that a lot of apparently intelligent people have spent (and received) tons of money I guess
When Does God Start Treating You as an Adult
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
When humans have full ability to reason.
there is no proof of Darwin or that he ever existed. However that which is linked to this entity...the theory of evolution has been proven to be correct by scientific observation.
Meanwhile following the same logic...the same cannot be determined of GOD. that behind which GOD stands...as peace and justice is well holds true...however the existence of GOD or even Darwin is all but questionable.
proof for what? macro evolution? abiogenesis?
I doubt it ....
as for proof of god there are numerous saintly persons who have claims of direct perception as well as claims of processes to enable progress towards such a platform of direct perception
at least there is the claim of direct perception of god - there is no claim of direct perception (or claim to a process that can enable) regarding abiogenesis or macro evolution - it is all "perhaps/maybe"
Since there can be no corroborating witness to one's claim of direct perception of the devine, that perception cannot be verified, unlike scientific observations.
Manuscripts, letters, books, secondary reports of people who met him, photographs.
You're talking complete and utter gibberish.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
And the best you have is that, [pp] "some people claim to have spoken to god" and somehow think that's even worth the 5 seconds it took you to type it? Please..
so we can also discount the claims of physicists since their claims are suspiciously only corroborated by physicists (ie persons who have applied processes to develop and acquire a fundamental understing of physics) - looks like we will have to throw out virtually all types of knowledge and just be satisfied with animal existence
regarding your link - there are a few observations that lead to assumptions - the crux of it is all inductive
as for what I am claiming, there is the other half you are purposely avoiding, namely the claims of processes that enable the perception and verification of the claims
You know, you responded to my post 2 minutes after I had made mine. Did you really read it that quickly? Why, I'm mighty impressed. If I was a sane man I'd question it, but as as I'm insane I really do believe you did.
I didn't avoid anything. Your whole post was complete horse poop and barely even warranted comment in the first place. I just felt the need to inform you that it was complete horse poop.
You say "verification".. Where does that come into it? How do you intend to verify the claim of a man that says he talks to sky fairies? How do you intend to verify my claim that I talk to invisible, omnipotent banana peels? The claim is utterly worthless to anything. Evolution is also utterly worthless to those that are under the ignorant impression that they can gather enough information about it by spending 2 f****** minutes reading a webpage.
Snakelord
If you think there is something new in a specific part of it (I am not familiar with every nook and cranny of the site), apart from the reassessment of inductive assumptions as evidence (which is the life story of empirical theories trying to jump the queue into scientific evidence), like a discovery or break thorugh then you could mention it, but it would probably be big news so you wouldn't have to(I checked the newspapers - nothing there)
talkorigins is perhaps the most commmonly referenced website by atheists here
If you think there is something new in a specific part of it (I am not familiar with every nook and cranny of the site), apart from the reassessment of inductive assumptions as evidence (which is the life story of empirical theories trying to jump the queue into scientific evidence), like a discovery or break thorugh then you could mention it, but it would probably be big news so you wouldn't have to(I checked the newspapers - nothing there)
sounds like somethign the highschool drop out would say to the physicist - (and you wonder why you feel slighted by the 'rudeness of others')
by investigating the process he advocates for verification - how do you verify claims? Sit in an arm chair and tell him them they are full of crap ? (BTW is that your job?)
examine the process and see how it differs from or converges with other established processes for determing an objects omnipotence (since you are struggling with the concept of 'cause of all causes' in another thread I could safely discount it at the onset however)
if only all the nonsense I have investigated in regard to the claims of evolution (particularly abiogenesis and macro evolution) had only taken 2 minutes of my life .... (sigh)
Extraordinarily naive. The problem, (as it always is), comes down to a lack of understanding concerning evolution and "macro evolution" - that the creationist generally defines as a monkey turning into an elephant overnight, and you will always struggle unless you can move beyond that. I would advise reading the link I gave you fully.. take some time to digest it, ask when there are terms you don't understand. By shrugging it off because it's a common link on this forum is rather weak.
Speciation has been observed.
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch")"
Speciation is macroevolution and has been observed.
End of argument... Unless of course you want to give me your own definition of macro evolution, (take into account that your definition wont mean anything to science).
As far as science is concerned you'd be much better off checking a uhh.. scientific paper than a tabloid. Depending on where you are New Scientist is a good magazine that will keep you up to date.
Such as?
Amusing but pointless.
Name those "established" processes and how you can show those processes as valid. And.. how do you intend to find out about the bananas omnipotence or lack thereof? What do you do exactly.. ask the invisible banana to prove it to you?
Amusing but inaccurate. You'll find the error was purely on your part. I needed you to go in depth with your "cause of all causes" statement to see why you thought it had any relevance to the gods I had mentioned. Thankfully you did eventually give me a decent enough explanation which in turn gave me the opportunity to point out where you were going wrong.
