23 May 11
Originally posted by jaywillThen how did god get here?
[b]=============================
both he and the general audience must have very low intelligence indeed for not spotting the obvious stupid flaw in his argument for his conclusion doesn't logically follow from his premise.
Let me elaborate; yes the odds of evolution having done exactly what it did and with that exact outcome (specifically, the cr ...[text shortened]... that it had to be SOME fantastically improbable agent. Why not a Creator God then ?[/b]
23 May 11
Originally posted by jaywillNo, your analogy doesn't fit. It is not inevitable that someone win the Powerball six times in a row, nor does the fact that something improbable will happen mean that the specific improbable thing you choose is the one that will happen.
So, if I win the Powerball at 10 million bucks, and I win it, say, six times in a row, I really should not be that surprised.
I mean, though it was improbable, SOME improbable outcome had to occur, whether I won it once or even six times a row !!
It is however inevitable that someone will win the Powerball at least once, so winning the powerball is not a good argument for claiming it was rigged.
23 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe scientist have classified the penguin as belonging to the
Let's dance then Mr Hinds, Rob seems to have disappeared. The floor is all yours.
What 'kind' does the bird that swims in the sea belong to?
auk kind. I am not a scientist so I will have to take their
word for it, especially since I have no reason to dispute it.
23 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe scientist have classified the penguin as belonging to the auk kind.
The scientist have classified the penguin as belonging to the
auk kind. I am not a scientist so I will have to take their
word for it, especially since I have no reason to dispute it.
No they haven't, an Auk is a bird in itself.
That's like saying, the penguin belongs to the 'sparrow' kind.
23 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobOkay, maybe not, I thought they were the same kind. Like I said I
[b]The scientist have classified the penguin as belonging to the auk kind.
No they haven't, an Auk is a bird in itself.
That's like saying, the penguin belongs to the 'sparrow' kind.[/b]
am not a scientist or biologist so I don't know for sure. But I do
know penguins can not fly and never could. They don't have wings
for flying, but they have flippers for swimming. Apparently God
made them that way.
23 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI agree with you 100% that you are not a scientist or a biologist. You have clearly proven that.
Okay, maybe not, I thought they were the same kind. Like I said I
am not a scientist or biologist so I don't know for sure. But I do
know penguins can not fly and never could. They don't have wings
for flying, but they have flippers for swimming. Apparently God
made them that way.
23 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsTwo things Mr Hinds, could you elaborate on what a 'kind' is. Also how can you say this -
Okay, maybe not, I thought they were the same kind. Like I said I
am not a scientist or biologist so I don't know for sure. But I do
know penguins can not fly and never could. They don't have wings
for flying, but they have flippers for swimming. Apparently God
made them that way.
But I do know penguins can not fly and never could.
when you have just stated -
Like I said I am not a scientist or biologist so I don't know for sure.
23 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobWell can you give me any references that scientists or biologists
Two things Mr Hinds, could you elaborate on what a 'kind' is. Also how can you say this -
But I do know penguins can not fly and never could.
when you have just stated -
Like I said I am not a scientist or biologist so I don't know for sure.
have said the penquins can fly and how they know it. I have seen
penguins in the zoo. I have seen video of them in the wild and
I never noticed them flying. I believe I remember them saying
that penguins do not fly and that they have flippers instead of
wings.
23 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsObviously he isn't claiming that they fly today.
Well can you give me any references that scientists or biologists
have said the penquins can fly and how they know it. I have seen
penguins in the zoo. I have seen video of them in the wild and
I never noticed them flying. I believe I remember them saying
that penguins do not fly and that they have flippers instead of
wings.
He would claim, correctly, that they have an ancestor that flew.
23 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAs Andrew has pointed out above, i'm not saying that penguins can fly today. They are a flightless bird along with about 40 other species of birds that are alive today.
Well can you give me any references that scientists or biologists
have said the penquins can fly and how they know it. I have seen
penguins in the zoo. I have seen video of them in the wild and
I never noticed them flying. I believe I remember them saying
that penguins do not fly and that they have flippers instead of
wings.
The point i'm trying to make is how can you call a penguin a bird if you believe it could never fly? Surely the whole point of it being a bird is that it can fly!!
23 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI feel I need to point out that 'kind' is not a scientific biological classification. So even if you were a scientist or biologist, you would probably still not know whether two species were of the same 'kind' as you have no real definition for the word to use to make your determination.
Okay, maybe not, I thought they were the same kind. Like I said I
am not a scientist or biologist so I don't know for sure.
24 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI've told you time isn't a problem with me either, I honestly do not know how
[b]That is like asking please tell me what 1+1 is, but do not say 2.
No it isn't, i know why a chicken can't reproduce with a jellyfish. It's like asking -
You accept that all Canids have a common ancestor, you also accept all Urisdae (bears) have a common ancestor, now why can't their common ancestors have a common ancestor?! What biological ...[text shortened]... se has only been in existence for a few thousand years so time isn't a problem for him.[/b]
long its been here. I think there are walls or restrictions in biology as I have
pointed out to you, you are the one that seems to think if you go back in time
far enough those all disappear I guess. That for me is something not seen in
the here and now so it would be new, something that would have to be shown
as real. I believe all kinds share a common ancestors within their own kinds,
but it ends there, at one point in time there were no ancestors there was just
the first of each kind.
Kelly
24 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergLuckily, there is another way to show the irrationality of Hitchens' axiom. Consider logical absolutes (for example, the law of identity: something is what it is and isn't what it is not). Logical absolutes are always true, anywhere and at any time. Without logical absolutes we cannot think or argue rationally; yet, neither can logical absolutes be empirically proven. Hitchens' axiom, therefore—i.e., whatever is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof—is fallacious.
and I assume you can prove (or empirically verify if you like) that they are soundly justified in their certainty, and that this indeed applies to "anyone"?
Moreover, it is not self refuting if we take it as an axiom (a pretty common sense axiom at that). Indeed if I tell you I can fly because I have invisible wings, then is it a self refuting position to r ...[text shortened]... cientific argument simply because you cannot soundly prove that you are justified in doing so?