That’s not odd at all, it’s called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. The burden of proof lies with your claim a deity exists, not with those who disbelieve it.
That one is called a false dichotomy fallacy, it’s not a choice between natural selection, or an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition, using inexplicable magic.
Nope, you’re just trolling.
That is a subjective claim, and your ordinal claim was not a fact.
That remains a bare subjective claim.
So then we are back to this:
…not being a fact, but a cryptic subjective unevidenced claim.
No it isn’t, it’s an unevidenced subjective claim.
Two unevidenced subjective claims.
[quote=“rat_spit, post:738, topic:3719”]
The existence of that type of love[/quote]
Has not been remotely evidenced, nor have you explained how it remotely evidences any deity, as per your original claim…
Oh dear, of course it isn’t don’t be silly, tacking subjective unevidenced claims onto facts doesn’t make them true.
As I said this is an unevidenced subjective claim, to which you dishonestly replied that I was denying the existence of darkness, rather than the woo woo superstitious part, hence my hypothetical of a claim to have seen a mermaid in the Mississippi, which gains no credence because it contains a fact. Anymore than the existence of darkness evidences your claim.
No it is not, and you seem to have misread my post judging from that “exactly”.
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence it happened? Are you claiming your subjective experience of pain was anything but a natural phenomenon?
What has this to do with there be no evidence we can survive our own deaths in any meaningful way? Or the fact that I was dead for billions of years and experienced nothing?
You still need evidence for a synthesizer. All you’ve posited is a synthesizer of the gaps.
Not up to me to decide. Up to you, the person making the claim. To demonstrate.
A synthesizer of the gaps is no better argument than a God of the gaps. You still need evidence for the synthesizer and evidence for your assertion that the synthesizer you speak of had anything at all to do with creating anything at all. You might also explain how you rules out ‘natural causation.’
Still easily verified to be an objective reality by anyone with a brain
Verifiable as an ordinary, objective, universally experienced reality (if you have a brain inside your skull and can comprehend darkness with your mind).
Nope. It’s a direct consequence of the above mentioned verifiable facts.
Verifiable by anyone with a brain.
Adequately described with verifiable principles. If you can’t A) comprehend the nature of darkness, then you cannot B) see the inherent love in the darkness. Without B) your understanding of C) the higher beings who dwell constantly in that state is lacking (I never said “Gods” or “deities”).
Ha. And what is the existence of darkness if not transcendental love?
How about the burns on my hands? And no. The occurrence is purely a tactile evolutionary adaptation to prevent me from destroying my body in relation to super hot surfaces.
As to the objective evidence from contact with transcendental love … we can start with the extreme volumes of relaxation in my body. A purely natural evolutionary adaptation to encourage me to sustain the body by releasing stress from my muscles, tendons, sinews.
Exactly. You experienced nothing. How funny that, now you are something and you don’t recall the state of sublime transcendental love in which you once existed.
This remains an unevidenced subjective claim, no matter how many times you repeat it?
Again all you offered was an unevidenced subjective claim, and now you’re making another one.
Indeed, but that wasn’t the entirety of your claim, and it in no way represents evidence for any deity or anything supernatural. FYI if you have a brain in your skull you can comprehend mermaids and unicorns, this doesn’t make them real. Nor would making the unevidenced subjective claim they "live in the darkness.
And that is another subjective unevidenced claim. What one wonders do you hope to gain by lining these up in tandem like this? I will never understand why religious apologists think they can prop up an unevidenced assertion with another unevidenced assertion.
Three.
I strongly disagree, word salad has no descriptive powers.
Four…I am simply going to number the unevidenced subjective claims from now on.
Straw man, darkness is the the partial or total absence of light. It’s you are don’t comprehend it, as you’re making claims that have nothing to do with what it means. Religious apologists love these meaningless appeals to mystery, who knows why.
Meaningless word salad, love is not inherent in darkness, the statement is meaningless, like saying fish are inherent in the trees.
Five. What higher beings, what does that even mean, and what evidence can you etc etc etc…
Hmmm…you have also predicated this discourse in response to my question to @Sid to evidence his claim that love was evidence for a deity. I sense a moving of the goal posts, but I suggest you offer a clear and accurate explanation of what you think a higher being is, though I anticipate more word salad.
Meaningless word salad, like asking what is the existence of fish if not turnips.
