Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

Are you saying you can prove that the supernatural is not possible?

No. Why should it be necessary to prove something not possible, that has never been shown to be possible?
As I said before invoking supernatural causation explains nothing and gives no insight into anything. And invoking the supernatural moves you out of the realm of science.

Once you say "God did it", you're done.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and when it comes to the biblical flood, you have no evidence, extraordinary or otherwise

P

0 Replies

Pauligirl wrote:

real life wrote:

Are you saying you can prove that the supernatural is not possible?

No. Why should it be necessary to prove something not possible, that has never been shown to be possible?
As I said before invoking supernatural causation explains nothing and gives no insight into anything. And invoking the supernatural moves you out of the realm of science.

Once you say "God did it", you're done.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and when it comes to the biblical flood, you have no evidence, extraordinary or otherwise

P

Hi Pauligirl,

Not at all.

All historical events are outside of the realm of science because they are not repeatable and cannot now be observed (they may not have been observed when they happened either).

Just being outside of the realm of science doesnt mean that these events are 'not possible' or 'didn't occur' however.

So, with the supernatural it does not follow that 'if it is outside of the realm of science then it cannot be.'

Once you say 'only science defines reality' you're done.

0 Replies

Science doesn't define reality. They only develop theory from observation about our environment that can be supported with other evidence or repetitive experiments. Reality is a philisophical concept, not science.

0 Replies

Yes I agree. The Flood is somewhat off topic. But I'm not the one who brought it up.

So before leaving it, let's review:

There was at least one point in history when up to 90% of all living organisms were wiped out.

The record of that event is written in sedimentary rock.

Nearly every area on Earth has evidence of having been underwater.

Nearly every culture has a Flood story. http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

There are sedimentary (water produced) strata even on the Earth's tallest mountains.

The Earth's population today is not inconsistent with the range that may be expected if you started with a handful of people (8) in fairly recent historical times ( <10,000 years).

Should give us some food for thought. Ok back to evolution.

0 Replies

all it makes me think is how desperate religious people are to avoid the truth.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

All historical events are outside of the realm of science because they are not repeatable and cannot now be observed (they may not have been observed when they happened either).

Yes, but they have pieces of evidence that back it up. It is usually physical evidence that gives us a viewpoint of what may have happened. The evidence for certain historical events happening is similar to evidence that Evolution happened. They both occured in the past, and are visible now.

Quote:

Just being outside of the realm of science doesnt mean that these events are 'not possible' or 'didn't occur' however.

Actually, those historical events are within the relams of science, because we can carbon-date things and prove the authenticity of certain artefacts through science.

Quote:

So, with the supernatural it does not follow that 'if it is outside of the realm of science then it cannot be.'

The supernatural does not have anything to go for it. You cannot use science or even non-scientific means to prove that the supernatural existed. You can prove the Bible tells the truth about certain events, but not any of the supernatural events.

There is nothing out there to prove the supernatural exists or existed.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

All historical events are outside of the realm of science because they are not repeatable and cannot now be observed.

I went to Home Depot yesterday and bought finishing nails. According to you my receipt is "outside of the realm of science". According to you the fuel I used in the van "outside of the realm of science". More like your thinking is outside the realm of reasoning.

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

There was at least one point in history when up to 90% of all living organisms were wiped out.

I love the way you cherry pick your facts. I assume you are talking about the Permian extinction? Then you know that evidence doesnt support that aflood caused this great PErmian wiping out event I assume then that you accept standard stratigraphic records if you are using it to support your story

Quote:

The record of that event is written in sedimentary rock.

But it was a series of chemical records that dont support a flood event, rather a planet wide volcanic event, maybe you were thinking of "flood basalt"

Quote:

Nearly every area on Earth has evidence of having been underwater.

Except maybe about 60% of the planets existing land surface. Even those areas that were under water , were not underwater at the same time in earths history. Your trying to reach way beyond what good evidence provides

Quote:

There are sedimentary (water produced) strata even on the Earth's tallest mountains.

The attitudes of which clearly show that the "beds of sedimentary rocks" pre date the mountain building event. All he ocks that are uplifted are at severe angles , some , like in the Alps and the Andes and Appalachians , are actually overturned in what we call Nappe structures. This means that the rocks were already laid down in a basin and when the mountain building force occured later, it gathered up all the sediments like a big rug and pushed them into high mountain passes. I dont know of any large deposits (or any deposits except for present small mountain lakes) where he mountains themselves were under water. Evidence says your quite wrong on that.

Getting the story only partially correct or half way reasonavle and "force fitting" the chains of events so they can be used to support your beliefs as science is not acceptable stratigraphy

Quote:

Should give us some food for thought

Not really, it can be dismissed by anyone whose hobby is geology. Nothing of your story fits together as a plausible chain of events. There are too many data inconsistancies built into your story that dontfit the facts as they exist.
Your attempt to prove the occurence of Biblical events as literal meets with a lot of scientifc speedbumps. The flood story is a really easy one to dismiss. By plying us with these stories , I believe you miss the point of an all powerful God. You actually limit him and make him a being subject to the laws and evidence of science.Id think youd rather have him transcend all the meaningless busy work of science and history.

0 Replies

It is probably best, RL, to believe in the God of Isaac Newton, the Law Maker. God as a Law Maker, that created all the laws that make up the Universe and does not wade in to tinker with his Universe if something goes wrong.

That is the same belief that Charles Darwin made when he first came up with Evolution; that God was a law maker that created the law of natural selection that allowed for species to "create" themselves without him needing to lift a single finger.

(Might I also add, that what I just stated in my second paragraph is not ID).

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Of course, gravity is just a theory, too.

This is so appallingly inept, i am surprised at you Big Bird.

Gravity is not just a theory--it's the law ! ! !

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

all it makes me think is how desperate religious people are to avoid the truth.

As i continually attempt to remind the ladies and gentlemen here, "real life's" purpose here is propagandistic. This site has a high page rank. In online searches for the topic of evolution, this thread is highly likely to appear. The audience to which "real life" hopes to pander are the gullible and young, who, lacking sound scientific education, are liable to be swayed by the plausibility of his otherwise unsubstantiated arguments. It is his purpose to use this "bully pulpit" to sow doubt about a theory of evolution. Hence, he prefers to bog down the discussion with topics which we have canvassed repeatedly, and repeatedly in debate with him. He simply wants to continually throw up his canards, to catch and deceive the unwary, casual reader. He will not give direct and clear answers to simple and basic questions. Questions such as these:

"Real life," do you assert that the planet on which we live is only slightly more than 6000 years old?

What evidence do you have that the diversity of life forms on this planet are the result of a direct creation of a putative deity?

What evidence do you have that any such deity as that you believe in exists?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

All historical events are outside of the realm of science because they are not repeatable and cannot now be observed.

This is incorrect. As repeatedly stated, direct observation of an event is not a requirement of scientific evidence. Otherwise there would be no reason for deduction of any type.

real life wrote:

Just being outside of the realm of science doesnt mean that these events are 'not possible' or 'didn't occur' however.

So, with the supernatural it does not follow that 'if it is outside of the realm of science then it cannot be.'

Once you say 'only science defines reality' you're done.

Now you're quibbling about philosophy and the definition of science.

Where's Fresco when you need him.

Science is based on naturalism, and naturalism is a belief.

All of us choose whether we're going to follow a naturalistic rule structure or not.

If you choose to believe in magic then you can make up any explanations for things you want, but don't try to call your explanation scientific, because they're not.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
All historical events are outside of the realm of science because they are not repeatable and cannot now be observed.
I went to Home Depot yesterday and bought finishing nails. According to you my receipt is "outside of the realm of science". According to you the fuel I used in the van "outside of the realm of science". More like your thinking is outside the realm of reasoning.

Your receipt from Home Depot is circumstantial evidence at best.

Does it prove that YOU went to Home Depot simply because you happen to be in possession of it now? Perhaps your son went instead, or perhaps you pulled the receipt out of the trash in front of the store, but never went in to purchase anything.

Other than your claim to have used fuel, what evidence (scientific or otherwise) do you have to indicate that fuel was used by you, and that it was used to transport you to Home Depot?

Your trip to Home Depot is not repeatable. You would have to rely on the testimony of witnesses who saw you there and circumstantial evidence such as your receipt to 'prove' that your trip occurred.

Historical/ legal evidences such as these are valid. They are just not the same as scientific evidence.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
All historical events are outside of the realm of science because they are not repeatable and cannot now be observed.
I went to Home Depot yesterday and bought finishing nails. According to you my receipt is "outside of the realm of science". According to you the fuel I used in the van "outside of the realm of science". More like your thinking is outside the realm of reasoning.

Your receipt from Home Depot is circumstantial evidence at best.

So is the Bible.

0 Replies

Actually, a receipt from Home Depot is much more reliable evidence than the Bobble can ever hope to be.

0 Replies

Indeed, I can get a refund with the receipt from Home Depot. I can't get a refund with the Bible.

0 Replies

Hi Setanta,

I think you opinion regarding the 'high page rank' of this site is probably misleading at best.

Even if it could be shown that this site has a 'high page rank', I don't think that this would mean that there is a large group of people visiting here. I have several websites (completely unrelated to anything we discuss here), and I have generated a very high page rank (#1 and #3 on Google) long before my actual traffic numbers are anything to shout about.

A casual look at the Index page shows that the ratio of Posts to Views is not very high (1:8 to 1:12) in many cases. Since there are usually 6-10 posts per page, many of the Views can probably be attributed to posters themselves looking back over the thread to see who has answered them and in what manner. They don't always reply but just dropping in counts as a 'View' , doesn't it?

Speaking for myself, it is also not uncommon for me to look back 2 or 3 (or more) pages looking for a post if I want to reference it in the current discussion.

Most likely others do the same, since you not uncommonly see someone quote a post from several pages ago they would have had to go and look for it unless they have a photographic memory and know where it is.

Also the way the site is structured, if you want to fetch a post from, say, 10 pages back, then you have to step back one at a time, thus creating 10 'Views', no?

So if, on average, 8 posters per page stop back in to view replies , I hate to break it to ya but you haven't got nearly the audience that you apparently think you have.

If you've been under the hope that your wisdom is being read by lots and lots of folks, I hope you're not too disappointed.

It's mostly us, talking to each other. Cool

0 Replies

real life wrote:

It's mostly us, talking to each other.

Tell me about it. 802 pages so far. You'd think both sides would have run out of steam by now, but noooo....

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
All historical events are outside of the realm of science because they are not repeatable and cannot now be observed.
I went to Home Depot yesterday and bought finishing nails. According to you my receipt is "outside of the realm of science". According to you the fuel I used in the van "outside of the realm of science". More like your thinking is outside the realm of reasoning.

Your receipt from Home Depot is circumstantial evidence at best.

So is the Bible.

The Bible does contain circumstantial evidence. As I've mentioned many times, since neither creation nor evolution has been observed, both rely largely on circumstantial evidence and the inferences drawn from it.

The Bible also has historical evidence such as the testimony of eyewitnesses to many events.

0 Replies

That is more than a little disingenuous. I've made no claims about my own "wisdom," but from a time long before (at least in "cyber" terms) you arrived, we've had folks such as you who show up to post their drivel.

Going back several pages means nothing in a thread which now runs to over 800 pages. You simply need to assure that your nonsense is not repeated more often than every 50 pages or so to largely assure that readers don't notice that you are repeating yourself, and getting your silly theses shredded every time.

At all events, the number of page views is not the point--what is the point is that you routinely introduce the same nonsense to this thread again and again. That you are clever enough to wait 50 or 100 pages to do so speaks well of your tactics, but doesn't alter the undeniably fact that your arguments about a world-wide flood have been shot down before, that your silly statements about cosmology have been shot down before (and identified as irrelevant to a theory of evolution), that your silly remarks about celestical mechanics have been shot down before--but you nevertheless post them again in the thread, secure in the knowledge that most casual readers are unlikely to read all 800 pages.

It can be seen time and again in this thread. Additionally, quite apart from you relentless posting of the same discredited arguments, we have new members who show up here to offer the same silly creationist points of view, usually framed in a much less clever and really sophomoric manner, which are ripped apart, with the result that we do not see that member posting here again.

Ah, but we will always have you, spreading your nonsense about sedimentation, cosmic origins and the rotational properties of planets, won't we?

You've not trotted out your celestial mechanics canards recently, why not regale us anew ? ! ? ! ?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know