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.
TYhere are no 'leaps of faith' involved. It's SCIENCE.ChristianCenturion said:Sorry, yours has bigger 'leaps of faith' than mine.
You keep saying that, but spontaneous life is not 'science' nor is the probabilities involved that allow that 'life' to evolve progressively without dying out under hostile or randomized conditions.Electric Sceptic said:TYhere are no 'leaps of faith' involved. It's SCIENCE.
"Spontaneous life" is no part of evolution. how many times do you have to be told this?ChristianCenturion said:You keep saying that, but spontaneous life is not 'science' nor is the probabilities involved that allow that 'life' to evolve progressively without dying out under hostile or randomized conditions.
Your religion...Electric Sceptic said:"Spontaneous life" is no part of evolution. how many times do you have to be told this?
There is nothing whatsoever in the probabilityes that allow life to evolve that makes it non science.
HouseApe said:It is fine to teach creationism in a religion class. But never a science class. If a parent wants a child to believe in creationism that is fine. Explain to them that evolution is the best science can come up with because science must exclude God, or science is pointless.
Electric Sceptic said:"Spontaneous life" is no part of evolution. how many times do you have to be told this?
There is nothing whatsoever in the probabilityes that allow life to evolve that makes it non science.
ChristianCenturion said:
Electric Sceptic said:Right. A discussion of causality, which is far from the "Law of Causality" which you imagined.
No, they're not. This is absolute rubbish, pushed only by creationists who are ignorant of the facts.Phinehas said:Besides the fact that the odds of evolution are quite a few zeros past the point of the odds that scientists have dubbed "impossible".
I'll ignore the ad hominems and merely note - again - that a discussion of causality is all well and good, but is unrelated to the "Law of Causality" you imagined exists. In short - there is no "Law of Causality".Phinehas said:Here is a case in point of Electric Sceptic's willingness to argue anything, regardless of it's obvious validity.
(speaking of causality as spoken of by wikipedia as well as myself)
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Mabe you've heard of it? Maybe I just imagined it.
It's a physical law, a.k.a. a law of physics (incidentally, an observation contributed by Sir Isaac Newton, a Christian) Have you heard of physics? I'm going to put my feet on what actually is instead of what I really want there to be. What it means is that things in this universe are caused by other things happening. Cause (action) and effect (reaction). Cause (action) and effect (reaction). I say let's agree on this one. It'll make you look better.
Maybe the "Law of Entropy" is imagined too. Heck, for that matter maybe you're all just a figment of my imagination as well.
I wish you away...
I wish you away...
P.S. <click it
Electric Sceptic said:that a discussion of causality is all well and good, .
Now you resort to blatant lies?Shane Roach said:Apparently not, since you just spent several days avoiding that issue.
So, please, by all means, give us a good figure, we'll use your odds.Electric Sceptic said:No, they're not. This is absolute rubbish, pushed only by creationists who are ignorant of the facts.
Electric Sceptic said:I'll ignore the ad hominems and merely note - again - that a discussion of causality is all well and good, but is unrelated to the "Law of Causality" you imagined exists. In short - there is no "Law of Causality".
And no, there is no "Law of Entropy", either. You're probably thinking of the second law of thermodynamics, which deals with entropy.
Electric Sceptic said:Now you resort to blatant lies?
There are no figures. We cannot possibly calculate any because there are too many unknowns.Phinehas said:(talking about the odds of evolution, spontaneous generation happening)
So, please, by all means, give us a good figure, we'll use your odds.
They are? Where? I've never heard or read either of them used.Phinehas said:Yet both of these terms are used freely in their fields. The law (or laws) of causality and entropy do exist contained in the laws of physics, and are used quite often by many respected and competent professors, authors, etc.
This is complete nonsense. What we are really dealing with here is you incorrectly quoting scientific "laws" that don't exist. I've no idea what the "Law of Entropy" might entail , but the "Law of Causality" (if such existed) has been falsified, since causality doesn't apply at the quantum level or inside a singularity (or, I believe, during Planck Time).Phinehas said:What we are really dealing with here is semantics. Even though the usage of such was and is common and correct (as has been the case for several centuries), as well as the ideas it conveyed accurate, you had it in your head to "fight the 'science' infidel". This is what I see as typical of motives in a great many specific arguments. Not discovery of truth, but covering of anything not in line with particular desires. I find it tedious, to say the least. But, to let you off easy, I digress.
That's false, too. I asked for information on this "Law of Causation" and then when he supplied information corrected him, stating that there is no "Law of Causation".Shane Roach said:Anyone who wants to go back and read this argument you have made can note that had you paid any attention to context you could easily have understood the argument as it was presented. For whatever reason, you chose to divert attention from the discussion of causation and instead have a debate about whether or not there is an official "Law of Causation".
You ARE lying, since I dodged nothing.Shane Roach said:If you think I am lying, that's your call. I merely point out that I had no trouble at all understanding what was implied by the phrase 'law of causation', nor do I imagine anyone else did, even you.
I think it would help your own reputation considerably if you spent less time attacking people for what you imagine are transgressions and more time on actually debating issues.Shane Roach said:I think you would help your own reputation considerably if you spent less time circling the issues. You seem to think you are making rhetorical points, but I believe with all my heart that people see through it and see you as skirting the issues.
Electric Sceptic said:There are no figures. We cannot possibly calculate any because there are too many unknowns.
We can't possibly calculate the odds of life arising or anything similar. That is no news to anyone who knows anything about the subject.ChristianCenturion said:Aren't you the same one that has been posting ad nausaem with me about evolution is based on science and is a credible theory?
Now all of a sudden there are too many unknowns and we cannot possible calculate anything.
Did the evolutionist church have a fire and all that precious 'scientific' evidence is now lost?
Ok, ok... you probably didn't appreciate that, but I thought it was funny.
Just keeping it light.
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?