06 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhich has been my point, but better said by you.
KellyJay, what you fail to realize is that there is no way to empirically verify a cause/effect relationship between events, you can only verify correlations. Therefore you cannot know if the universe, or anything for that matter, has a cause.
If you have a way to empirically verify cause and effect, I'm very interested.
Science has to start in the middle of all of these processes, it cannot
go beyond that; therefore, creation takes us to a place science cannot
go, to the beginning of all things in this universe, science cannot offer
anything that touches creation in that respect. That does not make
creation true, it only puts it out of the realm of science, and in the
realm of faith.
Kelly
06 Nov 08
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…...When you attempt to say a word means the EXACT OPPOSITE of its
When you attempt to say a word means the exact opposite of its
standard meaning, you are not using that word properly at all. Normally
you would put an 'a' in front of something if you were to do that, like
muse and amuse, so for you what you should saying is adesign and
astraight when attempting to make those words fit your desire to use
them in ways ...[text shortened]... ging them
to suit you without regard to the standard definition is cult like behavior.
Kelly
standard meaning, you are not using that word properly at all...…(my emphasis)
The standard meaning of “design” can be said to be something like:
“structure that was contracted to be that structure for a purpose”
And the non-standard meaning in this particular case is:
“structure that was contracted to be that structure either for a purpose or no purpose”
(Which can be simplified to just simply: “structure that was contracted&rdquo😉
With this non-standard definition of the word “design”, it is equally correct to say that a car was “designed” by a human as to say humans were “designed” by evolution for one was constructed with a structure for a purpose and the other was constructed with a structure for no purpose (using the standard meaning of the word “purpose&rdquo😉.
But note that it is not correct to say that the non-standard meaning:
“structure that was contracted to be that structure either for a purpose or no purpose”
Is the “EXACT OPPOSITE” of:
“structure that was contracted to be that structure for a purpose”
as you said because clearly there are categories of things that comply with BOTH definitions i.e. BOTH the standard definition AND this non-standard definition -just one example -a car. The standard meaning in this case is a subclass of the non-standard meaning because the non-standard meaning in this case is simply more general.
Therefore, it is totally illogical to suggest that I should call this non-standard meaning of design “adesign”!
You seem to be just using this business of the meaning of words to sidetrack us -ok -so suppose I didn’t call the design of evolution “design” but rather “the structures that are contracted by evolution“ or, if you want it to be more specific, “the anatomy of living things that are contracted by evolution” -so now what? -I mean, what is your argument against evolution now?
06 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…...Which has been my point,
Which has been my point, but better said by you.
Science has to start in the middle of all of these processes, it cannot
go beyond that; therefore, creation takes us to a place science cannot
go, to the beginning of all things in this universe, science cannot offer
anything that touches creation in that respect. That does not make
creation true, it only puts it out of the realm of science, and in the
realm of faith.
Kelly
...…
No it hasn’t!
You have been saying that there must have been a “before” the big bang because something must have “caused” it to start.
Did you misread KazetNagorra post?
07 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasExcept I didn't say that, again context you should be able to quote
But in this rare occation, you were actually right. There is no such as a creation. You should be proud enetring a new level of understanding!
me completely and show me how you can make what I said mean
what you claim.
Kelly
07 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJay"I didn't say..., you misunderstand..., you don't read..., you are mean...", and so on ad infinitum."
Except I didn't say that, again context you should be able to quote
me completely and show me how you can make what I said mean
what you claim.
Kelly
This is symptoms of how desperate you are to win discussions. Not to learn, just to win discussions. Nothing more.
Your opinion is worth more than the collected work of all scientific research combined, becuse your opinion is right, others hard science facts are not. This is what you think. You don't even have to read som basic books about the subject, because your opinion is firm and true, given by god. You don't have to learn, because other people is clearly wrong if they don't agree with you...
Dear KellyJay, your opinions are not supported even by the most christians. Your opinions are quite rare.
07 Nov 08
2 edits
KellyJay
Have you ever leaned or ever studied 4-dimensional geometry?
You are quick to rubbish the idea that a straight line in 3-dimentions may circle round because it is circular in 4-dimentions despite the fact is a well established mathematical fact that it can in 4-dimensional geometry and despite the fact that it is an excepted scientific fact that not only the whole universe is shaped like a 4-dimensional sphere (from general relativity) but the event-horizon of black holes are shaped like a 4-dimensional sphere and despite the fact there is actual empirical evidence that 4-dimensional curvature of space exists due to such observable phenomenon as gravitational lensing ( ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing ) etc.
