Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 11617

We have two options--one scientific and one religious--that equally explain the observation of a designed universe. The so-called scientific argument is sustained simply by a bald assertion that nature did it and not by evidence that God could not have done it. However, the design claim that I am making can be further substantiated by other evidence for the existence of God. When push comes to shove, if you are rational, it is more reasonable for you to adopt the conscious design explanation--the God claim. Most people are not going to do that because it is not scientific.

Gregory Koukl, Stand To Reason 18 Comments [5/12/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
NotMe

We have two options--one scientific and one religious--that both explain the observation of a universe. The so-called religious argument is sustained simply by a bald assertion that Goddidit and not by evidence that nature could not have done it. However, the science claim that I am making can be further substantiated by other evidence for the existence of evolution, abiogenesis, geology, biology, physics, cosmology, astronomy and a few others. When push comes to shove, if you are irrational, it is more reasonable for you to adopt the conscious design explanation--the God claim. Most people are not going to do that because it is not scientific.

5/12/2006 10:39:17 PM

Duke Stronguy

This word, rational. I don't think it means what you think it means.

5/12/2006 10:41:26 PM

ez-c

It's been said before, but it clearly needs to be said again: evolution does not disprove religion. It also should also be said that the bible does not prove religion nor does it disprove evolution. The fact that evolution can be observed to take place gives it credence, however - unlike the creation story in the bible.

5/12/2006 10:58:57 PM

Hadanelith

Fundie Redefinition of Words Project strikes again!

5/12/2006 10:59:22 PM

Papabear

\"We have two options--one scientific and one religious--that equally explain the observation of a designed universe.\"

No, the scientific explanation and the religious explanation are nowhere near equal. The scientific explanation easily routs the religious explanation.


\"The so-called scientific argument is sustained simply by a bald assertion that nature did it and not by evidence that God could not have done it.\"

The scientific assertion is not \"bald.\" It is backed up by mountains of carefully collected data. The religious assertion is backed up by wishful thinking and the fairy tales of ancient desert bumpkins.


\"However, the design claim that I am making can be further substantiated by other evidence for the existence of God.\"

Of course, you don't supply any of this evidence.


\"When push comes to shove, if you are rational, it is more reasonable for you to adopt the conscious design explanation--the God claim.\"

No, I'm sorry, you're wrong again.


\"Most people are not going to do that because it is not scientific.\"

Wouldn't it be great if that was true? Alas, most people in the U.S. believe in Bible-twaddle.

5/12/2006 11:02:23 PM

Napoleon the Clown

No, I'm sorry, you're wrong.

5/12/2006 11:07:23 PM

StandardDeviant

Bald assertion?

5/13/2006 12:11:18 AM

whitewater55

The two are not mutually exclusive. The ToE does not exclude God, just fails to mention him.
Buy a dictionary and look up \"rational\".
There is no \"evidence\" for the existense of God. I am well into my fifties, and have been searching for that evidence for 40 or more of those years and have yet to find any.

5/13/2006 12:22:51 AM

Julian

Oh another fan of \"Teach the Country Verse!\"

5/13/2006 12:58:17 AM

Crosis

<<< We have two options--one scientific and one religious--that equally explain the observation of a designed universe. >>>

There is nothing equal about the two.

<<< However, the design claim that I am making can be further substantiated by other evidence for the existence of God. >>>

Such as?

5/13/2006 1:09:17 AM

Jacob Syne

It saddens me when they turn the typical atheist style of claims back on us, unaware that what matters is truthful content, not truth-possessing form.

5/13/2006 1:12:35 AM

godling

<<Bald assertion?>>

The biblical interpretation of a 'bald assertion' is when lots of people say something that's true but you don't want to hear it, so you pray that they get savaged by bears.

2 Kings 2:23-24

5/13/2006 1:19:38 AM

JustinGG

So there is evidence for the existence of God...its just not good evidence? And we should still believe you?

5/13/2006 4:11:55 AM

David D.G.

Let me try to put this in terms you'll understand: A pathetically illogical attempt at passing off religion as science doesn't actually make it science, any more than putting on a crude plastic Halloween mask makes you a real Power Ranger. Sorry about that, especially the latter.


~David D.G.

5/14/2006 2:34:23 AM

Maronan

Originally posted by Fundie Idiot

We have two options--one scientific and one religious--that equally explain the observation of a designed universe.


If you ever find yourself seriously sick or injured, pray instead of going to a doctor. We'll see how \"equal\" the explainations are afterwards. When it comes time to go to work, pray instead of getting in your car. When you arrive at work on time, you can say that the two are \"equal.\" The next time you want to blather your religious garbage to us on the Internet, pray instead of turning on your computer. If your message appears on the Internet, you can say the two are \"equal.\"

I notice that you also beg the question by asserting that we are trying to explain a \"designed\" universe.

Originally posted by Fundie Twit

The so-called scientific argument is sustained simply by a bald assertion that nature did it and not by evidence that God could not have done it.


You have no idea what science is. Science is not trying to disprove God, science is trying to explain the universe, no matter how it came to be the way it is. Science says nothing about God. Of course, since science has turned up a lot of naturalistic explainations and has not found any evidence for God, there's no reason to believe in a god. Of course, you still haven't established what would constitute evidence for god, short of him coming down himself. Either way, until there is some evidence for god, all we have is your bald assertion and an ancient book of myths.


Originally posted by Fundie Nutjob

However, the design claim that I am making can be further substantiated by other evidence for the existence of God.


If the Christian god, then the Bible. This is valid, so if there is evidence for the Christian god, there is evidence for the Bible story. I see you claim to have evidence for the Christian god. I'd love to hear it.

Originally posted by Fundie Moron

When push comes to shove, if you are rational, it is more reasonable for you to adopt the conscious design explanation--the God claim.


Oh, come on! This is pathetic! You claim you have evidence, and your \"evidence\" is a claim that it's more rational to believe in God. Your \"evidence\" is another claim that you have evidence! I should also tell you that claiming \"My position is the only rational one\" at the very beginning is a form of poisoning the well; don't do it.

Originally posted by Fundie Loony

Most people are not going to do that because it is not scientific.


If only! Sadly, most people in this country are brainwashed into believing the BuyBull, even when it contradicts itself! I've got to move to Sweden.

5/14/2006 10:15:12 AM

The Last Conformist

So many words, so little sense.

5/14/2006 2:09:52 PM

Quantum Mechanic

Try posting your bullshit without transistors.

3/28/2012 10:30:40 AM

Quantum Mechanic

"equally"

bullshit

7/6/2012 5:08:16 PM
1