Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The Bible predicted creationism? I might have to reconsider the book.
-
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.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
No. Evolution and billions of years with their false no God assumption and circular reasoning
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
But you still haven't showed that there is any circular reasoning, or any assumption of 'no god', for that matter. Just saying these things doesn't make it so. You needed to reference actual science that contains circular reasoning.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What was the first living creature and what features did it have?
you must be assuming that it must have happened because you know evolution is true.
That is using the conclusion as the assumption.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Change the record!
No. we believe it happened because of the evidence. There was a time on earth that had no life, then life appeared. It happened around about 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. We then have evidence for subsequent evolution.
There is no assumption of anything without evidence. You may accept things on blind faith (assumption) but science doesn't.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yeah, or what about all those evil gravitationalists and relativists with their false no graviton pixies assumption?!
Or all those evil embryologists with their false no stork assumptions?!?
Not to mention the wicked germists and their no demonic posession assumptions?!
You bring the torches, I'll bring the pitchforks!
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What was the first living creature and what features did it have?
you must be assuming that it must have happened because you know evolution is true.
That is using the conclusion as the assumption.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
More repetition, i.e. running away. See
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And yet you have been refuted endlessly.
Where is the "no God assumption"? I have never seen anyone make it?
Where is the circular reasoning?
One does not get to just make claims of logical fallacies. Those accusations have a burden of proof attached to them.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This has been explained to you ad nauseum. We are limited in what we know of the first living creature. We do not need to know anything besides a rational knowledge that it existed. What color was the hair of your grandfather's^21 on your mom's dad's mom's dad's . . . dad's mom's side?
By the "logic" you have been using I just refuted the existence of that grandfather and therefore you as well.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Your analogy is not good.
My family’s lineage is not being taught as science worldwide and even to children .
What was the first living creature and what features did it have?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, the analogy works just fine. You are trying to claim that something never existed because we do not know enough about it. I "proved" by that logic that your umpteenth great grandfather did not exist. And therefore you do not exist.
It is the same logic. Just a different subject. It makes it clear why your argument is a pointless one.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Not the same at all.
Science shows that each person has 2 parents and is always true. Observed.
So I proved that they all existed. All.
No details in this case are needed.
But abiogenesis is not observed. Never.
So you need to prove that a first living creature came into being from natural processes.
So what was the first living creature and what was its features?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So what? The analogy still works. You are just not applying it properly. And worse yet, your example only applies to beings that sexual reproduce. There is a whole range of sexualities out there in nature, and those have all been observed.
But you were not talking about abiogenesis. You were talking about after abiogenesis.
And no, we do not need to "prove" anything. Science does not work that way. There is no "proof" in science. What is needed is evidence. A concept that I have tried to help you understand many times over and we do have evidence of abiogenesis.
You've said this over and over, again and again
Why you do think asking that is clever?
It really isn't
I bet you yourself have no idea
It would have been some kind of microbe
What exactly is an irrelevant detail
You're playing games
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What kind of microbe?
Did it have RNA, DNA, proteins or some combo?
What were the codes of each?
What functions did it have?
You just put out a fairly take as an explantation.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are back to proving that your great 21 grandfather did not exist and therefore you don't. Why do you think that anyone needs to know that?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Evolution isn't dependend on how life arose or what first life was.
Doubling down on your strawman, is not an argument against the theory you are hellbend on misrepresenting.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And with that, you have shown that next to not understanding science, logic or what "proof" and "evidence" means, you have also shown you are incapable of rational reasoning.