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
Creation & Evolution
Space was Warm.
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="Wiccan_Child" data-source="post: 29417917" data-attributes="member: 104966"><p>How does my logic differ from plain logic? Is it because it does not agree with your <em>a priori</em> assumptions?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Once again, you are clearly too unenthused to use referrences. We were talking about the burning of the Temple:</p><p><strong>Me</strong>: So because it was a spread out building, it took >48 hours to burn? If it was sky-scraper tall, then it might take that long. But it was an ancient temple.</p><p><strong>You</strong>: Hey, you ought to have the honesty to admit you lost the pouint.</p><p><strong>Me</strong>: <em><em>Ad hominem</em>.</em> I try to have a rational debate with you, and resort to this?</p><p><strong>You</strong>: No, I covered it beyond reasonable doubt,</p><p><strong>Me</strong>: Hardly. Simply stating this does not make it so. I have outlined, quite clearly, our debates.</p><p><strong>You</strong>: All depends what exactly you are refering to. If it is a same past, you have not covered it.</p><p></p><p>Notice how your train of thoughts is convoluted, and rife with non sequiturs and <em>ad hominem</em>s.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Yes. Do you disagree with my analysis?</p><p></p><p></p><p>You are, as ever, ingnoring my point. <em><strong>Preemptive warning is irrelevant</strong></em>. I fully accept that your god warned of the punishment that would be dealt. But you asked where the Bible condones punishing the child for the sins of the father:</p><p><strong>Leviticus 26:28-29</strong>: Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.</p><p>And this is what I cited. Leviticus 26:28-29 is a direct threat from your god to cannabilise the children for the sins of the father. This is <em>exactly</em> what I said your god did.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No, our conversation pertains to the mutability of the physical laws, and the existance of your non-PO universe (which you call the spiritual). The afterlife is irrelevant.</p><p></p><p>As it happens, Confucious himself said that, at the age of 50, '&#20116;&#21313;&#32780;&#30693;&#22825;&#21629; (<em>I knew the will of the heavens)'</em>.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Of course you do. I'm just a poor, unsaved, Pagan scientist. What would I know about objective evidence (you have yet to disprove my point. You only cite subjective evidence).</p><p></p><p></p><p>You have done no such thing. The ressurrection was claimed to have occured ~2000 years ago, and I very much doubt that you are >2000 years old.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Why? It is not your responsability to ensure that all posters here share the same vocabulary. If someone does not properly understand a term, then they are invariably swiftly informed by the many other posters here who <em>do</em> understand the term.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Perhaps. But since this is a discussion between only the two of us, what does it matter?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Utter non sequitur. How is this pertinent?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>On the contrary, this is from <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations" target="_blank">Talk Origins</a>:</p><p><strong><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations" target="_blank">Prediction 5.6: Speciations</a></strong></p><p></p><p> The <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1" target="_blank">standard phylogenetic tree</a> illustrates countless speciation events; each common ancestor also represents at least one speciation event. Thus we should be able to observe actual speciation, if even only very rarely. Current estimates from the fossil record and measured mutational rates place the time required for full reproductive isolation in the wild at ~3 million years on average (<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Futuyma1998" target="_blank">Futuyma 1998</a>, p. 510). Consequently, observation of speciation in nature should be a possible but rare phenomenon. However, evolutionary rates in laboratory organisms can be much more rapid than rates inferred from the fossil record, so it is still possible that speciation may be observed in common lab organisms (<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Gingerich1983" target="_blank">Gingerich 1983</a>). </p><p> <strong>Confirmation:</strong></p><p></p><p> Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and <em>S. malheurensis</em>). </p><p> Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the <em>Drosophila</em> species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many <em>Drosophila</em> speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in <em>Drosophila</em> has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms. </p><p> Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, <em>Nereis acuminata</em> (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures. </p><p> Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is <a href="http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html" target="_blank">the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps,</a> and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#BrittonDavidian_etal2000" target="_blank">Britton-Davidian <em>et al</em>. 2000</a>). </p><p> More detail and many references are given in the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html" target="_blank">Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ</a>. </p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>Irrelevant, as ever. Try to use something other than a non sequitur, would you?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>That you are making non sequiturs, and then claiming that you have forgotten what we are talking about! How can we debate if you are so... incapable?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Do not dodge the question.I have, repeatedly, demonstrate why it is scientific to assume a 'same past'. Now I ask you again: Why is it unscientific to assume that the physical laws were 'the same' in the past?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Ah, so <em>now</em> you are willing to sift through the posts. Interesting.</p><p>You must understand that I have not made <em>ad hominem</em>s, because I am willing to validify my claims. An <em>ad hominem</em> is a personal attack <em>without justification</em>. I have justification, so therefore your examples are not <em>ad hominem</em>s. They may be offensive, and for that I am sorry, but my claims stand unless you can refute my justifications.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Pure semantics, I'm afraid.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Neither have you.</p><p>Note that I never claimed to have observed heaven or Eden. I merely claimed that empiricial observations will work in heaven and Eden just as they do now. Prove me wrong.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No. I <em>assume</em> my mother is real (not 'was'. She is not dead yet), I <em>assume</em> my sensory input is at least a vague representation of the true reality, I <em>assume</em> that empirical observations are empirical and not manipulated by some unseen entity.</p><p>However, you have still not answered my question:</p><p><em>Why should I follow your example when you have not demonstrated that it is better than mine?</em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Even though you just said: <em>Our rewards in heaven are based on works, not getting there.</em></p><p> So, tell me, how do I get into heaven?