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
Supremacy challenge part 2
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="TagliatelliMonster" data-source="post: 70508107" data-attributes="member: 391173"><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000">I can agree to that.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000">Nope, that is not true. I'm an agnostic atheist. Which means that I just remain unvonvinced of the claims of theism. That does not mean that I am necessarily convinced of the exact opposite.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000">Claiming it, does not make it so.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000">No. It means I only consider things to be part of reality which can actually be shown to be part of reality.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000">First, there are no "laws of science". It's called "laws of nature". And by that, I mean simply the ways in which nature/reality operates. And that also includes all the laws/mechanisms/processes that we don't yet know about. </span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000">Reality works in a given way. There are things that are possible and there are things that are impossible. Science is in the business of unraveling those laws and processes and determining which things are and aren't possible.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000">Unlike theists, I don't start from the answers and work my way back to the questions.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660000">I don't pretend to know the answers in advance.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000">Another claim that you cannot substantiate.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660000">Again, you don't know what is possible or impossible in advance.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000">The origins of the universe (assuming that's the "origination" you refer to), are unknown. I'm fine with genuine ignorance. You don't seem to be.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000">Your mindreading device seems broken.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #660000"></span></p><p>All you are rejecting... is a strawman.</p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">So... your statement was false.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">Let's be a little more specific here about what such a flood predicts we should find...</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">1. a <em>chaotic mix </em>of fossils <em>in the same layer</em>.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">2. no "hot spots" of such fossils, but rather spread out evenly over the surface of the planet</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">3. the geological layer in which we find those fossils should be the same all over the globe, dated to the same period</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">4. a genetic bottleneck in ALL extant species, dating to the same period as the sedimentary layer</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">5. an abrupt stop of all civilisations all over the world that existed at that time.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">Indeed... what DO we find? Let's see...</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">1. No chaotic mix in the same layer. Instead, fossils are sorted in <em>different</em> layers that is consistent all over the planet. We never find mammals next to trilobites. Anywhere.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">2. the exact opposite again... we DO find hotspots near sea shores, rivers, lakes, etc. More in-land, where there are/were no such rivers, lakes and coasts, we find almost no fossils at all. A global flood would show the opposite.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">3. as already pointed out in 1, this is not the case either. Instead, fossils are spread out over different layers and they date to vastly different periods. Moreover, we can't find a single example anywhere on the planet where a fossil shows up in the "wrong" layer (wrong, in terms of an evolutionary history, that is). </span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">4. No such bottleneck exists</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">5. No such abrupt stops of any civilisations</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">Indeed, no. What we find in the ground is simply NOT compatible with the flood story on ANY point.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">First of all, shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)">Secondly, I just did. Literally not a single one of its predictions check out. </span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0)"></span></p><p></p><p>Indeed. But it's you that is guilty of it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TagliatelliMonster, post: 70508107, member: 391173"] [COLOR=#660000] I can agree to that. Nope, that is not true. I'm an agnostic atheist. Which means that I just remain unvonvinced of the claims of theism. That does not mean that I am necessarily convinced of the exact opposite. Claiming it, does not make it so. No. It means I only consider things to be part of reality which can actually be shown to be part of reality. First, there are no "laws of science". It's called "laws of nature". And by that, I mean simply the ways in which nature/reality operates. And that also includes all the laws/mechanisms/processes that we don't yet know about. Reality works in a given way. There are things that are possible and there are things that are impossible. Science is in the business of unraveling those laws and processes and determining which things are and aren't possible. Unlike theists, I don't start from the answers and work my way back to the questions. I don't pretend to know the answers in advance. Another claim that you cannot substantiate. Again, you don't know what is possible or impossible in advance. The origins of the universe (assuming that's the "origination" you refer to), are unknown. I'm fine with genuine ignorance. You don't seem to be. Your mindreading device seems broken. [/COLOR] All you are rejecting... is a strawman. [COLOR=rgb(102, 0, 0)] So... your statement was false. Let's be a little more specific here about what such a flood predicts we should find... 1. a [I]chaotic mix [/I]of fossils [I]in the same layer[/I]. 2. no "hot spots" of such fossils, but rather spread out evenly over the surface of the planet 3. the geological layer in which we find those fossils should be the same all over the globe, dated to the same period 4. a genetic bottleneck in ALL extant species, dating to the same period as the sedimentary layer 5. an abrupt stop of all civilisations all over the world that existed at that time. Indeed... what DO we find? Let's see... 1. No chaotic mix in the same layer. Instead, fossils are sorted in [I]different[/I] layers that is consistent all over the planet. We never find mammals next to trilobites. Anywhere. 2. the exact opposite again... we DO find hotspots near sea shores, rivers, lakes, etc. More in-land, where there are/were no such rivers, lakes and coasts, we find almost no fossils at all. A global flood would show the opposite. 3. as already pointed out in 1, this is not the case either. Instead, fossils are spread out over different layers and they date to vastly different periods. Moreover, we can't find a single example anywhere on the planet where a fossil shows up in the "wrong" layer (wrong, in terms of an evolutionary history, that is). 4. No such bottleneck exists 5. No such abrupt stops of any civilisations Indeed, no. What we find in the ground is simply NOT compatible with the flood story on ANY point. First of all, shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. Secondly, I just did. Literally not a single one of its predictions check out. [/COLOR] Indeed. But it's you that is guilty of it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Supremacy challenge part 2
Top
Bottom