Evolution has as much evidence and acceptance in science as all of the topics that I mentioned. If you deem evolution to be a religion, then so must you deem all the rest of scientific understanding a religion.
|
Evolution has as much evidence and acceptance in science as all of the topics that I mentioned. If you deem evolution to be a religion, then so must you deem all the rest of scientific understanding a religion.
Ahuh.
Find me at least a small amount of the required "missing links" and I will believe that fish became dinosaurs and that mice became apes which became men.
There's almost as much evidence against evolution as there is for it.
I can prove gravity, I just have to drop something, and this sort of thing can be applied to most of science.
I can't prove evolution, I can't sit there and watch things evolve.
If you had children as I do you would see it in progress. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cal823
There's 2 kinds of evolution
Minor evolution, which is like your kid having different hair colour or being a little smarter
Major evolution
Which is fish to dinosaurs sort of thing.
Can you watch major evolution?
I don't know, can you stay alive for 5,000 years to watch it? Yet you believe a 2,000 year old book.Quote:
Originally Posted by cal823
I believe it out of faith
I just don't think there should be an arbitrary taught faith like evolution taught in class as if it is scientific fact
We're going 'round in circles. Me or Capuchin telling you there is overwhelming evidence (hence the 'science' part) will not change your views.
Have a great day!
:)
True, I was thinking it was about time for us to stop arguing about this anyway, I have my faith(christianity) and you have your faith (darwinism)
Have a great week! I respect your beliefs.
Cal you were great !
Lol! Thanks
Macroevolution is just lots of microevolutions. Why is that hard to accept if you accept that microevolution happens?
There is very little evidence against evolution. I don't doubt that you've been told that there is though. Please feel free to provide said evidence.
Even without the fossil record, there's still a huge amount of evidence for evolution. Paleontology is a very small part of the set of evidence we have.
Please don't tell me I believe in Darwinism. Nobody in the scientific community believes in Darwinism. Darwin's theory of evolution has been altered many many times. This is what science is all about, modifying theories to fit new evidence. It is not static like your book.
Like I said, calling evolution faith is like calling the whole of science faith. I'm sure there are scientific things that you believe that you cannot prove.
From Wiki: "Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, which they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief. Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools."Quote:
Originally Posted by cal823
Darwinists use the term "Creationism" ;)
You mean evolutionists. It's fine to call us that. But we don't believe in Darwinistic evolution.
Okay, evolutionists.
Can you please explain to me the diff between darwinistic evolution and evolution?
Is it just because of his racist and sexist views, or is it more?
No, darwinism is the theory that he put forward 150 years ago. Since then, more evidence of how life evolved has come to light. In order to make the theory more accurate, little corrections are made so that it explains this evidence also. This is what happens with all scientific theories. The theory of evolution we follow now is correctly termed Neo-Darwinism or Evolutionary Synthesis. It's Darwinism with numerous tweaks to fit all the evidence that we see. It is not static like creationism, because we know that we have not seen all that there is to see.
As far as I'm aware, Darwin had no strong sexist or racist views. Again, I'm sure that this is anti-evolutionist propaganda that has been invented in order to discredit evolution. Of course they do not seem to realise that even if he was racist or sexist (and I don't believe that there is evidence that he was), then it would not say anythign about the validity of his theory.
Ummmmm I've seen extracts from his work quoted that say racist/sexist things
Probably fits with the times it was written though
Incarnate means that the devil is embodied just like a human being. Is that what you meant to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by modular01
M:)
Its interesting actually, there is some symmetry between god and the devil
God/devil
And the physical incarnations of jesus/antichrist
But it makes you think... what about the holy spirit? Is there a satannic counterpart? Or maybe the devil just doesn't understand the concept of the holy spirit and so didn't mimic it... I don't know...
Maybe the devils just a dumb evil copycat who wants to mock god by making evil versions of his work
The 'inerrancy of scripture', meaning the Bible, is a fairly recent phenomenon. The Bible makes no claims to inerrancy, and many of its mistakes are still evident. If the Bible were perfect then it would be God and the worship of it would be Bibliolatry. But the Bible does not advocate, condone, support, nor approve of an inerrant text. This is obvious from the text itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
M:)RGANITE
There is very little symmetry between God and Satan whichever way you look at it, unless one remains at a superficial level. Satan opposes God, but he is not as wise as God or else he would realise that he is on a hiding to nothing and cannot, ultimately, win his battle against God and goodness.Quote:
Originally Posted by cal823
Satan has nothing to offer humanity except eternal misery and permanent failure. Satan was once an angel of light so it is not unthinkable that he understands the Holy Spirit extremely well and does his best to counter its good and positive influences. Yet there is no equity in the 'power' that Satan when considered in inverse proportion to God's power.
