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.
Seems pretty subjection to me.
I think that any description of the universe would have to cover the first two. It would have to match what we see in reality, and it would also have to be logically consistent. In other words, it wouldn't contradict reality, and it wouldn't contradict itself.
Yes, but if many people all agree on the same thing, it is unlikely to be a false memory that often happens with eyewitness testimony.
Not really. It's actually quite easy to make some remember an event that never happened.
Scientific observation requires a lot more than just seeing it happen. It involves recording it and making notes as the event occurs.
And apparently, God can't drive out the inhabitants of the valley if they have iron chariots. Beats me why God is rendered helpless by iron... (Judges 1:19)
Not contradicting itself is a weaker condition.
True, but it means that you don't only determine truth by testing htings personally.
You miss my point. I'm not sure how to explain it better.
That's what I said. And other professions do that too.
That misrepresents what the passage says. Actually, I think I'm done here.
I have absolutely no interest in scientific matters or scientific perspectives on life.
So I'll pray the Lord sends you some of our more science-oriented Christian members we have here.
Faith does not require evidence. You either have faith that the bible is the word of God or you do not.
I answered your question exactly...with a very solid and well thought out answer, but it seems you want to restrict how I draw my personal conclusion.
I changed nothing
you didn't include a very important factor in your question..."where did it all begin". And I assumed it's as it always has been with Atheist evolutionists, in that it all "just started", (It's not realistic to avoid the unavoidable because we have no answer, but it's done all the time with the beginning of evolution) and didn't really expect an argument on that. You say they are two completely different things, but they are not, where it began is absolutely part of the evolutionary process. Sure it's a stumper for you, but that's not my fault (I'm assuming that is the actual problem you had with my answer) I personally use that "from nothing" as part of my logical process toward conclusion.
Evolution had to start somewhere and I'm not going to skip that part in drawing my conclusion, however it's up to you if you choose to. To not recognize a beginning is like, for instance, how does one draw a factual conclusion on how a man got from point A to point B without explaining where he started.It *has* to be included.
You asked, I told you, and now it seems I'm not allowed to use certain criteria in order to draw my factual conclusion.
Are there any other restrictions that I need to know about?
So I call your non existent or Straw beginning and raise you one Straw man.
And BTW, there is nothing wrong with putting a creator in that place where you have no explanation of how things came to be.
If you asked me where, say, a house came from, a house that neither of us saw built, and I said it was built by a man, you could actually argue "straw man" because neither of us are certain who built, but it would still be logical to assume it was a man that built it, just as logical as assuming it was God at times.
Assumption are sometimes necessary to fill in the blanks while compiling a conclusion and if they don't fit in the end, they can be removed....part of the process.
People rely on the Straw Man argument way too much, and throwing it in there as a restriction when this thread is all about how we draw our own individual conclusion is kind of like, you really don't want my conclusion, at least not until you give it to me.
Well, the laptop I use for writing this, is made in Taiwan. So that comes from Taiwan.
I have a few spare lightbulbs made in the Netherlands. So these come from the Netherlands.
I have some bottles of French champagne and French and Italian wine.
Part of my furniture comes from Ikea.
Do I really need to go on until " this all this stuff around us" has been traced back to it's different origins?
That was uncalled for. The OP asked how I determine evidence and I gave an answer. I don't expect to be attacked for it and it certainly didn't invalidate my commentFaith does not require evidence. You either have faith that the bible is the word of God or you do not.
This.
The entire Creationism vs. Evolution debate is pointless head-desking by people who crave an audience to their self-approval and aren't aware that they are actually masochists.
True, but it's equally good evidence for a potentially infinite number of ideas for where 'all this stuff' came from - including all the other origin myths, and ideas based on successful scientific theory.
Which raises the question: why this particularmythidea and not another? One assumes the choice wasn't random... or was it not a choice, but chance - being born into a particular culture ?
Except for the bit where you presented the scientific side as just "happening for no reason at all", instead of "happening due to the non-random process of evolution by means of natural and sexual selection."
Yes you did, and I just told you what it was.
First, evolution doesn't deal with how life began, or even how the universe began.
Secondly, are you claiming that science is useless because it doesn't have all the answers?
If you insist on proceeding that way, then you don't know much about the position you are arguing against. That would explain your strawman.
Well, I would appreciate it if you WOULDN'T rephrase my position in a way that changes its meaning!
Yeah. Don't use any logical fallacies. You can find a good list of fallacies here: List of fallacies - Wikipedia
What you are saying here makes no sense.
In other words, if you don't know, then just make it up!
Oh rubbish. We have literally MILLIONS of documented cases of humans building houses, and ZERO cases of house existing without being built by humans. Seeing a house and concluding that it was built by a human is perfectly rational.
That is NOT the case with God and the universe!
Except for the bit where you presented the scientific side as just "happening for no reason at all", instead of "happening due to the non-random process of evolution by means of natural and sexual selection."
Yes you did, and I just told you what it was.
First, evolution doesn't deal with how life began, or even how the universe began.
