Only one option.....

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
twhithead once did classify himself as an agnostic atheist ( rwingett's classification ) i.e.the person who thinks that God does not exist but does not KNOW that God does not exist. However in the next post he denied that and said that he was an Atheist i.e.not only he thinks that God does not exist but KNOWS that he does not exist.

It all depends on how you define 'god'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It all depends on how you define 'god'.

'god' = satan, angels, sun, moon, money etc make your pick
'God' = Creator of all

Originally posted by Nicksten
'god' = satan, angels, sun, moon, money etc make your pick
'God' = Creator of all

So you say that there are a lot of gods out there, spiritually speaking?

Originally posted by Nicksten
'god' = satan, angels, sun, moon, money etc make your pick
'God' = Creator of all

Define 'creator' and 'all'.
Did God create time? That would be illogical.
Did God create himself? Also somewhat illogical.
Are there any other specified properties of this 'creator'?

I do not know whether the universe as we see it today came from something quite different in the past. As such, I am agnostic on the existence of some prior state that 'created' the current state. But I am sure that you mean a whole lot more than that when you say 'God'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Define 'creator' and 'all'.

Define 'define'.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So you say that there are a lot of gods out there, spiritually speaking?

in fact , yes there are - but ultimately there is only one true God.

Originally posted by Nicksten
in fact , yes there are - but ultimately there is only one true God.

But many gods, right?

Originally posted by CalJust
Define 'define'.

To explain in more detail.

Or are you just trying to derail the discussion?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh, its nowhere near a scientific fact, there is no empirical scientific evidence which
demonstrates the transmutation of one species into another, none! Adaptation is not
mutation and never has been, yet the materialist would have us believe that they are
one and the same. That entities adapt is without question, that they adapt and
transom themselves into an entirely different organism is the stuff of pure fantasy.

I really don't know how you manage to be this ignorant living in this country.

Evolution doesn't claim that one species will transmute into another one. Ever.

This is total nonsense and bunk as you have been told numerous times.

You are presenting a straw man of evolution because you don't understand it.

Originally posted by Nicksten
I am reading more on what CalJust has given me - once I am done with this will I give my Christian opinion if I support it or not. But evolution is broader than you actually mean. Yes I do include the Big Bang, why, because it had to start somewhere, and it started with the Big Bang. Also, even though Abiogenesis is something on it's own, it still falls par ...[text shortened]... reading more as I said, and to give you a clue, I don't like what I am reading...but lets see.

NO NO NO NO.

The theory of evolution specifically and exclusively deals with the diversity of life.

Cosmology is physics and not biology, and Abiogenesis is an independent and separate
part of bio-chemistry.

If you want to talk about the beginning of the universe then you are talking astrophysics and evolution
has nothing to do with it.

If you are talking about the formation of life then you are talking about abiogenesis then you are talking
about bio-chemistry and evolution has nothing to do with it.

If you are talking about how simple life forms slowly adapted and changed to their environment diversifying
and changing through time to eventually become the huge variety of life forms we see today then THAT is
covered by evolutionary theory.


If you take evolution to mean more than that then you are talking gibberish, nonsense, talking in tongues,
nobody else will or should understand a anything you utter.

Evolution is separate from and independent of the questions of how life formed in the first place and how
the solar system formed or how the universe came to be how it is.

It certainly does not include big bang theory which was thought of many decades after evolution theory.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I really don't know how you manage to be this ignorant living in this country.

Evolution doesn't claim that one species will transmute into another one. Ever.

This is total nonsense and bunk as you have been told numerous times.

You are presenting a straw man of evolution because you don't understand it.

I really don't know how you manage to be this ignorant living in this country.

That's because he chooses to be that way.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
What does " fuzzy logic " mean ? It is a term used in studies of A. I. Surely fuzzy logic is an example of a-logical thinking.Another term used in programming is " an ill structured problem ". I say that the search for Ultimate Reality/ Truth / God is an ill structured problem not amenable to an algorithm composed of logical statements. We require an out ...[text shortened]... th this ill structured problem. That is what humanity has been trying to do all these years.

Fuzzy logic is non-binary logic.
It deals with situations where the answer isn't just true or false or it's not know if it's true or false.

It's a particular problem when trying to program binary computers running on boolean logic.

There is nothing illogical or irrational about 'out of the box thinking', and 'fuzzy logic' is still a form
of logic.

So your argument still fails spectacularly, due to your still adhering to the straw-Vulcan fallacy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because i have read Darwins book, in part admittedly which is more than the
materialists have done, indeed, how can one express an opinion about a book which
one has not read? The empirical scientific evidence if you please! As i suspected,
empty handed! when you find some PK, let me know until then, ill keep reading
Darwins very own book! i suggest you do the same.

Um actually I have read Darwin's the origin of species, I have also read several contemporary works on
the subject.

I also studied science and the principles and methodologies involved.

Darwinian evolution essentially lasted till Darwin's death, at which point it became Darwinian evolution
with Mendelian genetics. The theory has undergone a number of improvements and iterations since then.

You are categorically ignorant on the subject and proud of it.

The evidence is published in peer reviewed science journals, and in quantities large enough to sink a battleship.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Um actually I have read Darwin's the origin of species, I have also read several contemporary works on
the subject.

I also studied science and the principles and methodologies involved.

Darwinian evolution essentially lasted till Darwin's death, at which point it became Darwinian evolution
with Mendelian genetics. The theory has undergone a num ...[text shortened]... lished in peer reviewed science journals, and in quantities large enough to sink a battleship.

yawn, so there has occurred no transmutation of ones species or genus into another,
thank you, its all you had to say, I agree, filtering out the non essentials of your posts
really is a crashing bore.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I really don't know how you manage to be this ignorant living in this country.

That's because he chooses to be that way.[/b]

your empirical scientific evidence for the transmutation of one species or genus into
another, if you please, or are we to assume that all things were created according to
their kinds as the Biblical record states.