1. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    11 Jun '08 15:39
    ‘God’ is supposed to be an all powerful being which means he can literally do anything.
    So can he create a weight that is too heavy for him/her to lift?
    If the answer is yes then one thing god cannot do is lift such a weight.
    If the answer is no then one thing god cannot do is create such a weight.
    Either way, there is at least one thing he/she cannot do and therefore he is not all-powerful.

    Strictly speaking, his only proves that no ‘God’ can be all-powerful so that it only ‘proofs’ that god does not exist if you insist that god is all-powerful and he is all-powerful by the very definition of what constitutes ‘god’

    -also, can he commit suicide?

    On a completely different subject -I have heard that even the church-of-England officially accepts Darwinian evolution as fact! Is this really true? If this is true, then I am curious to know how on earth do they reconcile this with there religious faith? -and does that mean that they accept the overwhelming evidence that we evolved so that there is no reason to believe that god created us?
  2. Standard memberforkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    127.0.0.1
    Joined
    18 Dec '03
    Moves
    15947
    11 Jun '08 18:022 edits
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    On a completely different subject -I have heard that even the church-of-England officially accepts Darwinian evolution as fact! Is this really true? If this is true, then I am curious to know how on earth do they reconcile this with there religious faith? -and does that mean that they accept the overwhelming evidence that we evolved so that there is no reason to believe that god created us?
    Anyone who accepts Darwinian evolution (*edit* specifically macro evolution) as fact is an idiot. Evolution is a theory, just like relativity and universal gravitation.

    And yes, many Christian denominations accept the theory of evolution.

    *edit* Also, there are several different opinions in the Christian church (and probably elsewhere) on evolution.
    1) It doesn't exist; God created the world exactly as it is
    2) It means God doesn't exist
    (note: both of these are the minority, as far as what I have found)
    3) God created the universe and shapes life through evolution. There are lots and lots of different ideas just about this one, but the general theme appears to be the same.
  3. Joined
    07 Feb '08
    Moves
    16033
    11 Jun '08 19:06
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    Anyone who accepts Darwinian evolution (*edit* specifically macro evolution) as fact is an idiot. Evolution is a theory, just like relativity and universal gravitation.

    And yes, many Christian denominations accept the theory of evolution.

    *edit* Also, there are several different opinions in the Christian church (and probably elsewhere) on evoluti ...[text shortened]... and lots of different ideas just about this one, but the general theme appears to be the same.
    The only truth is that WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING about where we come from, we just have theories made either by archaeological finds or personal backgrounds (religion); just live accordingly you feel happy; of course without harming anyone.
  4. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    11 Jun '08 19:19
    Originally posted by AcapaYespada
    The only truth is that WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING about where we come from, we just have theories made either by archaeological finds or personal backgrounds (religion); just live accordingly you feel happy; of course without harming anyone.
    I wouldn't say that we don't know anything, but we don't know anything with 100% accuracy.

    Macroevolution and microevolution are both the theory of evolution - they aren't two different theories except when creationists use the term.

    Macroevolution has a crapload more evidence backing it up than creationism (most specifically any type that claims all creatures were created "as-is"😉.
  5. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    11 Jun '08 19:28
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    ‘God’ is supposed to be an all powerful being which means he can literally do anything.
    So can he create a weight that is too heavy for him/her to lift?
    If the answer is yes then one thing god cannot do is lift such a weight.
    If the answer is no then one thing god cannot do is create such a weight.
    Either way, there is at least one thing he/she ...[text shortened]... overwhelming evidence that we evolved so that there is no reason to believe that god created us?
    If they change it to "God can do anything that is logically possible", the 'heavy rock' argument collapses. It is logically impossible to do something that you cannot do.

    As for evolution, not all theists are literalists. They do not take the six days of creation to be literal days. [Even 'literalist' Christians think that certain passages, like the prophecy of Daniel 9, are not referring to literal weeks.]
  6. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    11 Jun '08 19:37
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    Anyone who accepts Darwinian evolution (*edit* specifically macro evolution) as fact is an idiot. Evolution is a theory, just like relativity and universal gravitation.

    And yes, many Christian denominations accept the theory of evolution.

    *edit* Also, there are several different opinions in the Christian church (and probably elsewhere) on evoluti ...[text shortened]... and lots of different ideas just about this one, but the general theme appears to be the same.
    Do you need to be 100% sure of something to call it a 'fact'?

    If you answer "yes", how do you know this world is real? What if you're just in a big simulation, as in The Matrix?

    Isn't 'macro' evolution just the result of micro evolution over a long period of time? I'm no expert on evolution, but the whole 'macro-evolution' bit seems like a strawman.
  7. Standard memberforkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    127.0.0.1
    Joined
    18 Dec '03
    Moves
    15947
    11 Jun '08 19:561 edit
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Do you need to be 100% sure of something to call it a 'fact'?

    If you answer "yes", how do you know this world is real? What if you're just in a big simulation, as in The Matrix?

    Isn't 'macro' evolution just the result of micro evolution over a long period of time? I'm no expert on evolution, but the whole 'macro-evolution' bit seems like a strawman.
    Now you're getting into philosophy. Read up on Plato and his allegory of the cave. There are a variety of opinions on those types of questions.

