Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[viole]

Opinion noted.

It not an opinion. It is something I can prove to you with absolute logical certainty.

But in order to do that, I need to know what you know already about logical formal systems.

Ciao

- viole

 

[First Baseman]

It not an opinion. It is something I can prove to you with absolute logical certainty.

But in order to do that, I need to know what you know already about logical formal systems.

Ciao

- viole

Not necessary. You'd be wasting your time. Unless you want to do it for anyone else on here that might wish to hear it. Sorry, but I do not care to hear it.

 

[viole]

Not necessary. You'd be wasting your time. Unless you want to do it for anyone else on here that might wish to hear it. Sorry, but I do not care to hear it.

If you are not interested, then I would suggest not to use formal logic to make a point. You run the risk to be called out. As I would expect to be if I started pontificating about medieval chinese theater or other things I have no knowledge about.

Ciao

- viole

 

[First Baseman]

If you are not interested, then I would suggest not to use formal logic to make a point. You run the risk to be called out. As I would expect to be if I started pontificating about medieval chinese theater or other things I have no knowledge about.

Ciao

- viole

Well, to be fair I was pointing out that formal logic does have its flaws and cannot be relied upon to obtain absolute truth. Do you dispute that?

 

[viole]

Well, to be fair I was pointing out that formal logic does have its flaws and cannot be relied upon to obtain absolute truth. Do you dispute that?

Some of them cannot be relied upon to find ALL absolute truths, that is what Goedel said. .There are formal systems for which absolute truth statements are possible. Even in arithmetic. For instance, 4 is not a prime number is certainly true, independently from Goedel.

Do you doubt that 4 is not a prime number?

Ciao

- viole

 

[First Baseman]

Some of them cannot be relied upon to find ALL absolute truths, that is what Goedel said. .There are formal systems for which absolute truth statements are possible. Even in arithmetic. For instance, 4 is not a prime number is certainly true, independently from Goedel.

Do you doubt that 4 is not a prime number?

Ciao

- viole

No but I do doubt you can use your formal logic to prove the number system is consistent. So I do not accept mathematics as absolute truth because it has a flaw.

I believe God is the only being without flaw. I will hear what He says. What others say may or may not be absolute truth. Only God really knows if it is or not.

 

[viole]

No but I do doubt you can use your formal logic to prove the number system is consistent. So I do not accept mathematics as absolute truth because it has a flaw.

I believe God is the only being without flaw. I will hear what He says. What others say may or may not be absolute truth. Only God really knows if it is or not.

The difference between us is that I can prove coherent incompleteness, while you only believe in coherent completeness. So, I can prove that what you believe in is logically impossible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[First Baseman]

The difference between us is that I can prove coherent incompleteness, while you only believe in coherent completeness. So, I can prove that what you believe in is logically impossible.

Ciao

- viole

You cannot convince me of anything. Furthermore, I don't care if you think you can or not.

Only God is holy and just. Him I will hear and believe every word that proceeds from His mouth. Any and all things contradictory to those words is the work of the devil.

With God all things are possible and nothing shall be impossible. This is not true for you. God is the better guide.

This is how I feel and what I believe.

 

[viole]

You cannot convince me of anything. Furthermore, I don't care if you think you can or not.

Only God is holy and just. Him I will hear and believe every word that proceeds from His mouth. Any and all things contradictory to those words is the work of the devil.

With God all things are possible and nothing shall be impossible. This is not true for you. God is the better guide.

This is how I feel and what I believe.

There is no God.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

logical certainty; not fact, absolute truth.

Logical certainty is what gets scientists to come up with all of the wrong theories in the first place. You will find no absolute truth in logical certainty. If they are so logically certain, then why do they need to change and modify their theories each decade? Obviously they are not so certain.

As a matter of fact it was proven by Kurt Godel that no formal logical closed system can possibly be consistent. Logical certainty gets people into all kinds of trouble. Good luck with it.

No he didn't as his criteria applied to certain axiomatic systems not all logical systems.

 

[Sapiens]

Opinion noted.

er ... that's not an opinion, that's a fact!

 

[Sapiens]

You cannot convince me of anything. Furthermore, I don't care if you think you can or not.

Only God is holy and just. Him I will hear and believe every word that proceeds from His mouth. Any and all things contradictory to those words is the work of the devil.

With God all things are possible and nothing shall be impossible. This is not true for you. God is the better guide.

This is how I feel and what I believe.

Now that is an opinion. Can you not see the difference?

 

[Skwim]

You cannot convince me of anything. Furthermore, I don't care if you think you can or not.

Only God is holy and just. Him I will hear and believe every word that proceeds from His mouth. Any and all things contradictory to those words is the work of the devil.

Everyone should remember this whenever they feel like countering you. You go into

mode.

Thanks for the heads up.


.

