Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2015, 04:05 PM
RE: Question about flood
(16-03-2015 03:53 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  I am not sure I understand what you mean, but if you meant "you still have a lot to discover", I'd say... I don't know. What if yes? The best solution to that is keeping going forward.

I will put it to you this way, Poly...if the theory of evolution is drowning in the middle of the ocean, abiogenesis would be the huge brick that is tied to its ankles Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 04:10 PM
RE: Question about flood
(16-03-2015 03:59 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I would add that having a lot more to discover (or "a thousand miles to go"), and admitting that, is far better than thinking that you already know it all -- which is the impression I get from most of these religious types. Religion isn't better than science because it has no questions or doubts.

When you can adequately explain how life, the universe, consciousness, and morality...when you can scientifically explain the origins of these things, then I will happily abandon my theism.

Until then, I am within my common sensical rights to postulate an answer that covers all four areas..and this is not a god of the gaps approach, either. This is a human being using his God given (or nature given Big Grin) brain as I appeal to the BEST explanation, with is the God hypothesis, in my opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 04:11 PM
RE: Question about flood
Your analogy doesn't work. The two theories are completely independent from each other. The fact that they are "two theories" kind of hints at that.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Polyglot Atheist's post
16-03-2015, 04:45 PM
RE: Question about flood
(16-03-2015 04:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 03:59 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I would add that having a lot more to discover (or "a thousand miles to go"), and admitting that, is far better than thinking that you already know it all -- which is the impression I get from most of these religious types. Religion isn't better than science because it has no questions or doubts.

When you can adequately explain how life, the universe, consciousness, and morality...when you can scientifically explain the origins of these things, then I will happily abandon my theism.

Until then, I am within my common sensical rights to postulate an answer that covers all four areas..and this is not a god of the gaps approach, either. This is a human being using his God given (or nature given Big Grin) brain as I appeal to the BEST explanation, with is the God hypothesis, in my opinion.

Because you absolutely have to have an answer right now, you'll take an incorrect one.

You sound like a three-year-old. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
16-03-2015, 04:58 PM
RE: Question about flood
(16-03-2015 03:59 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Religion isn't better than science because it has no questions or doubts.

Science has questions that may never be answered
Religion has answers that may never be questioned

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
16-03-2015, 05:03 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2015 05:15 PM by SevenPatch.)
RE: Question about flood
(16-03-2015 04:11 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Your analogy doesn't work. The two theories are completely independent from each other. The fact that they are "two theories" kind of hints at that.

Exactly. If science were to find evidence of God tomorrow and provide demonstrable evidence for everyone to see that God in fact did create all life, (thus invalidating abiogenesis), the Theory of Evolution would still stand unscathed as the theory is primarily based on existing life today and works back from there.

I have to say, I'm not sure if it is funny or disturbing that someone would think the ToE is drowning. I'd hate to make fun of someone's ignorance but I would find it amusing how desperate someone would have to be to pretend something is false just to hold onto preconceived beliefs.

EDIT: Then again, both ignorance and delusion are unfortunate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SevenPatch's post
16-03-2015, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2015 05:10 PM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: Question about flood
(16-03-2015 12:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Each Gospel corroborates the other. We have four biographies of Jesus Christ, all written during the lifetime of his followers...with other historical figures, you will be lucky to get ONE biography of the figure, much less any.

For corroborating with themselves, you would think that Matthew and Luke could agree on a geneology or birthing story. Also, we have moved beyond the Origin of Species and our knowledge has vastly improved life on this planet as a result. What contributions has your religion made to humanity in the last 500 years other than getting lots of people killed?


(16-03-2015 12:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Until then, I am within my common sensical rights to postulate an answer that covers all four areas..and this is not a god of the gaps approach, either. This is a human being using his God given (or nature given Big Grin) brain as I appeal to the BEST explanation, with is the God hypothesis, in my opinion.

I hope you realize this is literally "I don't know so I'll make some shit up."

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
16-03-2015, 09:35 PM
RE: Question about flood
(16-03-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 01:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And yet, even in a universe purpose built for human beings (crafted in his own image no less), the vast majority of them will never get there.
Hey, Navy Seals training...the vast majority of the trainee's won't become Seals, that doesn't mean that the program isn't needed nor does it take away from those that DO make it all the way through.


[Image: a63aa4e31a02ee74e4e4962ae5b9618ec66b1703...3e6e8c.jpg]


That's because NAVY SEALS cannot just magic away their problems like an omnipotent deity can.



(16-03-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 01:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Do you know what that means? You god is incredibly callous and capricious, or he sucks at developing universes.
Opinions are like assholes, we all have one, and they all STINK.


Except some of us have informed opinions, and others are ignorant uncritical shills. Guess which you are?



(16-03-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 01:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, let's not forget that your morality system is incredibly easy to game, does nothing to prevent evil, and in fact it can be argued that it both allows and encourages it. So, you know, there is that.
Huh


You're not judged by your actions, you're judged by your beliefs. Now either people can choose their beliefs, and getting into heaven is as simple as a last minute repentance and belief switch regardless of their actions. Or your beliefs are determined by your knowledge, in which case the vast majority of good people who simply believe the wrong things will get punished; in other words this is a huge miscarry of justice, and given the infinite timescale, makes this system infinitely unjust. Ignoring for an instant that this system involves eternal punishment for thought crimes, it also ignore that the vast majority of people who have never even heard of Christianity get eternal punishment by default because they cannot believe in what they do not know.

This system is not fair, meritorious, or just; it is the antithesis of all three. Sound, rational, unbiased people can see this and recognize it for what it is. I imagine you however have been drilled into any number of logically fallacious denials and excuses.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-03-2015, 09:37 AM
RE: Question about flood
(16-03-2015 04:11 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Your analogy doesn't work. The two theories are completely independent from each other. The fact that they are "two theories" kind of hints at that.

Well, if you take God out of the equation, then evolution depends on abiogenesis...so until you can explain how life could have arisen from nonlife, then you will never get to the origin of any species....evolutionists often ignore this...which is the cart before the horse fallacy.

Second, I don't think the scientific data supports EITHER theory, to be honest. So you can separate the theories from each other as much as you want..but you can't go in a lab and PROVE either one, and that is the problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: Question about flood
(16-03-2015 02:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 02:31 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  [The Origin of Species] was a good starting point, but that's what it was, a starting point. We're waaaaay past it right now.

So in other words, you've traversed a thousand miles, but you still have a thousand more to go...gotcha Thumbsup

Now you're getting it. That's how we make progress, by moving forward one step at a time. We'll never have a model that fully explains the history of reality because then the model would itself be reality. We build up models of reality that make unerring predictions about reality and when we find a disagreement between our model and reality we modify or replace our model and let reality be our guide.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: