Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by billpa, Dec 20, 2005.
But they regenerate anew, after a while, under a different thread, thus proving evolution.
Your supposition is faulty. You assume that it is N8 who is asking you to prove his existence. But it may be someone who claims to be N8, or N8's spokesperson. You don't have to prove N8 exists, its totally up to you, but any claims you would make that N8 doesn't exist because you have not personally laid eyes on him would be inadmissible evidence. You have no real knowledge of the truth. Not caring is not proof for or against.
Whatever designation we give him, N8, Lemurbrain, Skippy, it doesn't change his supposed nature which is an entity which can communicate. Was I supposed to discover his nature or merely his existence? Those are two different things.
If just his existence, then my proof is sound as stated.
Again, existence and nature of entity are two different things requiring two different proof modes.
Building blocks of life found in planet forming disk.
Also I seem to remember from high school science that if something is quantifiable than it exists. So any of us that have any matter to us, do in fact exist. Even a computer program has code, a file that has size and can be measured and therefore exists.
the building blocks are everywhere - no one is disputing that. Nuts and bolts are building blocks of skyscrapers - its still a huge leap to suggest they jump together by themselves and make the building.
True but they can lie around in a puddle of water and form rust, which as an oxide has different properties. Like the article states,, throw the stuff together with a little water and new chemicals form. Mix the new chemicals together with heat and water and more form,, the process continues. A million years later, a microbe may crawl out of the mix that eats rust. Every year there is a new flu virus, it changes to adapt to its environment and hosts.
Once, I fell in love with a sexy (female) character on one of my son's PS2 games. After many months of failed attempts to get her phone number and contact info I gave up and concluded she wasn't even real. She didn't exist.:crying_sa :crying_sa :crying_sa
It's your fault jonstad. Sell that stupid Ford truck and get a rickshaw.
My take on ID is that it's simply creationism with a new suit of clothes.
Ah, but there is a difference between life adapting and those chemicals getting together with heat/light and life "happening". As been pointed out, its been tried in the lab for years and years - and it has not happening. Besides, one could say there is no life at all in a chemistry lab, unless one in doing experiments with distilling
Anyway, evolution has been taught in our schools for how long??? Certainly since before I was born. So what at least 40 years, 50 years, .... how long. And in all that time, the numbers really haven't changed. The idea of cross-species evolution (i.e man from ape from sewar sludge) has not been believed by any more people. But it has tied up a lot of resources arguing. Meanwhile science proponants have missed the opportunity to focus their efforts on pushing things which would improve learning and have instead focused on a political view of life. Perhaps in a way its a good thing that ID is not taught - its gotten parents involved with their kids. Some to the extreme of homeschooling them, others at least to the point of telling them the "rest of the story". "In the beginning, God created...."
You know,, I will most undoubtedly agree with you on getting parents together with their children,, too many just do not take the time with the children getting the worst of the deal. I also agree with homeschooling, a one on one is much better than one teacher in front of 30 or 40 kids.
As far as the rest of the story,, God created ... in 7 days. But we have no concept of how long those days were. It could have been a million of our years. I do believe that science has proven our solar system is much older than that ( if you believe anything in science). So on the chance that he dilly dally'd around for 7 million years,, we have been around on earth for how long ? We just havent been here long enough to see a major evolutionary change. IMO anyway.
Okay, let's change the question. You seem to know a lot about the constitution. Prove to me that the founding fathers existed. (the next one I do is going to be a little more extreme and (possibly)personal - just a warning)
Yes, but someone made those nuts and bolts too. And here is where your argument fails.
I assume you would concede these manufactured "nuts and bolts" are necessary to the construction of skyscrapers, or even a humble tool shed. Even the most imaginative architect or contractor would have a hard time building a useful structure out of dirt and unshaped stone. They just don't lend themselves to precise construction. With the proper tools and materials though, skyscrapers and tool sheds are possible.
You seem to admit and the link indicates the laws of chemistry and physics allow complex organic chemicals(the "nuts and bolts" of life) to be formed in abundance NATURALLY! Yet you refuse to believe Nature, a pretty amazing and wonderful beast, can carry the process any further. It can easily and simply form the nuts and bolts of life, and does in massive quantities. All without any direction besides the laws of the Universe. But then there's this sort of glass ceiling where Nature is incapable of any further advance.
There is no "intelligence" or "designer" driving the formation of these nuts and bolts. And yet once in a while these nuts and bolts randomly combine to generate "life".
Once formed, "life" is infectious because it's self-replicating. It's practically the definition of life. Evolution is just the natural, and very logical, process that follows the formation of life.
If you believe, and I suspect you very well may, there IS an intelligent designer behind the "natural" formation of these great gobs of complex organic molecules, why do you deny this designer is incapable of using other natural processes, like evolution, to create life AND to allow it to EVOLVE into the various forms and species we are familiar with? ALL seemingly connected very closely, thereby conforming to the laws of natural selection as first theorized by Darwin.
If "God" is behind all this, and I'm not denying It is, YOU are the one placing limits on what God is capable of. You concede God is capable of creating the "nuts and bolts" of life quite easily through what appear to be natural processes. But then you deny God is skilled enough to create life and allow it to evolve through what also appear to be natural processes.
What will you accept as proof? We have contemporary accounts by many different people, their signatures on various documents and letters, their writings, paintings and sculptures made at the time of their looks, we have many of their homes, their grave sites with which we could get DNA and prove certain relatives today, etc. etc But if you don't accept science and the scientific method as a standard, I'm not sure I could prove anything much to you, to be honest.
Now, to a reasonable person who accepts science and isn't a mystic, not too hard.
I'm curious about those who say something as complex as the universe must have been created by someone because there's "an intelligence to the design and behind the design," as it were.
Why is it impossible to believe that energy/matter has always existed in one form or another, but fully possible to believe that a being you call your god always existed? If you believe something as "complex" as the universe needs a creator and a designer, then do you believe the god you think did all that is not complex, or that something else made him?
Is it turtles all the way down, lads?
Exactly! I don't see how one can see, hear, taste, smell, and feel all that one sees,hears, etc. and not believe it to be the works of a supreme being, God. To sit there and tell me all this happened by chance, knowing that the odds of this chance happening are all but impossible (please be sure to point out that fact that I said "all but"), is to me, more laughable than to say that some "mystical fantasy in my head" did it. Maybe you can sit there and be happy convincing yourself that you are "too smart" to believe in God and that there is "no proof" to the existence of any supreme being but look around man, you and I are the proof. Everything that is, was, and ever will be is proof. The fact that we can even sit here and have this debate is proof. Like it is sometimes said, "The proof is in the pudding (whatever that means)". Well, all this "Stuff" is the pudding and that's the proof. I feel that every science experiment, every equation, reaction, and reason is evidence enough of the existance of a more powerful being.
You can't prove God doesn't exist! (but we've been here before so let's not start that again)
Since you love the Constitution so much (a trait of yours that I admire and respect very much) and hold to it as a religious person holds to the Bible, I'll continue with that analogy (my other one was going to be the extreme position that the Holocaust was a farce but the sites I would have had to link made me sick so I'll skip that one and for the record, I believe the Holocaust did happen and was horrible).
You can't directly prove to me that any of the "founding fathers" had anything to do with the Constitution. Jacob Shallus actually wrote it (pen), didn't he? How do we know he didn't forge all the signatures and write all the supporting documents? What, because history books tell us that Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, et al signed it and were in attendance then it must be so. You are going to tell me that you can go get the DNA, paintings of these me, and other "artifacts". All of which I will tell you are part of a big conspiracy by the government to make the Constitution appear to be real so that the "puppet" that is our government can continue to run, the government being nothing more than a vast conspiracy. (We could also get into priori knowledge vs. posteriori knowledge)
See, the skeptic only believes what the skeptic wants to believe. No matter how much evidence is given the skeptic can always ask for further proof. It's an argument only you can win.
An interesting side not, fill in the blank for me, please: " Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our ______ one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.
No, haven't done any work for the Institute for Creation Research, yet.
No, I haven't read any of the articles. I assume a link was provided in a further post....I'll take a look when I get some time, though and let you know what I think. I'm not sure I can be even a not so impartial observer. I see science as just further proof of the existance of God.
You might not be aware that you not understanding how someone doesn't endulge in faith doesn't make your faith into science.
What god? (And who created your god, by the way? ;-))
I DO? News to me. I'm all for the right constitutional amendments, if I believed people would vote for them today (they wouldn't).
You want to alter your bible do you?
Since there are still witnesses (and I lost half my mother's side of the family in it) that would have been interesting.
I can't prove anything to anyone who rejects science and embraces mysticism and faith if they choose not to engage in reason and non-contradictory concept formation.
History books don't just tell us this. If they did, and that were the only "evidence" of it, that wouldn't be enough. Just like the bible isn't enough evidence for the events detailed within it, and it's why people spend a lot of time and money looking for other evidence.
No, people believe what they want to believe, no matter who they are. I choose to believe science and reason. You do not. Therefore I cannot convince you of that which you do not value--i.e. above mentioned science and reason--when you value mysticism and faith more.
Lord. So? I don't remember saying the Founders of this nation were atheists. Are you suggesting that is proof of your god?
By the way, Merry Christmas to you (and all).
You missed my point. (again). We have received a great deal of communication with God. You accept the message from N8 as proof that he is a being who is able to communicate. But we don't know if it is N8, or someone speaking on his behalf. God has communicated to us. The Bible is full of God communicating with us. However, in this instance you complain that it is not God, but someone else. Those bringing the message tell us they are relaying messages on God's behalf (although some claim it was even more direct than that). These communications you do not accept. So is it God's nature or existence you doubt? And why do you not have the same doubt about N8?
My problem with the court ruling is that it inhibits discussion of an important topic. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain what we see in nature, as is any science. But intelligent design is the same thing. Creationism is different that ID, and is nearly a cult. Strict Creationists let their faith blind them to cavernous gaps in their model, notably the idea that every species that ever lived and ever will live were present at the time of creation.
ID can be taught without involving any religion, or even involving a deity at all. Evolution still has no satisfying mechanism of speciation. Give a lemur enough time and it becomes a H. sapiens requires a leap of faith, a leap that is remininscent of the Creationist's faith.
The court has decided that one faith is acceptable in schools, and another is not. I mistakenly thought that part of education was exploriing different points of view. Guess not.
Was there anything in the court ruling that explains why we now call adaptive radiation punctuated equilbrium?