You’d need to offer more than a claim for it to represent objective evidence.
Then pain seems irrelevant to your unevidenced claim that I will survive my death in any meaningful way.
This doesn’t need love, let alone magic, and so is not objective evidence for woo woo love you have yet to demonstrate is even possible.
If it’s purely natural then it doesn’t evidence anything supernatural, by definition.
Which rather refutes your claim I will “meet my maker” when I die. I can’t meet anything if I can’t experience anything, and that was the case for billions of years before I was born.
You have offered no evidence this is possible, and I experienced no such thing, so what’s funny is you suggesting not experiencing anything when I was dead, is evidence I will experience something when I die. That makes no sense.
Oh look, it’s duplicitous apologetics time again, folks!
Ahem, YOU were the one who asserted that we purportedly needed a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology to explain sophisticated behaviour in animals. Nice goalpost switch you’ve attempted (and failed) to pull there.
Meanwhile, I notice you gave up trying to explain how an invisible entity could have an “image” or a “likeness”. Apparently defending your own assertions is too much hard work for you.
Oh look, it’s the tiresome resurrection of Paley’s Watchmaker bullshit again. Which Ive already dealt with at length in two places, namely here, and in the document I provided here. Indeed, in that first link, I provided an example of a product “designed” using evolutionary algorithms. I also provided three more examples of useful products being “designed” by evolution in the document provided here.
Do you ever pay attention to the free education you’re receiving here?
Oh, and don’t bother resurrecting Canard #8 from my list, as you’ve done in the past, or Canard #9.
Quite simply, drop the fatuous presumption that there was a “who” involved in any of the vast panoply of observable entities and interactions that science has explained, without once needing to invoke a fatuous cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology.
Except that no one here asserts that cars are anything other than the products of human engineering. Drop the strawman caricatures that you and other mythology fanboys are so fond of, and address what we, and for that matter, scientists, actually postulate with respect to the requisite questions. Your blatant shilling for the Duplicity Institute is becoming tiresome.
Again, no one asserts this. We have evidence that Ferrucio Lamborghini was involved with, for example, the Miura. Indeed, elsewhere I wrote a documentary post on this very subject, which you can read here.
Going to set fire to those strawmen of yours once and for all, mythology fanboy?
Except that the scientists in question have provided data informing us that testable natural processes were responsible, not a ridiculous cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology, and have also provided experimental test and verification of the requisite postulates. Which has never happened with “Magic Man did it”. At bottom, all that mouth on a stick mythology fanboys have ever had to offer, can be summed up as “my mythology says so”, with a leavening of “here’s some ex recto apologetics I produced in a vain attempt to conjure my fantasies into life with a magic spell”.
Learn once and for all that the “design” assertion is bullshit, and we have numerous cogent reasons why it’s bullshit. If you need schooling on this, I’ve provided the reading material.
And, predictably, our mythology fanboy has resurrected Canard #24 from my list, the asinine “were you there?” canard.
Guess what, Looby Loo? Scientists don’t need to have been present in the past, to know what happened in the past. All that they need, is:
[1] For the requisite physical processes to leave behind them persistent physical evidence of their occurrence (fossils being possibly the canonical example), or;
[2] For the requisite physical processes to be demonstrated to work in laboratory experiments.
And before you try to peddle some specious apologetic garbage, to the effect that the laws of physics were purportedly “different” in the past, we know otherwisse, courtesy of several well-documented phenomena. SN1987A, for example, not only demonstrates that the laws of physics were the same 167,000 years ago, but requires trigonometry to be wrong in order for creationist assertions to be right. Good luck with that one. The Oklo natural nuclear reactor tells us that the laws of physics were the same around 2 billion years ago. Indeed, there are numerous scientific papers informing us that the laws of physics have remained essentially constant right across deep time, one relevant paper being this one:
A Search For Time Variation Of The Fine Structure Constant by John K. Webb,. Victor V. Flambaum, Christopher W. Churchill, Michael J. Drinkwater and John D. Barrow, Physical Review Letters, 82: 884-888 (1st February 1999) [Full paper available for download here
Another relevant paper is this one:
Direct Test Of The Time-Independence Of Fundamental Nuclear Constants Using The Oklo Nuclear Reactor by Alexander I. Shylakhter, arXiv.org (SPECIAL NOTE: this paper was a transcript of a lecture given at ATOMKI, 18 November, 1982. This document was re-entered manually; scanned original is available at http://alexonline.info . This document was uploaded to arXiv.org by Ilya Shlyakhter (contact info at http://ilya.cc) after the death of its author) [Full paper available for download here].