 

[McBell]

You cannot convince me of anything. Furthermore, I don't care if you think you can or not.

Only God is holy and just. Him I will hear and believe every word that proceeds from His mouth. Any and all things contradictory to those words is the work of the devil.

With God all things are possible and nothing shall be impossible. This is not true for you. God is the better guide.

This is how I feel and what I believe.

She never said she can convince you.
She said she can prove it.

Huge difference.

The fact that you will Kent Hovind everything presented you dislike, do not understand, or shows your beliefs are flawed...

However, I do applaud your honesty in flat out admitting you have no interest in truth.

 

[Parsimony]

Only God is holy and just. Him I will hear and believe every word that proceeds from His mouth. Any and all things contradictory to those words is the work of the devil.

So as long as you are convinced that God said one thing or another, you won't even entertain the possibility of evidence to the contrary? No matter what that evidence might be? Do you think this is closer to an open-minded or closed-minded position?

 

[Blastcat]

logical certainty; not fact, absolute truth.

Logical certainty is what gets scientists to come up with all of the wrong theories in the first place. You will find no absolute truth in logical certainty. If they are so logically certain, then why do they need to change and modify their theories each decade? Obviously they are not so certain.

Obviously, you don't understand the concept of PROGRESS in our knowledge. That's why it changes, all of it. We know MORE than we used to, so yeah, we REVISE ... that's what science does. It revises and improves with new data.

As a matter of fact it was proven by Kurt Godel that no formal logical closed system can possibly be consistent. Logical certainty gets people into all kinds of trouble. Good luck with it.

Well, I don't accuse you of being logically consistent. By your way of thinking, you sure don't get yourself into a lot of trouble, do you?

 

[Blastcat]

Not necessary. You'd be wasting your time. Unless you want to do it for anyone else on here that might wish to hear it. Sorry, but I do not care to hear it.

Being closed minded like that will make it sure that you don't learn anything that you don't like. So..... I guess you're done debating with people who don't agree with you, right? Maybe you'd rather debate with people who will always agree with you, but that's hardly going to convince anyone ELSE.

 

[rusra02]

What "scientific evidence" are you talking about? The "scientific evidence" supports evolution, that's why we HAVE ToE in science, not creationism, after all.

And you forgot to answer the question. Do you think that an all-powerful creator god could NOT create life by way of evolution and that Genesis is a poetical account like so many other theists and non theists think?

Many theists believe in their creator god AND ToE. Why can't you do that?

Jesus Christ did not think Genesis to be a "poetical" myth, nor do I. What evidence for creation?
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor." (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)
Add to that the impossibility of DNA developing "naturally", IMO, and the last nail is driven into the ToE's coffin. There is much more evidence that in living things features, functions, and abilities were obviously designed and ingeniously formed by a master Builder. But I believe many evolutionists simply blind their minds to what is obvious.

 

[McBell]

Jesus Christ did not think Genesis to be a "poetical" myth, nor do I.

That is nice.
But it is only your opinion.

What evidence for creation?
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor." (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)
Add to that the impossibility of DNA developing "naturally", IMO, and the last nail is driven into the ToE's coffin. There is much more evidence that in living things features, functions, and abilities were obviously designed and ingeniously formed by a master Builder. But I believe many evolutionists simply blind their minds to what is obvious.

*yawn*
This dead horse again?

 

[Blastcat]

Jesus Christ did not think Genesis to be a "poetical" myth, nor do I.

We are entitled to our opinions. But some opinions about how the world works are based on observing nature, not theology.

What evidence for creation?
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”

And he also said in the same paper:

" We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be."

(in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29).

Notice that Raup talks about the FACT OF EVOLUTION.

In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another.

Then you deny what most scientists tell us about one of THE MOST robust scientific theory that there is with evidence being found for it almost every day for over 150 years.

Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor." (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

A simple assertion from a religious pamphlet is hardly scientific. In fact, there are links. It's just that JW are using confirmation bias to deny them all. That's how confirmation bias works. Deny all evidence contrary to a bias, and only look at what can possibly confirm it. And you then get the results that you wanted all along. It's trivially easy to do. Actual science is way more difficult than that. There's a method to science. It starts with data, and NOT a presupposition that "has" to be true.

For creationists, "creation" HAS to be true, no matter what.

Add to that the impossibility of DNA developing "naturally", IMO, and the last nail is driven into the ToE's coffin.

The only "evidence" that DNA didn't develop naturally is your assertion that it's "impossible". Assertions are just not evidence.

There is much more evidence that in living things features, functions, and abilities were obviously designed and ingeniously formed by a master Builder. But I believe many evolutionists simply blind their minds to what is obvious.

Just because something is "OBVIOUS" to you doesn't mean you have demonstrated anything other than your belief. I don't think that scientists need take your obviously religious beliefs into consideration when looking at and interpreting facts.