I voted no, though I am actually unsure.
I believe men do not evolve.
But I am not sure about other species.
I believe men do not evolve.
But I am not sure about other species.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes and thanks. I haven't read it all yet; as you can expect I don't understand it all in the first reading, anyway, so it will take a while; but since it seemed important to you I wanted to do more than just skim through it. The first paragraph jumped right out at me though. He says what I have always thought, but nobody usually seems to want to mention --that science takes a "what if" and tries to guess what that would look like, or how it would play out, predicting effects, and then tries to find those effects. If they are found, then the "what if" is supported, but of course, not yet proven. After all, those effects may be caused by something we thought worthy of being discarded or something we haven't even considered yet.Did you get the screen captured imaged I sent you via private message?
Well, I thought so too, but then you said omnipotence was absurd, while I insist omnipotence is a necessary attribute of God. So I said so.
If that is to you an epistemological hindrance, I don't know why. I did not intend to prove his existence by saying it is a necessary attribute. It may or may not be false that he exists, but his omnipotence is a necessary condition in any consideration of what his existence would imply. Otherwise we are talking about some lesser being. Not God. Simple.
Upon rereading the posts leading up to here, I see I may not know what you are referring to by "that" in "that is a tautological argument".
I suppose you could be referring to my claim that if something is true (in this case, God's existence) it is useful regardless of our method of arriving at a good comprehension of what that truth is.
Tautological? Bare assertion, perhaps. Epistemological hindrance? I don't see why. Epistemologically unuseable perhaps, though I'm not sure that applies either. (That is, if one assumes the unproven (as long as it is true), it can direct one in true directions, as they logically pursue proofs --such is the case with science. One makes a statement, and presupposing it to be so, makes predictions. If the statement is true, the predictions may bear it out. So if God's existence is true, certain things may well be in keeping with that.)
Or are you talking about something else?
I can also posit that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry.
Hey hey 46and2
Im curious who do put forward that as a fact or as a basis for argument?
Can you rephrase your question please? Not sure exactly what you are asking.
Good. Take your time with it. I'll add @sfs to the conversation so he can see the screen caps. You can discuss the content with him here in the thread.Yes and thanks. I haven't read it all yet; as you can expect I don't understand it all in the first reading, anyway, so it will take a while; but since it seemed important to you I wanted to do more than just skim through it. The first paragraph jumped right out at me though. He says what I have always thought, but nobody usually seems to want to mention --that science takes a "what if" and tries to guess what that would look like, or how it would play out, predicting effects, and then tries to find those effects. If they are found, then the "what if" is supported, but of course, not yet proven. After all, those effects may be caused by something we thought worthy of being discarded or something we haven't even considered yet.
So it is with the "what if God?" --the first problem being, of course, so many opinions and so much noise, then the problem of rare coincidence between the apparently empirical and apparently non-empirical. This is one of the things that enthralls me --the conjunction of philosophy and science (sounds almost like quantum physics, lol) I believe will happen when we see the Creator as he is --but I digress.
I have done some other reading, mostly skimming, and I must confess I am not as impressed by the genome project as I had hoped to be. In fact, most I read seemed to pit the genome studies AGAINST either neutral evolution or selectivity or both, though of course the premise for evolution stands regardless. I'm not sure I understand the difference between the two ideas of evolution, since to me they are no-brainers --i.e. they say what I have always supposed, that what is weak does not survive. Some of the things I read almost sounded like the selective evolution was directed in some way beyond coincidence, and maybe that was the only difference between it and neutral.
Anyhow, the new combining of the two (as supported by the Genome studies) still sounds like what I always assumed was meant by Darwinian Evolution, but does not (to my mind) strengthen anything. Both, or all (3?), still depend on the assumption of a single ancestor differentiating out (rather very rapidly, at that) into all these surviving branches, by genetically enhancing mutation. (In one article I read, I purposely looked for, and could not even find the word, "mutation", almost as if they were trying to include instead of deny the Creation Science-sounding idea of evolution by changes in prevalence within present DNA information, rather than changes in the DNA itself). Actually, several articles that did use "mutation" also sounded like the changes may well be embedded within the genome and brought out by random chance and killed off if not beneficial rather than be actual changes happening to the genome. Thus the peppered moth can turn black and then white again in later generations, then return to black, as survives the differences in background.
Anyhow, thanks.
Hello
I read your recent statement (.eg "I can also posit that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)
When we consider posit /ˈpɒzɪt/ verb 1. put forward as fact or as a basis for argument.
Im curious who do you put forward that statement as a fact or as a basis for argument?
I'm not the one claiming that a supernatural entity exists.
My point was a literary device to show that your claim is similarly empty
Hey hey
46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"
This statement suggest you do claim supernatural entity exists ie you can posit.
Would you preach this leprechaun entity to me?
What are these claims you find similar when we consider this entity you speak of? (.eg a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry.)
