Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2016, 08:25 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 07:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 03:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  And there is yet another term that you do not understand. Observation is not synonymous with witnessing.

We observe how things are structured and how they function. From that we deduce what can happen and what must happen.

Creationists (that don't believe in evolution) are also "observing how things are structured and how they function"...and we DON'T draw the same conclusions that you do.

So it isn't about the data, it is the INTERPRETATION of the data, isn't it? The difference is, I can interpret the data the SAME way you do, and still hold on to my theistic beliefs. But you CAN'T interpret the data the same way I do, and hold on to your beliefs.

You dodged the point. You confuse observation with witnessing. Try again.

Quote:I don't mean to laugh, but Laugh out load

I don't even think your cat believes in evolution, Chas. Laugh out load

More sad little attempts at insult.

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
18-02-2016, 09:05 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(18-02-2016 08:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  You dodged the point. You confuse observation with witnessing. Try again.

Ok. I will try again. You've never "witnessed" macro evolution, yet you believe it occurred.

There, I tried again, how was that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2016, 09:08 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 07:28 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes. But that is because you tend to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "na na na na na I can't heeeeaaar you" when confronted with anything that violates your preconceived beliefs, rather than because you have a valid alternative interpretation.

If you want to be irrational, go ahead and be irrational. I couldn't care less.

But don't try to act as though the creationist "interpretation" is worth so much as an iota of consideration for anyone who actually cares about being rational.

I will say again, I can accept evolution and in no way abandon my theistic beliefs. If I had reasons to believe evolution is true, I would believe it. I don't, so I won't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2016, 09:09 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
No one ever "observed" mountains forming (from plate techtonics).
Does that mean it didn't happen ?

Since Wail of the Child has not even one convert on TTA from his nonsense, I do have to wonder, what he thinks he's up to, here.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-02-2016, 09:33 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(18-02-2016 09:05 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-02-2016 08:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  You dodged the point. You confuse observation with witnessing. Try again.

Ok. I will try again. You've never "witnessed" macro evolution, yet you believe it occurred.

There, I tried again, how was that?

Still dodging the point.

(18-02-2016 09:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 07:28 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes. But that is because you tend to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "na na na na na I can't heeeeaaar you" when confronted with anything that violates your preconceived beliefs, rather than because you have a valid alternative interpretation.

If you want to be irrational, go ahead and be irrational. I couldn't care less.

But don't try to act as though the creationist "interpretation" is worth so much as an iota of consideration for anyone who actually cares about being rational.

I will say again, I can accept evolution and in no way abandon my theistic beliefs.

I say again, I don't have a problem with this.

Quote:If I had reasons to believe evolution is true, I would believe it. I don't, so I won't.

Ah. So we're down to flat denial, then.

Just for fun, let's run through the painfully obvious points that you have failed to address:

That your definition of "observation" is worthless and has nothing to do with science, and results in such things as having to discard the idea of the sun as a fusion reactor simply because no one has been to the sun.

That you don't understand what information is, don't have a functional definition of "specified" information, and have failed to establish any means by which specified information necessitates a creating intelligence.

That you have not presented any way in which DNA might be considered anything more than chemicals, why it requires the intervention of an intelligent agency for those chemicals to come together, or why it should stop changing after an arbitrary point of difference from its originator.

That evolution operates with regards to populations rather than individuals. Dogs at no point give birth to cats, and attempting to frame evolution in this way is disingenuous. Not every fossilized animal necessarily needs to have reproduced in order to be representative of the population in which it existed. We don't need every corpse of every member of a given line of descent in order to know what animals descended from others.

That Darwin is not the be-all, end-all of evolutionary theory, and our understanding of evolution, fossilization processes, DNA, and many other fields has long since moved on.

That we do actually have the transitional fossils and impressively complete fossil records that creationists claim do not exist. The crocoduck, the modern horse, and many other examples are readily available and undeniable.

That neither abiogenesis or evolution is dependent in any way on the other.

That the creationist idea of "kind" is non-functional, undefined, and utterly incapable of accounting for instances such as ring species that explicitly violate it, while the theory of evolution quite handily predicts and explains their existence.

And, lest we forget, that you have yet to actually demonstrate that you actually know what evolution is.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
18-02-2016, 09:49 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(18-02-2016 09:05 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-02-2016 08:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  You dodged the point. You confuse observation with witnessing. Try again.

Ok. I will try again. You've never "witnessed" macro evolution, yet you believe it occurred.

And I've never witnessed Neptune in a complete orbit of the sun, yet through observation and science I know that it will do so in 165 years.

Quote:There, I tried again, how was that?

