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.
Well ... um ... because this is what God thinks of them?Why do you think that it is important?
I don't invent smoke alarms, if that's what you mean. There are dozens throughout the building.
Weren't you the one that suggested that I build a bonfire in my apartment to determine whether they actually worked? That would be quite dangerous, don't you think?
That is ok, there are lots of fish in the ocean. I am sure you can find the answers your looking for. God has the solution for every problem and the answer for every question. Of course man has neither answers nor solutions. Your often doing good if they do not make your problems worse. We do not always get what we want but with God we get what we need.
You know, Loudmouth, I have very bad news for you. Logical positivism is dead and has been since 1967. I guess you didn't get the memo. Your epistemology is paradoxical and self refuting.Axioms form the foundation of epistemologies. One of the axioms of scientific empiricism is that facts need to be demonstrable.
Axiom: "a self-evident truth that requires no proof."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom
Once again, you fail to grasp the point of the conversation. No one is saying that Democrats are retarded (although we may be thinking it). Let's try again....Of course, by this definition, I am not a democrat. You're making the same stupid mistake you made with "Calvinist", and I'd rather not rehash it again. You are trying to force a definition onto something by committing a massive equivocation fallacy. You have defined a term "Democrats" as being at least in part retarded. That is, if something is not retarded, it is not a Democrat. By that definition, I'm not a Democrat. I don't identify as a democrat, and I think you'll find very few who would. By some coincidence, other people use the term "Democrat" to mean a bunch of different things, with no relation to yours. However, to conflate the two would be hugely dishonest.
Analytic statements are those that are inherently true. If I say, for example, that all doctors that specialize on eyes are doctors, then that is a true statement and it cannot be argued against. Substitution does not change the statement. I can substitute endlessly. I can change the statement thus:
All doctors that specialize on eyes are doctors.
All cats that specialize on eyes are cats.
All cats that specialize on mice are cats.
All cats that chase mice are cats.
We can see that no amount of substitution can change the truth value of the statement.
However, if I take the statement "All ophthalmologists are doctors" and start substituting then things can immediately go wrong.
All ophthalmologists are doctors.
All mice are doctors.
All mice are cats.
So immediately we can see that simple substitution with the second sentence causes the truth value to go awry right away. Thus, the second sentence is not an analytic statement.
Since analytic statements are those that are logically a priori true, the definition/tautology that I have posted is clearly and indisputably in the analytic statement camp. The other statement, however, seems to be a mix between analytic and synthetic. Where is the boundary to be drawn? How can I logically and consistently differentiate between these two arguments:These are less "definitions" and more "tautologies". A different kind of statement altogether.
Well, I'm glad you realize that this problem is considered "solved" and that the source I have quoted is authoritative. Now, just because this is the received wisdom of the past century doesn't mean that it's true. If you have a new argument, then I'm all ears....But we're defining here. "All ophthalmologists are doctors" is either a definition (in which a quality of the term is defined) or a synthetic statement (in which we must determine what we mean in the real world by those terms and whether they apply). If we're defining, then it doesn't matter that you can replace the terms with whatever, because by our definitions, mice actually are all cats. If we're applying, then substitution trivially does not work. I realize this is seen as a philosophical issue that is "solved" according to your source (and I recognize your source as reputable), but Quine's critique seems rather pointless, and there have been numerous responses to it in any case.
we now find the modern synthesis isn't correct either, and furthermore we are getting indications that a large part of the scientific community is rethinking darwinism entirely, it isn't merely a matter of extension, but of a replacement.
i think koonin and noble are correct, we must rethink our concept of evolution as being an adaptive, gradualistic paradigm.
i think you are STILL missing the point.
it's the RATE of major changes of HGT, compared to the RATE of VGT major changes.
in my opinion, it's VGT that creates speciation events, it's HGT that creates phylogenic events.
HGT is generally regarded as the cause of prokaroytes becoming eukaroytes.
Notice that I mentioned that the dinosaurs “died.” According to Genesis, death didn’t enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned. So if the dinosaurs died 70 million years ago, then death would have been in the world long before man existed. Do you see the contradiction?
Or you might have to abandon the idea that dinosaurs died 70 million years ago.Indeed one sees the contradiction. It looks like you just might have to abandon your presupposition that the Bible is Revealed Knowledge.
Exactly.Don't worry, the world won't come to an end.
It is written:You will have to apply yourself to study however, to address the ignorance. Learning becomes more absorbing and enjoyable and indeed fulfilling the longer you persist with it.
Same for Nebraska Man.
While this may be true, the accumulation isn't additive. In other words, change does not add information so that the resulting organism is more complex than its ancestor. Gills do not eventually become lungs because of this "accumulation of changes".
I was waiting for this gem. I agree that dogs only give birth to dogs. The question is, what was the organism that gave birth to the first dog? I'm not talking abiogenesis here, but simply the continuation (albeit backwards in time) of macro evolution. Dogs didn't always exist, so what was the organism called that begat the first dog?
It was 41 years (1912 to 1953), and it was proved (by scientists) to be a hoax nearly 62 years ago. Since you apparently don't accept what scientists say, what reason have you to think that it was a hoax? By the way, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin?
I don't have reason to think it was a hoax. I know it was because I read the headlines in the newspaper that stated it was a hoax.
At the same meeting, Woodward announced that a reconstruction of the fragments indicated that the skull was in many ways similar to that of a modern human, except for the occiput (the part of the skull that sits on the spinal column) and for brain size, which was about two-thirds that of a modern human. He went on to indicate that save for the presence of two human-like molar teeth, the jaw bone found would be indistinguishable from that of a modern, young chimpanzee. From the British Museum's reconstruction of the skull, Woodward proposed that Piltdown man represented an evolutionary missing linkbetween apes and humans, since the combination of a human-like cranium with an ape-like jaw tended to support the notion then prevailing in England that human evolution began with the brain.
In November 1953, Time published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clarkand Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery[12] and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of an orangutan andchimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution andchromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet.
I don't think of the shroud of turin.
Try to see that what you wrote makes sense before clicking the 'Post Reply' button so that we can all be edified. It's called intellectual honesty. Critical thinking is always a great help.The organism that begat the first dog according to atheism is evolution.
That quote attributed to Jesus (most likely a mythical character; certainly there was no Christ), is a comment on hypocrisy. It is borrowed from the Greeks as is a great deal of the New Testament, Platonism.Or you might have to abandon the idea that dinosaurs died 70 million years ago.
Exactly.
It is written:
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?... first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Cancer and all sickness, illness, disease, pain, suffering and death is a product of NOT following the Law and Commandments of God. He is a God of justice and He would not allow people to suffer unjustly. Even when people do suffer He will cause good to come out of it. So that all things work together for the good for those who love God and are following His plan and purpose for them and their life. That is what in everything we can give thanks.Like cancer?
This is patently untrue. Cancer is a natural side-effect of, essentially, multicellular life. It is present in virtually all complex eukaryotes. The idea that it is the result of not following the law and commandments of god is doubly ludicrous when you consider that there have been babies born with cancer. It's just something that happens, unfortunately, and while certain factors can increase your risk of cancer, the longer you live, the higher your odds. If nothing else gets you, sooner or later you will get cancer.Cancer and all sickness, illness, disease, pain, suffering and death is a product of NOT following the Law and Commandments of God
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?