decent understanding of evolution, just because I challenge it doesn't mean I don't know what you think.

If only we had a way to test this...

[Balloon guy 158]

If only we had a person willing to test this all the way through...

How's your Christmas vacation looking?Going anywhere?

[JoeyJoJo 18]

How's your Christmas vacation looking?Going anywhere?

Pfft, like he celebrates Christmas.Edit: Sometimes I pop in to make insignificant comments as a way of signifying that I'm following along in the thread.This isn't one of those times.

[vbnautilus 48]

How's your Christmas vacation looking?Going anywhere?

I am at my Christian in-laws house, hoping to God they don't make me go to church on Friday.

[crowTrobot 2]

fyp

i'm not wrong. nobody currently or recently posting here has ever said they know no god exists in any kind of generic context that would be relevant to your statement. but feel free to waste your time digging through posts if you really want to.

[Balloon guy 158]

I am at my Christian in-laws house, hoping to God they don't make me go to church on Friday.

I just got back from my liberal union brother's house where my even more liberal mother and father were visiting. They wouldn't bite no matter who many Obama jokes I started or how many times I mentioned the economy.Maybe you'll have a better holiday blow up.

[Balloon guy 158]

i'm not wrong. nobody currently or recently posting here has ever said they know no god exists in any kind of generic context that would be relevant to your statement. but feel free to waste your time digging through posts if you really want to.

Oh...we ALL know this is true.I will grant you one early Christmas gift and not search through the last week's posts to find the number of posts where people have said they do not believe that God exists.This will save us all from having to read your irritating posts where you try to worm yourself into the most convoluted excuses for why you are not wrong.Because you are never wrong.Except about being wrong...and your world view

[Randy Reed 0]

I believe that God created the universe, upholds it in His power and created the laws that hold it together.The Bible confirms that He did these things and as such I can base my beliefs on it.They also allow me to trust that the laws of nature that uphold the universe are consistent, and that all non-tangible laws such as laws of logic and laws of non-contradictions will remain constant in the universe.

Could you explain this? How are laws of logic non-tangible? what do you mean by laws of nature being consistent?

[crowTrobot 2]

LOL, this is your response to defend your position that I misrepresent you when I say you try to speak for entire groups of people?

you misprepresented that i claim to speak for most christians. it's not hard to speak for the atheists on this board. they've all posted their opinions of your intellectual honesty - several of them in this thread.

[crowTrobot 2]

I will grant you one early Christmas gift and not search through the last week's posts to find the number of posts where people have said they do not believe that God exists.

changed your statement. let the dishonesty and manipulation start.not believing in something is not the same as claiming to know it doesn't exist.

[Balloon guy 158]

you misprepresented that i claim to speak for most christians. it's not hard to speak for the atheists on this board. they've all posted their opinions of your intellectual honesty - several of them in this thread.

So this allows you to speak for them?Or have you just taken this mantle of authority upon yourself without any effort to find out if they agree with you?You dance a lot, you'd think you'd be better at it.

[Balloon guy 158]

changed your statement. let the dishonesty and manipulation start.not believing in something is not the same as claiming to know it doesn't exist.

And now the semantics game...designed to allow you to get away from ever admitting responsibility.All in the same thread where you pretended that semantics dodge was always brought up by me.

[crowTrobot 2]

So this allows you to speak for them?

me or anyone else. it's obvious what people here think of your tactics.

[Balloon guy 158]

me or anyone else. it's obvious what people here think of your tactics.

Of course..it's so obvious.You could write a whole book on ways to debate without ever having to defend yourself with integrity.

[Balloon guy 158]

Could you explain this? How are laws of logic non-tangible? what do you mean by laws of nature being consistent?

Laws of logic are non-tangible laws that we can't put our hands on like we can the laws of gravity etc.They are largely pre-supposed on your side, since you have no way to confirm that they exists universally because yours requires you to use disclaimers that so far 'x' has proven true.In other words if you want to argue that logical understanding of any topic is possible, you must make the argument that logic exists, or pre-suppose that it does, without proving it.I base my confidence in the Laws of Logic to the God of the Bible who doesn't deny Himself, and is called Truth.Can you make the case that the laws of logic apply across the entire universe? what about the laws of non-contradiction?

[Balloon guy 158]

Pfft, like he celebrates Christmas.Edit: Sometimes I pop in to make insignificant comments as a way of signifying that I'm following along in the thread.This isn't one of those times.

It's too bad, I always enjoy you getting tied into the morass that is the religion debate on FCP

[crowTrobot 2]

And now the semantics game...designed to allow you to get away from ever admitting responsibility.All in the same thread where you pretended that semantics dodge was always brought up by me.

no, not semantics. your original statement implied a double standard for whoever you were referring to - someone who claims to know no god exists without being able to even fully understand evolution. in that context "know god doesn't exist" can only mean "be certain no god exists", not "lack belief a god exists". you even emphasized the word know lol.stop the dishonesty.

[vbnautilus 48]

Laws of logic are non-tangible laws that we can't put our hands on like we can the laws of gravity etc.They are largely pre-supposed on your side, since you have no way to confirm that they exists universally because yours requires you to use disclaimers that so far 'x' has proven true.In other words if you want to argue that logical understanding of any topic is possible, you must make the argument that logic exists, or pre-suppose that it does, without proving it.I base my confidence in the Laws of Logic to the God of the Bible who doesn't deny Himself, and is called Truth.Can you make the case that the laws of logic apply across the entire universe? what about the laws of non-contradiction?

uhhhhyou put your hands on the law of gravity?

[Balloon guy 158]

no, not semantics. your original statement implied a double standard for whoever you were referring to - someone who claims to know no god exists without being able to even fully understanding evolution. in that context "know god doesn't exist" can only mean "be certain no god exists", not "lack belief a god exists". you even emphasized the word know lol.stop the dishonesty.

Oh, I thought it would semantics when someone says they 'know there is no God', and I then say that someone said that they 'know there is no God' and you tell me I am wrong because the word atheist doesn't mean that and I implied something that you of course know I meant to imply even though the person who said they didn't believe in the existence of God was obviously not saying that they don't believe in the existence of God per se, but that they distance themselves from the possibility of the exact Christian God that you want to pigeon hole as being largely unpossible. In other words you are wrong again, can't accept it, and are trying really hard to save the face that you have only yourself to blame for it's being so wrong.Not being able to accept this is the first step in a long road that will end with you in the straight jacket. Maybe you should book mark this page to save your future therapist from having to charge you for the multiple days of therapy to get you to reveal how sick you are and how badly you just want to be loved.

[Balloon guy 158]

uhhhhyou put your hands on the law of gravity?

Not your hands

[crowTrobot 2]

Oh, I thought it would semantics when someone says they 'know there is no God', and I then say that someone said that they 'know there is no God' and you tell me I am wrong because the word atheist doesn't mean that and I implied something that you of course know I meant to imply even though the person who said they didn't believe in the existence of God was obviously not saying that they don't believe in the existence of God per se, but that they distance themselves from the possibility of the exact Christian God that you want to pigeon hole as being largely unpossible.

that's some nice nonsensical babble there.

[vbnautilus 48]

Not your hands

Careful! Gathering experimental evidence is not to your advantage.

[Balloon guy 158]

that's some nice nonsensical babble there.

And this is the third time when you are called you dodge the question with deflection.So your Method of Operation 3 times that I can think of is:1. Make a statement with generalities and or poisoned statements.2. Get called on it.3. Deny and say you never did it.4. When asked if you will accept you in fact did do this, you deflect and then drop it.Three times in the last 20 posts. This has to be a record for the Schizophrenic Olympics.