Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar
It is also interesting to note that when the scientific community is faced with evidence that contradicts current theories, science modifies to accommodate the new information.
Unfortunately, Creationists do no such thing, for to admit new evidence would require a basic attitudinal shift from believing the Bible to be the inspired word of God. Sadly, this movement is gaining momentum as individuals disdain education in favor of dogma - a grand legacy left over from liberals tinkering with American public education.
But even more egregious than liberal tinkering is the willingness displayed by Creationists to ignore the evidence which is literally at their feet. Imagination, invention and speculation are forbidden in such a culture, and I fear we are headed back to the the Dark Ages with the adoption of ID/Creationism in our public schools.
Fallacy of Equivocation.There is 'no evidence' for a 'reality' beyond the universe 'reality.' Reality and the 'refusal to believe' are separate things. These statements say that there is evidence for something beyond reality that is contained within reality, which means it is part of reality. The laws of logic are violated by these statements.
The argument that can persuade a brittle materialist does not exist because he refuses to consider anything that does not conform to his comfortable self-centered reality.
As ugly as an Ad Hominem attack as I've ever seen. No content at all, just pure invective. (brittle, comfortable, 'self centered' {you make Ayn proud on that one})
Finally, it exposes the defenders of darwin to be volitional rather than thoughtful; dishonest rather than truthful; unscientific rather than scientific, biased rather than fair.
Whose Darwin? More Ad Hominem nonsense with no content. The fact is that evols are only dependent upon observations of reality, however in error those may be. Creationists must depend upon Begged Questions, Smuggled Premises and Assertions Without Proof before they can even put forth a theory.
It is the origin of matter that you cannot (will not?) explain.
What's the matter here is that there is no matter. Matter is an illusion, there is only energy. E=MC2. And energy has existed always, has always been traveling from one place to another, will always travel from one place to another.
There is only the Light, there has only ever been The Light and there will only ever be The Light.
Let it not be said that you are without a respect for the hard won fight for knowledge. Up yur notch on that one.
When I watch the Pope mumbling for hours, thinking He is saying something worthwhile, I think of fChristian. This is the needle and the damage done.
The Dark Ages were brought on because the church withheld the Bible from the individual. Therefore the individual wasn't aware of the corruption and power grab of those in power in the church. Good godly men were few and far between, because of corruption or ignorance. When the Bible became available to the masses a little experiment called the United States followed shortly thereafter.
Mind control went out when people began studying the Bible for themselves.
There isn't one theory that doesn't not contain the presupposition, the Begged Question, of a Supernatural that cannot be proven prior to the presupposition. Name me one thing, anything, the proves the existence of the Supernatural prior to the assumption of It's existence. By definition, it is not possible.
There is this story that seems to have captivated the world for the past 2000 years. This man did supernatural miracles. He made audacious statements about how we got on this planet. Where we go when we die. How we were designed to rule over the animals, not to think we are animals. The record, which is far more substantiated than any other ancient document, says he arose from the dead and spoke to many people for 40 days after his resurrection (500 people at one point).
Because we don't as individuals, or a group, have all knowledge in our universe, intellectually we can only take an agnostic position. God said there is no God before or after Him and there is no other God. Assuming He had the ability to create the universe we live in, we are convinced he would also know if there was a God other than Him. Therefore logically there doesn't necessitate prior existence to Him.
There are greatly more available documents, Biblical and non-Biblical, supporting the things Jesus said and did than documents supporting the life and teaching of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. And they lived prior to Jesus.
There is no evidence. Zero, Zilch, nada. Nothing. No fingerprint of God, no toeprint, no bad breath, nothing. None.
An empty tomb. Many brilliant people for the last 2000 years have acknowledged Jesus as God. Newton, Galileo, Augustine and most importantly J.R.R. Tolkien among many others. Don't cast aside God's rendition of creation before a thorough investigation.
The breath in your lungs is from God, if your breath is bad brush your teeth and don't blame God. </sarcasm
PROVE that there is something out there before you make this lame Ad Hominem claim. Who appointed you judge over this man to call him 'Materialist?' Thy Beam makes thee Blind. And how do you know what makes him 'uncomfortable?'
Maybe it is just an honest search for truth based upon facts. Who are you to assert otherwise?
Major premise:
The universe is all that there is.
Minor premise: If something were outside the universe it could not be part of the universe.
Conclusion: Therefore something outside the universe cannot exist.
This isn't what he said, and this isn't Begging the Question. This could be termed Excluded Middle Term, Affirming the Consequent and a bunch of other stuff but this is all bull.
Properly structured this would be:
If there were something outside the Universe it could not exist.
There is something outside the Universe,
Therefore, there is something outside the Universe that cannot exist.
Your syllogism contains no common terms so you demonstrate that you don't understand logic well enough not to make the most basic fallacious errors.
I charge $105 an hour.
It is amazing to me that I so often have to give the high-brow evolutionists lessons in elementary logic.
Seems you overcharge.
The burden of proof is on the new idea.
ok darkshadow, I finally found it. Have you met Donh? He holds there is no 'Burden of Proof' just a 'Burden of Best Guess'. Maybe you should argue with him. But he's just a Creationist in disguise. And I digress.
Burden of Proof means you must have some evidence before anyone can take your claim seriously. You have no evidence for yours, near as I can tell.
I have given good reasons to believe why there is a reality outside of our physical universe.
BY DEFINITION, not possible.
The burden of proof is on you to show or at least provide some logic that indicates why matter is eternal.
Why? Because you say so? Matter exists now, that is all you know. That is all you can ever know, try though you might. Prove that it isn't eternal (!) prove that it came from God. None of it can be 'proved.'
Of course I understand the argument I put forth. I admit some of the properties are unobservable. Most of evolution's claims are unobservable. If the unobservable element makes it impossible, then evolution is impossible as well. The properties are not incomprehensibly different.
'Unobservable' and without evidence are entirely two different things. I cannot 'observe' radiation but the evidence of its existence will kill me, as it did Madame Curie. I cannot 'observe' any 'evidence' that justifies Creationism. There is none. None. If one starts with just what one observes about the Universe, and never hears of the Bible, one will never, ever, ever, ever, reach the conclusion that Jesus Died on the Cross for Your Sins. Never. Ever.
Given only the evidence of the natural world one could arrive at evolution. The problem that Creationists now have is the question:
Why did God put so many fossils in the world to make it appear that evolution is true? Either God is very cruel in His judgments or He has a very weird sense of humor.
all i have time for today
Not me.
OK smart guy. What was his education? His profession?
This is so entirely typical of you evos. Mouth, mouth, mouth, switch off brain, pass judgement. Small minded folks like you don't simply ignore the truth, you suppress the truth.
But answer my question Mr. know-it-all, Mr. Science.
With that standard, how do you ever hope to be respected? You can't possibly expect any respect based on your behavior, can you?
You say: Fallacy of Equivocation.There is 'no evidence' for a 'reality' beyond the universe 'reality.' Reality and the 'refusal to believe' are separate things.
My response: Think again. Reality and refusal to belive are not equivocated. Bad analysis, LW. There is, despite your denial, evidence for the existence of another realm. Your religious statement, There is only the Light, there has only ever been The Light and there will only ever be The Light, reveals that you may believe that yourself.
As ugly as an Ad Hominem attack as I've ever seen.
You'd have to know what an ad hominem was before you could say it was ugly. Your particular fallacy is called ignoratic elenchi which, I'm sure, you'll have to look up.
My statement was true. ON YOUR OWN POST (1007)you state that nothing can exist outside the universe because you have defined it so (thus giving an excellent example of petitio principii).
So let's get this straight (your screen name implies you know logic): You say "by definition" nothing exists outside the universe, supporting your claim via fallacy.
I say that your kind refuse to consider arguments contrary to your reality.
You say that because we agree, my agreement is an ad hominem?
Change your ways or change your screen name.
Another example of petitio principii. The conclusion is included in the first term.
Like I said, change your screen name or change your ways. It might be easier to change your ways.
For a guy who habitually claims ad hominem! there sure were a lot of personal digs in your last post.
But, as you say, "all i have time for today."
Do you disagree that he's rude, disrespectful, arrogant, inconsiderate, and utterly biased?
QED, his parents were failures and his education was a failure.
Then what would that make your parents? It matters not, however because this exchange isn't happening accoriding to one of your logical brethern, LogicWings. He says matter is an illusion. Thus is his keyboard, computer, internet connection, FR, this thread, Kevin Curry and Balrog.
Therefore LogicWings, an evolution defender, defends evolution but denies the existence of the matter that evolved. No wonder you guys never win these debates!
No wonder you are still stuck in the Dark Ages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.