Originally posted by robbie carrobie….yes yes quite, but is there any reason for concluding that it actually did my learned friend?
yes yes quite, but is there any reason for concluding that it actually did my learned friend? or must we beg the truth for small crumbs of vague assertions and crusts of incongruous postulations?
..…
Suppose we observe an avalanche but we didn’t observe its cause.
Most reasonable people would probably take the view that the starting point of that avalanche occurred naturally and without involving a deity -right?
But I could ask the question “yes yes quite, but is there any reason for concluding that it actually did? “ 😛
How would you answer this question?
-do you now see the flaw in this line of reasoning?
The flaw is this; any existential hypothesis ( such as there exists a god that started the process of evolution etc ) that has no evidence either for or against it should be regarded as having a vanishingly small probability of being true. If this was not the case then you must conclude that there’s a credible chance of there being a Santa and there being an invisible elephant floating about in the sky above you right now etc because we have no evidence for or against these two existential hypothesis 😛
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAndrew this i understand, an avalanche is clearly discernible by its effect, its observable and what is more, predictable. we know that in certain conditions an avalanche is more likely to occur than at other times, is it not so? not only that, these conditions are measurable and a scientific model can be established from the data gathered etc etc, therefore i do not think that it is a very fitting analogy, however, i thank you for the later part of this post, for all i wanted was an affirmation that there is no credible evidence, if the other posters had at least the honesty and integrity and humility to admit this, they would have saved themselves a lot of grief, now they are nothing but the purveyors of a fantasy! and a hypothetical one at that!
[b]….yes yes quite, but is there any reason for concluding that it actually did my learned friend?
..…
Suppose we observe an avalanche but we didn’t observe its cause.
Most reasonable people would probably take the view that the starting point of that avalanche occurred naturally and without involving a deity -right?
But I could ask the ...[text shortened]... you right now etc because we have no evidence for or against these two existential hypothesis 😛[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieit is like throwing a rock at a building from 2 m and missing
Andrew this i understand, an avalanche is clearly discernible by its effect, its observable and what is more, predictable. we know that in certain conditions an avalanche is more likely to occur than at other times, is it not so? not only that, these conditions are measurable and a scientific model can be established from the data gathered etc etc, ...[text shortened]... t of grief, now they are nothing but the purveyors of a fantasy! and a hypothetical one at that!
- Joined
- 09 Nov 06
- Moves
- 0
Users are reminded that when debating contentious issues to please attack the post and not the poster.
http://www.timeforchess.com/help/index.php?help=forumguide
FAQ
Originally posted by robbie carrobie….Andrew this i understand, an avalanche is clearly discernible by its effect, its observable and what is more, predictable.
Andrew this i understand, an avalanche is clearly discernible by its effect, its observable and what is more, predictable. we know that in certain conditions an avalanche is more likely to occur than at other times, is it not so? not only that, these conditions are measurable and a scientific model can be established from the data gathered etc etc, ...[text shortened]... t of grief, now they are nothing but the purveyors of a fantasy! and a hypothetical one at that!
..…
-about as predictable as evolution -yes.
….we know that in certain conditions an avalanche is more likely to occur than at other times, is it not so?
..…
Correct -which totally misses my point -suppose you didn’t know. Suppose you have never heard of or seen an avalanche in your life and then you suddenly see one -you see that it just consists of sliding snow but you didn’t see its beginnings -so do you assume a creditable chance of its beginnings involves a deity or do you assume it almost certainly occurred naturally and without involving a deity and if so why?
…
not only that, these conditions are measurable and a scientific model can be established from the data gathered etc etc
.…
-and the same goes for evolution.
…therefore i do not think that it is a very fitting analogy,
.…
It is a reasonable analogy for the reasons I just gave.
