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.
It depends on who the object of your faith is.I consider faith a bad thing.
Only on paper.
I'm simply giving the common definition of the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. If you have a different definition, so be it, but don't expect others to accept it without question.Appealing to authority is absolutely a logical fallacy. Whether it's false or irrelevant authority or not.
Do you have a source or reference for that, or did you make it up?Wasn't meant to be rude ... but factual .... Apes don't recognize us as their own kind because we aren't of their kind.
The Biologic Institute is a pseudoscientific front for the Discovery Institute's 'Wedge' strategy:“Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical,” said biologist Douglas Axe, director of Biologic Institute. “The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.”
Another reference lacking credibility. 'Evolution News' is published by CSC (Center for Science and Culture), an arm of the Discovery Institute.
That's a poor argument for several reasons.Wasn't meant to be rude ... but factual .... Apes don't recognize us as their own kind because we aren't of their kind.
the "facts" are ever changing .... more is learned as time goes on, the high complexity of things are becoming more apparent
“Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical,” said biologist Douglas Axe, director of Biologic Institute. “The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.”
But how many of them have appropriate areas of expertise... and more importantly, how many of them were called Steve?
There's a world of difference between wanting to believe and believing. Occam's Barber's original point was, "Wanting to believe is not, in itself, a valid reason to believe."
This is literally an appeal to the credulous and the gullible.John 20:29 said:
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
First, I'm not sayin the faith, or your faith is bad. I am saying faith, as an approach to determining truth and reality is bad. People do not use faith to determine when to cross the street; in that situation they look both ways and wait until it is safe. They use the tools of evidence and their senses. Faith is different. People uses faith when they believe something, but there is not enough evidence to conclude the accuracy of the belief. Do this simple thought experiment and ask yourself this question: is there anything a person could not believe on faith?Well, why do you say it's bad?
No, I have not heard of him. Read my previous post #329. In every case, evidence will be a better tool of determining truth than faith.It depends on who the object of your faith is.
Ever heard of Shoko Asahara? his faith was in Shakti, and look what happened.
What does this seemingly random link have to do with our conversation? At least write a summary of what claim this is supposed to support.
What bearing does your "on-going relationship with the Lord" have on the substance and validity of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
How does it invalidate the facts of disparate populations of organisms developing through hereditary mechanisms over time?
Do you have a source or reference for that, or did you make it up?
The Biologic Institute is a pseudoscientific front for the Discovery Institute's 'Wedge' strategy:
"The Biologic Institute was a section of the Discovery Institute created to give the organization a facade of conducting biological research with the aim of producing experimental evidence of intelligent design creationism, funded by the Discovery Institute." Wikipedia
Another reference lacking credibility. 'Evolution News' is published by CSC (Center for Science and Culture), an arm of the Discovery Institute.
"The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) in public-school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe while trying to cast doubt on the theory of evolution." Wikipedia
That's a poor argument for several reasons.
One: other great apes have been known to show empathy and interact with humans.
Two: Not all humans recognise other humans as being the same 'kind'.
Three: Most dogs are convinced that we are also dogs.
This is a very vague statement... can you give a specific example?
I'm not even a scientist and I know the answer. Mutation creates variation... variation can increase complexity.
But how many of them have appropriate areas of expertise... and more importantly, how many of them were called Steve?
The finetuning argument does not carry any weight.well ... basically I come to this ....
as time goes on ... and ... science discovers just how intricate and complex and fine tuned many many things in our world and in the universe really are .... believing everything randomly happened over millions/billions years with million/billions of random happenings taking place and would have had to in such a precise manner to produce all of these complexities by themselves becomes evolution impossible.
So, I leave it at that and move on, let everyone be convinced in their own mind ;o)
You made a mistake in this post--no one ever claims that the universe is random. That's your problem, if you mistakingly use this trope, you will conclude it is impossible. I would agree; a random universe cannot produce order. But there is nothing random about it.it isn't worth debating ... you are set in your beliefs evidentially and so am I ...
basically I come to this ....
as time goes on ... and ... science discovers just how intricate and complex and fine tuned many many things in our world and in the universe really are .... believing everything randomly happened over millions/billions years with million/billions of random happenings taking place and would have had to in such a precise manner to produce all of these complexities by themselves becomes evolution impossible.
So, I leave it at that and move on, let everyone be convinced in their own mind ;o)
He was making fun of atheism using false examples.
You made a mistake in this post--no one ever claims that the universe is random. That's your problem, if you mistakingly use this trope, you will conclude it is impossible. I would agree; a random universe cannot produce order. But there is nothing random about it.
Randomness is far from the whole story.well ... basically I come to this ....
as time goes on ... and ... science discovers just how intricate and complex and fine tuned many many things in our world and in the universe really are .... believing everything randomly happened over millions/billions years with million/billions of random happenings taking place and would have had to in such a precise manner to produce all of these complexities by themselves becomes evolution impossible.
So, I leave it at that and move on, let everyone be convinced in their own mind ;o)
No, nothing is random as you describe it. Gravity is not random. Atomic Mass is not random. If things were random we could not do science or make predictions. When you use the term random that way, you create a straw man. At that point you are arguing against a fictional character.lots of theories about it .... ie ... random things happened within the universe to produce what we have now.
Big Bang - Wikipedia
the word random appears in several of them
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?