Cheers
again irrelevant. if we have 10^100 possible combinations and we have only 2 functional sequences among this space the chance to get a functional sequence is very low even considering the age of the earth. this is different from the birth analogy since in a birth any possible option is ok.
No it doesn't. It says that I CAN....and (the point of the analogy), IF I DID, it would be no different from somebody claiming that there exists a supernatural being who created the entire universe.
Sure, and then I'll try to incorporate it into public schools, pressure the government to display his icons on public property, and include his name, Ralph, into the Pledge of Allegiance. How does that sound?
Easy. Magic.
realy?
1) we know that things like sonar and motors are the result of design. we find such systems in nature so only design can explain the existence of such systems.
2) a creature cant evolve into a different creature because there are no small steps from one creature to another one. if we had a self replicating car for instance it will never evolve into something like an airplane.
3) according to this paper we will need about 10^77 mutations to evolve a specific functional protein:
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI
it means that we will need a lot of time to evolvle even a single protein.
Granted, but the claim that proof must be present in order for rational belief to prevail is also misleading
I never meant to imply that "therefore it's valid", in that context. I agree that is bad logic. The same goes for those who claim since religion is false, therefore whatever the scientific community (or even science, for that matter) comes up with is true.
I disagree supportive evidence is only thing that makes acceptance valid
The logic may be terrible, and the belief ignorant --yet if what is believed is true, it is by definition valid, and so it is valid to accept that truth.
My personal take on such a situation is that such truths are maybe always poorly conceived or poorly understood and certainly poorly defined. This is one of my biggest problems with Christian thinking nowadays --that since "we have the truth" others are to be criticized for their lack of belief --and thus we (Christians) ignore the fact that we ourselves are nowhere near to understanding what we believe. (We, for example, believe the Gospel, and yes indeed I believe the Gospel is true, yet I don't understand it --it takes me all the way back to why God would create and how it is even possible for the creature to be able to rebel against the Creator --I find it impossible to fathom. (Yet, my lack of understanding does not invalidate it.))
Hey hey wow quick reply
So if you can then it should not be a problem for you to put this leprechaun forward as a fact or as a basis for argument or can you not?
Nice!!! Hahaha. It sounds like you answer with sarcasm instead of an arguement, interesting my friend.
I get the impression that you would not teach that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?
You would not put this leprechaun forward as a fact or as a basis for argument?
46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"
When we consider the substance of our discussion, is this your arguement below?
You are represented as samuel.
Daniel believes A is true. Samuel believes B is fiction. Samuel assumes B and A are similar therefore A must also be fiction. If i have misrepresented you, What would be your agruement for this special leprechaun using the same method and terminology?
To prove your reposit, would you put forward magic as a fact or as a basis for your argument?
46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"
Go for it my dear, preach this leprechaun to me and show me how magic is a fact or as a basis for your argument for this Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?? - that you believe exists?
Cheers i look forward to this
All true, except for your apparent idea of the sort of thing I might be referring to by "absurd". An example of what I am talking about, is the supposed proof that there can be no omnipotent being
My take on such a claim (that such a being exists) is rather simple: I have exactly zero reason to accept it as accurate or even only likely. Zero reason. So as a result, I don't accept that claim as true / accurate.The question is absurd in more than one way. It assumes validity to a self-contradictory concept. It also ignores that such a being would have no reason to do so, and certainly not for the purpose of entertaining the mental vagaries of lesser beings; and since such a being (the very inventor of "what is", or he is not self-existent God) has no reason for doing so, the proposed scenario is a non-thing by definition, and therefore absurd.
realy? so you have no problem to accept that its possible to get a complex eye at once?
why do you think that no scientist believe that its possible to get a complex biological system in a single event?
Only IF he does in fact exist. And by God, I mean Self-Existent First Cause With Intent, the One and Only such being. Omnipotence is by no means absurd for such a being. Our stance and comprehension and evidences for such are irrelevance as to his existence.
If we find evidences, so much the better, but the facts remain regardless of our view of them. As such the facts are of value (again, IF it is a fact he exists), and so is apprehension to them, regardless of the reasons.
Hey hey wow quick reply
So if you can then it should not be a problem for you to put this leprechaun forward as a fact or as a basis for argument or can you not?
Nice!!! Hahaha. It sounds like you answer with sarcasm instead of an arguement, interesting my friend.
I get the impression that you would not teach that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?
You would not put this leprechaun forward as a fact or as a basis for argument?
46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"
When we consider the substance of our discussion, is this your arguement below?
You are represented as samuel.
Daniel believes A is true. Samuel believes B is fiction. Samuel assumes B and A are similar therefore A must also be fiction. If i have misrepresented you, What would be your agruement for this special leprechaun using the same method and terminology?
To prove your posit, would you put forward magic as a fact or as a basis for your argument?
46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"
Go for it my dear, preach this leprechaun to me and show me how magic is a fact or as a basis for your argument for this Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?? - that you dont believe exists?
Or do atheists preach such supernatural beings to Christians?
Cheers i look forward to this
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?