I can modify it to make it a slightly better one by adding the words to the start of the stated analogy “Suppose you have never heard of or seen an avalanche in your life and then you suddenly see one….etc…”
…i thank you for the later part of this post, for all i wanted was an affirmation that there is no credible evidence,
..…
-you have it! didn’t I already clearly imply this? Yes, there is NO credible physical evidence to support the hypothesis that evolution was NOT started by a deity -affirmative - ( note that “the beginnings of evolution” is practically synonymous with “the formation of the first life” ) just as there is NO credible physical evidence to support the hypothesis that evolution WAS started by a deity and, also, just as there may be NO credible physical evidence to support the hypothesis that an avalanche was NOT started by a deity.
-so do we conclude from this that, in the now modified avalanche analogy, there is a credible chance of there being a deity involved in its beginnings and, if not, why not apply this same logic to the beginnings of evolution?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet me remind you of how this debate arose: Ivanhoe posted Pope John Paul II's speech on evolution; you said that evolution and Scripture are incompatible; several others offered a way in which they could be reconciled (that God initiated the evolutionary process and guided it in such a way to form man.) Now no one has any interest in substantiating that God initiated evolution -- they only dispute your claim that evolution is incompatible with Scripture which has yet you have been unable to successfully prove.
ok, look, i will, for the sake of sanity recant of everything that i have stated, the bible is not self interpreting, the reference to Christ was dodgy, the pope is indeed infallible, Zapansy is actually a gentlemanly fellow and does not utter unsubstantiated drivel, now for sake of truth (yes i endeavor to use the word truth, don't let it frighten y ...[text shortened]... hallenge him to a duel at dawn, where he will be forced into honorable and gentlemanly conduct!
Originally posted by Conrau Ki have proven to myself that you cannot explain why it should be compatible and thus i am satisfied that you have no explicit reason, not you, not the Pope, no one, and that is quite simply enough for me.
Let me remind you of how this debate arose: Ivanhoe posted Pope John Paul II's speech on evolution; you said that evolution and Scripture are incompatible; several others offered a way in which they could be reconciled (that God initiated the evolutionary process and guided it in such a way to form man.) Now no one has any interest in substantiating that Go ...[text shortened]... is incompatible with Scripture which has yet you have been unable to successfully prove.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell as an atheist I really have no choice I suppose. I deny any sort of supernatural explanation and therefore deny gods, fairies, ghosts, werewolves, vampires, elves, leprechauns, and the divinity of Jesus, amongst others.
yes yes quite, but is there any reason for concluding that it actually did my learned friend? or must we beg the truth for small crumbs of vague assertions and crusts of incongruous postulations?
So my starting point is the assumption that a natural explanation will suffice.
I'm assuming your assumption is alternative to mine, but in the end they are both assumptions based on our prior positions.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOk. Let me explain this again: you said that they Scripture and evolution are incompatible. You made that statement. It was the third post made before, made before I or Fabian or Zhalani had even posted, and the only justification for that belief is a dodgy quite from the scriptures. So how can you argue with any dignity that Scripture and evolution are incompatible?
i have proven to myself that you cannot explain why it should be compatible and thus i am satisfied that you have no explicit reason, not you, not the Pope, no one, and that is quite simply enough for me.
EDIT: there is also something pretty dodgy about claiming to have refuted the Pope when your sole knowledge of his opinion comes from my brief explanation and the truncated speech which Ivanhoe gave.
Originally posted by amannioni assume nothing my friend, infact, all i wanted was a basis for why one should attribute the evolutionary hypothesis to some divine mechanism put in place by God, none exists, and what passes for a probability is nothing short of fabricated conjecture, therefore although i believe in theocracy, i see no reason to assume why God should have used the evolutionary hypothesis, not even the slightest measliest meanest crumb of reason why one should, infact old mother Hubbard has more chance of finding a doggy bone in her cupboard than we do of finding a reason as to why God would have chosen to use the evolutionary hypothesis!
Well as an atheist I really have no choice I suppose. I deny any sort of supernatural explanation and therefore deny gods, fairies, ghosts, werewolves, vampires, elves, leprechauns, and the divinity of Jesus, amongst others.
So my starting point is the assumption that a natural explanation will suffice.
