Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton Now, using this analogy, if I see the aftermath of a forest fire, should I conclude from the fact that I didn’t see it start that a “god” started it? -or should I conclude that the fire probably started from a yet unknown heat source that was not itself “fire” but was probably something material like lightning or larva etc?
And more importantly is the lack of posters commenting on the origin of the fire good reason to conclude that there was no fire despite the vast quantities of charred logs?
Originally posted by twhitehead And more importantly is the lack of posters commenting on the origin of the fire good reason to conclude that there was no fire despite the vast quantities of charred logs?
ok, now we are entering not just the realms of fiction, but pure fantasy! you guys ever thought of taking up the role of 'science' fiction writers, because man, you excel at it!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie ok, now we are entering not just the realms of fiction, but pure fantasy! you guys ever thought of taking up the role of 'science' fiction writers, because man, you excel at it!
Please explain why you describe our posts as pure fantasy. Do you possibly not understand what we are saying? Or was it a crude attempt at insult?
Originally posted by twhitehead Please explain why you describe our posts as pure fantasy. Do you possibly not understand what we are saying? Or was it a crude attempt at insult?
ummm ok, does the words baseless assertions and postulations of dogma ring any bells!!!, and please i am not the one resorting to insults, well not as frequently as i would like anyhow, it is you and those like you who have resorted to completely unfounded and futile attempts at defamation of character as a recompense for your lack of anything plausible and tangible in support of your baseless assertions, is it not I and jaywill and others who have tried to keep the conversation within the realms of known scientific thought? always citing references where applicable?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie ummm ok, does the words baseless assertions and postulations of dogma ring any bells!!!, and please i am not the one resorting to insults, well not as frequently as i would like anyhow, it is you and those like you who have resorted to completely unfounded and futile attempts at defamation of character as a recompense for your lack of anything plausi ...[text shortened]... sation within the realms of known scientific thought? always citing references where applicable?
Realm of known scientific fact? known by whom? what scientific fact have you presented that we ignored and/or haven't proven to be worthless?
by what reason do you call your references worthy and eminent scientific minds whereas our references are damned heathens and heretics who do not deserve to be called rational beings. why is dawkins less plausible as a scientist that your anti-evolution phd's?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie ok, now we are entering not just the realms of fiction, but pure fantasy! you guys ever thought of taking up the role of 'science' fiction writers, because man, you excel at it!
If you saw the smouldering remains of a forest fire and you didn’t know what stared it, would you conclude that a “god” must have started it?
-if not, then explain why not and also explain why that same reason why not doesn’t apply to the issue of how life got started (or, indeed, how anything else got started) when we don’t know how it got started.
The major problem with arguing that the existence of complexity must imply an intelligent designer is that it must be applied to the designer as well. If you see a "God", why shouldn't we ask who created this "God" - after all, a God must be more complex than anything of that God's creation. There must therefore be a super-God that created God -- and there must be a super-super-God that created the super-God -- and on and on.
However -- the real great Mystery is not the origin of life -- it's the origin of the "stuff" that makes up all of reality. The sum total of matter & energy - where did it come from? -- the various dimensions that make up "empty space" - where did this come from? -- and the ultimate Mystery is time. No matter how far back you go in time, you can always go even further back and you never get to the beginning. It makes no sense. If you argue that even space and time itself had a specific origin, what kind of reality preceded space and time and what gave rise to space and time? No matter how you look at it, it ends up being "nothing but turtles all the way down"
You ultimately must end up with something that's always been in existence. Something that exists that was never created, that never had an origin. The "First Cause" or The "Ultimate Set of Axioms" - This "something" would probably fit in with most people's definition of God - but there's no way we could ever scientifically measure it or prove-disprove that any given religion was right or wrong regarding the attributes of this God.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie so my friends, (well actually friend black beetle as in singular), we meet again, therefore in the best platonic tradition i think it best to define in simple terms what it is we are talking about, therefore a definition is called for,for to be sure not all protagonists of this myth are in agreement, therefore in essence what is Darwinian evolutionar ...[text shortened]... ces many and the logic had to be made tight and unassailable ).
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo, US industrialist, lawyer, & politician (1863 - 1941)
Originally posted by aardvarkhome It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo, US industrialist, lawyer, & politician (1863 - 1941)
Originally posted by aardvarkhome It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo, US industrialist, lawyer, & politician (1863 - 1941)
lol, more insults as a recompense for a complete lack of anything of substance, it just keeps getting better and better, thank you for confirming what has already been stated and now proven.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie lol, more insults as a recompense for a complete lack of anything of substance, it just keeps getting better and better, thank you for confirming what has already been stated and now proven.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie ummm ok, does the words baseless assertions and postulations of dogma ring any bells!!!,
Can you give an example of something I posted that you consider to be a 'baseless assertion' and why you believe it to be baseless. Can you also give an example of something I posted that was a postulation of dogma.
And why would you describe either of the above as "pure fantasy"?
is it not I and jaywill and others who have tried to keep the conversation within the realms of known scientific thought? Please describe what you mean by 'the realms of known scientific thought'. Are you talking about what most scientists think, what at least some scientists think, or do you mean something else? Which of my statements regarding science would you consider to be outside the realms of known scientific thought?
Ohhh this is an entertaining thread. I try and stay out of these things on the basis that its like smashing your head off a wall but this one is too much.....
So robbie, If I gathered from your essay at the start and postings your looking for.
1. A clear and unequivocal example of a biological system made up of complex parts that serve no function independently, forming through progressive development? I believe you used cells as a good example?
2. An explanation of the development of blood clotting via progressive means?
Was there another point? Or is it just these two?
Answer me this if someone can provide both of these explanations in a clear and unbiased manner will you change your mind and acknowledge that your position is incorrect?.
Or will you carry on and ignore the provided evidence?
Furthermore, his general discredit notwithstanding, Behe has admitted under oath that his findings have no scientific basis, and that his conclusions are conjecture at best, outright misinformation and propaganda at worst.
Arguing the merits of someones theories when the subject himself has already admitted their gaping flaws and lack of accuracy seem a bit ridiculous no?
Originally posted by Mexico Arguing the merits of someones theories when the subject himself has already admitted their gaping flaws and lack of accuracy seem a bit ridiculous no?
anti evolutionists verse the forum, move 2
26 Nov '08 11:00
Back to Top