|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Evolution has nothing to with the ultimate origin of things, Well done. Can you please inform all the other creationists here of your revelation.
Most of these fellas here will try and lump the two together and try to make people believe they have offered an explantion for the origin of things, by explaining evolution. They havent Now then, was there any reason that you felt the need to lie about this? It's not even a good lie, I mean we could go back and show you the number of times it's been pointed out that abogenesis is about how life started and evolution is what happens after that. Isn't it enough for you that you can say that science can't yet say how life started? Why lie when you've got a decent story anyway? Is it just habbit?Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
I'm prepared to accept insanity as a defense. God knows there's enough evidence.
Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Even after the strictiest investigations, it still leaves us with only two logical possibilites, both of which is demonstrateable and both of which are logical conclusions against the natural world Dawn, I have extreme difficulty making any sense at all of what you say and I now see that I'm not alone. Most of what you write is garbled and incomprehensible. It must make some kind of sense to you but to the rest of us it's totally opaque. Do you think you could slow down a bit and try to make a single argument that we can all follow? Tell us what your two 'logical possibilities' are and how you justify them.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Dawn, try to concentrate on what you've been told over and over - the ToE does not have anything to say about how life started nor anything about why it started or why we are here.
There really is no point arguing against a position that no-one here holds. I can only speak for myself but it's a widely held belief amongst atheists that there is no 'why'. Why? is just not relevant because there is no purpose. So when you ask us to prove a why?, we have no idea what you're talking about. If you think that there is an answer to why? that you have actual evidence for, then we're all ears - go ahead, prove it. Btw - Happy New Year all.Life, don't talk to me about life. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Buzsaw writes: For examples, science sweeps under the rug, the whys of the zero/singularity event, the whys of before space/time existed, the logics of how life, managed to manage biogenesis through the early stages of emergence from chaotic soup to amazingly complex life systems, the whys of the fact that all recorded historical cultures have been religious, the whys their assumption of uniformitarion expansion all the way down through the billions of alleged years from the alleged singularity, the whys of the alleged extension of all dinosaurs, all the while, the survival of the other species, etc, etc, etc......... This is terribly jumbled and mostly unitelligable, but I take it that you think science is avoiding questions in these areas? If so, you're just plain wrong - the only thing science IS interested in is understanding the natural world; that's all of it. Why would it not be interested in fully understanding such things? This is a really weird thing to say.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Buzsaw writes: Science is too narrow minded, illogical and un-objective to be interested in researching anything pertaining to intelligence of a higher capability than what we experience on our tiny planet. Science is interested in anything that has an effect in the natural world. It would also have an interest in anything in the supernatural world if it had any means of detecting its existence. What specifically do you think there is for science to investigate?
It's just science's secularistic bent, so as to avoid any accountability to a higher authority. That's an even weirder thing to say. You think the entirety of the scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy to avoid studying something (what?) in order to avoid accountability to your god? Really? Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Mike the Wiz writes: Can you honestly say that if people did not doubt God, that science today would be the same? Yes, of course. Not all scientists doubt god. In fact it's fair to say that until the 20th century almost all scientists were also believers. There's no such thing as Christian science or Islamic science or atheist science. Science is neutral - facts are facts, they either stand up to examination or they don't.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
You have all this the wrong way around. Science - and particularly ToE - says nothing at all about God or creation. It does not have an atheistic position that it's trying to prove. It's only concerned with how organisms have changed over time. It looks at the evidence it finds in nature and forms conclusions that can be tested.
The scientists that originally examined Darwin's hypothesis were creationists themselves, it took many years to be generally accepted as a scientific fact - it won through very much against the prevailing wisdom and beliefs of the times.
Science should stick to what it can prove, not what it can't in the least. It should and it does exactly that. Any scientist tried to do anything else he'd be laughed out of the profession.
Now breathing in oxygen and out carbon dioxide, that's fine, science can handle that as such things are factually experimentally shown to be parsimonious without God, they are not show to be caused without God. I'm afraid you can't pick and choose the bits of science you like and restrict scientists to those - it just doesn't work that way.....You never know, by studying the things you feel uncomfortable about they may even prove you right.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Dawn Berlot writes: So if my method of investigation is not science, just show me why. Can you point to a body of peer reviewed papers published in recognised science periodicals that support your 'science' so that educationalists could knock together a curriculum? Life, don't talk to me about life. (Marvin the Paranoid Android)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Prepratory to any questions and related concerns, you might have, it is usually customary in any debate to address and respond in argument form to the proposition I have set out etc So the answer is no then. You can't point to a body of work, agreed by the scientific community, so that the education system could create a science subject called Law and Order to be taught in science class. Then how and why should they?Life, don't talk to me about life. (Marvin the Paranoid Android)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Wheather I have 1, 3 or 15,000 people that agree with my proposition is irrelevant to the fact that you have provided no response to its arguments
I was responding to your assertion that Law, order and purpose should be taught in science classes - nothing else. You have now demonstrated that you are in a minority of one as far as the science goes. Without a scientific concensus it won't be taught so I suggest you create your own school. Good luck with that.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Your time and post would have been better spent in responding to an actual argument As we're all obviously missing something here, perhaps this would be a good time to restate what your argument actually is? It may just be me, but I have no clue what you're banging on about. It seems simply to be that you see order in the world - a fact that no-one will argue about. Of course, believers see the order and infer an order-maker, which is of course God, but this is an ancient argument that we've all heard it many, many times - so what else are you saying that needs our attention?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Dawn Bertot writes: When you can explain away the order I have described in the single cell and what it is and what it does then you will be able to say i have not identifed order and law Science can explain how most of the processes in cells work and what they do. No one could possibly disagree that these processes are ordered and follow - for want of a better word - laws. Our utter confusion is about what you are infering from this astounding insight that isn't just 'therefore goddidit.' If that's all you're saying we'll just shrug and leave you to it.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Sadly Dawn, what you have written is incomprehensible.
I suppose it must make some kind of sense to you but if you want to make any progress with the world outside your head, your going to have to engage with it.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Dawn Bertot writes: I would love to see how you intended to falsify the end hypothesis of the ToE, which is Soley Natural causes. 1. The ToE does not have an end hypothesis. Its hypotheses are start points and can necessarily be falsified. 2. How life started is as yet not known. You are able to claim this as a point on your side of the argument. Make the most of it. 3. You are not able to claim that because we don't know, or have no evidence for, how life first started that it damages any of the argument for the ToE. This is because the ToE deals with how life developed AFTER life began and because we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that life evolved and was not created as we see it today. 4. You know this but deliberately try to confuse the two situations. This deliberate obfuscation harms your argument and your credibility. 5. Nothing in the ToE talks about 'solely natural causes' but it is an underlying assumption. It can't examine 'unnatural causes' because it never finds any. If there were things in genetics or the fossil record that where 'unnatural' we'd be scratching our heads and puzzling over them. I am not aware of any. If you are, please let us know. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024