Originally posted by micarrYou again are missing my point, I don't care what science roll is,
You are just plain wrong again Kelly I am sorry to say. Science is not in the business of proving things at all it simply generates testable and falsifiable hypotheses. Proofs are present in mathematics in idealised situations. As I said previously your fumbling about in an area you plainly know approaching nothing about is harming your religion more than the ...[text shortened]... s definable as a mind capable of change and the reverse is true also unfortunately in your case.
it is people that I'm talking about not science! Science is not an
enitity that breaths, thinks, and makes up its own mind on the
variety of matters the come before man. We utilize science for
discovery, to understand, to build knowledge, to predict and so
on; however, that is again not what takes place within the heart
of man, within man he accepts or rejects what is told to him, he
accepts or rejects the logic on display. He believes and with that
belief molds his world view on all matters, he takes what he
believes to be true and justifies his actions, he develops right and
wrong notions. The fact that it is being argued that there are things
that are accepted as truth that cannot disproved only means that we
are talking about beliefs in different subjects, not that we are no
longer talking about beliefs.
Kelly
The universe proclaims God in my opinion, the same universe youYes Kelly never wrong..It was this nonsense I objected to above. Science does not prove/disprove God(s) and is not in the least interested beacuse it is unfalsifiable and outside the remit of science and is frankly not very interesting. What I care about is our hard won knowledge and education of future genrations free from the wishy washy relativist all knowledge is the same kind of thinking you preach because you are apparently too lazy to learn something new and change your mind on a subject. Evolution exists and your opinion does not matter a jot because you do not appear to grasp basic concepts but what does matter is people like you who believe the earth is 7000 years old educating our young on scientific matters when they have no right to. It is abundantly clear you know very little about the universe for all your claptrap.
seem to think disproves God, but we are both looking at the
same universe, you believe your right?
Kelly
Originally posted by micarrYou are really full of yourself, where did I ever say I was never
Yes Kelly never wrong..It was this nonsense I objected to above. Science does not prove/disprove God(s) and is not in the least interested beacuse it is unfalsifiable and outside the remit of science and is frankly not very interesting. What I care about is our hard won knowledge and education of future genrations free from the wishy washy relativist all know ...[text shortened]... right to. It is abundantly clear you know very little about the universe for all your claptrap.
wrong, I have maintained what I have is faith! You are the one
that thinks your beliefs are reality and those that disagree are
delusional. Hard won knowledge, I agree with but there are things
within your pool of ‘hard won knowledge’ that isn’t what you
claim it to be, it isn’t what you trust it to be. Evolution is just one
of the many things that is just so true, but it cannot be seen
because it is so slow or so fast it cannot be shown exists yet
accepted as fact nonetheless.
You also seem to take the position that this is an ‘either or’ with
your beliefs and mine, when it isn’t at all. If I point out to you
errors in your way of thinking that some how proves my beliefs,
it doesn’t. My views about creation are not proven true even if
you accept that what you have is faith in the theories of man, nor
does it prove your beliefs by making fun of my faith, since the
same is true for you too, disproving my position does not
automatically mean yours is correct.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayyou're, not your, when you mean "you are".
You may use little words or big ones, it matters not, the fact
that you think believing something that you cannot prove is
some how different, because of the source, it is still a matter
of belief and faith. You, I believe would love to think that
your beliefs are of some higher standard than a theist, and
depending on the topic maybe, but the bottom l ...[text shortened]... ink disproves God, but we are both looking at the
same universe, you believe your right?
Kelly
Yes, I do think I'm right. Why? Because you are jumping to conclusions. You cannot prove that the universe wasn't created by the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER. When you look at things on the most basal level we cannot even prove our own existance, so yes, ultimately everything is based on the 'faith' that we, and the universe, both exist. If that is true, then we can say with a high degree of certainty that the world is not 7,000 years old. Unless every measure of the age of both the earth and the moon, and the meteoric dust we've analysed are wrong by exactly the right amount in every case ever to make it look like the earth is much older than you think it is.
Originally posted by scottishinnzReally, competition? I'd call most of the struggle to survive within
yes, and i can create competition conditions between organisms in the lab too.
the animal kingdom more like animals cashing in on opportunities
than direct competition. Seems to me like you are projecting human
qualities into other life forms, than calling it something that proves
your point, nothing more.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayTwo species of predators feeding from the same (finite) population of animals aren't in direct competition?
Really, competition? I'd call most of the struggle to survive within
the animal kingdom more like animals cashing in on opportunities
than direct competition. Seems to me like you are projecting human
qualities into other life forms, than calling it something that proves
your point, nothing more.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayCompetition
Really, competition? I'd call most of the struggle to survive within
the animal kingdom more like animals cashing in on opportunities
than direct competition. Seems to me like you are projecting human
qualities into other life forms, than calling it something that proves
your point, nothing more.
Kelly
Cashing on opportunities
Whatever you call it will be, by definition, something that is a human quality. Your point is meaningless.
The only way we have to understand things around us is to utilise the vocabulary that we are familiar with - ie. the one we have developed, human language. As long as we agree about what we see, what does it matter what we call it?
Originally posted by XanthosNZHow do you define competition? Do you think they are plotting
Two species of predators feeding from the same (finite) population of animals aren't in direct competition?
against one another? They both take advantage of what is
before them, they get the weak when the weak present themselves.
If they can by take advantage of the other predator they will, but it
is simply because that is how animals behave. There isn’t a
competition between them, it is opportunistic world nothing more.
The same thing is true within the lab, people simply project what
human qualities they think are taking place before them, and with
that label indentify what it is they think is going on, right or wrong.
Kelly
Originally posted by Conrau KYou can believe in evolution, you may make whatever claims you
This thread should really end soon!
Its just becoming ridiculous.
To Kelly, either propose a scientific alternative to evolution or just accept thre fact that the most logical explanation for life's diversity is evolution (no mattr how prejudiced you are against it).
want about it. The only thing you cannot do is show an example of
it doing what you claim took place, which is have a simple life form
transform into something much more complex with systems that have
not been there before. You can believe that, but that is all you have
when it comes to that degree of change, only a belief. The dots you
claim show it could and did happen are only between your ears no
where else.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you just arguing for the sake of it now?
How do you define competition? Do you think they are plotting
against one another? They both take advantage of what is
before them, they get the weak when the weak present themselves.
If they can by take advantage of the other predator they will, but it
is simply because that is how animals behave. There isn’t a
competition between them, it is opportun ...[text shortened]... e them, and with
that label indentify what it is they think is going on, right or wrong.
Kelly
C'mon you can be honest. You are aren't you.
I mean this is ridiculous.
If there is enough food for only one individual, and there are two individuals in an environment - then there's competition.
Plotting against one another?
Of course not. (Although there's good evidence from studies in the field that chimpanzees do actually do this, but we'll leave that for now.) Why does competition have to involve plotting against one another.
My two kids compete all the time for toys. They don't plot or scheme. (At leazst not yet anyway.)
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy do we need to see it?
You can believe in evolution, you may make whatever claims you
want about it. The only thing you cannot do is show an example of
it doing what you claim took place, which is have a simple life form
transform into something much more complex with systems that have
not been there before. You can believe that, but that is all you have
when it comes to tha ...[text shortened]... e dots you
claim show it could and did happen are only between your ears no
where else.
Kelly
Have you ever seen gravity?
I rest my case.
And in science we call these "dots", inferences. They are completely legitimate and probably more legitimate then any observation.