14 Feb 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat a load of tripe, where did you cut and paste that from?
Science is ill-equipped to prove universal negatives by virtue of the fact that you are not omnipresent and have limited resources. As a result, you have no basis beyond faith for the foundation of your first axiom.
The burden of proof lies with you to prove that there is no acceptable proof of God's existance. Because you believe only in what you can s ...[text shortened]... anifestation of a highly complex and ordered creation that reflects that Master's Design.
First, my primary statement is not meant to be a universal statement to start with.
Secondly, even if it were, it is not a bindingly negative statement, it is merely an assessment of the current situation.
Thirdly, this is not a quesiton of faith, there is not acceptable proof, therefore faith in god's existence is withheld.
Fourthly, the burden of proof lies with the claimant; that's you. You assert his existence, you must show proof thereof, until you do so I shall withold belief.
Fifthly the fact that we exist and we are complex is not proof of any 'designer'.
I refuse to go over this with you again, I have stated my position clearly several times and you fail to even try and understand it. I'm happy to debate the subject of god with you, but if you continue to a) misconstrue my position to create underminable strawmen b) cut and paste other people's work to answer that which you cannot and c) cover ground we have been over numerous times whilst showing no intention of remembering what I say and why I say it, then we are not going to get anywhere.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by c guy1What is usually meant by "evolution" is the biological Theory of Evolution, which describes how organisms change over time, and claims all organisms are distant descendents of single celled prokaryotic organisms.
It doesn't make sense to me.
Here is what I think I know about evolution:
The universe always has and always will evolve. It started with some molecules that randomly started evolving because conditions were perfect. The prook for this is in the small difference we see in life(dog breeds, birds getting longer beaks to reach bugs, giraffs getting longe ...[text shortened]... e did start from that DNA, matter, molecules, watever "it" was....where did "it" come from?
Your question is not a question that the TOE addresses, but I believe that the initial molecules that began to evolve and eventually became life came from other, simpler molecules that had stored energy within them - nucleoside triphosphates (NTPs). These NTPs spontaneously polymerize into RNA. Now if you're going to keep asking "where did NTPs come from? Where did the Sun come from? Where did the Big Bang come from?" then the best answer I can give ultimately is that I don't know what caused the Big Bang, if anything.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarrmanFirst, my primary statement is not meant to be a universal statement to start with.
What a load of tripe, where did you cut and paste that from?
First, my primary statement is not meant to be a universal statement to start with.
Secondly, even if it were, it is not a bindingly negative statement, it is merely an assessment of the current situation.
Thirdly, this is not a quesiton of faith, there is not acceptable proof, therefore fai ...[text shortened]... tention of remembering what I say and why I say it, then we are not going to get anywhere.
Unfortunatley you used the words, "There is no..." to start with. If it was not meant to be a universal statement then maybe you should have said, "I have found no..."
Secondly, even if it were, it is not a bindingly negative statement, it is merely an assessment of the current situation.
Maybe you mean to say your current situation?
Thirdly, this is not a quesiton of faith, there is not acceptable proof, therefore faith in god's existence is withheld.
Again you are making a universal statement. Maybe you meant to say "I don't want to accept the evidence..."
Fourthly, the burden of proof lies with the claimant; that's you. You assert his existence, you must show proof thereof, until you do so I shall withold belief.
Just because I don't seem to be able to convice you as yet; does not give you the liberty to make the universal statement you made, whether you agree with it or not.
Fifthly the fact that we exist and we are complex is not proof of any 'designer'.
I never said that it is 'proof'. I said that it is "evidence". It is up to you to accept it or reject it.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by dj2becker
Science is ill-equipped to prove universal negatives by virtue of the fact that you are not omnipresent and have limited resources. As a result, you have no basis beyond faith for the foundation of your first axiom.
Dj, axioms are not meant to be proven. They are starting assumptions. So the "can't prove a universal negative" approach doesn't fit.
Originally posted by dj2becker
On the otherhand, significant "evidence" exists to the contrary in the person and work of Jesus Christ and the manifestation of a highly complex and ordered creation that reflects that Master's Design.