I'm assuming your assumption is alternative to mine, but in the end they are both assumptions based on our prior positions.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell. I think most Christians think something like this: "The theory of evolution has been completely vindicated; it has been proven in controlled experiments and archeological evidence also proves that creatures have evolved. Therefore, because I believe God is the ultimate author of all creation, I must believe evolution was part of His plan." However, judging from some of your earlier comments, you believe that something can only be known for sure if it is found in scripture -- otherwise it is the 'product of human reasoning'. This is why you are a nutjob.
i assume nothing my friend, infact, all i wanted was a basis for why one should attribute the evolutionary hypothesis to some divine mechanism put in place by God, none exists, and what passes for a probability is nothing short of fabricated conjecture, therefore although i believe in theocracy, i see no reason to assume why God should have used the ...[text shortened]... an we do of finding a reason as to why God would have chosen to use the evolutionary hypothesis!
Originally posted by Conrau Kabsolute one hundred percent, complete unadulterated Tosh! its termed a hypothesis for the exact reason that it cannot be proven, no, nor subject to the scientific model, in that it cannot be observed. the fossil record in fact proves quite the opposite, for it does not show a gradual transmigration from one species to the next, that is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium was invented! mutations were given as a basis, yet after thousands of experiments it was concluded that mutations are essentially destructive, perhaps you can show any species which is at present in the process of migrating into another species, for even when so called closely related species are interbred, as in the case of horses and donkeys, the result is that the mutation is unable to transmit its genetic code onto the next generation, so please enough of this Tosh! believe what you will, i have had quite enough of arguing with evolutionists masquerading as Christians!
Well. I think most Christians think something like this: "The theory of evolution has been completely vindicated; it has been proven in controlled experiments and archeological evidence also proves that creatures have evolved. Therefore, because I believe God is the ultimate author of all creation, I must believe evolution was part of His plan." However, ju ...[text shortened]... cripture -- otherwise it is the 'product of human reasoning'. This is why you are a nutjob.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFirstly, evolution is not a hypothesis and species do not 'transmigrate' into another. Can I guess the extent of your scientific education?
absolute one hundred percent, complete unadulterated Tosh! its termed a hypothesis for the exact reason that it cannot be proven, no, nor subject to the scientific model, in that it cannot be observed. the fossil record in fact proves quite the opposite, for it does not show a gradual transmigration from one species to the next, that is why the the ...[text shortened]... what you will, i have had quite enough of arguing with evolutionists masquerading as Christians!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou assume that god exists. That's a pretty big assumption.
i assume nothing my friend, infact, all i wanted was a basis for why one should attribute the evolutionary hypothesis to some divine mechanism put in place by God, none exists, and what passes for a probability is nothing short of fabricated conjecture, therefore although i believe in theocracy, i see no reason to assume why God should have used the ...[text shortened]... an we do of finding a reason as to why God would have chosen to use the evolutionary hypothesis!
Don't mistake me - I'm not trying to assert that god started evolution. A christian might argue that. I'm not christian.
And actually, I agree with you - if god did exist, then why bother with evolution.
But this is not the argument here.
The positions argued here are merely that evolution is not incompatible with a belief in god. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise, notwithstanding all your expletives and claims to the contrary.
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionactually i have come to the conclusion that the argument is futile, for it cannot be proven one way or the other, my belief in God is not based on an assumption, but is primarily based on the inspiration of the Bible, which has various aspects to its credence, for example its internal harmony, the fulfillment of prophecy, its practicality etc etc, these are reasons, not assumptions, which in themselves do not provide conclusive evidence, but are a contributing factor to faith, based on reason.
You assume that god exists. That's a pretty big assumption.
Don't mistake me - I'm not trying to assert that god started evolution. A christian might argue that. I'm not christian.
And actually, I agree with you - if god did exist, then why bother with evolution.
But this is not the argument here.
The positions argued here are merely that evolution ow you can argue otherwise, notwithstanding all your expletives and claims to the contrary.