Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, now you read it.
So you just exposed yourself... again - which I knew all along. You respond to Creationist's posts with opposition, without reading them
This changes nothing.

I read it. It was so incredibly wrong that it was either a massive case of "stupid" or outright lying. Haven't you ever seen someone assert something and wonder how they could have any honesty at all and make such a statement?

 

[nPeace]

You use the word "assumption" improperly and make an incorrect conclusion . That is what is wrong with that.

Creationists abuse the word so much that they are banned from using the word "assumption" unless they can name the assumption and make a case for it being an invalid one.

Are we talking about the same word?
Assumption : a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Now we have come to the standard that the Government must fulfill in order for a jury to find an accused citizen of being guilty: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Although many of the burdens discussed above provide us with actual definitions, we do not have such a luxury with the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard. In fact, the North Dakota Supreme Court "has long recognized the difficulty in defining reasonable doubt and has neither required nor prohibited such a definition." The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers federal appeals from North Dakota and six other states, describes Beyond a Reasonable Doubt like this: "'[R]easonable doubt' is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence received in [a] trial. It is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it."

Keeping that description in the back of your mind, let's put our understanding of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt against some of the other burdens to understand how convinced a jury must be to find someone guilty. A jury certainly cannot convict on a hunch; cannot convict if they think it is probable that someone committed the charged offense; cannot convict if they only think it is more likely than not that someone committed a crime; and cannot convict even if they think it is highly probable that someone committed the charged offense, but still has reasonable doubt. A jury can only convict if they have NO reasonable doubt in their minds that someone committed the charged offense. This does not mean that the government needs to prove its case beyond all possible doubt, but when compared to the burdens articulated above, the government has a heavy burden to carry when asking a jury to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I hope this helped shed light on the concept of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

You're welcomed.
Question : If I use the words probably, maybe, could have, might have / be, etc, do I have a reasonable doubt?
Answer : Yes. Evolution is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is based on assumptions.
It is a hypothesis. Laugh your head off.

Furthermore. It has been falsified. Go ahead, laugh again.
It stands today because it has the backing of the Elite.

 

[nPeace]

I thought that you were complaining about "infinite". How his understanding different from knowledge in this context? He understood what Adam would do. He is still at fault.

Gee... What can I say...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are we talking about the same word?
Assumption : a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Now we have come to the standard that the Government must fulfill in order for a jury to find an accused citizen of being guilty: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Although many of the burdens discussed above provide us with actual definitions, we do not have such a luxury with the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard. In fact, the North Dakota Supreme Court "has long recognized the difficulty in defining reasonable doubt and has neither required nor prohibited such a definition." The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers federal appeals from North Dakota and six other states, describes Beyond a Reasonable Doubt like this: "'[R]easonable doubt' is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence received in [a] trial. It is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it."

Keeping that description in the back of your mind, let's put our understanding of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt against some of the other burdens to understand how convinced a jury must be to find someone guilty. A jury certainly cannot convict on a hunch; cannot convict if they think it is probable that someone committed the charged offense; cannot convict if they only think it is more likely than not that someone committed a crime; and cannot convict even if they think it is highly probable that someone committed the charged offense, but still has reasonable doubt. A jury can only convict if they have NO reasonable doubt in their minds that someone committed the charged offense. This does not mean that the government needs to prove its case beyond all possible doubt, but when compared to the burdens articulated above, the government has a heavy burden to carry when asking a jury to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I hope this helped shed light on the concept of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

You're welcomed.
Question : If I use the words probably, maybe, could have, might have / be, etc, do I have a reasonable doubt?
Answer : Yes. Evolution is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is based on assumptions.
It is a hypothesis. Laugh your head off.

Furthermore. It has been falsified. Go ahead, laugh again.
It stands today because it has the backing of the Elite.

TLDR. Try again without the equivocation fallacies and unjustified accusations.

As a Christian you should strive to be honest. You are currently failing at that task.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gee... What can I say...

How about an apology for your gross error.

 

[nPeace]

I read it. It was so incredibly wrong that it was either a massive case of "stupid" or outright lying. Haven't you ever seen someone assert something and wonder how they could have any honesty at all and make such a statement?

Yes. However, I can't dig up all your posts, to point them out to you. Besides, it would make no difference to you anyway... nor me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. However, I can't dig up all your posts, to point them out to you. Besides, it would make no difference to you anyway... nor me.

If you find one of mine then we can discuss it. The one you recently made fits that to a tee.

 

[nPeace]

TLDR. Try again without the equivocation fallacies and unjustified accusations.

As a Christian you should strive to be honest. You are currently failing at that task.

That's the best you can do when faced with evidence contrary to your assertions?

How about an apology for your gross error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's the best you can do when faced with evidence contrary to your assertions?

You have been far from honest here. Or perhaps you are terribly undereducated. You provided no evidence. You linked an article that you did not understand that supported my claim. Perhaps we should go over the concept of evidence. I have yet to meet a creationist that understands the concept and most are too afraid to discuss it, probably because they know that they are wrong.

And why are you laughing at your inability to understand the English language?

Edit: Excessive Green Ink is a sign of mental instability. Also it makes a post illegible. It is best to avoid it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@nPeace , one of my pet peeves when it comes to creationists is their abuse of the term "assumption" . Of course in reality they mean to claim "unjustified assumption" but they never support that claim. What you and other creationists have to do when you make that claim is to show that it is justified. One does not get to claim that a person is a murderer without evidence and creationists do not get to claim "assumption" without support .