Secondly, are you claiming that science is useless because it doesn't have all the answers?
If you insist on proceeding that way, then you don't know much about the position you are arguing against. That would explain your strawman.
Well, I would appreciate it if you WOULDN'T rephrase my position in a way that changes its meaning!
Yeah. Don't use any logical fallacies. You can find a good list of fallacies here: List of fallacies - Wikipedia
What you are saying here makes no sense.
In other words, if you don't know, then just make it up!
First, that is a terrible way to figure things out, since it is likely to lead to a bias
, and you seem determined to hold on to it. What happened to removing it?
Feel free to reach any conclusion you want, but if it's based on a logical fallacy, then you better believe I'm going to call you out on it.
Yes. You'll pray for me. How lovely.
Perhaps; we can never know - unless you have some interesting logical proof?There is NOT an infinite number of reasonable ideas for the origin of all this stuff.
"Starting" for nor reason at all, if I wasn't clear already. The start of evolution is part of evolution, but deny that if you will...you won't be the first.
Did not.
Unfortunately evolutionists prefer to leave that part out, and there is a reason for that. I gave you reason why it's part of the equation, and why evolution is incomplete without a beginning to evolution... ignore it if you like.
I stated no such thing. Science is opinion and not the end all almighty explanation people tout it to be.
Not so, but we are unable to debate that due to your restrictions so, I had to assume a few things.
I changed nothing, I went with the normal flow that it always comes down to here, since it's not debatable on this thread...t
You aren't paying attention, I went over all that. Reread my post, please.
Of course not... I went over that as well. I went to the trouble to explain that and other things here, but if you are just going to skip by it as if I never addressed it, and then try to make me look clueless because *you* didn't read it or chose to pretend it wasn't addressed, I'll not waste my time
anymore. Geez.
The bible is not a document? Of course it is, even if you do not believe in it.
You'll have to realize there are others aside from yourself that very much believe it's documentation, making the concept of God doing things, not rubbish at all. You don't have to believe our beliefs but I would hope you would accept that we do and that it's not all about just your beliefs..
Starting for nor reason.
Did not.
Unfortunately evolutionists prefer to leave that part out, and there is a reason for that. I gave you reason why it's part of the equation, and why evolution is incomplete without a beginning to evolution... ignore it if you like.
I stated no such thing. Science is opinion and not the end all almighty explanation people tout it to be.
Not so, but we are unable to debate that due to your restrictions so, I had to assume a few things.
I changed nothing, I went with the normal flow that it always comes down to here, since it's not debatable on this thread...t
You aren't paying attention, I went over all that. Reread my post, please.
Makes perfect sense but I would expect as much from you...oh well.
Of course not, but I went over that as well. I went to the trouble to explain that and other things here, but if you are just going to skip by it as if I never addressed it, and then try to make me look clueless because *you* didn't read it, I'll not waste my time anymore. Geez.
No, it's just not terrible, it's done all the time. Not sure what else to tell you on that.
You aren't paying close attention again. I never said it was always removed...it still works for me, and it is after all my conclusion.
You slipped past explanation on that as well. I know you have to rely heavily on the Logical Fallacy thing so go ahead. I already gave good reasons to think out of the box on that, but I don't have the heart to push taking something away from you that you all seem to need so much, so I won't bother with further explanation on why the concept doesn't always hold water.
Well, like I said. I was hoping you also respected my frame of reference. Looks like I was wrong.
I dont get you guys. Why are you arguing. The OP was NOT about evolution versus creation. It was about how we construct evidence where you arrive at a conclusion that what you think is fact as opposed to simply what you think might be true. Please stop these awful insults and bickering and instead focus on yourself and how you build evidence towards fact.
I find it particularly disappointing when an answer is designed to get under someones skin. If you think youre christian, or simply a genuine atheist philosopher, you will quit it.
Respecting your frame of reference does not mean I have to be grateful when you try to put your beliefs onto me.
I respect your right to have your beliefs. I want no part of them, so please don't try to share them with me.
No, the origin of life is NOT part of evolution.
And we don't know how life started. That does not mean it happened for no reason at all.
Don't be a smart alec.
Your ignorance of evolution is your own problem, but don';t think others are going to accept your flawed views of it when they know more about it than you.
You know nothing about evolution, and you know nothing about science.
So you prefer to fill the gaps with made up nonsense instead of honestly saying you don't know.
And you seem to be the one dragging it down.
Reading your flawed argument again will not make it better. You don't understand evolution, you don't understand science, and you don't understand logical fallacies.
Okay, bye.
You don't understand evolution, you don't understand science, you don't understand logical fallacies and you don't understand what documenting something means.
In other words, you just believe that, assume it';s true and use that as your basis. Circular reasoning.
Do you understand the difference between an unknown reason and no reason?
Repeating yourself?
Yeah, done all the time by people who would rather have any answer instead of the truth.
So you have a gap in your knowledge, you make something up to fit that gap, then ignore and twist other evidence to fit into that, and you're saying it works for you?
lol, what logical fallacy have I used?
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?