The above is the correct way to deconstruct Starr's reasoning because it attempts to show that the axiom is a bad assumption. Unfortunately for you, because we have science that can account for the highly complex nature of the universe, you'll need to do more than appeal to complexity and order in order to undermine the assumption. And even if you manage to show that current scientific understanding is wrong, you'll still need to show that some non-deity did not cause the universe. If you can show that a deity/deities created the universe, then you must complete your claim by demonstrating that the universe is the handiwork of Jesus/God and not some other deity or collection of deities.
Until then you have done nothing to Starr's axiom.
I don't envy you this task.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitosePoverty - lack of intelligence correlation.
[b]This is surely evidence that inteligent[sic] design is not taking place!
Non sequitur
You are also committing the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of equating the cause of poverty with the lack of intelligence – the scenario is vastly more complex.[/b]
See the thread, 'should we inherit' in Debates. Raik999 (i think)'s opinion is that this correlation exists. Maybe you should debate it with him.
Maybe rather than less intelligent, less educated might be better.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by telerionDj, axioms are not meant to be proven. They are starting assumptions. So the "can't prove a universal negative" approach doesn't fit.
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Science is ill-equipped to prove universal negatives by virtue of the fact that you are not omnipresent and have limited resources. As a result, you have no basis beyond faith for the foundation of your first axiom.
Dj, axioms are not meant to be proven. They are starting assumptions. So the "can't prove a ...[text shortened]... .
Until then you have done nothing to Starr's axiom.
I don't envy you this task.[/b]
Cool. So I have the following axiom: God exists and is the creator of the universe. I guess I don't have to prove it then. 😏
14 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou are nuts!
[b]First, my primary statement is not meant to be a universal statement to start with.
Unfortunatley you used the words, "There is no..." to start with. If it was not meant to be a universal statement then maybe you should have said, "I have found no..."
Secondly, even if it were, it is not a bindingly negative statement, it is merely an ass proof'. I said that it is "evidence". It is up to you to accept it or reject it.
You take what (nearly) everyone else takes to be evidence; that being based on impartial empiracal, observable, and repeatable data, and then completely get rid of the need for the data!
Come on, what are your 'proofs' of Gods existance? I don;t want any airy-fairy crap, I want a specific example, of specific data which cannot be explained any other way.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by c guy1Evolution is a sham. God created everything. But, if you must know evolution began with Darwin's "Origin of Species." Darwin's idea was that every living thing can be traced to a single creature. Like cats came from dogs with enough time to evolve. Then, these species intermingled to form hybrids. And, we came from apes. Apes to Neandrathal, Neandrathal to man. But, his theory has been found to be false. The Cambrian explosion destroys his entire body of work and shows it to be a sham.
It doesn't make sense to me.
Here is what I think I know about evolution:
The universe always has and always will evolve. It started with some molecules that randomly started evolving because conditions were perfect. The prook for this is in the small difference we see in life(dog breeds, birds getting longer beaks to reach bugs, giraffs getting longe ...[text shortened]... e did start from that DNA, matter, molecules, watever "it" was....where did "it" come from?
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by powershakerPlease, elaborate.
Evolution is a sham. God created everything. But, if you must know evolution began with Darwin's "Origin of Species." Darwin's idea was that every living thing can be traced to a single creature. Like cats came from dogs with enough time to evolve. Then, these species intermingled to form hybrids. And, we came from apes. Apes to Neandrathal, Neand ...[text shortened]... e false. The Cambrian explosion destroys his entire body of work and shows it to be a sham.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI am afraid I will not be able to do this over the internet on a forum. (I'll open a thread in the near future to explain my stance) But I do have an open invitation to you and any other skeptic to come and vistit me where I stay. I can guarentee to show you what God has done for me and many others in my area, as well as what He does every single day on our Mission Station.
You are nuts!
You take what (nearly) everyone else takes to be evidence; that being based on impartial empiracal, observable, and repeatable data, and then completely get rid of the need for the data!
Come on, what are your 'proofs' of Gods existance? I don;t want any airy-fairy crap, I want a specific example, of specific data which cannot be explained any other way.