We also have this:
The Oklo bound On The Time Variation Of The Fine-Structure Constant Revisited by Thibault Damour and Freeman Dyson, Nuclear Physics B, 480(1-2): 37-54 (25th November 1996) [Full paper available for download here]
and this:
Probing The Cosmological Variation Of The Fine-Structure Constant: Results Based On VLT-UVES Sample by Hum Chand, Raghunathan Srianand, Patrick Petitjean and Bastien Aracil, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 417(3): 853-871 (3rd April 2004) [Full paper avaialble for download here]
Oh, by the way, I was dealing with fatuous creationist assertions about the supposed “difference” of the laws of physics in the past a long time ago. For example, there’s this post of mine elsewhere from 2014, or this post of mine elsewhere from 2011, and this post of mine elsewhere from 2010. As you can see, I’ve been quite busy on this matter. It’s the reason I’m able to anticipate the sort of duplicity you’re plotting to deploy next.
Oh, and as I’ve already mentioned in my detailed coverage of creationist canards, the “were you there?” canard is even more lethal to your adherence to your goat herder mythology, because, wait for it, no one was there BY DEFINITION to “document” the hilarity asserted to have taken place in Genesis 1. Yet despite there being ZERO evidence for those assertions, you treat said assertions as fact, while dismissing actual experimental laboratory results from scientists, though I’m used to this double standard from creationists.
But you duplicitously claim that this negates scientific findings that destroy the assertions of your goat herder mythology. Double standard and hypocrisy, thy name is creationism.
First of all, your duplicitous attempt to reverse the burden of proof fools no one here. YOU are the one asserting that your cartoon magic man exists, therefore YOU are the one required to support that assertion. All we are required to do is sit back and watch you fail, as you have failed repeatedly here before.
Oh, by the way, we have, as icing on the cake, several cogent reasons to dismiss your imaginary cartoon magic man, but even if we didn’t, your failure to support your assertion is sufficient grounds for dismissal.
BARE FACED LIE.
Natural selection has been observed taking place in living organisms. Oh wait, I HAVE ALREADY POINTED YOU AT A SCIENTIFIC PAPER, DATING BACK TO 1948, DOCUMENTING AN EXPLICIT EXPERIMENTAL TEST AND VERIFICATION OF NATURAL SELECTION, IN THIS PAST POST.
STOP LYING.
YOUR double standards being particularly obnoxious.
When are you going to STOP LYING, mythology fanboy? Especially when your LIES are EASILY EXPOSED AS SUCH? Oh wait, doesn’t your favourite goat herder mythology have something to say about LYING???
@WhoAreYou … since your output here has repeatedly been exposed to be a mixture of duplicitous ex recto apologetic fabrications and, in numerous instances, blatant outright lies, when are you going to hang your head in shame, as your mythology tells you that you should? More importantly, when are you going to stop lying?
I take the view that your discoursive offences here are of such an egregious nature, that they warrant administrative attention. I shall await the appropriate verdict.
It is no different than apprehending the colour blue on a blue flower and making the statement of fact, “I see a blue flower.”
The lack of evidence rests in your mind alone, Sheldon.
Your unwillingness to identify the love in the midst of the darkness you fear so much is the only reason this truth is not apparent to you.
Oh good! Why then can you not intuit the composite love within the darkness?
Nor do I claim it to be a deity or supernatural. It’s an evolved intelligence existing within the darkness.
Again, the lack of evidence stems from you being unable to make the step from infinite darkness to transcendental love. Having made that step, the underlying intelligence and motive of the external reality would expose the beings therein.
Have you verified it your self? It’s there. It’s waiting to be identified. Remember Sheldon:
There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done.
Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung.
Nothing you can do,
but you can learn how to be you in time;
It’s easy!
Eh 🤷 I have little to gain. You are quite clearly stuck in your intellectual bubble; the likes of which you’re not able to escape. It is entertaining at the least to speak down to someone about topics they haven’t got the least understanding of. At this point, all hope of showing you the undying love that the universe has for you seems a wasted goal.