As idiotic as the first time you did it.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-02-2016, 11:27 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2016 11:36 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(18-02-2016 09:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 07:28 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes. But that is because you tend to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "na na na na na I can't heeeeaaar you" when confronted with anything that violates your preconceived beliefs, rather than because you have a valid alternative interpretation.

If you want to be irrational, go ahead and be irrational. I couldn't care less.

But don't try to act as though the creationist "interpretation" is worth so much as an iota of consideration for anyone who actually cares about being rational.

I will say again, I can accept evolution and in no way abandon my theistic beliefs. If I had reasons to believe evolution is true, I would believe it. I don't, so I won't.

Fine. Who cares if you accept evolution. I've already conceded that evolution in no way disproves the existence of a god. We don't have any need to disprove something which has never been proved in the first place. The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Nothing. Nada. It is simply a theory to explain the diversity of life that we observe on Earth.

The primacy of existence absolutely proves that the claims of theism are false and it does so at the their root. And yes I will continue to "gnaw on that bone" even though you'd like to take the discussion away from the fundamental level. That bone is resplendent with what a mind needs to be able to identify and integrate the facts of reality. I've given you a perfectly valid and sound argument. I even broke it down into three steps to make it simpler to understand. You have not once interacted with any of it. You've not shown that the arguments commit any logical errors, you've not shown that a single premise is untrue. You've admitted that you don't understand the arguments and their premises, therefore you have rejected them not on any rational basis, but on an emotional one. I'll continue to use the argument from primacy even though and precisely because you don't like it. I know that you want to move the conversation away from essential principles to evolution or the big bang or something else that is far removed from the fundamentals and I know exactly why. Theism can't stand for one second on a rational examination of its fundamentals.

Since the God of theism is said to be a conscious being, then the relationship between it as subject and any and all of its objects is not only relevant, it is front and center. It is the heart of the issue.

Truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence principle. I've demonstrated that. You've not refuted it and in fact conceded the point. Theism assumes the primacy of consciousness, the principle antithetical to the primacy of existence and therefore to truth. I've demonstrated that (see step two) and you've not refuted any of it. Therefore theism is false in principle and at its most fundamental level. Whether evolution is a valid theory does not change that. It's just a red herring.

Edit: The theory does have something to do with the origin of the supernatural. It explains how we evolved the capacity to imagine. Imagination is the faculty of Human beings to rearrange the contents of the mind, ultimately gathered through perception, and to add fantastical powers and attributes to these imagined beings that are not found and do not exist in reality. That's precisely what the origins of the "supernatural" are, the imagination.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
19-02-2016, 10:52 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Except that we can. Your proposed distinction is just one of time. The fact that no human lives long enough to see changes of such magnitude as you are discussing in person is, while true, trivial and irrelevant; we still know that it occurs, both because there is still no actual mechanism that distinguishes between the two and because of other evidence that we have collected, such as the fossil record.

Wait a minute, you started off saying we can, then in the mid-latter part of the paragraph you are justifying why we can't? Makes no sense.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Your argument is akin to suggesting that, because the McNaught Comet has an orbital period of over ninety thousand years and thus no human can have been present throughout its full orbit, we cannot really know that it exists.

Yeah but there are certain mathematical formula's/equations you can use to determine when the next orbit/eclipse will take place without seeing it. You see, that is what I mean by "PREDICTIONS". You can use the tool of mathematics to make those predictions. You can't do such things with evolution..that is something you simply have to accept by faith.

It is actually a false dichotomy, actually.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The fossil record.

Still can't provide a complete one, can you? Yet you call it a "record".

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  False. The fossil record, again, along with other predictions regarding phenomena such as ring species.

The theory of evolution makes concrete predictions daily. Thus far, they tend to pan out.

First off, "species" is not a clearly defined term in biology. It is common for the evolutionist to question me when I use the term "kind", yet, they want to throw around the term "species" as if the term is clearly defined in biology. A coyote and a wolf are different species, yet they are clearly the same "kind" of animal.

I am not sure who gets to decide what is a species and what isn't, but nothing about the concept proves anything regarding macro evolution. Nothing. If you think otherwise, please enlighten me as to how "ring species" is evidence for macro evolution.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Irrelevant. Individual reproduction is of little concern to the theory; beyond the most basic principle of "genetics get passed down from parent to child", evolution deals largely with populations, not individuals. It is a statistical model, not a forensic one.

Um, I am talking about fossils and your idea of fossils being used as evidence for macro evolution. The question is, how does a fossil prove macro evolution? You don't have a complete fossil record to prove anything.