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Then present some. You have cited <em>no</em> facts in the past 20 pages.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Then it fails the scientific method and is rejected. You can believe in it all you want, but it is illogical, irrational, and unjustified.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Science is a methodology. We have hypothesises & theories (explanations of why the facts are as they are), and the scientific method is the first falsification test to see if they are logical, probable, etc. An argument can be unscientific, but that directly implies that it is illogical, irrational, improbable, etc.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I fly the Union Jack by my avatar. You might want to notice this in future.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wiccan_Child, post: 29417917, member: 104966"] How does my logic differ from plain logic? Is it because it does not agree with your [I]a priori[/I] assumptions? Once again, you are clearly too unenthused to use referrences. We were talking about the burning of the Temple: [B]Me[/B]: So because it was a spread out building, it took >48 hours to burn? If it was sky-scraper tall, then it might take that long. But it was an ancient temple. [B]You[/B]: Hey, you ought to have the honesty to admit you lost the pouint. [B]Me[/B]: [I][I]Ad hominem[/I].[/I] I try to have a rational debate with you, and resort to this? [B]You[/B]: No, I covered it beyond reasonable doubt, [B]Me[/B]: Hardly. Simply stating this does not make it so. I have outlined, quite clearly, our debates. [B]You[/B]: All depends what exactly you are refering to. If it is a same past, you have not covered it. Notice how your train of thoughts is convoluted, and rife with non sequiturs and [I]ad hominem[/I]s. Yes. Do you disagree with my analysis? You are, as ever, ingnoring my point. [I][B]Preemptive warning is irrelevant[/B][/I]. I fully accept that your god warned of the punishment that would be dealt. But you asked where the Bible condones punishing the child for the sins of the father: [B]Leviticus 26:28-29[/B]: Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. And this is what I cited. Leviticus 26:28-29 is a direct threat from your god to cannabilise the children for the sins of the father. This is [I]exactly[/I] what I said your god did. No, our conversation pertains to the mutability of the physical laws, and the existance of your non-PO universe (which you call the spiritual). The afterlife is irrelevant. As it happens, Confucious himself said that, at the age of 50, '五十而知天命 ([I]I knew the will of the heavens)'[/I]. Of course you do. I'm just a poor, unsaved, Pagan scientist. What would I know about objective evidence (you have yet to disprove my point. You only cite subjective evidence). You have done no such thing. The ressurrection was claimed to have occured ~2000 years ago, and I very much doubt that you are >2000 years old. Why? It is not your responsability to ensure that all posters here share the same vocabulary. If someone does not properly understand a term, then they are invariably swiftly informed by the many other posters here who [I]do[/I] understand the term. Perhaps. But since this is a discussion between only the two of us, what does it matter? Utter non sequitur. How is this pertinent? On the contrary, this is from [URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations"]Talk Origins[/URL]: [B][URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations"]Prediction 5.6: Speciations[/URL][/B] The [URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1"]standard phylogenetic tree[/URL] illustrates countless speciation events; each common ancestor also represents at least one speciation event. Thus we should be able to observe actual speciation, if even only very rarely. Current estimates from the fossil record and measured mutational rates place the time required for full reproductive isolation in the wild at ~3 million years on average ([URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Futuyma1998"]Futuyma 1998[/URL], p. 510). Consequently, observation of speciation in nature should be a possible but rare phenomenon. However, evolutionary rates in laboratory organisms can be much more rapid than rates inferred from the fossil record, so it is still possible that speciation may be observed in common lab organisms ([URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Gingerich1983"]Gingerich 1983[/URL]). [B]Confirmation:[/B] Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and [I]S. malheurensis[/I]). Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the [I]Drosophila[/I] species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many [I]Drosophila[/I] speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in [I]Drosophila[/I] has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms. Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, [I]Nereis acuminata[/I] (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures. Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is [URL="http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html"]the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps,[/URL] and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years ([URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#BrittonDavidian_etal2000"]Britton-Davidian [I]et al[/I]. 2000[/URL]). More detail and many references are given in the [URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html"]Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ[/URL]. Irrelevant, as ever. Try to use something other than a non sequitur, would you? That you are making non sequiturs, and then claiming that you have forgotten what we are talking about! How can we debate if you are so... incapable? Do not dodge the question.I have, repeatedly, demonstrate why it is scientific to assume a 'same past'. Now I ask you again: Why is it unscientific to assume that the physical laws were 'the same' in the past? Ah, so [I]now[/I] you are willing to sift through the posts. Interesting. You must understand that I have not made [I]ad hominem[/I]s, because I am willing to validify my claims. An [I]ad hominem[/I] is a personal attack [I]without justification[/I]. I have justification, so therefore your examples are not [I]ad hominem[/I]s. They may be offensive, and for that I am sorry, but my claims stand unless you can refute my justifications. Pure semantics, I'm afraid. Neither have you. Note that I never claimed to have observed heaven or Eden. I merely claimed that empiricial observations will work in heaven and Eden just as they do now. Prove me wrong. No. I [I]assume[/I] my mother is real (not 'was'. She is not dead yet), I [I]assume[/I] my sensory input is at least a vague representation of the true reality, I [I]assume[/I] that empirical observations are empirical and not manipulated by some unseen entity. However, you have still not answered my question: [I]Why should I follow your example when you have not demonstrated that it is better than mine?[/I] Even though you just said: [I]Our rewards in heaven are based on works, not getting there.[/I] So, tell me, how do I get into heaven? Then present some. You have cited [I]no[/I] facts in the past 20 pages. Then it fails the scientific method and is rejected. You can believe in it all you want, but it is illogical, irrational, and unjustified. Science is a methodology. We have hypothesises & theories (explanations of why the facts are as they are), and the scientific method is the first falsification test to see if they are logical, probable, etc. An argument can be unscientific, but that directly implies that it is illogical, irrational, improbable, etc. I fly the Union Jack by my avatar. You might want to notice this in future. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Space was Warm.
Top
Bottom