The evidence exists in and around you. You fail to grasp it.
Darkness is nothingness seen from a distance. Much like a white cloud cannot be seen by one who is in the middle of it, nothingness evades all detection until one approaches it from a distance. Perhaps that is why you are still unable to comprehend it. You find it impossible to grasp. Funny, as it is the very essence of your being.
Are you afraid of the darkness, Sheldon? Are you afraid of love?
Ah. Yes. I failed to correct your assumption.
Pffft. I don’t give a fuck about @Sid or his imaginary God. I have insider’s knowledge on all the going’s on in the heavens and A) it’s not heaven, it’s a space ship and B) they’re not deities, they’re aliens.
Are you special? We’re making a very simple hypothetical statement here.
You’re interesting in that you seem dead set on not allowing me even one example of objective evidence. As if your entire choke hold on this conversation would evaporate if you did.
You’re going to such extents that the following statements are discounted as evidence or fact of physical pain.
“A normal person puts their hand on a very hot surface.”
“After removing their hands from the surface they are covered in third degree burns.”
This is not evidence of physical pain? WTF?
Transcendental love is no less physical than pain. It requires an outside source and a receptacle.
Not “love” Sheldon. “Transcendental Love”
What has “nothing” got to do with “anything”. Now you’re shifting the goalposts.
You have no proof of that. Perhaps you simply don’t recall.
I haven’t posited anything supernatural.
“Anything”? Did I say you experienced “nothing” or “not anything”?
Yes, I did. Apologies if it is said poorly but the message is: ok explain fish through science, it’s very interesting, but to say that the complex science we observe originated from the science itself is just as saying the complex science of how a V12 works explains its origins and we don’t need Lamborghini to explain it anymore. I don’t see how this line of logic works.
Once again, this isn’t what actual scientists postulate. How many times do you need to be told this?
What scientists actually postulate, is that complex entities arose when simpler, antecedent entities acquired new features. A process for which we have evidence. That long exposition I presented on the genetics of domesticated goldfish being a case in point, not to mention the hundreds of scientific papers devoted to de novo gene origination.
Once again, when are you going to learn the actual facts applicable here, instead of whatever nonsense on the subject you’ve spooned up from the Duplicity Institute?
I’ve already explained at length why this is bullshit. Did you actually fucking READ that post?
Because it’s a fabrication on your part, not what is actually happening. Next?
It should be clear that ratty does not understand the standards or levels of evidence.
A direct quote from the handbook of the Krishna Consciousness movement, and probably a few other cults out there. If you starve yourself long enough, focus your mind tight enough, interpret all your senses our way, you too can see the magic in the universe. Poor poor ratty. Enveloped in cult behavior and thinking, and he just does not know it. Poor poor ratty.
Face it Sheldon, the reason you do not see is that you are deficient. You are spiritually void. You will never experience the truth of pure, true, love. You are a failed human being. LOL It’s so nice our self-esteem is not tied to ratty smelling internet posts or monkey feet. Perhaps someday …
This bullshit mumbo jumbo is so reminiscent of the meditation movements of the late 60’s and early 70’s. Does anyone remember Krishna chanters in the airports? I happened to work directly next door to temple.
A great example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Poor poor Ratty and his poor poor cultish thinking. I’m truly sorry for you son. You’re going to wake up one day and wonder where your life has gone. You are not speaking down to anyone. All the enlightenment in the world will not buy you a cup of coffee. What you have is a way to die peacefully in a delusion. That’s about all. Your very existence has turned to vicarious representations of the world around you. Poor poor ratty. If you meditate on a grain of rice and think you have found meaning, you have wasted a day.
A normal person does not put their hand on a very hot surface unless they are a frigging idiot. Your analogy fails here.
Yep. It’s only evidence of pain if the person tells you he or she is in pain or is reacting in a way that would make you think they are in pain. A million factors can prevent pain. How is it you do not yet know this? I have broken fingers and toes in fights and not noticed it for hours. Adrenalin is amazing.
This is directly from the Krishna Consciousness movement.
God is directly perceptible to all. Just starve yourself in meditation for a long enough time and your delusions will eventually coincide with ours.
According to the movement…
'If we purify our senses, those purified senses will help us see God."
