kkins25:
An artificial intelligence with its own mind created lets say a robot? The robots refer to the artificial intelligence as FATHER. Would it be safe to say the artificial intelligence has no Maker

why? Without any reason you give an exception for the intelligent designer. It’s not fair!

hakeem4:

Natural selection and Big Bang are scientific theories! Not an hypothesis oooo
i have never said they’re the first cause.
ID actually started when people saw complex life and they thought how did this things get here. Paley brought about the watch maker argument. Natural selection explains how complex and diverse life came to be. So except they’re using the ID for the first cause argument in which there’s no evidence for that also

Natural selection explaining how complex organisms evolved to be doesn't necessarily make it a valid evidence to refute ID.If I asked you as an atheists how the universe and life came to be,would you just humbly say you don't know yet or would you sight the big bang and evolution as an valid explanation in a bid to disapprove of an ID? Let's not drag this any further. I've made my point which is to clarify that evolution just like gravity,matter,light and not as if it's an occurrence created to refute ID..Maybe it's just me misinterpreting things and if that's the case I apologise.

hakeem4:
Emperorharry Yes, not all theist or deist are creationists. I said these are most of the fallacies used by them to defend the existence of any god.

To answer your question why I feel evolution is valid theory ?

Let me give you some evidence of evolution by natural selection
1) DNA’s
2) transitional fossils
Etc.
IF you check out most scientific peer reviewed paper. You don’t see anything about the intelligent design.

Now intelligent designer is just another name for god in which evolution by natural selection has refuted.


As an atheist, I do not need any authority to tell me what to do. If Richard Dawkins , Sam Harris, Seun, capslocked and many other Nairaland atheist decide to become deist or pantheist. This doesn’t invalidate my “lack of belief”

If you noticed I mainly used Big Bang and evolution because these are one of the scientific theories that tells us that we do not need any form of intelligent designer ( god ) for the creation of life and the universe.

Billy please educate me on what you meant by "a deep mind database for probabilistic possibilities of choices for freewill".

Billy0naire:
All the arguments seem to spring from the analytical faculties of the mindset while totally ignoring the intuitive aspects of the human system where true answers lie.

Every designed system has a designer. Nothing exists without a Cause. And the Source of the Cause is always 'Conscious Entities'. So, I think the meat of your arguments is not realizing that you are arguing about a singular conscious entity when you have millions if not billions engaging in multiplayer reality experience from outside of it. Are you all really in this world or you are operating the avatar from a different location virtually?

Since I do not like an argument for argument's sake, it is better to say, that I have been, on that spot before, it is tough to escape that egoic phase except and until 'experience' happens. And experience happened to me.

And that is why I always ask: Have you tried stepping outside of your bodies to see the Nature of Reality outside of the so-called Physical Reality?

This world is a Virtual Reality, a very immersive one. It is hosted and rendered from Cosmic Mainframe Computer and our bodies are just avatars being played by our 'Conscious Aspect' (HIgher Self). We are not in our body per sae, our experiences are just feedback loop of the decisions and actions of the Conscious Aspect that exist outside the limited spectrum of the Reality we experience now. The real you, does not look exactly like the you that physically is here.

Well, it is hard for intellectual logical and analytical mind to understand fully, and it is also tough for an intuitive but sleeping avatar to figure this out. The right brain transceives intuitively and the left brain, logically/intellectually, but when both hemisphere syncs, then you stand a greater chance of experiencing the nature of this world from outside of it.

This is NOT the real world, this is a Reality that is hosted and rendered for our experience and there are many other Realities outside this one.

You do not need a God for this world to function the way it does, because the rulesets are computed and the system runs actively and is maintained from outside this reality.

The Universe does not need 'God' as Religions portray to function the way it does, but it needs Consciousness, Conscious Entities, a Computer and a Deep Mind Database of probabilistic possibilities of choices for free will. If there is a God, it is unknowable at this level, because this is just a Simulation within a larger and more advanced Simulation.

I have had an experience of the computer hosting this reality and saw the real me playing this Avatar. New Age people call that other self, the Higher Self. I have no language for it, but I know that is the real me. It is a beautiful world out there where this one is hosted on the other larger consciousness system.

I have seen that world. And this one looks like a bad copy compared to the other Reality that this is computed from.

Billy are you trying to say 'the real you/me' goes on ad infitum?

Billy0naire:


I researched these stuff for almost 30yrs daily and actively, so when I say most people will not get it, I really mean it. Because they have no resources in time and finances to focus on the research.

