Question:
Actually, the prevailing scientific opinion is NOT that man evolved from apes, but that man and apes both evolved from a common ancestor (which was not an ape)
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. As a result of _____, all we know to exist, exists. So you’re saying that natural causes are a sufficient explanation of all that we know to exist… Now, simple question, [...] Great. Now, demonstrate how your question (which we undeniably know exists) is sufficiently explained by natural causes. And if it’s sufficiently explained by natural causes, and if both "correct" and "incorrect" answers are equally explicable by natural causes, then on what grounds are answers to your question arbitrated? Wouldn’t any ground of arbitration be *equally* explained, sufficiently, by natural causes? How can you transcend natural causes beyond your comprehension in order to gain confidence that your beliefs about the world correspond to that world? Or perhaps you’d care to explain the *immanent* grounds of your confidence? What exists extant naturalism? Supernaturalism is an interesting theory, concocted by evolved apes, but where’s the evidence that supernatural entities exist or matter? Where is the indisputable evidence that Mankind are evolved from the apes? If man is evolved from apes, why are there still apes? My friend, the statistical odds of macroevolution are beyond astronomical. The fossil record is rife with holes. Thus, your logic, guided by the preconceived notion of the religion of Evolution is at best specious. Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and maxing out this one and only experience we all know and share on this earth, at this time, in this life. http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=677641243 FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality (also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities) Origins: http://x54.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687518828 Top 100: http://x61.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=685683580 Books: http://x73.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=704384538 – Scott
Response:
Macroevolution simply does not and can not occur. Ah, but it does, as fossil records clearly indicate. The fossil record again, huh? Check your facts, Tick,
Er, that’s Wolf. The Tick is a wonderful cartoon which provided me with my .sig quote. if you look a little closer, and you can ask the leading evolutionary scientists if you so choose, no transitory fossils exist.
Oh yes they do. Archaeopteryx, for one. We also have a fossil record showing transitional forms leading to the modern horse. We have fossils for Hydracotherium, Mesohippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, and Equus. Within these transitional forms, a trend can clearly be seen toward reduced number of toes (Hydracotherium had four, Mesohippus had three, Pliohippus had one), teeth modified for grazing, and an overall larger size. There are also two transitional forms (Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus) of the modern whale. Please don’t insult people’s intelligence with your "creation science" rhetoric. It simply is not supported by the facts. I would wager that if you would actually take the time, though I doubt you will for fear of being wrong, to check the scientific data from sources such as answersingenesis.org or the Creation Research Institute you will find that the science that these researchers have done is extremely thorough and their findings not only plausible, but probable.
I investigated these sources long before this particular thread ever came up. Suffice it to say that I was not terribly impressed. 1. As to covering the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits the face of the earth was vastly different before the flood. Not nearly so severe and the depth of the oceans and the height of the mountains are not as great as they are today.
And where does your information on this come from? Furthermore, the firmament, a vast layer of either water vapor or more likely ice crystals collapsed and fell as rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights.
Is this meteorologically sound? I’d be curious to see some data on this from both sides of the argument. I must say, though, your explanation is fascinating. I don’t recall ever hearing the flood process described in quite this much detail before. Yes, it is. However, a key aspect of science is parsimony. In other words, if there are two theories which can explain a certain phenomenon, the simpler of the two theories is considered to be the more valid. Creation, because it necessitates many assumptions in order to be valid, is the less parsimonious of the two theories. Interesting argument, but a bit disingenuous. If anything, considering the mathematical probability of life and the intelligent order of nature coming from nothing, it takes far more faith in the unknown to believe Darwin’s Theory than it does to believe that the world and all that is in it was formed whole by an intelligent supernatural being.
First off, there *are* inherent problems with the whole beginnings-of-the-universe thing. As for the beginnings and evolution of life, it’s the Infinite Monkey Theorem: put an infinite number of monkeys at typewriters and eventually they’ll pound out the entire works of Shakespeare. In this case, take an arbitrarily large number of planets where life can theoretically thrive and it will do so on one of them sooner or later. For what it’s worth, I do agree with you on this point. There is no greater evidence to me of the existence of God than the beauty and complexity of the natural world. The world of science, however, cannot accept your argument. While the probabilities of the Universe and life springing into being ex nihilo are extremely tiny, the fact remains that the Universe and life do indeed exist and are observable. Because we have no empirical proof that God exists or that he created Earth, it is still the less parsimonious of the two explanations. Secondly, I think you misunderstand Darwin’s theory. Simply put, it states that allele frequencies change over time ("descent with modification"), and postulates natural selection as the method by which this takes place. (An allele is defined as "an alternative form of a gene".) The canonical example illustrating this theory involves moths and factories in England. Before the factories came, the moths were predominately white, with a few darker ones interspersed. The white moths blended in well with the trees, and thus had a better margin of safety from predators. Then the factories sprung up, and the black smoke that billowed out of them fell upon the trees, darkening them. The white moths that were once so well-hidden from predators were quickly discovered and eaten. But now the darker-colored moths had the advantage. Better hidden from predators and thus able to survive longer, these moths were able to reproduce and thrive. Within a short time, almost all of the moths in the area were dark–the exact opposite of the way it was before. This is Darwin’s theory in action. On a somewhat related note, I should point out that I was mistaken in my description of sympatric speciation. This form of speciation in actuality deals with any changes that cause genetic isolation without accompanying physical isolation. This includes selective (i.e. non-random) mating patterns, changes in the mating cycle, etc. Another problem for evolutionists is that the entire theory flies in the face of the first law of thermodynamics which states basically that all things move toward chaos while evolution and natural selection say that we are moving toward more organization.
