Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="True_Blue" data-source="post: 47816166" data-attributes="member: 28138"><p>Thaumaturgy, I don't generally use a bare math equation to prove something in the real world--I use real world events to prove the math. [I've always been puzzled by those who try to do otherwise.] For example, I can't use the velocity equation distance/time to prove my moving car has velocity. I use the velocity equation to show how fast my car is traveling by dividing distance traveled by elapsed time. The bare equation itself is not proof of anything. The equation E=MC2 has no potency or power to prove anything if in the real world energy and matter were not related to each other via the speed of light. </p><p></p><p>In this debate, I've made assumptions, just as I did in the legal analysis I presented to you. Because I am set in those assumptions, and because you guys are set in your assumptions, there's probably not much room for debate. A disagreement cannot be resolved unless there is common ground. I would hope that you will eventually accept the assumptions I've described them, perhaps by looking at the real world and deciding that the real world data supports the assumptions and conclusions based on those assumptions. </p><p></p><p>I must also reaffirm that degrees, titles, tenure, published papers, popular acclaim, eloquence, etc. are not as important as the underlying ideas. The ideas have merit, or they do not. Karl Marx was an absolutely brilliant man. I will never, ever be as smart as he is, and I would never be able to complete with him in many areas one might measure intellectual prowess. But I have complete confidence that my ideas on economics, based on Adam Smith and 150 years of failed communism and socialism, are right and that Karl Marx's economic ideas are wrong. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." True knowledge and understanding come from God and nowhere else.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="True_Blue, post: 47816166, member: 28138"] Thaumaturgy, I don't generally use a bare math equation to prove something in the real world--I use real world events to prove the math. [I've always been puzzled by those who try to do otherwise.] For example, I can't use the velocity equation distance/time to prove my moving car has velocity. I use the velocity equation to show how fast my car is traveling by dividing distance traveled by elapsed time. The bare equation itself is not proof of anything. The equation E=MC2 has no potency or power to prove anything if in the real world energy and matter were not related to each other via the speed of light. In this debate, I've made assumptions, just as I did in the legal analysis I presented to you. Because I am set in those assumptions, and because you guys are set in your assumptions, there's probably not much room for debate. A disagreement cannot be resolved unless there is common ground. I would hope that you will eventually accept the assumptions I've described them, perhaps by looking at the real world and deciding that the real world data supports the assumptions and conclusions based on those assumptions. I must also reaffirm that degrees, titles, tenure, published papers, popular acclaim, eloquence, etc. are not as important as the underlying ideas. The ideas have merit, or they do not. Karl Marx was an absolutely brilliant man. I will never, ever be as smart as he is, and I would never be able to complete with him in many areas one might measure intellectual prowess. But I have complete confidence that my ideas on economics, based on Adam Smith and 150 years of failed communism and socialism, are right and that Karl Marx's economic ideas are wrong. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." True knowledge and understanding come from God and nowhere else. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God
Top
Bottom