    What if I were to submit that in actuality, we were created two seconds ago, and all of our memories were created inherent in us by a higher power -- prove me wrong.
  8. Joined
    07 Feb '08
    Moves
    16033
    11 Jun '08 20:37
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Do you need to be 100% sure of something to call it a 'fact'?

    If you answer "yes", how do you know this world is real? What if you're just in a big simulation, as in The Matrix?

    Isn't 'macro' evolution just the result of micro evolution over a long period of time? I'm no expert on evolution, but the whole 'macro-evolution' bit seems like a strawman.
    As I said they all just theories, assumptions made; if there's such thing as relative truth then it would fit your argument and besides as you said what if we aren't in a just big simulation/game? NOTHING because we got nothing to tell us otherwise or for it
  9. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    11 Jun '08 21:00
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Isn't 'macro' evolution just the result of micro evolution over a long period of time? I'm no expert on evolution, but the whole 'macro-evolution' bit seems like a strawman.
    It is. I am no expert either, but you don't see any real definitions of evolution that specify one and not the other outside of arguments against evolution or in responses to them.

    The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution", in my experience at least, are only used by creationists who want to admit the observed cases of evolution and want to claim that the evolution into new species is impossible or by those who are responding to those claims to explain that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution compounded over time.
  10. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    11 Jun '08 22:08
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    Now you're getting into philosophy. Read up on Plato and his allegory of the cave. There are a variety of opinions on those types of questions.

    What if I were to submit that in actuality, we were created two seconds ago, and all of our memories were created inherent in us by a higher power -- prove me wrong.
    What I'm getting at is that it is obviously impossible for us to know anything with 100% certainty. If we used that criteria for calling something a 'fact', then we would not know ANY facts.

    Thus, it is silly to say "anyone who accepts macro evolution as fact is an idiot" if they are basing that opinion on strong evidence. Same goes for relativity. There is large amount of experimental data that supports it.

    When it comes to very old things [evolution] or very vast things [cosmology], a strong theory is really the best we can do.
  11. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    11 Jun '08 22:18
    Originally posted by AcapaYespada
    As I said they all just theories, assumptions made; if there's such thing as relative truth then it would fit your argument and besides as you said what if we aren't in a just big simulation/game? NOTHING because we got nothing to tell us otherwise or for it
    OK, so since there's no way to prove that our reality is actually real, let us use words like 'know' and 'fact' in a more meaningful way. Let's admit that we can know things, and call them facts, even though we are not 100% certain. That goal is unattainable. Let's avoid alarmist statements like, "WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING!" because that uses the word 'know' incorrectly.
  12. Standard memberforkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    127.0.0.1
    Joined
    18 Dec '03
    Moves
    15947
    11 Jun '08 22:42
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    What I'm getting at is that it is obviously impossible for us to know anything with 100% certainty. If we used that criteria for calling something a 'fact', then we would not know ANY facts.

    Thus, it is silly to say "anyone who accepts macro evolution as fact is an idiot" if they are basing that opinion on strong evidence. Same goes for relativity. Th ...[text shortened]... [evolution] or very vast things [cosmology], a strong theory is really the best we can do.
    My point is that evolution as an explanation as the origins of life is a theory, and NOT a fact.

    Scientific facts are purely observations, such as the fossil record, similarities in species, changes in allele frequency over time, etc. The theory is the explanation of how/why those observations happen the way they do.
  13. Joined
    07 Feb '08
    Moves
    16033
    12 Jun '08 00:12
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    OK, so since there's no way to prove that our reality is actually real, let us use words like 'know' and 'fact' in a more meaningful way. Let's admit that we can know things, and call them facts, even though we are not 100% certain. That goal is unattainable. Let's avoid alarmist statements like, "WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING!" because that uses the word 'know' incorrectly.
    alarmist? lol this is just a forum, open to discussion for everybody; chill out; that is just my point of view.
    Since there's no way to know what exactly happened, one can not call something a fact, say a new dinosaur skeleton is found in Africa, it can not be determined how old it is, just an estimate or how it got there, did it migrated? was it from the triassic, jurassic or cretaceous era? if it had some traits then the assumptions are that migrated because the lacking of food, weather changed, etc.
    Hope you get my point
  14. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    12 Jun '08 00:49
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    My point is that evolution as an explanation as the origins of life is a theory, and NOT a fact.

    Scientific facts are purely observations, such as the fossil record, similarities in species, changes in allele frequency over time, etc. The theory is the explanation of how/why those observations happen the way they do.
    Evolution is not an explanation of the origin of life.
  15. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    12 Jun '08 00:55
    Originally posted by AcapaYespada
    alarmist? lol this is just a forum, open to discussion for everybody; chill out; that is just my point of view.
    Since there's no way to know what exactly happened, one can not call something a fact, say a new dinosaur skeleton is found in Africa, it can not be determined how old it is, just an estimate or how it got there, did it migrated? was it from ...[text shortened]... ons are that migrated because the lacking of food, weather changed, etc.
    Hope you get my point
    You don't necessarily need to know exactly what happened to call something a 'fact'. The 'fact' itself may admit the degree of accuracy. For example, "It is a fact that this dinosaur is from the triassic era".
Back to Top