How do you purify your senses: You starve, meditate, and chant yourself into a delusional state of exactly. Exactly what Ratty is talking about. Exactly the language Ratty is using.
"Only those who realize, through deep pure-hearted meditation, this Supreme Personality, who resides in everyone’s heart, can attain liberation.”
“Only when one becomes spiritually saturated by transcendental service to the Lord are the transcendental name, form, quality and pastimes of the Lord revealed to him.”
“When we render transcendental loving service to the Lord with our senses, beginning with the tongue, the Lord gradually reveals Himself.” (Hence the chanting meditation Krishna members are known for.)
This is all pure cult thinking.
There is a reason I like to say, “Believing is seeing.”
Even if unpopular it must be said, the bible is a historical document. That is just by definition what it is. And it’s preservation, number of copies, finding the dead sea scrolls, etc makes it an exceptional historical document. I will continue using it because it’s fair game. I don’t agree with a lot of what the origin of life papers say but i will not tell you to stop using them because i think they lie. I will debate you as much as possible with what i agree with and remark on things i find questionable.
As far as quantum tunneling goes. I think that is a rather fascinating topic you bring up. I too am intrigued with it. I however see it quite differently than you. I think it speaks of Jesus because he walked through walls and i found it fascinating that we see this not defying science but happening in quantum physics. I also think it’s fascinating that electons behave as a particle and a wave but again i see Jesus having two natures. I also find it fascinating that Jesus said He is the light of the world and light is the only speed that is not relative neither can anyone catch up to the speed of light. Again, like you i think science is extremely fascinating but my worldview is different and i see how it points to God and affirms His word. Also, i find it fascinating that the forces of the universe are invisible but vital and felt by all. We can’t see these but we do see their effects on earth.
No, it’s a mythology.
It contains within its pages, assertions about events that never happened, and assertions about the natural world that are not merely wrong, but don’t rise to the level of competence needed to be worthy of a point of view by anyone with a properly educated mind.
Wrong. See above. The “global flood” never happened. Exodus never happened. The destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar never happened. Need I go on?
The only thing “exceptional” about this collection of fairy tales, is that people continue to treat its risible assertions as fact.
Plus, the only reason it persists, is because of the willingness of past enforcers of conformity to doctrine to exterminate anyone who didn’t conform.
And I will continue shredding it because it’s fair game for said treatment.
In short, you prefer mythological assertion over demonstrable fact.
If you think the authors of those papers are “lying”, you’re lining yourself up for a world of legal hurt. Defamation of this sort has serious consequences.
Plus, if you think their reportage of their experiments is purportedly “lying”, here’s a challenge - produce experimental results yourself to the contrary. Good luck with that one.
The only reason you find my scientific presentations “questionable” is because you’ve made an ideological choice. I haven’t.
Oh for fuck’s sake …
There’s a huge fucking difference between an electron and a human being. Or did this not occur to you?
This fucking obsession with a cartoon magic man you exhibit here is pathological. It colours every fucking tiny thought you have. It’s like watching a disease progress.
Do you ever have a thought that doesn’t involve trying to work your cartoon magic man into places it doesn’t belong?
Oh, it’s hilarious seeing you try to press the invariance of c0 into apologetic service, while noting that there are plenty of instances of creationist apologetics trying to rubbish this observed fact … but consilience is completely absent from mythology fanboyism …
No fucking kidding?
You really think I needed to be told this?
Only in the television in your head.
You do realise that several million peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the evidence that testable natural processes are sufficient to explain the vast body of observational data obtained over the past 350 years? And as a corollary, that cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant?
None of which validates a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology.
I disagree, also #6.
I disagree, also #7.
None of that is true, also #8.
I don’t base belief on intuition, you may have forgotten this, as it has to be like a few minutes since I’ve said it, but I base belief on a demonstration of sufficient objective evidence.
#9.
#10
#11.
#12.
Yet you keep stringing unevidenced subjective claims together in tandem.
Ad hominem fallacy. oh and #13
I’m not talking down to you?
#14
#15
#16
Word salad and #17.
More word salad and #18
Ad hominem fallacy #19
#20
No, and no.
Dishonesty, there was no assumption , the discourse you involved yourself in was asking Sid to evidence his claim that love was sufficient reason to believe in a deity, you failed to clarify you were talking about something else, using vague woo woo terms like higher being.