With all due respect, but if it were the case you wouldn't even be making that statement. It's quite clear that you don't know, and most likely don't want to know.
speciation doesn't contradict the claims of religion (or at least not the vedas) - on the contrary there are indications of speciation inthe vedas - the problem with macro evolution is that it assumes that speciation is ultimately an unlimited field because many species bear a similarity, but that similarity can be explained many ways and it certainly doesn't rule out irreducable reductionism
macro evolution is used to explain how a monkey turned into a human
speciation only reveals one type of species turning in to a slightly different species - transitions in genus remains speculative
comprehensions of distinctions between scientific theory and evidence could also be helpful for you
you mean you don't know?
lets start with the word omnipotence (already done in another thread)
if you cannot see the obvious contradiction between multiple causes and the notion of being the cause of all causes one lacks knowledge - but anyway, take it to the other thread
With all due respect, but if it were the case you wouldn't even be making that statement. It's quite clear that you don't know, and most likely don't want to know.
Never said it did. Evolution itself does not contradict the claims of religion, (generally speaking). What was your point?
A mistake of the unqualified. C'mon, you'd have to be the very first to acknowledge your own limits given all our discussion over multiple threads. Fruit vendor, yada yada yada. But out of interest, what relevant qualifications do you have in this matter? Please don't say "none" and please don't say "well I've read some bits and pieces here and there".
A monkey turned into a human? That's news to me and all of science. With this statement you've answered my last question. It was "none" after all.
I love how you try and phrase things as if scientists are just pulling guesses out of their asses. It really isn't like that.
What is bizarre is how you believe that a 'saintly person' talks to god purely on the basis that he says he does and yet for some reason, (while being unqualified), reject macroevolution regardless to the masses of actual evidence it has from all different fields of science. I find it quite grotesque.
Amusing but worthless.
I take it you saying you find ad homs insulting only applies when they're directed at you? Oh such glaring hypocricy. From what you have displayed above, it is quite clear you are "unqualified" as far as evolution is concerned, do not have the slightest clue what it's about "a monkey turned into a human.. lol, and needless to say do not have the right to be using the word evidence given all your posts over many threads where you have done everything in your power to avoid having to ever produce any for anything.
Sure, so please tell me how a man that claims he talks to sky fairies verifies that he talks to sky fairies.
Ok, how do you intend to show if this banana is omnipotent or not? I doubt you can call it on the telephone to check.
You keep bringing up that "cause of all causes" and I keep explaining why it's pointless to which you keep ignoring it and then say "cause of all causes" again. It's quite odd.
Agreed.
Snakelord
“
that there are distinctions between the words macro-evolution (which has a wider application to genus and even further) and speciation (which is limited to species)
“
do you have some other version of evolution or do you stand by the standard understandings of it (given that the whole thing is empirical, its likely that the standards change of course)
the general principles you apply to determine theistic claims as fantasy and evolution as a fact is perplexing since one has no claim to direct perception and the other does
“
that there are distinctions between the words macro-evolution (which has a wider application to genus and even further) and speciation (which is limited to species)
“
its not clear what your point is - that evolution is the only possible answer to the body of evidence that is commonly ridden to declare evolution (ie macro evolution) a fact?
the homo sapien came the homo heidelbergensis which came from the homo erectus etc etc to the gibbons etc etc to something abiogenetic - of course the whole thing runs like a game of monopoly where you have to roll a double six to start
do you have some other version of evolution or do you stand by the standard understandings of it (given that the whole thing is empirical, its likely that the standards change of course)
evolution between genuses has been observed?
amusing but useless
I never made any claim about sky fairies -
the general principles you apply to determine theistic claims as fantasy and evolution as a fact is perplexing since one has no claim to direct perception and the other does
not necessary - its sufficient to examine your usage of the word "omnipotent" to determine you have no qualification for perceiving such a phenomena
Back to the Topic
The discussion seems to have gone off topic back into the Creation vs. Evolution argument but if we come back to the original argument about children being culpable for evil and the ramifications upon their salvation, the inclusionist view is that you have to consciously reject God to lose what God is offering (eternal life). Thus the precise age question does not arise.
The Roman Catholic concepts of baptism being required in order 'to enter heaven' and of 'limbo' are not scriptural and I understand that the present Pope is about to modify this teaching.
This very much fits with C.S. Lewis's description of hell as 'a prison where the cell is locked on the inside'.
As an aside, C.S. Lewis's fictional story about heaven and hell 'The Great Divorce' is highly recommended as an entertaining and thought provoking read.
Regards,
Gordon.
The discussion seems to have gone off topic back into the Creation vs. Evolution argument but if we come back to the original argument about children being culpable for evil and the ramifications upon their salvation, the inclusionist view is that you have to consciously reject God to lose what God is offering (eternal life). Thus the precise age question does not arise.
The Roman Catholic concepts of baptism being required in order 'to enter heaven' and of 'limbo' are not scriptural and I understand that the present Pope is about to modify this teaching.
This very much fits with C.S. Lewis's description of hell as 'a prison where the cell is locked on the inside'.
As an aside, C.S. Lewis's fictional story about heaven and hell 'The Great Divorce' is highly recommended as an entertaining and thought provoking read.
Regards,
Gordon.