• 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!

Scientists say...

S

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Pogo said:
apparently no-one, I asked if you did so we would have something to discuss.

This starts with an IF, again do you have an example?
ELSE we are wasting time.

not a logic question, still waiting for an example to justify accepting premise 1,

A few centuries ago, wind was removed from the god of the gaps pantheon due to scientific observations of physical characteristics of the surroundings.

Hey i agree, your broad claim is non-sensical without any examples/evidence.

You are the one who is claiming something for god, your burden to define this so that it becomes useful in conversation.

If you wish to weigh in on the to old for president, it isn't age that makes the difference and you haven't taught me anything, in fact, I'm still trying to figure out just what you think your expertise is.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

what a joke of a response. failing to take responsibility for your strawman fallacy .. you go on to ask for an example .. when the point is for your to provide an example of a definition of God .. defining YOUR terms . for YOUR claim .. that you can't back up and don't even see to understand what it is you are claiming .. and/or who the claimant is .. or what is being claimed.

Define God - in context of YOUR claim friend .. once you figure out what it is your claiming .. since apparently you think it is me who is claiming something for God ... something simply not the case .. now go back and read .. figure out what it is you are claiming .. and/or the claim you are supporting/ responding to .. and figure out what definition of God you are using .. and state how that God is acting on the system .. similar to the simple "Wind" example I gave .. which you apparently did not understand so foget that.

If you have no idea that the "IF" is required for the conversation to progress .. then indeed time is being wasted. "if this starts with an IF" .. thats funny .. and really dumb at the same time
 
Pogo

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Sargonski said:
what a joke of a response. failing to take responsibility for your strawman fallacy .. you go on to ask for an example .. when the point is for your to provide an example of a definition of God .. defining YOUR terms . for YOUR claim .. that you can't back up and don't even see to understand what it is you are claiming .. and/or who the claimant is .. or what is being claimed.

Define God - in context of YOUR claim friend .. once you figure out what it is your claiming .. since apparently you think it is me who is claiming something for God ... something simply not the case .. now go back and read .. figure out what it is you are claiming .. and/or the claim you are supporting/ responding to .. and figure out what definition of God you are using .. and state how that God is acting on the system .. similar to the simple "Wind" example I gave .. which you apparently did not understand so foget that.

If you have no idea that the "IF" is required for the conversation to progress .. then indeed time is being wasted. "if this starts with an IF" .. thats funny .. and really dumb at the same time
Click to expand...
Im not claiming anything about gods, I don't think they exist and so are irrelevant to science, you seem to think they are relevant.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ajax said:
Haha.. you are half way there..:laughing:
Why microevolution is reality and macroevolution is fantasy? Because you can not witness it in your life? Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. :)
I will not answer, search it for yourself. :)
Click to expand...
Wait... Doesn't God tell the organism when to stop micro-changing, lest some macro-change result? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
S

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Pogo said:
Im not claiming anything about gods, I don't think they exist and so are irrelevant to science, you seem to think they are relevant.
Click to expand...

Nope to the first claim .. nope to the second assertion but thanks for falsifying the claim (got to admit that one is a bit priceless) :) har har... ... correct on the third strike.. IF some God is acting on the System .. as that is the assertion under investigation .. It was claimed that Science is irrelevent .. science could be used to identify or detect or quantify intervention.

think you missed that memo .. happens sometimes when jump into conversation .. The caim is that science could not help us identify or detect or measure / quantify the hands of God on evolution ... should God have put hands there. That you don't think God's exist is irrelevant to the board .. (note definition of Theist) -

Now what is interesting .. is that I asked you to define God .. this thing that you are not claiming anything about .. but then claim these Gods that you don't understand and have yet to define are irrelevant to science and that they don't exist .. which is claiming something about Gods is it not ?!

I gave you an example of a God . "The Wind" --- a force of nature that makes things happen .. some days in a good mood .. some day's not - you claiming the wind does not exist . is rather silly .. which is why you need to define what it is you don't believe exists ..
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The unfolding of the universe we inhabit is the natural, inevitable and expected effect of the laws and constants that chanced to emerge at the initial expansion.

Given the effects of these laws of physics organizing the universe, and of the chemistry organizing life, what need is there to invent an intentional agent manipulating natural chemical reactions and physics?

When chemistry and physics satisfactorily explain the world, isn't conscious manipulation and planning a special pleading, attributable to ignorance of the chemistry and physics?

I understand the desire for a familiar world patterned on childhood experience, but insisting on extending it to "explain" a reality already accounted for by physics is specious, and a bit pitiful.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Eli G said:
Again, for other readers: do you really think that because someone found a few bones belonging to a single rare animal, it means they found a missing link between two different species?
Click to expand...

No. But then again, your question is loaded up with such sheer ignorance that it barely makes any sense at all.

Eli G said:
So, one pair is insufficient to give rise to a new species, but a few bones are enough to prove that an entire generation of a certain rare animal, supposedly interspecies, once existed?
Click to expand...

A fossil of an animal is representative of a population.
An individual belongs to a population of a certain species.
Once again you make no sense.

If you dig up the remains of a single mammoth, do you assume that it was the only mammoth in existence?
Or was it rather just one individual member of an entire population of mammoths?
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Someone said "There is no definable distinction between Microevolution and Macroevolution".

What silly nonsense! :oops:

It's like saying that a grain of sand and the shore of the beach are the same thing.
 
Pogo

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Eli G said:
Someone said "There is no definable distinction between Microevolution and Macroevolution".

What silly nonsense! :oops:

It's like saying that a grain of sand and the shore of the beach are the same thing.
Click to expand...
another fail, how many grains of sand does it take to make a beach? But nice try at another strawman.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Eli G said:
Someone said "There is no definable distinction between Microevolution and Macroevolution".

What silly nonsense! :oops:

It's like saying that a grain of sand and the shore of the beach are the same thing.
Click to expand...
Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution, as a cup of water is just accumulated drops.
How would the small changes you acknowledge avoid accumulating, over time?
 
Last edited:
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Eli G said:
Someone said "There is no definable distinction between Microevolution and Macroevolution".

What silly nonsense! :oops:

It's like saying that a grain of sand and the shore of the beach are the same thing.
Click to expand...
The solution is easy if that is the case. Demonstrate a distinction between the two. Oh, and make sure that you do not use any strawman arguments.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Not evolution, but just for fun:

1713216222907.png
 
idea

idea

Question Everything
YoursTrue said:
Moses did not say anything other than in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He didn't say much about how but he knew there was a beginning. I guess those are things scientists may ponder over.
Click to expand...

All stories start with "in the beginning". Humans have beginnings - birth - and model everything from themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top