So by rubbishing this concept you are rubbishing the whole of general relativity and 4-dimensional geometry.
-but do you actually know anything about general relativity that you are so quick to rubbish?
-do you actually know anything about this 4-dimensional geometry branch of mathematics that you are so quick to rubbish?
-can you give us the mathematical formula for a 4-dimensional circle and demonstrate to us you actually understand it?
-I assume the answer to all three of these questions is “no”.
So, given the fact you are totally rubbishing virtually the whole of modern cosmology as well as the 4-dimensional geometry branch of mathematics and given the fact you clearly don’t understand anything about what it is you are rubbishing, you are clearly being unreasonable here for it is perfectly obvious that you cannot have any real premise for believing what you totally rubbish here is in fact rubbish.
The only reason you are trying to just rubbish away the well established scientific facts is because they conflict with your particular personal religious beliefs.
Can you give a mathematical proof that a 4-dimensional circle is a mathematical contradiction (because this appears to be what you are implying in your posts) ? -only if can do this could anyone here take you seriously.
07 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm asking you to quote me and show me where I said what you
"I didn't say..., you misunderstand..., you don't read..., you are mean...", and so on ad infinitum."
This is symptoms of how desperate you are to win discussions. Not to learn, just to win discussions. Nothing more.
Your opinion is worth more than the collected work of all scientific research combined, becuse your opinion is right, others hard sci ...[text shortened]... ur opinions are not supported even by the most christians. Your opinions are quite rare.
accused me of saying, that has nothing to do with anything science
or faith, but it does go to your honesty.
Kelly
07 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnas"Dear KellyJay, your opinions are not supported even by the most christians. Your opinions are quite rare."
"I didn't say..., you misunderstand..., you don't read..., you are mean...", and so on ad infinitum."
This is symptoms of how desperate you are to win discussions. Not to learn, just to win discussions. Nothing more.
Your opinion is worth more than the collected work of all scientific research combined, becuse your opinion is right, others hard sci ...[text shortened]... ur opinions are not supported even by the most christians. Your opinions are quite rare.
I don't pretend to speak for all Christians, you may want to accuse
me of that, but like a lot of things for you, it isn't based upon reality.
I agree, my opinions can only be found in one place, me, so allow
me to speak my opinions and let the rest of Christianity speak for
themselves too.
Kelly
07 Nov 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton….......silence.
[b]…...When you attempt to say a word means the EXACT OPPOSITE of its
standard meaning, you are not using that word properly at all...…(my emphasis)
The standard meaning of “design” can be said to be something like:
“structure that was contracted to be that structure for a purpose”
And the non-standard meaning in this particular case i ...[text shortened]... by evolution” -so now what? -I mean, what is your argument against evolution now?[/b]
07 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat you basically say, is that Christians are mostly wrong. It is only extreme christians, like yourself, that have the Truth on their side. Well, the Truth is to be found in Science. Anti-science creationists cannot ever find the Truth, even if they have the Truth an inch from their noses.
[b]"Dear KellyJay, your opinions are not supported even by the most christians. Your opinions are quite rare."
I don't pretend to speak for all Christians, you may want to accuse
me of that, but like a lot of things for you, it isn't based upon reality.
I agree, my opinions can only be found in one place, me, so allow
me to speak my opinions and let the rest of Christianity speak for
themselves too.
Kelly[/b]
I like the part where you say that you don't speak for Christians... 🙂
08 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo I did not say that most Christians are mostly wrong, I said that
What you basically say, is that Christians are mostly wrong. It is only extreme christians, like yourself, that have the Truth on their side. Well, the Truth is to be found in Science. Anti-science creationists cannot ever find the Truth, even if they have the Truth an inch from their noses.
I like the part where you say that you don't speak for Christians... 🙂
if you want my opinion, I'm the only one that give that to you. Your
the one that wants to paint millions of people with a broad brush,
as if we were little computer programs that all say the samething
when asked by anyone. I don't speak for all Christians, I am a
Christian, and I can only speak for myself.
Are you the voice of science, if you are wrong about any point does
that make all of science wrong?
Kelly