I am not trying to make a point, because there is no point to be made in this forum, I do not seek to make a point here, as there is no one I can possibly argue with here.

I am just stating the facts based on what I have seen, experienced and continue to experience. This is a simulated multiplayer reality within a larger conscious system, which must also be simulated. A world within a larger and more advanced world. And one can move from one simulation to another, taking different bodies for specific experiences.

Billy0naire:


Evolution is a fact of course.

Big Bang is not true.

very interested in @bolded. What makes you think @bolded?

EmperorHarry:

Natural selection explaining how complex organisms evolved to be doesn't necessarily make it a valid evidence to refute ID.If I asked you as an atheists how the universe and life came to be,would you just humbly say you don't know yet or would you sight the big bang and evolution as an valid explanation in a bid to disapprove of an ID? Let's not drag this any further. I've made my point which is to clarify that evolution just like gravity,matter,light and not as if it's an occurrence created to refute ID..Maybe it's just me misinterpreting things and if that's the case I apologise.

You are correct evolution and big bang cosmology were not proposed as counters to ID nor are they really evidence against ID (though anybody proposing evolution as an ID mechanism must concede that the designer isn't really intelligent).

LordReed:


You are correct evolution and big bang cosmology were not proposed as counters to ID nor are they really evidence against ID

Thank you..Please let Hakeem4 be drilled by this truth so he doesn't arm himself with inappropriate weapons when fighting(Refuting and disproving) against ID.

(though anybody proposing evolution as an ID mechanism must concede that the designer isn't really intelligent.)

The intelligence often associated with a higher being is exaggerated.A careful examination of the ills found within the world around us is a tip that the world isn't perfectly made.The universe is flawed but that doesn't mean a designer isn't intelligent.

EmperorHarry:

The intelligence often associated with a higher being is exaggerated.A careful examination of the ills found within the world around us is a tip that the world isn't perfectly made.The universe is flawed but that doesn't mean a designer isn't intelligent.

I agree its intelligence must be very much exaggerated. Almost like if it is just another human being...

EmperorHarry:
Thank you..Please let Hakeem4 be drilled by this truth so he doesn't arm himself with inappropriate weapons when fighting(Refuting and disproving) against ID.
The intelligence often associated with a higher being is exaggerated.A careful examination of the ills found within the world around us is a tip that the world isn't perfectly made.The universe is flawed but that doesn't mean a designer isn't intelligent.

well ID is not a serious position to hold cause there’s no evidence to back the premise. Well natural selection explains how we have complex life so I do not see the need for any ID except you talk about the origin of life and we have a hypothesis called abiogenesis

hakeem4:
well ID is not a serious position to hold cause there’s no evidence to back the premise.

Very true,but what if evidence sits right in front of you? ID without religion holds pretty much no water.Religion has privileged ID with a place in human history without much scrutiny.So it's pretty much just an assumption when separated from religious influence.It is most fascinating independent of religion.Interpretation of an ID becomes subjectively limitless.

Well natural selection explains how we have complex life so I do not see the need for any ID except you talk about the origin of life and we have a hypothesis called abiogenesis

Natural selection isn't foolproof Hakeem. It's like an assumed master keys in the hands of science but somehow there are doors that the keys doesn't fit.There are doors with watchmen that collect and fling the keys into depths of the unknown.I trust science tho,to pick the locks and wrestle with strongmen so as to gain entry into closed doors but until then Hakeem,keep an open mind lest what lies behind those doors be the same knowledge you seem so apprehensive towards.Abiogenesis is more flawed than ID.If you can entertain the idea of Abiogenesis,why can't you do same for ID?

EmperorHarry:
Very true,but what if evidence sits right in front of you? ID without religion holds pretty much no water.Religion has privileged ID with a place in human history without much scrutiny.So it's pretty much just an assumption when separated from religious influence.It is most fascinating independent of religion.Interpretation of an ID becomes subjectively limitless.

. well i have not seen any evidence for the intelligent designer. i would like if you could give me some.

Natural selection isn't foolproof Hakeem. It's like an assumed master keys in the hands of science but somehow there are doors that the keys doesn't fit.There are doors with watchmen that collect and fling the keys into depths of the unknown.I trust science tho,to pick the locks and wrestle with strongmen so as to gain entry into closed doors but until then Hakeem,keep an open mind lest what lies behind those doors be the same knowledge you seem so apprehensive towards.Abiogenesis is more flawed than ID.If you can entertain the idea of Abiogenesis,why can't you do same for ID?

well if natural selection was flawed like you claim, it would not have passed any peer review and many scientist would not acknowledge it. Even if NS was flawed it wont still make creationism right.

now Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that tells us how life started ( it could be wrong though) but its plausible. The miller urey's experiment shows that abiogenesis is actually plausible. And since god did it is more of a religious claim than a hypothesis.

hakeem4:
. well i have not seen any evidence for the intelligent designer. i would like if you could give me some.

Sadly I can't provide you solid objective evidence.Your view of the world has being clouded by natural selection,so it's futile to provide evidences that are aren't overwhelmingly obvious.

well if natural selection was flawed like you claim, it would not have passed any peer review and many scientist would not acknowledge it.

Evolution was first proposed by Lamarck without natural selection as a fundamental mechanism. Flawed theories were the result in the end until Darwin revised evolution using natural selection.It sounds more plausible but relies on way too many assumptions when adapted to illustrate evolution from simple to complex organisms.The finger of natural selection is very plausible when comparing living things within similar categories which is what it thrives tbh.It still doesn't explain consciousness in humans tho among other important questions. So the fact is science accepts evolution through natural selection because of the short chain similarities within a family in the taxonomic ranking.It's with this supposed evidence they use as a basis for extrapolation.This doesn't mean they can't just be chasing winds.

Even if NS was flawed it wont still make creationism right

Here's why I pleaded with you to be open minded.You still sulk in your bias towards ID.It's all good tho.

now Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that tells us how life started ( it could be wrong though) but its plausible. The miller urey's experiment shows that abiogenesis is actually plausible.

Abiogenesis depends on evolution which is still under construction.Natural and artificial influence aren't the same thing.Artificial influence on natural phenomena is susceptible to fine tuning.

And since god did it is more of a religious claim than a hypothesis.

Hakeem did you know ID was invented before religion? The ID hypothesis preceded religion and is the basis of religion.Religion merely ensured it's dominance and sustenance over time just as science similarly does with evolution.ID was proposed during the infancy of human intelligence and I'm still at a loss as to why we came up with such a delusion perhaps we were spoon fed and nurtured into this knowledge? I don't really feel we didn't merely comprehend natural phenomena as an excuse for a theory as elaborate as an ID.

EmperorHarry:
Sadly I can't provide you solid objective evidence.Your view of the world has being clouded by natural selection,so it's futile to provide evidences that are aren't overwhelmingly obvious.

What type of evidence do you then have?

It sounds more plausible but relies on way too many assumptions when adapted to illustrate evolution from simple to complex organisms.

What are these assumptions?

It still doesn't explain consciousness in humans tho among other important questions.

Scientific theories are not end all, be all statements. If evolution doesn't explain the dawn of mind there will be other theories that do.

Abiogenesis depends on evolution which is still under construction.

No it doesn't.

LordReed:


What type of evidence do you then have?

None that you aren't already aware of.

What are these assumptions?

The numerous hand drawn illustrations depicting evolutionary processes without actual evident fossils to back it up is one of the glaring assumptions made by science.

Scientific theories are not end all, be all statements. If evolution doesn't explain the dawn of mind there will be other theories that do.

An artificial intelligence perhaps?(Lol)

No it doesn't.

Lol..We both know it does.Abiogenesis seeks to corroborate evolution.What is the need of the origin of life without life itself? What's the need of an author without his/her literary work?

EmperorHarry:
None that you aren't already aware of.

Which is none, copy that.

The numerous hand drawn illustrations depicting evolutionary processes without actual evident fossils to back it up is one of the glaring assumptions made by science.

Show me an example of this hand drawn illustration depicting evolutionary processes.

An artificial intelligence perhaps?(Lol)

Amazing non-answer.

Lol..We both know it does.Abiogenesis seeks to corroborate evolution.What is the need of the origin of life without life itself? What's the need of an author without his/her literary work?

It does not. Abiogenesis is but one possibility for how life arose and is separate from evolution and only appears to be tied to evolution because you refuse to expand the limits of your knowledge.

EmperorHarry:
Sadly I can't provide you solid objective evidence.Your view of the world has being clouded by natural selection,so it's futile to provide evidences that are aren't overwhelmingly obvious.

my view on the world is based on OBJECTIVE FACTS if you give me evidence for your ID and it goes with many experiment, and it is also peer reviewed then i would acknowledge. But if you want to use Logic or common sense to support your premise then i am sorry i would not even take a look at it.