For example, the infamous archeopteryx; that is supposed to be the missing link...transitonal fossil (reptile-bird). Sure, that is one over-the-top interpretation...but why can't it the fully, final, form of a prehistoric bird that had teeth.

What is making you choose one explanation over the other? Ohh, I get it, because "birds don't have teeth", right? Well, maybe...just freakin' MAYBE...they did have teeth, back in the day? Ever think about that??

So why choose one explanation over the other? Because evolutionists (that are naturalists), need some kind of explanation to explain the diversity in organisms...and that alternate option just doesn't provide that kind of an explanation. That is why.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Unless you are claiming that it is not only possible but common to give birth to a genetic clone of yourself, this is also irrelevant.

I am saying I have no reasons to believe a reptile ever evolved into a bird. I am not sure how it is even genetically possible. If you are claiming that it is possible, then please tell me what experiment have you conducted that allows for such thing to occur.

If you can't, then you are pushing a anti-theistic agenda.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  So is a rock, and a canister of air, and any number of other things. Again, "information" is not a magic word that you can wave around, and it certainly doesn't mandate the existence of a controlling intelligence in order to exist. Information is contained in everything, because information is, again, a mathematical value derived from the number of possible states of a given entity versus its actual state.

A clump of dirt is information-rich. A piece of rubber is information-rich. A string of random chemicals is information-rich. That doesn't mean anything.

Nonsense. DNA contains SPECIFIED information. It contains actual instructions.

http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-a-gene

And here is a newsflash for ya...instructions are derived from INSTRUCTORS. And you can't provide me one exception to this rule.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Again, you are using terms that you do not understand. The word you are looking for is "meaning", which is information that has been encoded - that is, information that has been consciously represented in a different, symbolic format for ease of representation.

DNA is not encoded. It is, again, just a string of chemicals reacting with one another. Human models of DNA are often represented through encoding, but this is not the same thing.

Yet, Bill Gates once said "DNA is like a computer program that is far, far, more advanced than any software ever created."

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/336336-d...r-far-more

DNA is also the reason why Antony Flew, probably the world's most prominent atheist during his tenure...became a DEIST in his later life.

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-go...ntony-flew

Then you sit there and say "DNA is not encoded", yet, the very first sentence of the wiki article on the "GENETIC CODE" states "The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material..."

So either you are ignorant of what DNA is, or you are just being flat out intellectually dishonest...I mean hell, whether or not DNA is a code isn't even something that has the scientific community divided. That is a point that we all can agree on, so I don't know why you are down-playing it..unless again; ax to grind/agenda to push.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Again, they both do. You do not understand the definitions of the terms you are attempting to use.

The difference between the two sentences is not that one does not contain information. The difference is that only one of the sentences is coherently encoded using the visual medium of written English.

Right, and understand the "visual medium of written English", one sentence contains information, and the other one doesn't. Plain and simple. That is the only point I was making, and to go beyond that is to over-analyze.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And none of this, in any way, changes the fact that DNA is just chemicals. If you disagree, show me something about DNA that does not occur as a result of chemical processes.

No one is denying the chemical processes on its own, but that doesn't answer the question of where did the encoded information come from. You've already erroneously made an ass out of yourself by denying that DNA is encoded. When you do that, you are missing the point; that mindless and blind processes cannot produce specified complexity.

If you walk in the kitchen and see the kettle boiling and you ask "Why is the kettle boiling"...and the answer you are giving is "Umm, because the kinetic energy of the flame is conducted by the meal bottom of the kettle to the water, causing the water molecules to vibrate faster and faster until they are thrown off in the steam."

Sure, that is an excellent scientific answer to the question....or, you could go with the personal answer that your wife gives you, "Because baby, I put it on to make a cup of coffee."

You can use all of the science you want to explain DNA, how it works...but you can't give a scientific answer to explain where did the specified information, the code, the instructions that are all contained in DNA...you can't give a scientific answer for that.

You need a PERSONAL answer for that, and that is because an entity with superior intellect was/is able to encode that kind of genetic information on such a molecular level. Which makes sense, considering DNA is a code, and codes have programmers.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ...And?

No, really. And? It's complicated. So what?

Intelligent design is a concept that is really hard to come to gripes with, isn't it?

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It is the actual definition. This is why information content is measured in bits; a bit has only two possible states, 0 or 1, and whichever state it is in, you have one bit's worth of information. One bit serves to differentiate between two possible states.

You may find these videos interesting.

Well, the mere definition of the term in no way affects my argument. So hey Laugh out load

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes. And we now know more than Darwin did.

Well, we still don't know where are all of the transitional fossils Laugh out load Wasn't that his question?