Then why hijack that discourse, you could have started a thread for this superstitious crap if you wanted to discuss something else.
#21
#22
#23.
On the contrary, at this point I would welcome one.
I think conversation is a stretch, you’re reeling off unevidenced claims, and I am sitting here wondering why?
Straw man fallacy. oh and #24
I have not disputed that ever, straw man.
#25
#26
#27
Read the assertion in the post, it’s self explanatory.
Not even close to being true.
That scenario is offering no data to examine, just as when I was dead for billions of years. The claim was yours, that I would “meet my maker when I die”, so firstly there is no objective evidence for this, and secondly I experienced nothing before I was born, which does not support the superstitious notion I will be able to when I die. All the evidence suggests consciousness requires a functioning physical brain. There is no evidence consciousness can survive the death of that physical brain. All the semantics and word salad don’t change that.
I am dubious, but i can’t be bothered to waste time finding the posts only for you to spin it with semantics.
Nothing and not anything are semantically the same.
Nothing
pronoun
No it isn’t.
No it isn’t. I’d bet you don’t fully understand what the term means as well. Do you even know the difference between primary and secondary sources for example?
“Historical documents, also known as primary sources, are most often produced around the time of the events you are studying and provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event, object, person, or work of art. They can reflect what their creator observed or believed about the event.”
The bible fails on one or all of those, especially as has been explained to you the gospels, which are entirely anonymous and date many decades after the events they purport to describe, the names are fictitious and were added arbitrarily by early church leader over three hundred years later.
However even if your claim were not utterly false, it would be simply risible to suggest an historical document that was a first-hand account from a worthy source, in an epoch of such ignorance and superstition, were sufficient evidence to believe claims for the supernatural. It’s hard in fact to imagine a lower bar for credulity, or a higher threshold for extraordinary claims.
And others will continue to reject unevidenced anecdote from archaic superstition.
What origin of life papers? Evolution is what you have continually tried to deny, and it makes no assertions about the origins of life.
False equivalence fallacy, science is not based on subjective opinion, or unevidenced claims. Assuming you’re referring to science of course, and not some straw man the creationist movement have created, like the erroneous practice of equating species evolution with abiogenesis.
That is simply a bare subjective claim, comparing that to scientific enquiry is simply risible.
That’s hearsay. If Jesus existed we have no idea what he may or may not have said.
It doesn’t, atheism is far higher among scientists than other demographics.
On the contrary, for example the geological record demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has ever occurred, and species evolution utterly refutes the Genesis creation myth. Archaeological evidence sought for many decades to validate or confirm the core of the Exodus narrative, has demonstrated it to be a myth, and the experts searching wanted desperately the evidence to go the other way, but had the integrity to acknowledge the truth.
Your are indicating what I’ve seen countless times from creationists, a belief they wouldn’t abandon no matter what, and therefore an bias that would deny any amount of scientific evidence, and does of course. You have either been brainwashed, or are allowing yourself to be brainwashed, and are determined to reject change or deny any and all facts to suit your belief. Integrity involves changing beliefs to suit facts. In the astronomically unlikely event over 164 years of global scientific evidence were overturned tomorrow, and species evolution were substantially changed or even abandoned, I would accept that instantly, because I alter my beliefs to suit the facts, not the other way around.
I’m afraid your arguments are meaningless until you can muster that kind of integrity, though of course it is absolutely a personal choice what to believe. The difference is that I care far more about the truth of any belief than I do about the belief itself.
There you go again. Lying as usual. It is not a historical document.
Science is not the opposite of theism. It’s not an either/or situation.
lol he’s been trying to peddle that idea with his argument. “Oh atheists worship science, lemme tell ya!” hahahaha gotta love @WhoAreYou and those knee slappers. The guy is a real comedian.
It’s not on anyone to disprove a claim, you theists make the claim but have never demonstrated any proof.
Burden of proof remains on the one making the claim.
What’s telling whenever creationists peddle this particular false dichotomy, is how gleefully they will hail science as evidencing a deity, even though it obviously does not of course, but failing to notice the irony of such bias and cherry picking of scientific facts. Science and the methods of science are not a pick’n mix, you either accept the fact that the methods have merit, or you do not, and if they do not, then I do wish they would pray that belief to me, and stop using technology that simply wouldn’t exist without science.
