|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5909 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Meaning Of The Trinity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: So essentially you are saying that if we dont have the knowledge of God or to prove God, Our lack of such knowledge equates to His lack of existence? No, that's not what I'm saying, you should have stuck with that critical thinking course - if you ever started it. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. If you have knowledge about something you don't need belief do you? We don't know whether god exists or not but some people believe he does anyway. Lack of knowledge doesn't prove non-existence but it is a bloody big clue.
Since when does human knowledge justify existence?
I don't think that actually means anything. I can't make much sense of it anyway. What if God was an equation? eh? Does everyone have to agree on the equation? Must humans by definition define such an equation or can the equation be defined by itself? Humans may have many different equations, but only one equation provides the answer. Or are you prepared to argue against that? wtf are you talking about?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
candle2 writes: Tangle, Israel had twelve sons, which were the progenitors of the twelve tribes of Israel. candle2, In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
candle2 writes: The great and magnificent Darwin, and certain otherswho lived during the Mid-Ninteenth Century, honestly thought that the simplest living cells were nothing more than a "jelly-like substance". They believed that the cell was destitute of protoplasms, and that it was devoid of texture and organs. Now that we know the simplest cell is more complicated and complex than the space shuttle it makes Darwin and his sidekicks look stupid. What has Darwin got to do with whether god(s) exist? Darwinians actually think that this was a brilliant man. I don't know what a Darwinian is but, yes, science and society generally has him up there with Newton and Einstein. And indeed he was a genius. We know that the human cell carries out a billion chemical reactions every second. And these reactions are not random; they work together. When you say "we", you mean the scientists that made progress on the shoulders of Darwin. Biochemist Douglas Axe puts the probability of one functional protein forming by chance at 1 in 10 to the 64th power. Write those zeroes out and then tell me that this is a better chance than a living God. You are talking about things you don't understand. I'm not a competent enough statistician to explain the fallacy here but it has been debunked for decades. It's a silly argument; can you tell me the probability of god? Douglas and Biochemist Ann Gauger affirm that with current knowledge the minimum time required for one protein to evolve into another, with just small changes is 10 to the power of 27 years. By their estimate, even if the universe is 13 billion light years old that would not be nearly enough time for one functional protein to form, much less for one protein to evolve into another. Same fallacy. Surely you can see how irrational Darwinians can be. Can you explain why you think Darwin is relevant to this discussion?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
OK, so Axe is Discovery Institute so why go any further? Pander's thumb did though
Summary
quote: Full report Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme functionJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
candle2 writes: And with all these degrees you cannot figure out thatthe beliefs of Darwin are diametrically opposed to that of God and creation. There is only two ways for life to begin. It is either by blind luck, or it is by creation. You really ought to make some sort of effort to understand what it is you're complaining about. Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. Most believers have accepted evolution as a fact and understood that how life began is a totally different issue. Darwin is on the side of the creationist. You guys need to make him your friend.
quote: Charles DarwinJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
candle2 writes:
A hard atheist cannot fall back on just evolution; thehard atheist has the extra burden of defining how life began. It doesn't seem to matter how many times it's said, you guys still don't get it. An atheist does not believe in god(s). That's it it doesn't mean that we believe in something else instead, nor does it require us to come up with a fantasy alternative to how life started. It just means we don't believe in god(s).
The complexity of the simple cell is completely devastating to atheists. Most atheists will not admit this, but deep inside they know this to be true. I'm an atheist and I am not devastated. Can you accept that? I'm just not at all devastated. Nor am I troubled or even disquieted. So you can forget that line of discussion can't you? Furthermore, the lack of transitional fossils is fatal for theistic evolutionists. Nope. TE's are insultinly dishonest when they insist that there are many intermediate fossils. If the fossils were there, they would be craming them down our throats. But, they are not there. I wonder if you know what a transitional fossil would look like? Can you tell us? Even Darwin, who believed that the simple cell was made of jelly, understood that the lack of transitional fossils would relegate his theory to fantasy. Well that's basically wrong, even if we had no transitional fossils - and of course, we've got plenty (tho' in fact all fossils are transitional) -the ToE would still stand. God creates by design, not by chance. God spoke the plants and animals into existence. He created Adam and Eve with His own hands. TE's are not helping God's cause by substituting lies for His truth. How old is the earth candle?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
candle2 writes: I am 100% certain that no one does. There are none (transitional fossils) All life is transitional - you are not the same as your parents and your children are not the same as you. When we talk about transitional fossils though we mean those fossils that have traits common to different groups of organisms; their ancestors and their descendants. Classically we have transitional fossils between ancestral dinosaurs and modern-day birds. There's a whole list of examples here: Transitional fossil - Wikipedia
I do not know how old the earth is. Science does. It's 4.5 billion years old.
However, man and animals have only existed for roughly 6000 years. Yes, well, there's little point continuing discussions on stuff like transitional fossils if you're stuck believing that life has only been around for 6,000 years. You are aware of the enormous amount of evidence supporting this I suppose?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
candle2 writes: Tangle, No one knows how old the universe is. We KNOW - from multiple sources of evidence - that the Earth is £4.5bn years old. We KNOW for absolute certainty that 6,000 years is utterly ludicrous.
And, they are manipulated to fit the paradigm of the administrator. The Administrator? Fascinating; who is the Administrator?
Dr. Carl Werner Dr Carl Werner is a religious nut job, a chiropractor apparently. Why are you listening to unqualified crackpots like this instead of the entire scientific community?
Dr. Werner is not the only scientist stressing this. What? There are more unqualified religious fanatics that think that the earth is 6,000 years old. What a surprise. Is it also flat?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
candle2 writes: Tangle, No one knows how old the universe is. Here are a few of the evidences for old earth. Radiometric datingLunar samples Fossil record Ice cores Tree rings Sedimentary rock layers Isotopic ratios in meteorites Seafloor spreading Coral reefs Impact craters: Impact craters on Earth Geochronology Stellar evolution Varves Stellar nucleosynthesis Paleomagnetism Cosmogenic nuclides Continental drift and plate tectonics Fossilized stromatolites Coral reef growth rates Ice sheet layering Radiohalos Astronomical observations Geothermal gradients Geologic erosion and weathering It's not an exclusive list but it's pretty much all of science a stake here. You're basically declaring that great chunks of physics, geology, biology, archaeology, chemistry, palaeontology, astronomy and god knows what all are wrong and that your personal interpretation of a the anonymous mythology of a bronze age tribe is right.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024