You have nothing to prove those claims correct.
Evolution theory proves nothing and it is not itself proven to be true.
-
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!
You should not make claims when you don't know what is true.
The problem with the plate movement theory is that it offers no credible force to cause the movement and results of it.More a product of tectonic plate movement though.
The theory is pretty much accepted as happening - and from so much evidence - even if there is still much to know:
Plate tectonics | Definition, Theory, Facts, & Evidence | Britannica
Plate tectonics, theory dealing with the dynamics of Earth’s outer shell that revolutionized Earth sciences by providing a uniform context for understanding mountain-building processes, volcanoes, and earthquakes as well as the evolution of Earth’s surface and reconstructing its past continents...
They have an annual pollen layer in each year they form un the same way we can observe than form today.
Japanese lake sediment unlocks 150,000 years of history
You will not accept this very s[ecific documented annual deposit ever year for 150.000 years your blatant dishonesty is hopelessly entrenched.
Gave references in a previous post.
It is a given you outrageously distort science and do accept the universally accepted academic science.
List of first human settlements - Wikipedia
There is abundant well documented scientific evidence to document it. It remains your intentional ignorant and blatant dishonesty makes you holessly entrenched.
The issue of the amount of energy in a short needed is the issue that demonstrates your version as false.
Your intentional ignorance extends to the lack of the competence in the English language by the misuse of 'proof,'
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There simply is no scientific evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. Matter of fact, the overwhelming evidence indicates there was no such worldwide flood, thus I just have to believe it's symbolic as a reaction against polytheism. This is what the ancients frequently did.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
False. Conclusions in science by experts in geology, biology, botany, cosmology, chemistry, and others all prove the literalist interpretations of Genesis wrong. There is no dispute. What you get wrong is basic middle school science.
What you should admit is that creationists can't prove a global flood, that the universe is 6000 years old. Or even 10,000 years old like some creationists who realize they can't cram the myths into 6000 years. You should admit to the massive failure of Intelligent Design.
This illustrates the negative impact by toxic religious influence. You have been duped and you are complicit by continuing to spread the falsehoods of creationism and Christian extremism.
Look at your short replies, you aren't even passionate enough to try anymore. Look at how other members showed you absolutely wrong. It's like you've given up. You just repeat the headline and walk away. I suspect even you have a good sense of being dead wrong about these religious beliefs you hold onto. Notice how many well educated Christians can accept science and still have their faith. But you can't manage to do that? Does it feel good to hold false beliefs and avoid science?
That's all you do.
How can I know that your creationism comes from your religion? That should be an easy deduction for you to make, but it isn't, is it? You don't place much stock in reason and so haven't developed the skills that come from practicing applying it.
The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. Your doubt is not based in reason or evidence. It is based in faith, which the antithesis of reason. Faith generates non sequiturs.
That's also incorrect.
You keep offering your lack of scientific understanding and your reliance on faith as a standard for determining what is known and what is true. All you are saying with these comments is that YOU don't understand or accept the scientific arguments, not that they are incorrect or insufficient.
But that's fine. You've gotten this far in life without that understanding, so it's obviously not necessary for survival. And your religious beliefs haven't cost you your life, either. Whatever survival skills you've acquired seem to be enough. You may have missed out on a wonderous adventure, but you've traded that to go on a different adventure, which might be what you need more than a scientific education. It certainly is now.
What motivates you to make an insulting comment like this? Is that what you consider reasonable debating? Or are you just a stupid idiot? (see?)
It is a fact of the misuse of 'proof''as defined in the English language. The 'stupid idiots are those that misuse the English language and fo not know the proper use of 'proof.'
Proof does not apply Methodological Naturalism in science, nor can subjective beliefs in religions be proven. The use of proof is best reserved for proving math theorems
Theorem - Wikipedia
In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proved, or can be proved.[a][2][3] The proof of a theorem is a logical argument that uses the inference rules of a deductive system to establish that the theorem is a logical consequence of the axioms and previously proved theorems.
The concept of proof may apply to structured logical arguments, but the problem is in logical arguments may not be true, because accepting the the conclusion is dependent on accepting the premise, To use proof in this context you must first present the logical argument. Simple demands to prove this or that are meaningless especially in academic science and history,
A classic problem in logical arguments are the old circular apologetic arguments where the premise assumes a 'Source such as God as the conclusion claims.
Last edited:
It is a fact of the misuse of 'proof''as defined in the English language. The 'stupid idiots are those that misuse the English language and fo not know the proper use of 'proof.'
Proof does not apply Methodological Naturalism in science, nor can subjective beliefs in religions be proven. The use of proof is best reserved for proving math theorems
Theorem - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proved, or can be proved.[a][2][3] The proof of a theorem is a logical argument that uses the inference rules of a deductive system to establish that the theorem is a logical consequence of the axioms and previously proved theorems.
Again, what motivates you to make an insulting comment? Is that what you call debating? Are you familiar with the term 'ad hominem'? It means "attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument", which is exactly what you did in post #287.
It is a fact of the misuse of 'proof''as defined in the English language. The 'stupid idiots are those that misuse the English language and fo not know the proper use of 'proof.'
Proof does not apply Methodological Naturalism in science, nor can subjective beliefs in religions be proven. The use of proof is best reserved for proving math theorems
Theorem - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proved, or can be proved.[a][2][3] The proof of a theorem is a logical argument that uses the inference rules of a deductive system to establish that the theorem is a logical consequence of the axioms and previously proved theorems.
The concept of proof may apply to structured logical arguments, but the problem is in logical arguments may not be true, because accepting the the conclusion is dependent on accepting the premise, To use proof in this context you must first present the logical argument. Simple demands to prove this or that are meaningless especially in academic science and history,
A classic problem in logical arguments are the old circular apologetic arguments where the premise assumes a 'Source such as God as the conclusion claims.
This is a chronic problem among many Theists demanding proof in arguments and claiming proof when their is none. It is beyond time for those that post to be responsible for this 'idiocy' of this misuse of the English language.
Scientists, those that use intelligent language, and non-believers do not use 'proof' to define their arguments when there is none
How do you prove something is true and false in science?
Answer (1 of 8): You don’t prove anything in science. The very word ‘prove’ is taboo. What you do is to accumulate evidence, through observations and/or experiments, and eventually reach a conclusion about whether, on balance, a particular claim is likely to be correct. And if your conclusion is...
The word “proof” is used in several senses. For example: it describes the proportion of alcohol in alcoholic beverages.
In the sense of “removal of doubt” the word has no meaning in science.
In deductive logic, a “proof” starts with assumptions (called “axioms” or “postulates,” then follows strict rules of logic to reach a “theorem.” The theorem is as valid as the assumptions and the correct use of logic.
In science the word means “test.,” as it does in “proving ground” where military ordnance is tested. Theories are tested by comparing predictions derived from the theory against observation and/or experiment. (And: an experiment is simply an observation under tightly controlled conditions.)
Are you willing to use 'proof' by its proper definition and use?.
Last edited:
Really? I am not aware of any such probabilistic reason.
can you expand on that?
Ciao
- viole
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Any term defined is an idea created in the mind which is supported through contradistinction and also producing corollary concepts.
Our inventions are creations of the contemplation of our experience and our experiences are inventions of reality.
We didn't invent God we discovered God - or at least the God concept - by contemplating our experiences. The tools we have to interpret our experiences however are very teleologically limited.
Classic misuse of probability. Probability does not have subjective reasons (?)
Comradio251
Member
Would a DMT trip with intelligent machine elves that respond to every question you ask them change your mind? I've heard that many atheists were 100% convinced there was a God after their episodes with DMT AKA "The Spirit Molecule." Hey, I can't change your mind and have no intention to. But If I were you I would keep an open mind to any possibility rather than shun something completely you don't necessarily agree with.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
I wouldn't have said it if I didn't really think I meant it.
But before I reply to your question here with what I think to be true let me ask you why you care? Or rather, perhaps I should ask what do you care about when it comes to reasons for believing or not believing, all else being equal?
For instance, if given some set of evidence which is of necessity interpretable how do you determine your preferred interpretation?