There are assumptions in science, but they are justified. One assumes that the laws of nature are the same today as they are yesterday. In fact they will often use the term when referring to other work that was used to find an answer to a problem. Rather than do the same work that has been done a thousand times before, they assume that it is correct. They assume that the Earth is round. That it rotates around the Sun. That the Sun gets its best from fusion. Rather than starting at the beginning every time they rely on the work of their predecessors.

My point is that when you say assumption and mean unjustified assumption it is up to you to prove that their assumptions were unjustified.

 

[Jos]

As the Creator of all things, that would seem so. It is sad that humans try to define omniscient in a way that is comfortable to them.

I define omniscience as knowing everything there is possible to know. Is that wrong?

 

[Jos]

Why do you say that?

I said that omniscience is an ability and if God didn't have that ability then He wouldn't be omnipotent which the ability to do anything that's logically possible such as knowing everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I define omniscience as knowing everything there is possible to know. Is that wrong?

That depends. What exactly do you mean by "possible to know". The Bible appears to make no limits on God's omniscience. That is until they run into a moral conundrum.

 

[nPeace]

You have been far from honest here. Or perhaps you are terribly undereducated. You provided no evidence. You linked an article that you did not understand that supported my claim. Perhaps we should go over the concept of evidence. I have yet to meet a creationist that understands the concept and most are too afraid to discuss it, probably because they know that they are wrong.

And why are you laughing at your inability to understand the English language?

Edit: Excessive Green Ink is a sign of mental instability. Also it makes a post illegible. It is best to avoid it.

Insult, Insult. That's the best response you have when faced with information you can't deny, does not support your baseless assertions and appeals for someone to be considered ignorant to information.

You sing the same song over and over again, without showing why you make such unwarranted and baseless appeals.
What is the use of posting responses with nothing in them but insults. Do you think the person will somehow respond in kind. (Sure I am often tempted to, but...)
Is that the kind of debate that make you feel happy, and accomplished, or is it just insulting people that does the job for you?
Sad.

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace , one of my pet peeves when it comes to creationists is their abuse of the term "assumption" . Of course in reality they mean to claim "unjustified assumption" but they never support that claim. What you and other creationists have to do when you make that claim is to show that it is justified. One does not get to claim that a person is a murderer without evidence and creationists do not get to claim "assumption" without support .

There are assumptions in science, but they are justified. One assumes that the laws of nature are the same today as they are yesterday. In fact they will often use the term when referring to other work that was used to find an answer to a problem. Rather than do the same work that has been done a thousand times before, they assume that it is correct. They assume that the Earth is round. That it rotates around the Sun. That the Sun gets its best from fusion. Rather than starting at the beginning every time they rely on the work of their predecessors.

My point is that when you say assumption and mean unjustified assumption it is up to you to prove that their assumptions were unjustified.

How does that appeal help you?
To assume that babies are delivered by storks, is not the same as to observe where they come from.
One can prove beyond a reasonable doubt where babies come from, but not with the former assumption.
Please, don't tie yourself in knots, trying to support a personal viewpoint.

 

[Jos]

According to your definition then, omniscient means perfect knowledge, and that's not the true definition of omniscient.

That's the definition I'm most familiar with coming from Christians.

So if we are discussing the same God - that is, the one described in the Bible, Jehovah - then the onus is on you to show from the Bible where it says what you are making a claim for.
Otherwise, we are discussing two different Gods, and therefore will not get anywhere, nor come to a reasonable conclusion.
Is this reasonable?

@Jos I should say though, that if you understand omniscient to mean, all knowing, in the sense of knowing everything, including everything not known regardless, then the God of the Bible is not omniscient, in that sens

Well as the other guy, Subduction Zone said, this verse does Him, as omniscient Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit.

God's knowledge is complete. He is perfect in knowledge.
He is perfect in wisdom, justice, love, etc. - perfect in all his way.

Right, perfect means complete or not lacking so He have total knowledge if He were omniscient.

God is omnipotent - that is, all powerful, but does being all powerful, mean all destructive? No, the earth and its inhabitants exist, because God is in control of his power. It is not an automatic power that destroys everything around it. He also balances that attribute with all the others, including his perfect love, which allows him to use his power in a perfectly loving way; his perfect wisdom in a perfectly wise way; his perfect justice, in a perfectly just way, etc.

Does being omnipotent mean He can do absolutely anything He wants to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Insult, Insult. That's the best response you have when faced with information you can't deny, does not support your baseless assertions and appeals for someone to be considered ignorant to information.

You sing the same song over and over again, without showing why you make such unwarranted and baseless appeals.
What is the use of posting responses with nothing in them but insults. Do you think the person will somehow respond in kind. (Sure I am often tempted to, but...)
Is that the kind of debate that make you feel happy, and accomplished, or is it just insulting people that does the job for you?
Sad.

That is your sin, not mine. There was no insult. You are once again being less than honest.

When you do not know you should politely ask questions.

 

[Jos]

That depends. What exactly do you mean by "possible to know". The Bible appears to make no limits on God's omniscience. That is until they run into a moral conundrum.

I mean that God has access to all knowledge there is in all of reality lol, IDK, omniscience is supposed to be knowledge without limits so God should have infinite knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does that appeal help you?
To assume that babies are delivered by storks, is not the same as to observe where they come from.
One can prove beyond a reasonable doubt where babies come from, but not with the former assumption.
Please, don't tie yourself in knots, trying to support a personal viewpoint.

You appear to have a problem with the English language. That was not an appeal.

Agsin, by your standards we can prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. All that is required is honesty by the person trying to learn.

My point was that you incorrectly use the word "assumption" . So badly that it is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I mean that God has access to all knowledge there is in all of reality lol, IDK, omniscience is supposed to be knowledge without limits so God should have infinite knowledge.

I will accept that. And that is where believers of the Adam and Eve myth begin to run into trouble.