Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2016, 10:01 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(16-02-2016 09:51 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(13-02-2016 03:35 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  How did you get from "The fossil record is terrible evidence for evolution and even with DNA" to "You can't rule out intelligent design"?

False Dichotomy. Drinking Beverage

Because, you can't rule out intelligent design, and the fossil record is terrible evidence for evolution.

False on both counts.

(16-02-2016 09:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Even if the "fossil record" proved evolution (which I don't for one moment think it does)

You remain wrong.

(16-02-2016 09:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  how does that rule out intelligent design??

Evolution by natural selection is rather the opposite of what most people mean by "intelligent design".

Now, it may not be what you mean by intelligent design, because you have demonstrated in the past that you are quite silly and prone to getting definitions wrong. If memory serves, you also fail to understand the distinction between the theories of evolution and abiogenesis, so perhaps your confusion comes from that - perhaps you think that your god could have started the whole chain, or something similar, and that counts as "intelligent design".

Unfortunately for you, that still runs into the same problem of lacking any supporting evidence whatsoever, so it is dismissed as completely as your other ideas.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2016, 10:01 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(13-02-2016 04:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  Only ignorant simpletons like you deal in "absolute/truth value".

If evolution occurred, then it is the absolute truth, isn't it? Well, if it isn't the absolute truth, then it isn't a fact. Facts are absolute. The truth is the truth.

Either macroevolution occurred, or it didn't occur. Plain and simple. No gray area. Unless you are admitting that it isn't a fact. No, you aren't doing that, because if you are, then you would be contradicting what you said above.

And we all know Chas don't contradict himself. He is much too bright for that.

I am being sarcastic, by the way Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2016, 10:04 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(16-02-2016 10:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(13-02-2016 04:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  Only ignorant simpletons like you deal in "absolute/truth value".

If evolution occurred, then it is the absolute truth, isn't it? Well, if it isn't the absolute truth, then it isn't a fact. Facts are absolute. The truth is the truth.

Either macroevolution occurred, or it didn't occur. Plain and simple. No gray area. Unless you are admitting that it isn't a fact. No, you aren't doing that, because if you are, then you would be contradicting what you said above.

And we all know Chas don't contradict himself. He is much too bright for that.

I am being sarcastic, by the way Laugh out load

1+1=10. Drinking Beverage

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2016, 10:05 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(16-02-2016 10:01 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  False on both counts.

Please explain how evolution rules out intelligent design. Or was that just a knee jerk response?

(16-02-2016 10:01 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You remain wrong.

I am right, because I believe that dog produce dogs, cats produce cats, and so on, and so forth.

(16-02-2016 10:01 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Evolution by natural selection is rather the opposite of what most people mean by "intelligent design".

Umm, ok...

(16-02-2016 10:01 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Now, it may not be what you mean by intelligent design, because you have demonstrated in the past that you are quite silly and prone to getting definitions wrong. If memory serves, you also fail to understand the distinction between the theories of evolution and abiogenesis, so perhaps your confusion comes from that - perhaps you think that your god could have started the whole chain, or something similar.

Unfortunately for you, that still runs into the same problem of lacking any supporting evidence whatsoever.

Have you ever saw anything contrary to dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, snakes producing snakes?

Have you? No, you haven't. So obviously, your belief in evolution isn't based on observation, it is based on speculation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2016, 10:11 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(16-02-2016 10:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(13-02-2016 04:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  Only ignorant simpletons like you deal in "absolute/truth value".

If evolution occurred, then it is the absolute truth, isn't it? Well, if it isn't the absolute truth, then it isn't a fact. Facts are absolute. The truth is the truth.

Either macroevolution occurred, or it didn't occur. Plain and simple. No gray area. Unless you are admitting that it isn't a fact. No, you aren't doing that, because if you are, then you would be contradicting what you said above.

And we all know Chas don't contradict himself. He is much too bright for that.

I am being sarcastic, by the way Laugh out load

110 % false, (as per his usual).
Evolution is a process of tiny incremental changes, over millions of years (normally).
Wail of the Child's post demonstrates he has no clue about, and no education in, science or Evolution.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2016, 10:20 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(13-02-2016 03:09 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I don't recognize macro evolution as a valid term. The whole macro vs. micro is another false dichotomy. It is completely unjustified in reason.

Nonsense. Macro evolution is a term that describes the TYPE of evolution..such as the whole "reptile-bird" thing. That is a completely different concept than a dog producing a different species of dog, which is what we would call micro evolution.

Two different concepts of evolution, and we are only distinguishing the two with the terms. No biggie.

(13-02-2016 03:09 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Evolution is change in genomes over time.

You can define it however you'd like. I am asking for observational evidence for the alleged phenomena, and I ain't getting it.

(13-02-2016 03:09 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It is a part of the nature of DNA to change with each new generation.

DNA is an independent problem, because then we have to ask ourselves where did the DNA come from in the first place? All of that information, specified information...from a mindless/blind process.

DNA is an independent problem that the naturalist has that we need not get in to.

(13-02-2016 03:09 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  What is your evidence to support your dichotomy. Is it that it hasn't been observed?

