APP - Hypothetical Scenario for Thinkers

I repeat, which "established science".....I have no intention of beginning another debate with you, only to have you pretend we weren't having it.....do you claim there is established science explaining the origin of the universe?....established science explaining the origin of life....we can't begin a debate until we both know what we are debating about.....

Since you ignored my response defining established science and evaded the question (again), I'll ask it again. Please try to answer it this time and again I will provide you the definition of what established science is. Don't change the subject, don't evade the question by posing an irrelevant question, don't state an illogical circular argument, just answer the question. If you do not, I will just repeat my question to you until I get an honest answer.

Please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena using methodological naturalism.)?
 
Apparetnly you don't.

Beefy "How do you determine what is narrative and what is factual history?"

PMP, in what is becoming his trademark not only evaded Beefy's question he didn't even so much as try to answer it.
Not what I read. He answered it over about three posts. *shrug*
 
Apparetnly you don't.

Beefy "How do you determine what is narrative and what is factual history?"

PMP, in what is becoming his trademark not only evaded Beefy's question he didn't even so much as try to answer it.

it isn't a question that can be answered in moments.....it requires study to understand.....I guess the proper answer would be that those who have no desire to learn, never will.....
 
Please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science

is this real difficult for you?....it's a simple question.....which established science.....the only statement I made on this thread before you jumped in was "shit happens versus shit was made to happen......the latter seems more plausible to me".....now, unless you simply want me to prove that it is more plausible to me, we need to have a specific topic....either pick one or stop wasting our time.....I'm not going to leave you weasel room this time....are you avoiding picking a topic because you're afraid you might have to defend something?.....
 
the problem we have is the way you have altered what I said......I have no problem with established science.....I suspect, however, you are ignorant of what actually is established.....do I have to argue against science or your knowledge of it?.....the latter would certainly be easier.....

do you think there is established science regarding the origin of the universe that contradicts intelligent design?.....personally, I believe the Big Bang, if anyone had been around to hear it, would have sounded like "Let there be!" in Hebrew....
 
is this real difficult for you?....it's a simple question.....which established science.....the only statement I made on this thread before you jumped in was "shit happens versus shit was made to happen......the latter seems more plausible to me".....now, unless you simply want me to prove that it is more plausible to me, we need to have a specific topic....either pick one or stop wasting our time.....I'm not going to leave you weasel room this time....are you avoiding picking a topic because you're afraid you might have to defend something?.....
Yes and I asked you to back that statement up and so far you've evaded answering the question. Just as you are doing here.
 
the problem we have is the way you have altered what I said......I have no problem with established science.....I suspect, however, you are ignorant of what actually is established.....do I have to argue against science or your knowledge of it?.....the latter would certainly be easier.....

do you think there is established science regarding the origin of the universe that contradicts intelligent design?.....personally, I believe the Big Bang, if anyone had been around to hear it, would have sounded like "Let there be!" in Hebrew....
You can tell me what your view of established science is. I've asked you before on other threads and you evaded that question over and over again so I doubt you'll make a comment in that respect. Be that as it may, you're still evading my question and not giving an honest answer so I will ask you a third time.

Please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena using methodological naturalism.)?
 
Please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena using methodological naturalism.)?

I don't have any views which are different than established science, therefore I cannot answer the question you have posed.....now, would you like to debate the statement I actually made?....this whole farce is occurring, only because you altered what I stated.....now, if you kindly oblige by identifying that which you call "established science" which is contradictory to the concept of intelligent design I would be happy to oblige....until you do so, it is impossible.....

I am more than ready to debate you, if you will only identify that which you want to debate......if you continue to refuse, I will chalk this up as another runaway by you.....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top