14 Feb 06
8 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat is the proof that He doesn't exist? If an Encyclopedia Britannica were to fall from outer space to Earth, and you found it, you would say someone intelligent wrote it. You would immediately think extraterrestrial. Why is it that the DNA code is made of a 4 lettered alphabet, and you still think "something" was created from "nothing?" Why is it that every single human being has a unique genetic code that makes them exactly who they are? Could it be that some creator wrote the code and diversified and is still diversifying today in the wombs of our mothers? How much more evidence to you need? The "cilia" turns 10,000 RPMs in one direction and then stops - turns around - and turns 10,000 RPMs in the other direction. No car on Earth can do that. But, you think the Toyota was created by a group of mechanics and machinery made by man. Yet, you doubt God when the "cilia" is far more advanced that any automobile we have today. Not only that, they're alive inside our esophagus and get rid of toxins for us. I think you're the one who needs to quit doubting God, and come to the reality that God loved us enough to place his fingerprint on everything in nature, and most of all to send His Son Jesus Christ to be the Savior of the world. Those who accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior will in no way be cast out, for His kingdom is glorious and will have no end; in the end, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. So, you can wait to be surprised, but you won't be in the end. You're heart will know you are looking into the eyes of your creator. I just hope your heart turns to the truth of Jesus Christ before it's too late.
You are nuts!
You take what (nearly) everyone else takes to be evidence; that being based on impartial empiracal, observable, and repeatable data, and then completely get rid of the need for the data!
Come on, what are your 'proofs' of Gods existance? I don;t want any airy-fairy crap, I want a specific example, of specific data which cannot be explained any other way.
14 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Positional PlayerWell, the Cambrian explosion supposedly occurred millions of years ago - supposedly. During the Cambrian period you had an immediate infusion of millions of animals and species. Scientists cannot explain through evolution how all of these advanced species could suddenly appear in a very short span of time. According to Darwin, species were suppose to evolve over millions of years through various forms of adaptation, mutations and transmutations. But, the Cambrian explosion doesn't only destroy his theory. There was an experiment done on fruit flies. These flies were mutated... some with two wings, four wings... weird flies. The scientists were trying to show that this is proof for Darwinism. But, actually, all they ended up with were some deformed flies from the microwave or whatever they put the poor little fellows through. IN the end, the best explanation for creation is an Almighty God. "Something" just can't come from "nothing." It has to have a catalyst, someone who is timeless, all powerful and all knowing.
Please, elaborate.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerFine. But perhaps, just perhaps, it's the fact of having something to believe in, or the idea that 'everything will be alright' that is really the motivator, not God. You could remove god and put something else in that place for these people and they'd still be fine, i reckon.
I am afraid I will not be able to do this over the internet on a forum. (I'll open a thread in the near future to explain my stance) But I do have an open invitation to you and any other skeptic to come and vistit me where I stay. I can guarentee to show you what God has done for me and many others in my area, as well as what He does every single day on our Mission Station.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by powershakerProof that this wasn;t the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. btw, rotating cilia are only in microbe. We have cilia that make a 'sweeping motion'.
What is the proof that He doesn't exist? If an Encyclopedia Britannica were to fall from outer space to Earth, and you found it, you would say someone intelligent wrote it. You would immediately think extraterrestrial. Why is it that the DNA code is made of a 4 lettered alphabet, and you still think "something" was created from "nothing?" Why is it t ...[text shortened]... . I just hope your heart turns to the truth of Jesus Christ before it's too late.
Has an Encyclopedia Britanica ever fallen from space? No? Never? Bad analogy!
I never said that something came from nothing. There was plenty of 'stuff' here on earth when it first came into existance. If you are referring to the Big Bang, I believe that before all the matter, there was just energy, since the two are interchangable.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI don't think they would, because only Jesus Christ saves us from our sins. He's the only Messiah, the one who rose from the dead on the third day. He's the only one who conquered death and was God in the flesh. He is the only one who saved us from Hell. There is no other! He is the only one, Immanuel. For God is truly with us and always has been.
Fine. But perhaps, just perhaps, it's the fact of having something to believe in, or the idea that 'everything will be alright' that is really the motivator, not God. You could remove god and put something else in that place for these people and they'd still be fine, i reckon.