The 'power' of Satan is limited to influencing the choices people make, but God's power includes the control of nature, creation, eternal salvation, the provision of a savior to remove the evil effects on the human soul that is the lot of those who are turned aside from God's way by the gaudy entreaties of Lucifer, whose sole aim is to make everyone as miserable as he is, and to attempt to thwart God's purposes of saving humanity from the effects of sin and disobedience.
Although we should not minimize Satan's influence by too great a degree, neither should we inflate his reputation and capabilities, because he is limited in hios sphere of activities by what God will permit. For example:
1 Corinthians 10:13: There has no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is trustworthy and he will not permit you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to patiently endure it without being influenced by it.
Thus, although Satan himself is the counterpart as far as the mission and purpose of the Holy Spirit is concerned, Satan cannot be thought of as the mirror image of God, because he is so far removed from God and God's characteristics and attributes that Satan shows up very poorly by any kind of comparison.
There will be no 'incarnation' of an antichrist. An antichrist is any person or institution that opposes God and Christ, not a specific and special individual who will be born into the world to bring about an andgame of Manichean proportions when the forces of God and the forces of satan duke it out to decide who wins the sols of mankind. That outcome has already been decided, and although I don't want to spil the Book for those who have not finished reading it, God and Goodness wins, and Satan and evil are defeated, roundly and permanently. This is better than Harry Potter! :)
M:)RGANITE
Please feel free to quote his work here :)
Lol
Who dies in harry potter anyway? No one will tell me lol
Snape kills Dumbledore.
I meant the newest book lol
;D. I would discourage anyone from spoiling a recently released book on a public forum like this. Many people who have not had time to read the book would not want to have it spoiled.
Dammit... meh, it's a crap book anyway, I always thought harry potter was too silly a book
My friend called me just to complain about how much he hated it:p
Do you have aposition on the onion theory?Quote:
Originally Posted by aircloud
M:)
Cal, you are right, I've found some views in his work that were racist. However there were very few people 150 years ago who weren't racist, our society has come a long way since then.
Exactly, literay texts of that time, as well as scientific texts would reflect the racist and sexist attitudes of said times society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freethinka
What other things that you do not believe do you make such a big fuss about?
M:)
To deny the law of non contradiction formulated by Aristotle is believed to be throwing truth out the window by Francis Shaeffer.
I would read what he has to say about the law of non contradtion.
The big bang requires that something come from nothing without a God for existing matter and energy to do this requires my contradictory creation equation.
I told a tiny lie about bineg a really experienced skier but really how hard can it be?
bridget Jones diary.
Creation exnihilo is not a contradiction because the existence of God makes the impossible something from nothing possible.
Your proof can be found by studying the law of non contradiction.
I also recommend creation science.
What qualifications does Aristotle have to prove the big bang wrong.
And what qualifications do you need other than common sense.
Steve
Erm, Hi Steve, could you word your post a little better, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.
This dialogue is a great example of the necessity of using logic and what happens when the laws of logic are undermined. This atheist is bright and knows that if he concedes the laws of logic are absolute, he would be on the defensive. It is my opinion that he purposely trying to undermine the validity of logic in order to retain his position. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is my opinion. Judge for yourself as we jump in.Quote:
Originally Posted by aircloud
Matt Slick: Evidence for what? God's existence?
Rashbam: I don't agree that there was any begging the question.
Matt Slick: I can offer you an argument for God's existence, if you're interested. It is a bit involved, but worth a look.
Rashbam: I do hope it won't be one of the old hackneyed ones (cosmological, transcendental, etc.) Since they have been pretty much thrashed.
Matt Slick: I didn't think the transcendental argument was hackneyed. I prefer to use the transcendental argument.
Rashbam: Ah, a "transcendentalist." How quaint.
Matt Slick: Would you like to try and thrash the transcendental argument?
Rashbam: I don't even find it to be a coherent argument.
Matt Slick: Would you agree with me that if there are only two options to explain something, and one of them is proven false, that logically speaking, the other position is validated?
Rashbam: Well, let's see about that, Matt. Do you know anything about quantum mechanics, for example? About the fact that there can be linear superpositions of physical states?
Matt Slick: Are you an expert on quantum mechanics?
Rashbam: Yes, in fact I am an expert. Ph.d. in physics, professor of physics.
Matt Slick: Well, then, good. This should be interesting. I suppose that what you're going to try and do is bury me with esoteric terminology and concepts that you know I don't know about. I further suppose that you would try to do this in order to try and win an argument. Though it is not winning an argument.
Rashbam: No, but it will be difficult if you don't know about some basics.
Matt Slick: Since we both agree that logic is something we should use, let's discuss logic. Do you agree that logic exists?
Rashbam: I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.
Matt Slick: Logic is something we use in our dialogues, "if then" propositions, etc.
Rashbam: I think logic is a mode of thought.
Matt Slick: Okay. Logic Is a mode of thought. I would agree.
Rashbam: What you find logical may not be logical to me. I would then have to try to convince you that you have made an error, consistent with your own views of the rules of logic
Matt Slick: Would you agree with me that, for example, the law of non-contradiction is true? That something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense?
Rashbam: Well, Matt, here's where I need to ask about quantum mechanics.
Matt Slick: Don't ask me about quantum mechanics. I'm not the expert.
Rashbam: Because we can have a state of physical reality where an electron has spin "up" and spin "down" simultaneously.
Matt Slick: However, I do know about logic and I am asking you a question. Would you agree with me that, for example, the law of non-contradiction is true? That something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense?
Rashbam: It is equivalent to having a person being alive and dead, simultaneously. Presumably you would claim that a person cannot be both alive and dead simultaneously. But quantum mechanics proves otherwise *with the following caveat*...
Matt Slick: Excuse me, but I'm not here to discuss quantum mechanics.
Rashbam: That caveat is: Macroscopic states, due to something called "decoherence," generally assume classical behaviors.
Matt Slick: Excuse me, can we stick to the topic? Can you please stop trying to bury me in esoteric terminology?
Rashbam: Well then I'm sorry but I cannot accept the "law of noncontradiction" because I know of instances where it does not apply.
Matt Slick: So then the law of non-contradiction is not true, correct?
Rashbam: As applied to quantum systems, it is problematic. A more nuanced form would be required.
Matt Slick: If the law of non-contradiction is not true, then I immediately claim victory over you in all of our arguments because I have already won everything logically because I said so yesterday and today.
Rashbam: Can you make progress in your argument without invoking the law of non-conradiction?
Matt Slick: I never mentioned a law of non-contradiction.
Rashbam: You did about 2 minutes ago.
Matt Slick: No, I did not. You are obviously in error. Since the law of non-contradiction cannot be assumed to always be true, then I have not contradicted myself when
I tell you I never mentioned the law of non-contradiction, even in this statement.
Rashbam: I didn't say you contradicted yourself. By the way, I claim victory too!
Matt Slick: Therefore, I win again because the law of non-contradiction is not absolute. Therefore, I cannot be proven to have contradicted myself.
Rashbam: And I thank you for graciously conceding the argument to me!
Matt Slick: Ah, then according to your system of thought, we all win. Yeah! I like what you have done. You've invalidated rational discussion. Well done.
Rashbam: No, only I have won. You conceded -- remember?
Matt Slick: Is this what your atheism leads to, irrationality?
Rashbam: No, Matt -- you're the one who started playing games here.
Matt Slick: No, since I claimed it first, I win first. No matter what you say, I double that. Therefore, I win. Nya nya nya.
Rashbam: I simply pointed out that there is a problem with classical notions of contradiction when one goes to the quantum level -- the way the universe works.
Matt Slick: Now, if by chance you are willing to have a rational discussion with me, then we could continue. But if you want to assert that the law of non-contradiction is not rationally true in all places, and then there is no basis for rational discussion.
Rashbam: You dismissed that as "jargon" and started ranting.
Matt Slick: I never dismissed any jargon and I was not ranting ever. Not at all.
Rashbam: This is why we need to talk about quantum mechanics, Matt.
Matt Slick: Or... are you going to cite the law of non-contradiction as being true in which to prove me incorrect?
Rashbam: Because you insist that the "law of non-contradiction" is essential.
Matt Slick: Which is it going to be? Are you going to validate the rule or invalidate the rule?
Rashbam: It depends on how you try to apply it. Of course.
Matt Slick: I'm just trying to establish a rational dialogue. It is you who is trying to undermine it. When I assume you're a presupposition regarding the law of non-contradiction, the previous several minutes is the result.
Rashbam: This isn't going the way you thought, huh?
Matt Slick: Actually, I thought you'd be logical. I didn't think you would use illogic to try and win an argument.
Rashbam: No, I have simply pointed out that your assumptions might be problematic in certain cases.
Matt Slick: "might be"? That's it? "might be" is what you're offering? So you have a possibility, a "might be" for your position? Is that rational?
Rashbam: Well as I don't know how you are going to invoke this "law" that is the best I can do. Why don't you proceed and I'll tell you when you've made an error.
Matt Slick: The law of non-contradiction is something you cited earlier. I purposely was illogical, violating the law of non-contradiction. You cited my error, thereby presupposing the validity of the law of non-contradiction.
Rashbam: Ah, so you admit you were intentionally being illogical.
Matt Slick: So you either must tell me that it is true or it is not true. The law of excluded middle tells us that the statement is either true or false.
Rashbam: So you were the one who started to derail the conversation.
Matt Slick: Now, is it true or false that the law of non-contradiction is always true? I was not derailing the conversation. I was precisely on topic.
Rashbam: Again, I need to ask you about quantum mechanics.
Matt Slick: I see, so you can stick to the issue at hand?
Rashbam: Because the physical world behaves differently than you think.
Matt Slick: On what basis do you make that statement?
Rashbam: Can't you just get on with your argument?
Matt Slick: On what basis do you make the statement that the physical world behaves differently than I think?
Rashbam: Well you yourself profess ignorance of Qm. So obviously you are not thinking about it.
Matt Slick: You don't know what I know or don't know about quantum physics.
Rashbam: And since Qm has been verified in experiments to excruciating detail, it is a very good model for physical reality.
Matt Slick: Don't ask me about quantum mechanics. I'm not the expert.
Rashbam: Matt, just get on with your argument, please.
Matt Slick: Rash, can you think logically? Saying I'm not an expert doesn't mean I know nothing about it. Therefore, you don't know what I do know or don't know about it. You are not being logical. On what basis do you make your arguments? You are assuming the validity of the laws of logic in our discussion here
The conversation died off at this point and digressed into basic name calling and his attacks on the Bible. When someone undermines logic, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Rashbam makes many valid points. Matt Slick seems to be ignoring real world results, in fact he refuses to let Rashbam explain QM to him.
The big bang theory of everything is rpoved wrong by the law of non contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE is an equation for making equations one with everything.
But it is false because Two opposite particles X and Y YING AND YANG cannot be in the same state at the same time.
Here are ten laws of non contradiction.
1/ Contradictions entail everything.
2/Contradictions can't be true.
3/ Contradictions can't be believed rationality.
4/If contradictions were acceptable people could never be rationally criticized.
5/If contradictions were acceptable no one could deny anything.Like Peter denied.
6/ All units have to have an equal value for a theory of everything equation and a 1-1 correspondance.
Or an agreed value between pesos and dollars.
7/ Two opposite particles X and Y cannot be in the same state at the same time.
8/You can add apples to apples and oranges to oranges And that is not contradiction.But you can't add apples to oranges.
9/What are apples what are not contradictory equations.
10.You can't add 2+2=4.And of course you can add 2+2=4 and that is not a contradiction.
THE TRUTH ABOVE CAM.
THE TRUTH ABOUT HAMLET WITHOUT THE PRINCE THE BIG BANG WITHOUT JESUS.
TEN LAWS OF NON CONTRADICTION.
THEY WERE MEANT TO BE CAM PRINT THEM AS A TRACT...
Francis Shaffer said the law of non contradiction is the basis for all truth and all rationality.
Steve.
My creativity equation must not contradict the Laws of non contradiction can you use your supercomputer to test why it does obey the laws of on contradiction.Clue there are no large or small units in infinity.
And a horse by any other unit is still a horse.
What on earth are "opposite particles"?
Does he mean negative and positivly charged particles?
I'm not much of a science person, human biology I can understand, but physics isn't really my area
Or does he mean matter and anti-matter?
Or something else?
Cal, can you understand the point he's trying to make at all?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:10 AM. |