I thought science was supposed to be based on observation...so yeah, lets observe some stuff.

(13-02-2016 03:09 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I've already addressed this. human beings are not limited in our knowledge to what we can perceive directly. We have reason and logic as a guide to inference.

I aint denying belief based on inference. What I am saying is; based on the evidence that has been presented, particularly DNA and the fossil record, I remain unconvinced..and even if the evidence was convincing, it still doesn't rule out theism.

(13-02-2016 03:09 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  So long as we can show the logical connections between that which is not perceptually self evident to that which is, we are on solid ground. Scientists have done it.

Based on all of the organisms that have lived and died, topped by all of the changes that have taken place over the course of billions of years, I'd expect to see hundreds upon thousands of transitional fossils. COMPLETE fossils. No bullshit "one here, two there".

That is what we should logically expect to see, if the conclusion/premise of "therefore, evolution is true"...is in fact...true

But we don't . Give me one COMPLETE fossil record of any given macro evolution transformation.

You've got none.

(13-02-2016 03:09 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Can you do this with creationism? Can you show us the logical progression from what we can directly perceive to "God".

Based on the arguments against infinite regression...arguments that I've already laid out...should convince any reasonable person that doesn't have an ax to grind that a First Cause is necessary...and that First Cause must have had POWER, and WILL...and the only entity that is capable of such a will and the POWER to carry out this will of creation is God.

There is just simply NOTHING you nor anyone else can say with respect to that. Nothing.

(13-02-2016 03:09 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Go ahead and show us your work and remember that in order to be true your steps must be in accordance with the primacy of existence principle.

Still knawing away at that bone, are we? Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2016, 11:49 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(16-02-2016 10:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Please explain how evolution rules out intelligent design. Or was that just a knee jerk response?

This was explained later in the post.

Do not attempt to fisk* me if you do not understand how it works. You only make yourself look silly.

(16-02-2016 10:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 10:01 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Evolution by natural selection is rather the opposite of what most people mean by "intelligent design".

Umm, ok...

I note the lack of actual objection. What definition of "intelligent design" are you using that makes it compatible with evolution by natural selection?

(16-02-2016 10:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Have you ever saw anything contrary to dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, snakes producing snakes?

No. But, as this is not what the theory of evolution states will happen, this is rather irrelevant.

(16-02-2016 10:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So obviously, your belief in evolution isn't based on observation, it is based on speculation.

Quite wrong.

You don't seem to understand how this whole "evidence" thing actually works, or even what it is that the theory of evolution actually says.

For the sake of discussion, you might want to take a moment to lay out what your understanding of the theory of evolution is, along with the definition of intelligent design that you are working with. It would make things much easier all around.

*: "Fisking" is the style of post which I employ. It consists of breaking up posts into relevant points and addressing them separately, for greater clarity.[/size]

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
16-02-2016, 11:56 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(16-02-2016 10:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. Macro evolution is a term that describes the TYPE of evolution..such as the whole "reptile-bird" thing. That is a completely different concept than a dog producing a different species of dog, which is what we would call micro evolution.

Two different concepts of evolution, and we are only distinguishing the two with the terms. No biggie.

There is no difference between the two but scale.

Nothing but your own incredulity separates micro- and macro-evolution, and incredulity is not an argument.

(16-02-2016 10:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You can define it however you'd like. I am asking for observational evidence for the alleged phenomena, and I ain't getting it.

The fossil record and DNA are both observational evidence of this.

Your continued denial of the facts does not make them any less fact.

(16-02-2016 10:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  DNA is an independent problem, because then we have to ask ourselves where did the DNA come from in the first place?

Chemicals. DNA is just a string of chemicals, doing what chemicals do. There is nothing mystical about it.

(16-02-2016 10:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  All of that information, specified information...from a mindless/blind process.

"Specified information" is a nonsense term made up by creationists, and has no actual meaning.

Actual information is a mathematical value dealing with the number of possible states of a given entity, and is not dependent on intelligence. The term that you are looking for is meaning - but meaning is inherently subjective, and also does not affect the matter of DNA as a chemical structure.

(16-02-2016 10:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Based on all of the organisms that have lived and died, topped by all of the changes that have taken place over the course of billions of years, I'd expect to see hundreds upon thousands of transitional fossils. COMPLETE fossils. No bullshit "one here, two there".

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, if you actually understand the term. But if you want specific examples of bridges between two of the creationist "types", you should check out the crocoduck.

(16-02-2016 10:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But we don't . Give me one COMPLETE fossil record of any given macro evolution transformation.

Games with goalposts. No matter how complete and conclusive the record, you can always claim that there is one last link missing, since we don't have literally every skeleton from a given family tree.

This is not convincing to anyone.

(16-02-2016 10:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Based on the arguments against infinite regression...arguments that I've already laid out...should convince any reasonable person that doesn't have an ax to grind that a First Cause is necessary...

They really don't.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
17-02-2016, 12:39 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This was explained later in the post.

Oh, I musta missed it.

(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I note the lack of actual objection. What definition of "intelligent design" are you using that makes it compatible with evolution by natural selection?

