New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

Jack_ said:
This is a theory based on logic. Then you use a conclusion of this theory to refute logic.

How amusing.
Click to expand...

This isn't a theory. It is an observable. Logic on its own has limitations. I can demonstrate (as I am sure you can too), correct logical statements that are incorrect when compared against actual reality. I can also demonstrate raw phenomena that you will be unable to construct with pure logic.
 
Jack_ said:
Yes, it is a dna snippet usually from the waste of another species.

There dna snippets serve a good purpose in the host species because they exists in the host to take over cells to reproduce and serve a purpose without the overhead of a complete cell. This way energy is not wasted on their survival.

However, at times these viruses enter another species and they do not have the natural controls to eiminate them when their purpose is served as would the controls in the host.

Other times, these viruses exists in the host from another species and they have adapted to them but they serve no useful purpose to the host.
Again, they usually escape through the feces or an animal eats them and transfers the virus as in simian HIV.
Click to expand...

But it's only a theory that germs cause disease (the germ THEORY of disease) and the bible says that it's demons, so...
 
Crunchy Cat said:
This isn't a theory. It is an observable. Logic on its own has limitations. I can demonstrate (as I am sure you can too), correct logical statements that are incorrect when compared against actual reality. I can also demonstrate raw phenomena that you will be unable to construct with pure logic.
Click to expand...


Logic is actually a syntactic notion that can be mapped finitely.
Whence, you are claiming there is more than the finite material universe which was my point in the first place.

Checkmate.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
Your assumption is almost correct. Just to make sure you are on the same page, "proof" cannot be provided for anything unless all variables are known (which is why it's pretty much restricted to mathematics). What can of course be provided is evidence and here is the evidence you seek:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-gambling-behaviour-by-willem-a-wagenaar.html

"In short, people search for information that will confirm their beliefs at the expense of ever finding out that they are wrong."
Click to expand...

Just to make sure you are on the same page, "proof" cannot be provided for anything unless all variables are known

Wrong, proof proceeds by the rules of first order logic regardless of the free or bound variables.

Models fill in the variables and prove logical consistency of a theory.
 
Jack_ said:
Just to make sure you are on the same page, "proof" cannot be provided for anything unless all variables are known

Wrong, proof proceeds by the rules of first order logic regardless of the free or bound variables.

Models fill in the variables and prove logical consistency of a theory.
Click to expand...

I think the point was totally missed; however, if I were wrong then you would be able to prove that you exist (which encompasses defining "you" in every last detail). You (or anybody else) lack the visibility to do that. What you can do however is restrict the variables to a set which are easily visible. Then it's simply a matter of providing an instance of yourself and any "proof" exists in those confines (but of course is technically incomplete and not a real proof). That's why science doesn't operate on proof. It operates on evidence.
 
Jack_ said:
“ Originally Posted by Jack_
you will not trip my up on the bible, I mean the general theory of relativity. ”

Then, do not bring up the bible because that is not what this discussion is about.
Click to expand...

So...

Let me get this straight...

You are telling me that in a discussion about creationism in a thread titled "New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator" discussing a book written by someone who has studied Judaism and Christianity...

That the bible is beside the point and irrelevant?

Did you ever stop to wonder why some people have trouble taking you seriously?
 
Jack_ said:
Logic is actually a syntactic notion that can be mapped finitely.
Whence, you are claiming there is more than the finite material universe which was my point in the first place.

Checkmate.
Click to expand...

That would be incorrect. I am claiming that logic only maps a subset of all relationships that exist regardless of whether you are dealing with "material" (ex. atoms) or non-material (ex. EM fields). I am also claiming that this inherent incompleteness of logic can result in incorrect assertions that are otherwise logical. Lastly I am claiming that both claims are demonstrable.
 
Trippy said:
So...

Let me get this straight...

You are telling me that in a discussion about creationism in a thread titled "New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator" discussing a book written by someone who has studied Judaism and Christianity...

That the bible is beside the point and irrelevant?

Did you ever stop to wonder why some people have trouble taking you seriously?
Click to expand...

i dont wonder anything about folks. they do what they do.

the discussion we were having was not related to the bible.
now, you pull all this up and claim some logic.

sorry, not applicable.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
I think the point was totally missed; however, if I were wrong then you would be able to prove that you exist (which encompasses defining "you" in every last detail). You (or anybody else) lack the visibility to do that. What you can do however is restrict the variables to a set which are easily visible. Then it's simply a matter of providing an instance of yourself and any "proof" exists in those confines (but of course is technically incomplete and not a real proof). That's why science doesn't operate on proof. It operates on evidence.
Click to expand...

I think the point was totally missed; however, if I were wrong then you would be able to prove that you exist

false dicotomy

you claimed logic does not explain everything and thus your logic cannot place things into well defined catagories.

You therefore cannot say this or that.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
That would be incorrect. I am claiming that logic only maps a subset of all relationships that exist regardless of whether you are dealing with "material" (ex. atoms) or non-material (ex. EM fields). I am also claiming that this inherent incompleteness of logic can result in incorrect assertions that are otherwise logical. Lastly I am claiming that both claims are demonstrable.
Click to expand...

this implies you do not know anything.
 
Jack_ said:
i dont wonder anything about folks. they do what they do.

the discussion we were having was not related to the bible.
now, you pull all this up and claim some logic.

sorry, not applicable.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. I quote from the first post of this thread:

Anita Meyer said:
Well, when we begin to witness this connection between G-d and nature, this then reveals proof of a Divine Entity intervening (and baring witness) that He alone is the almighty G-d - that indeed "did create" EVERYTHING in existence! Hence - Divine Authorship authenticating every word of the Bible.
Click to expand...

The discussion in this thread is precisely about the bible, intelligent design, abiogenesis, and creation versus evolution.

The point that I was making is that it has been argued, in this thread, that evolution is only a theory, and that the divine word of god says it's wrong.

My point in response to that is that the germ theory of disease is only a theory, and the divine word of god says it's wrong.

However, the likes of you and Anita accept one theory unquestioningly, even though it's only a theory, and challenge the other (or attempt to anyway).
 
Jack_ said:
false dicotomy

you claimed logic does not explain everything and thus your logic cannot place things into well defined catagories.

You therefore cannot say this or that.
Click to expand...

That's like saying a hammer cannot build everything and thus you cannot use a hammer to build things. Rather silly IMO.
 
Trippy said:
Bullshit. I quote from the first post of this thread:



The discussion in this thread is precisely about the bible, intelligent design, abiogenesis, and creation versus evolution.

The point that I was making is that it has been argued, in this thread, that evolution is only a theory, and that the divine word of god says it's wrong.

My point in response to that is that the germ theory of disease is only a theory, and the divine word of god says it's wrong.

However, the likes of you and Anita accept one theory unquestioningly, even though it's only a theory, and challenge the other (or attempt to anyway).
Click to expand...

However, the likes of you and Anita accept one theory unquestioningly, even though it's only a theory, and challenge the other (or attempt to anyway).

You are funny.

You have not figured it out yet.

I see all of you the same.

The difference between them and you is they confess and are truthful it is about faith and religion.

You and your folks have not yet evolved to this truth yet about yourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top