Evolution was first proposed by Lamarck without natural selection as a fundamental mechanism. Flawed theories were the result in the end until Darwin revised evolution using natural selection.It sounds more plausible but relies on way too many assumptions when adapted to illustrate evolution from simple to complex organisms.The finger of natural selection is very plausible when comparing living things within similar categories which is what it thrives tbh.It still doesn't explain consciousness in humans tho among other important questions. So the fact is science accepts evolution through natural selection because of the short chain similarities within a family in the taxonomic ranking.It's with this supposed evidence they use as a basis for extrapolation.This doesn't mean they can't just be chasing winds.
Here's why I pleaded with you to be open minded.You still sulk in your bias towards ID.It's all good tho.

there are some hypothesis working on how consciousness evolved. okay this is a religious section so i am not going to flood it with much scientific terms. All higher organisms (Homo sapiens, chimps, bonobos, etc) are all conscious animals. so this appeared to be directly proportional to the complexity of the animals brain.

[s]Abiogenesis depends on evolution which is still under construction[/s].Natural and artificial influence aren't the same thing.Artificial influence on natural phenomena is susceptible to fine tuning.

how does the start of something depend on the end

hakeem4:

how does the start of something depend on the end

Expect one twisted logic of an explanation.

LordReed:


Which is none, copy that.

Not quite.

Show me an example of this hand drawn illustration depicting evolutionary processes.

It's attached to this reply even tho I don't think I should be providing such illustrations as they are a fundamental part of evolution theory.

Amazing non-answer.

Lol..It wasn't an answer but a sly suggestion with underlying sarcasm.

It does not. Abiogenesis is but one possibility for how life arose and is separate from evolution and only appears to be tied to evolution because you refuse to expand the limits of your knowledge.

I humbly disagree with your opinion of me as one that refuses to expand the limits of his knowledge.Abiogenesis is dependent on evolution as it is preceded by evolution itself.You can only convince me that it isn't if your provide proof that it was first hypothesize before evolution.When critics began questioning the origin of the first cellular organisms,Abiogenesis is invented.Scientists didn't first invent Abiogenesis then evolution.It's the other way round.
When I say Abiogenesis is dependent on evolution,I mean it only holds any credibility because of evolution. Evolution is the foundation on which such hypotheses thrive as regards to a natural explanation for everything.You and I don't really have much to disagree about cos you don't open threads that clearly state "ID refuted".

hakeem4:
my view on the world is based on OBJECTIVE FACTS if you give me evidence for your ID and it goes with many experiment, and it is also peer reviewed then i would acknowledge. But if you want to use Logic or common sense to support your premise then i am sorry i would not even take a look at it.

Like I said earlier,I have no proposed evidences you haven't known already and probably dismissed.I can only assure you that when I'm convinced by a discovery I find important,I'll let you know.

there are some hypothesis working on how consciousness evolved. okay this is a religious section so i am not going to flood it with much scientific terms.All higher organisms (Homo sapiens, chimps, bonobos, etc) are all conscious animals. so this appeared to be directly proportional to the complexity of the animals brain.

Human and animal and animal consciousness are on different levels,you know that right?

how does the start of something depend on the end

When the ending is the only available and observable material.

EmperorHarry:
Not quite.

Then provide it, it's that simple.

It's attached to this reply even tho I don't think I should be providing such illustrations as they are a fundamental part of evolution theory.

Each of those animals has their fossils on record so I am not understanding what your objection is. Did you think they were fantasty?

Lol..It wasn't an answer but a sly suggestion with underlying sarcasm.

Never called it an answer.

I humbly disagree with your opinion of me as one that refuses to expand the limits of his knowledge.Abiogenesis is dependent on evolution as it is preceded by evolution itself.You can only convince me that it isn't if your provide proof that it was first hypothesize before evolution.When critics began questioning the origin of the first cellular organisms,Abiogenesis is invented.Scientists didn't first invent Abiogenesis then evolution.It's the other way round.
When I say Abiogenesis is dependent on evolution,I mean it only holds any credibility because of evolution. Evolution is the foundation on which such hypotheses thrive as regards to a natural explanation for everything.You and I don't really have much to disagree about cos you don't open threads that clearly state "ID refuted".

It's like saying the foundations of a house depend on the walls for support because the walls lead down into the ground. It's a silly notion and one you shouldn't be holding. Abiogenesis precedes evolution by centuries and is not the only hypothesis put forward on the origin of life, don't keep holding ideas that have no basis in reality.

EmperorHarry:
Like I said earlier,I have no proposed evidences you haven't known already and probably dismissed.I can only assure you that when I'm convinced by a discovery I find important,I'll let you know.

You could even win a Nobel laureate if you find one evidence to disprove natural selection.

So if god was wrong about where humans came from, then he’s definitely wrong about where we’d end up after death. Meaning god is not omniscient or intelligent. Then why call him god or the intelligent designer?

LordReed:


Then provide it, it's that simple.

Not quite simple.It's still proving a rather herculean task to convince certain people that evolution is a natural phenomenon in spite of the "evidence"

Each of those animals has their fossils on record so I am not understanding what your objection is. Did you think they were fantasty?

Not all those animals have fossils on record just like other illustrations of it's kind with the same aim.

Never called it an answer.

Lol.Okay

It's like saying the foundations of a house depend on the walls for support because the walls lead down into the ground. It's a silly notion and one you shouldn't be holding. Abiogenesis precedes evolution by centuries and is not the only hypothesis put forward on the origin of life, don't keep holding ideas that have no basis in reality.

Abiogenesis associated with strictly modern scientific influence doesn't precede evolution I'm afraid.If you can provide scientifically experimented abiogenetic tests that were carried out before Darwinian theory.Mind you,evolution theory was first postulated by Lamarck so these proofs have to predate this to avoid any evolutionary influence.Spontaneous generation isn't relevant.
The context in which I'm interpreting abiogenesis
"Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex."

EmperorHarry:
Not quite simple.It's still proving a rather herculean task to convince certain people that evolution is a natural phenomenon in spite of the "evidence"

I am not asking you to convince me, I am asking for evidence, that is simple.

Not all those animals have fossils on record just like other illustrations of it's kind with the same aim.

Which ones don't have fossils?

Abiogenesis associated with strictly modern scientific influence doesn't precede evolution I'm afraid.If you can provide scientifically experimented abiogenetic tests that were carried out before Darwinian theory.Mind you,evolution theory was first postulated by Lamarck so these proofs have to predate this to avoid any evolutionary influence.Spontaneous generation isn't relevant.
The context in which I'm interpreting abiogenesis
"Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex."

Early greek philosophers laid the philosophical foundations of the distinction between bio and abiogenesis, when they debated organic and non-organic explanations for natural phenomena.

Historical Development of the Distinction between Bio- and Abiogenesis.
Robert B. Sheldon

So we are talking about a hypothesis that was made in antiquity during the time of Aristotle while you are mentioning a theory that was first proposed less than 400 years ago.

hakeem4:
You could even win a Nobel laureate if you find one evidence to disprove natural selection.

Lol..Would it be the case if I found evidence to prove ID?

So if god was wrong about where humans came from, then he’s definitely wrong about where we’d end up after death.

God hasn't made a case for itself just yet.Human influences or interpretations of God and "God said" is pretty much human logic impersonating ID.

Meaning god is not omniscient or intelligent. Then why call him god or the intelligent designer?

If a product of human intelligence could complain,let's say a car or a generator,it would make the same case we make now against our intelligence.Perhaps it exaggerated our intelligence or neglected the possibility that we're confined to make the best out of the materials available to us? Would the ills that befall these machines discredit the intelligence of it's inventor? Perhaps it's the fault of the invention in search of an objective model of perfection,created illusions to fit it's subjective model of it's inventor? Who's fault is it now?

LordReed:


I am not asking you to convince me, I am asking for evidence, that is simple.

Well I'm also saying that even if I did provide the evidence,it is certainly not enough to convince you if what I interpret as evidence is not the same with your interpretation.

Which ones don't have fossils?

I don't think I have to mention the ones that don't have fossils.The internet should do the trick.

Early greek philosophers laid the philosophical foundations of the distinction between bio and abiogenesis, when they debated organic and non-organic explanations for natural phenomena.

Historical Development of the Distinction between Bio- and Abiogenesis.
Robert B. Sheldon

So we are talking about a hypothesis that was made in antiquity during the time of Aristotle while you are mentioning a theory that was first proposed less than 400 years ago.

As I said the Spontaneous generation hypothesis is irrelevant.Abiogenesis is different from Spontaneous generation as regards to mechanisms but similar in the aim which is providing explanation for the origin of life through non-organic elements.Abiogenesis was coined in modern times when it was first proposed in 1924 or there about.

EmperorHarry:
Well I'm also saying that even if I did provide the evidence,it is certainly not enough to convince you if what I interpret as evidence is not the same with your interpretation.

How do you know what I interpret as evidence? Anyway this is getting tedious, I am not begging you, provide or don't.

I don't think I have to mention the ones that don't have fossils.The internet should do the trick.

I have checked and didn't see the one that doesn't.

Why is it this way with you? Are you being forced? If you don't want an honest discussion just say so.

As I said the Spontaneous generation hypothesis is irrelevant.Abiogenesis is different from Spontaneous generation as regards to mechanisms but similar in the aim which is providing explanation for the origin of life through non-organic elements.Abiogenesis was coined in modern times when it was first proposed in 1924 or there about.

LMFAO! Car is not a vehicle because car came after vehicle. LoL! Even when the scholarly work you requested confirms that the hypothesis has its roots in Greek philosophers you are going to deny it over semantics? Wow.

BTW you can show me which of Lamarck's work was called Theory of Evolution.

I think this is a sign, the discussion has reached its end point.

hakeem4:
You could even win a Nobel laureate if you find one evidence to disprove natural selection.

So if god was wrong about where humans came from, then he’s definitely wrong about where we’d end up after death. Meaning god is not omniscient or intelligent. Then why call him god or the intelligent designer?

God never told you where humans came from! All you have is what some wrote in a book and claimed came from God, and if those promoting evolution could fool you with God done it they would too except we do not see as dimly as we saw when Scripture was a science textbook and people were much more gullible than we were then because we have evolved.

Then if we humans can understand the intelligent designers design. Then he’s not as intelligent has you claimed.

EmperorHarry:
Lol..Would it be the case if I found evidence to prove ID?

God hasn't made a case for itself just yet.Human influences or interpretations of God and "God said" is pretty much human logic impersonating ID.
If a product of human intelligence could complain,let's say a car or a generator,it would make the same case we make now against our intelligence.Perhaps it exaggerated our intelligence or neglected the possibility that we're confined to make the best out of the materials available to us? Would the ills that befall these machines discredit the intelligence of it's inventor? Perhaps it's the fault of the invention in search of an objective model of perfection,created illusions to fit it's subjective model of it's inventor? Who's fault is it now?

budaatum:

God never told you where humans came from! All you have is what some wrote in a book and claimed came from God, and if those promoting evolution could fool you with God done it they would too except we do not see as dimly as we saw when Scripture was a science textbook and people were much more gullible than we were then because we have evolved.

now you sound like me

kkins25:
now you sound like me

I'm sure I sound like buda. You sure you read me enough? I wonder if you see religion and not the human being behind the religion. Lets try it. If I were to say Jesus is Lord, don't you automatically start seeing some grass eating, as Niflheim calls 'em, flat baby earth individual? It's a kind of blindness, the not looking at all sort which is endemic amongst humans. We look but we see not. I got to admit though that I'm seen. I'm in your face so I'm seen.

I'll tell you who I see when I look at you with my eyes that see. I see Kkins25 who made me fork out $50 for posting porn on a site I'm respected on! Not a lot of people dip their fingers in my money like you do. You owe me dude! You fuqing owe me!

Now tell. Who does buda sound like

hakeem4:
Then if we humans can understand the intelligent designers design. Then he’s not as intelligent has you claimed.

Why? Are you assuming you can't learn everything about the intelligent designer? You know that'll mean you're kind of not intelligent, right? Or that the intelligent designer didn't put the artificial intelligence model in you!

I don't agree you can't understand. You just being lazy!

EmperorHarry:
Well I'm also saying that even if I did provide the evidence,it is certainly not enough to convince you if what I interpret as evidence is not the same with your interpretation.

Did you miss how tough johnydon22 was on op? Your evidence can only not be enough to convince because it isn't evidence or because the person you present it to refuses to look at it or see it, in which case we'd just say they are blind. Interpreted evidence on the other hand is of a different order, and more especially if its in the form of words which are subject to interpretation.

I'll give an example. I'm going to write a few words in my next sentence. I'm going to hide them just to make it harder for you. With them I intend to state how I feel about you. I have to forewarn you that its not pretty and if I were in front of you you might not like it a tiny bit. In fact that feeling rages in me at this very moment and I wish I'd change my mind.
You ready? Don't blush on me now!



I love you.




There, interpret that!