The definition of "intelligent design" that states that all life/species originated from a supernatural being of power and intellect that is able to do things that a mindless and blind process (nature) isn't able to do.

(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No.

Then you don't have a scientific theory.

(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  But, as this is not what the theory of evolution states will happen, this is rather irrelevant.

Science is based on OBSERVATION. You've never observed any of the phenomena you believe occurred. So it isn't the science that is motivating your beliefs, it is the presuppositions.

(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Quite wrong.
You don't seem to understand how this whole "evidence" thing actually works, or even what it is that the theory of evolution actually says.

Geez. It just never fails. Now, since my tenure on here, I've had at least 7-8 (probably 10) different "sets" of discussions on evolution. Each time the subject is discussed, I always get accused on being ignorant of "what the theory of evolution actually says".

This happens all the time in debate, not just with me, but with practically anyone that doesn't believe in the theory. We get accused of being ignorant, as if the evolutionists are so smart, and we are so dumb Laugh out load

(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  For the sake of discussion, you might want to take a moment to lay out what your understanding of the theory of evolution is, along with the definition of intelligent design that you are working with. It would make things much easier all around.

My understanding of evolution is simple. You believe that reptiles evolved into birds, correct? Yes or no.

(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  *: "Fisking" is the style of post which I employ. It consists of breaking up posts into relevant points and addressing them separately, for greater clarity.[/size]

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2016, 01:29 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is no difference between the two but scale.

Yeah, and the difference is also the fact that we can observe one scale (micro), we can't observe the other (macro).

(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Nothing but your own incredulity separates micro- and macro-evolution, and incredulity is not an argument.

Nonsense. Micro evolution is what we can observe...what we can experiment...and what we can predict. Micro evolution is science.

Macro evolution, we can't observe...we can't experiment, and we cant predict. All we have is speculation of what happened billions of years ago when no one was around to witness it...and also speculation of what will happen billions of years FROM NOW, when no one living today will ALSO be around in that distant future to see.

If you don't see the scam/con involved in that, then you are duped, my friend.

(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The fossil record and DNA are both observational evidence of this.

Nonsense. You don't know if that fossil had any offspring, and you certainly don't know if that fossil had DIFFERENT offspring. It is all speculation. When you see a fossil and you determine anything other than "this once living thing died a longggg time ago", then you are leaving science, and diving right into the pool of "religion".

You are relying on the unseen. You are exercising faith.

(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Your continued denial of the facts does not make them any less fact.

What facts? The only facts are....some animals fossilize once they die. That is the extent of the "facts".

(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Chemicals. DNA is just a string of chemicals, doing what chemicals do. There is nothing mystical about it.

Nonsense. Those "string of chemicals" are information-rich. Where did the information come from? A book is just a bunch of letters...but in a specified pattern, those letters form WORDS...and those words form SENTENCES, and those sentences form information.

That is the same thing with DNA...the same concept...but I know it is your job to down-play DNA and make it seem as if DNA is just a bunch of chemicals, meaning nothing. If I was in your position, I might do the same thing.

(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  "Specified information" is a nonsense term made up by creationists, and has no actual meaning.

Actually, it does have meaning. Scientists aren't the only one that can apply terms to concepts.

MTO ELVOS YMRA <-----Means nothing
TOM LOVES MARY <-----Means something

What is the difference? One sentence has information. The other sentence doesn't.

DNA is specified information, or "specifed complexity". Why? Because if you take just one teeny tiny human cell, all of the information in that one cell is equivilent to 4,000 pages of printed information. And that is just the information in ONE cell.

So it isn't just the cell, it is information WITHIN the cell. That is specified complexity. Now, you can down-play it all you want, but you aren't doing anything but convincing me the fact that the truth stands on its own two feet, and I will proudly stand on the side of truth completely unfazed by any attempts from the "false" side as they try to come forth with these miniscule objections and refutations.

(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Actual information is a mathematical value dealing with the number of possible states of a given entity, and is not dependent on intelligence.

Makes no sense. That is the worse piss-poor definition of information that I've ever seen.

(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The term that you are looking for is meaning - but meaning is inherently subjective, and also does not affect the matter of DNA as a chemical structure.

Um, huh? Huh

(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Every fossil is a transitional fossil, if you actually understand the term
PHP Code:


Nonsense. Dawin himself was asking the question of "why in the hell, if my theory is true, don't we not see transitional forms everywhere?"

He was asking the same question I am asking. Your response is "Every fossil is a transitonal fossil"...ok, well tell that to Darwin then...because apparently he didn't know this...and you apparently is smarter than he was.

(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Games with goalposts. No matter how complete and conclusive the record, you can always claim that there is one last link missing, since we don't have literally every skeleton from a given family tree.

This is not convincing to anyone.

I am just asking for ONE...just ONE complete record. Of all of millions of fossils that have been found, you mean to tell me you can't pull just ONE measley COMPLETE record?? Just one??

Laughable Laugh out load You don't have any because there aren't any.

(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  They really don't.

Then tell me how infinite regression is possible and after you do so, I will become an atheist and advocate the theory of evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: