[quote]schmichael wrote:
It doesn’t support the ToE, it assumes that it is true before looking at any evidence.
[/quote]
150 years and still no-one has looked at any evidence? If you want the evidence so much and the normal, standard fossile record and biochemistry is not enough why don’t you read Darwins Origins of Species? You get a first hand account how Darwin extrapolated his conclusion.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
It doesn’t support the ToE, it assumes that it is true before looking at any evidence.
[/quote]
150 years and still no-one has looked at any evidence? If you want the evidence so much and the normal, standard fossile record and biochemistry is not enough why don’t you read Darwins Origins of Species? You get a first hand account how Darwin extrapolated his conclusion.[/quote]
Some aspects of Darwin’s ToE have been disproven and that’s modified the theory.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
It doesn’t support the ToE, it assumes that it is true before looking at any evidence.
[/quote]
150 years and still no-one has looked at any evidence? If you want the evidence so much and the normal, standard fossile record and biochemistry is not enough why don’t you read Darwins Origins of Species? You get a first hand account how Darwin extrapolated his conclusion.[/quote]
Some aspects of Darwin’s ToE have been disproven and that’s modified the theory. [/quote]
That’s not the point, but the reasoning behind the theory. Schmeichel is such a good goalie that he will block any hard evidence anyway.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
It doesn’t support the ToE, it assumes that it is true before looking at any evidence.
[/quote]
150 years and still no-one has looked at any evidence? If you want the evidence so much and the normal, standard fossile record and biochemistry is not enough why don’t you read Darwins Origins of Species? You get a first hand account how Darwin extrapolated his conclusion.[/quote]
Some aspects of Darwin’s ToE have been disproven and that’s modified the theory. [/quote]
You mean science is open to change in the face of evidence?
Well I’ll be damned!
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< You mean science is open to change in the face of evidence? >>>[/quote]I mean science is at the mercy of the corruption of sinful autonomous man who will conclude from his findings absolutely anything except that there is holy wise creator God to whom they are morally accountable.[quote]Makavali wrote:<< Well I’ll be damned![/quote]No truer words have ever fallen from your lips Mak. I keep tellin you that. Repent. Surrender your life to His and watch the light of His love chase all that darkness out of your heart and mind. That is the final irrefutable proof. A man who KNOWS he’s been raised in Christ and adopted into the very family of the living God cannot be swayed by the foolishness of dead men abusing their own minds in a desperate quest to hide from their master.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
I don’t ignore the statement, I reject it. There is a huge difference.
[/quote]
Ok and why do you reject what Science points to?
Do you have a better method of determining what we should believe? Science is the best method we have, no other methods have even come close.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
It doesn’t support the ToE, it assumes that it is true before looking at any evidence.
[/quote]
150 years and still no-one has looked at any evidence? If you want the evidence so much and the normal, standard fossile record and biochemistry is not enough why don’t you read Darwins Origins of Species? You get a first hand account how Darwin extrapolated his conclusion.[/quote]
Some aspects of Darwin’s ToE have been disproven and that’s modified the theory. [/quote]
That’s not the point, but the reasoning behind the theory. Schmeichel is such a good goalie that he will block any hard evidence anyway.[/quote]
Yup. He whines about evidence and then when it’s given to him he refuses to look at it. Rather childish.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
I don’t ignore the statement, I reject it. There is a huge difference.
[/quote]
Ok and why do you reject what Science points to?
Do you have a better method of determining what we should believe? Science is the best method we have, no other methods have even come close.
[/quote]
Evolutionary biology is currently pointing toward determinism instead of free will. So if science is beginning to point to the fact that we have less or no moral culpability should we immediately swap over to that and end all punishment? Or should we continue on pragmatically as we always have done with even the hardest of determinists working as if we have free will and moral culpability even if it goes against what science is pointing to?
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:[quote]schmichael wrote:I don’t ignore the statement, I reject it. There is a huge difference.[/quote]Ok and why do you reject what Science points to? Do you have a better method of determining what we should believe? Science is the best method we have, no other methods have even come close.[/quote]You really don’t see in these statements a preconceived dichotomy between science and it’s creator do you. “WHY DON"T YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE!!!”. Every true Christian I know believes in science BECAUSE they believe in the God of science and like myself recognize that science displays His power and glory like nothing else except for the redemption of sinners in the death and resurrection of His Son. Science points directly and inescapably to the God of the bible. Sinful man’s refusal to see it is not God’s fault.
[quote]groo wrote:<<< Evolutionary biology is currently pointing toward determinism instead of free will. >>>[/quote]Determined by what? Purely naturalistic biochemical law? You are very wise to immediately see the logical conclusion of this Groo. Indeed, if this were thought to be the case? The flying spaghetti monster would be far more plausible than any blind stab at a belief in right and wrong. We already live pretty much like that anyway, but that would just throw off any vestige of moral restraint we might have left. What do you feel might be the epistemological implications of such a conclusion?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:[quote]schmichael wrote:I don’t ignore the statement, I reject it. There is a huge difference.[/quote]Ok and why do you reject what Science points to? Do you have a better method of determining what we should believe? Science is the best method we have, no other methods have even come close.[/quote]You really don’t see in these statements a preconceived dichotomy between science and it’s creator do you. “WHY DON"T YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE!!!”. Every true Christian I know believes in science BECAUSE they believe in the God of science and like myself recognize that science displays His power and glory like nothing else except for the redemption of sinners in the death and resurrection of His Son. Science points directly and inescapably to the God of the bible. Sinful man’s refusal to see it is not God’s fault.
[quote]groo wrote:<<< Evolutionary biology is currently pointing toward determinism instead of free will. >>>[/quote]Determined by what? Purely naturalistic biochemical law? You are very wise to immediately see the logical conclusion of this Groo. Indeed, if this were thought to be the case? The flying spaghetti monster would be far more plausible than any blind stab at a belief in right and wrong. We already live pretty much like that anyway, but that would just throw off any vestige of moral restraint we might have left. What do you feel might be the epistemological implications of such a conclusion?
[/quote]
Well I think morals can be derived from human biology and logic but thats not going to be a popular point of view in these parts. Certainly it would give rise to an interesting nihilism if it became the common view that we were nothing more than biological machines driven by imperatives beyond our control.
We are well on our way my friend and we are reaping the consequences. And the epistemological implications? I have a feeling you’re not real eager to head that way again.
[quote]groo wrote:<<< human biology and logic >>>[/quote]How, might I be so bold as to inquire, do we account for the latter on the exclusive basis of the former? I see a bit of an instinctive slip up here with your use of the word “and”, rather than forming a conceptual conjunction of the two. You said “biology AND logic”, treating the two as discrete entities. Why not say something like “biological logic” if that’s what it is?
The essence of logic, like life itself, is an ever elusive abstraction in the lonely, arid, spiritless desert of purely secular naturalism Groo. When all the wishful trappings are finally swept away, it proceeds from nothing, means nothing and is going nowhere.
Reaping the consequences?
Yeah, cuz life is so shitty right now. Poor us. sob sob sob.
If you think life is so bad right now Tiribulus why don’t you go check out a third world country and see if that changes your mind.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You really don’t see in these statements a preconceived dichotomy between science and it’s creator do you. “WHY DON"T YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE!!!”. Every true Christian I know believes in science BECAUSE they believe in the God of science and like myself recognize that science displays His power and glory like nothing else except for the redemption of sinners in the death and resurrection of His Son. Science points directly and inescapably to the God of the bible. Sinful man’s refusal to see it is not God’s fault.
[/quote]
Haha.
K.
You have one hour and six minutes Joe. Or else one more day will have passed without you having said anything of substance here. I’m rootin for ya buddy. I jist know you can do it.
edited - oops
Tribulus why would I even bother with you when you’re willing to say things like:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Science points directly and inescapably to the God of the bible.
[/quote]
What is your explanation for saying something so stupid? Do I even want to hear your explanation? Not really. Your opinion means nothing to me after reading your posts. You’re a complete whack. That’s my honest opinion.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
In the physical world death is absolute.[/quote]
The physical world is void of absolutes. You cannot deductively prove the physical, therefore while physical death seems to be a certainty in the physical realm, you cannot conclusively prove the physical realm even exists. You all could be a figment of my imagination. As silly as that sounds, it’s true. Senses are crude instruments for interpreting reality. [/quote]
Semantics, nothing more.
[/quote]
Semantics? Prove it’s only semantics. Because I can prove that you cannot trust your senses, that what you perceive as physical reality may not be accurate in any way. The claim is yours, hence so is the burden of proof.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The evidence for God is existence itself.
[/quote]
Alright then thanks for that. I’m now a believer. [/quote]
Well shit, that was easy.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The evidence for God is existence itself.
[/quote]
Alright then thanks for that. I’m now a believer. [/quote]
Well shit, that was easy.[/quote]
Hallelujah!
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
In the physical world death is absolute.[/quote]
The physical world is void of absolutes. You cannot deductively prove the physical, therefore while physical death seems to be a certainty in the physical realm, you cannot conclusively prove the physical realm even exists. You all could be a figment of my imagination. As silly as that sounds, it’s true. Senses are crude instruments for interpreting reality. [/quote]
Semantics, nothing more.
[/quote]
Semantics? Prove it’s only semantics. Because I can prove that you cannot trust your senses, that what you perceive as physical reality may not be accurate in any way. The claim is yours, hence so is the burden of proof.[/quote]
It’s semantics for one simple reason: you don’t believe it yourself. If you truely believed the above how in earth could you ever entertain religious beliefs at all?
Everything you value in a religious context has come to you through the filter of human existence. As such you must disqualify that context on the grounds that you can’t be certain it’s truthful, if you really believe what you’re saying in this post.
Here’s what I think: I think you’re just saying this without real conviction because it’s a nice stick to hit with.
Empiricism has given results, and changed the world. Yes, much of our science is indeed wrong, and will be laughed at by the scientists of tomorrow, but it is impossible to refute the effect science has on the world. Man is becoming the god of his microcosm. As it should be. What has religion brought upon us? When has the hand of some “god” affected us? Not for thousands of years. That’s convenient.
And we are receiving this knowledge from a book that history has shown is likely to have been heavily edited over these thousands of years. Not until Gutenberg could the Church be held accountable. Prior to that, the Bible was controlled by the Church alone. None can argue that, even were Jesus divine, the Church is made up of men, who sin like everyone else. Not that it’s possible that people lie in books or anything. Nope, better to believe in talking snakes, magic gardens, and animals science hasn’t even catalogued living in harmony on a ship. Way more sense.
Look at Scientology now. We all laugh at them and their foolish beliefs, call them a cult. This is why we must watch history. They are a cult in the process of becoming a mainstream religion. Much like the Christians 2000 years ago. Should be interesting to se their influence in 1000 years (if we are still around).
As a proud LaVeyan, I do not believe in your morals. LaVeyans do not proselytize. I do not care what you believe in or what you do, so long as you do so in peace and do not bother me. I could care less if others believe the same thing. I request that this begging of others to repent and talk of damnation cease and desist. No one cares if you convert to science (or any other belief system, for that matter), just stop trying to harass the rest of us to convert.