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Believe it or not, the theory of evolution has done quite a lot of growing since his day.

Grown? Aren't fossils a big part of the theory? If there are no transitional fossils, then how has the theory grown when one of the main components of the theory...the same question that was asked during Darwin's time is still being asked.

Smh.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  All species - and therefore all fossils - are transitional, because evolution never stops (barring an extinction event of some sort, but that's rather beside the point).

Dude, that is bullshit, and you know it. Because you know there aren't any transitional fossils, you are just saying that every fossil is transitional. That way we can just stop looking, because every fossil that you find is one?

A freakin' joke, bruh.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Even putting that point aside, we now understand much more about the processes of fossilization than Darwin did, and know why we will likely never have a complete fossil record - not everything gets fossilized.

If every fossil is transitional, there really isn't much left to "understand". The game is over.

What a joke.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  DNA is a much better means of tracking descent.

If we all share a common ancestor, that would make all of this DNA shit a dead issue, wouldn't it?

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And, again, we do have the kind of transitional fossils that you're claiming don't exist. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away (and I did notice the blatant dodge regarding the crocoduck).

I do believe I asked for a complete fossil record, sir.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Again, this is my point. You demand completeness, but this comes with goalposts pre-moved; no record is ever complete, because we don't have literally every fossil in the family tree, and you can always use that as a dodge despite the overwhelming evidence. "Complete" is a weasel word, used to crowbar in doubt where there is none.

I don't think it is too much to ask for a complete record out of the literal millions of fossils that we have.

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  If you are actually interested, though, you may want to start with the horse.

Is it complete?

(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I didn't say it was.

Are you conceding the point that it isn't?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2016, 10:56 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(18-02-2016 09:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  And I've never witnessed Neptune in a complete orbit of the sun, yet through observation and science I know that it will do so in 165 years.

You can conduct an experiment and predict when the next time it will occur, tho. That is science. You can't do the same with macro evolution.

False dichotomy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2016, 11:08 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(18-02-2016 11:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Nothing. Nada.

I don't recall saying that it did Dodgy

(18-02-2016 11:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  It is simply a theory to explain the diversity of life that we observe on Earth.

So does Genesis 1.

(18-02-2016 11:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  The primacy of existence absolutely proves that the claims of theism are false and it does so at the their root.

Dude, will you SHUT UP about the primacy of existence. J/K. Laugh out load

(18-02-2016 11:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  And yes I will continue to "gnaw on that bone" even though you'd like to take the discussion away from the fundamental level. That bone is resplendent with what a mind needs to be able to identify and integrate the facts of reality. I've given you a perfectly valid and sound argument. I even broke it down into three steps to make it simpler to understand. You have not once interacted with any of it. You've not shown that the arguments commit any logical errors, you've not shown that a single premise is untrue. You've admitted that you don't understand the arguments and their premises, therefore you have rejected them not on any rational basis, but on an emotional one. I'll continue to use the argument from primacy even though and precisely because you don't like it. I know that you want to move the conversation away from essential principles to evolution or the big bang or something else that is far removed from the fundamentals and I know exactly why. Theism can't stand for one second on a rational examination of its fundamentals.

Dude, I said that if the POE is true, that would mean my First Cause argument is false. They can't both be true, right? One has to be true, and the other false. So if the POE is true, that would make my FC argument false. Yet, my FC argument remains true.

Something isn't right, here. Consider

(18-02-2016 11:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Since the God of theism is said to be a conscious being, then the relationship between it as subject and any and all of its objects is not only relevant, it is front and center. It is the heart of the issue.

I still don't get it, bruh. And it is sad. As I told you before, no one is explaining it in a way to make me understand it.

I really want to understand it because it isn't often I get to demolish arguments AGAINST God's existence. And my lack of understanding the argument prevents me from doing such. But, what more can I do *shrugs*.

(18-02-2016 11:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence principle. I've demonstrated that. You've not refuted it and in fact conceded the point. Theism assumes the primacy of consciousness, the principle antithetical to the primacy of existence and therefore to truth. I've demonstrated that (see step two) and you've not refuted any of it. Therefore theism is false in principle and at its most fundamental level. Whether evolution is a valid theory does not change that. It's just a red herring.

Edit: The theory does have something to do with the origin of the supernatural. It explains how we evolved the capacity to imagine. Imagination is the faculty of Human beings to rearrange the contents of the mind, ultimately gathered through perception, and to add fantastical powers and attributes to these imagined beings that are not found and do not exist in reality. That's precisely what the origins of the "supernatural" are, the imagination.

Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: