• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
@SavedByTheLord Here is where you failed in the OP:

"The intricacies of living things (DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes, organs, reproduction, the interconnected food chain etc) and their irreducible mutual complexity is way beyond anything that man has made and by an enormous amount."

No one has ever demonstrated that irreducible complexity exists anywhere. There is only the claim of irreducible complexity. And without that your analogy fails. That means that you did not "prove God". The good news is that you did not disprove him either.

You could show me an example of properly confirmed irreducible complexity, but I have never seen one. I am fairly sure that I would know of it if anyone ever found such an example.

Reliable sources only please. Ones that do not reject the scientific method.
Click to expand...
And yet you have never shown that evolution of chemicals to living things to people has ever happened or is happening or could happen. All you have are false assumptions and circular reasoning.

What was the first living thing according to the official dogma of the evolutionist religion?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
And yet you have never shown that evolution of chemicals to living things to people has ever happened or is happening or could happen. All you have are false assumptions and circular reasoning.

What was the first living thing according to the official dogma of the evolutionist religion?
Click to expand...
How did I do that?

And as has been pointed out to you, every belief relies on assumptions. as yours do . The question is are those assumptions justified or not.

As to discussing abiogenesis, you are not ready for that yet in my opinion. If you want to learn about it you need to talk to someone else.

And once again, there is no official dogma. There are experiments and evidence. But I do not think that you would understand either.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
How did I do that?

And as has been pointed out to you, every belief relies on assumptions. as yours do . The question is are those assumptions justified or not.

As to discussing abiogenesis, you are not ready for that yet in my opinion. If you want to learn about it you need to talk to someone else.

And once again, there is no official dogma. There are experiments and evidence. But I do not think that you would understand either.
Click to expand...
I have only one assumption which I proved true.
You have many false assumptions and circular reasoning .
That is why the official dogma of the evolutionist church is false.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
I have only one assumption which I proved true.
You have many false assumptions and circular reasoning .
That is why the official dogma of the evolutionist church is false.
Click to expand...
No, you didn't. We were going over why that argument failed. Did you forget that? Your "logic" is terribly flawed.

When making a logical argument one does not get to make any premise that one wants to. To proceed everyone has to agree on the premises and you used what looked like a very failed premise. If you make an argument with a failed promise, even if the form is good, it is a failed logical argument.

That does not automatically mean that you are wrong. It only means that you did not prove your point.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, you didn't. We were going over why that argument failed. Did you forget that? Your "logic" is terribly flawed.

When making a logical argument one does not get to make any premise that one wants to. To proceed everyone has to agree on the premises and you used what looked like a very failed premise. If you make an argument with a failed promise, even if the form is good, it is a failed logical argument.

That does not automatically mean that you are wrong. It only means that you did not prove your point.
Click to expand...
You might want to read your own words and learn.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
which proof are you talking about and which premises?
Click to expand...
The one in the OP of this thread.

But you need to answer questions when asked. I will do the same.


Do you understand that in a logical argument one cannot use any premise that one wants to? For example if a person arguing that Hitler was good for Germany had "Hitler was a decent man" you would probably reject that premise. So would I.


So do you agree that there are limits to the premises one can use?
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
The one in the OP of this thread.

But you need to answer questions when asked. I will do the same.


Do you understand that in a logical argument one cannot use any premise that one wants to? For example if a person arguing that Hitler was good for Germany had "Hitler was a decent man" you would probably reject that premise. So would I.


So do you agree that there are limits to the premises one can use?
Click to expand...
And yet Hitler was an evolutionist and a socialist like Marx who was an evolutionist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top