Not at all. This argument makes the implicit assumption that evolution has some sort of "plan", or that evolution equals a generalized improvement or shift toward the superior. This isn’t the case. A species can only evolve to better thrive in its own environment. Evolution *is* in fact chaotic, and rests upon random mutation. It is thus in complete keeping with the First Law of Thermodynamics. Of the nine definitions for "religion" provided in my copy of Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, a belief in macroevolution fits into exactly none of them. Belief and emotion do not a religion make. The followers of Darwin and his humanist theory are taking many things on faith rather than evidence. Taking the faith aspect and the religious fervor with which Darwinists defend that faith you have at least a pseudoreligion.
Religions by definition have practices as well as beliefs. There are no evolutionist practices. Feel free to call it a faith, but it’s not a religion. Any way you slice it this is a debate between two religious, or perhaps better stated, a religious and an irreligious position.
That is indeed a better way to put it. While accepting that theory may not preclude theistic religious beliefs it IS entirely incompatible with both Judaica and Christianity. Nonsense. This is only true if you hold that in order to be a Jew or a Christian one must take every verse of the Torah or the Bible literally, even when the contradictions and errors are painfully obvious after they have been exposed. Here you are entirely wrong. You have to remember what type of literature you are reading, depending on the book of the bible at which you are looking. Genesis, for example, is a book of history. As such, it must be interpreted in a literal manner.
You mean the Earth is flat, and the sun revolves around it? What of the odd circumstance surrounding the creation story in which Adam and Eve are the first two humans and their descendents are clearly named, yet when Cain is exiled he goes east to the land of Nod to take a wife? What about the conflict between Gen. 1:25-26 and 2:18-19, in which the former states that animals were created before man and the latter states exactly the opposite? This is just the tip of the iceberg. I’ll continue if you like. The Psalms, however, are poetic in nature and have a large amount of figurative language in them.
That’s a given. Moreover, Genesis is the foundation for the faith, if it is not literally true and evolutionists are correct death preceded sin into the world. If death preceded sin, death is simply natural and not the wages of sin. If death is not the wage of sin, the death of Christ in our stead was unnecessary as the death of even a perfect man would have no payment effect on our behalf.
You assume that the Old Testament necessitates a sacrifice for sin a la Jesus’ crucifixion. Why is it, then, that Jews do not believe that an external saviour is needed? Sacrifices haven’t been performed since the destruction of the temple. Salvation in Judaism comes from following the Law and seeking forgiveness when you transgress against God or another person. In their theology, Christ was completely superfluous. — "Because you can’t cotton to evil. No sir. You have to smack evil on the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, ‘Bad evil. Bad, BAD evil.’" – The Tick
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If man is evolved from apes, why are there still apes? <snip explanation of allopatric speciation All very interesting, yet only theory, Yep. Just like gravity and the model of the atom. there is no empirical evidence for the above, either type. As with almost all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain a given set of known facts given the best information that we have available to us at the time. We know that species evolve: we have fossils showing what are clearly transitional forms. We also know that natural selection takes place, and is easily observable. At the moment, the best possible inference is that this evolution has taken place through a process of natural selection carried out over millions and millions of years. This theory is not infallible. Just as the model of the atom has been refined…what is it now, three or four times? it may be that sometime in the fugure new information will be available to us which will point to a somewhat different process. Macroevolution simply does not and can not occur. Ah, but it does, as fossil records clearly indicate.
The fossil record again, huh? Check your facts, Tick, if you look a little closer, and you can ask the leading evolutionary scientists if you so choose, no transitory fossils exist. Special Creation as found in the Bible has far more evidences in the natural world than any other theory. BZZT! Wrong! Would you like to try again? Please don’t insult people’s intelligence with your "creation science" rhetoric. It simply is not supported by the facts.
I would wager that if you would actually take the time, though I doubt you will for fear of being wrong, to check the scientific data from sources such as answersingenesis.org or the Creation Research Institute you will find that the science that these researchers have done is extremely thorough and their findings not only plausible, but probable. The same goes for the Genisis worldwide flood which provided exactly the conditions requisite for fossilization. If the waters covered the entire surface of the earth, covering the mountains to a depth of fifteen cubits as Genesis 7:19-20 states, this flood would have had to lay water over the earth to a depth of five miles above sea level. Now, I have neither the mathematical knowledge nor the desire to calculate how much volume that would be, but suffice it to say that we’re talking massive quantities of water. Where did all of that water come from? Exactly where did it all go to after the flood was over?
1. As to covering the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits the face of the earth was vastly different before the flood. Not nearly so severe and the depth of the oceans and the height of the mountains are not as great as they are today. 2. Where did the water come from? The bible clearly states that it came both from the fountains of the deep and the collapse of the firmament. Water deep within the earth was released drastically raising sea levels. Furthermore, the firmament, a vast layer of either water vapor or more likely ice crystals collapsed and fell as rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights. This was a downpour like nothing we have ever seen even in short heavy rain showers, the torrent of falling water would have been unimaginable. 3. Where did all that water go? God caused the waters to subside by deepening the ocean basin and pushing up the mountains. I am not a scientist and will not go into detail of the evidences as I am not qualified to do so adequately. Yet you will still argue that special creation has more scientific validity than any other theory?
Yes. I have read a lot on the subject and know that the science underlying creation research is solid. However, I do not have the time on my hands to go back and search out the specific scientific evidence that supports the theory and being imperfect as anyone else, I will not try to relate that evidence from memory. Unfortunately, as true science is the observation and recreation of events, the field is unequipped to unequivicably prove either the theory of evolution or special creation. It can only find evidences that either fit with one theory or the other and make inferences. Therefore, to believe in either theory as fact is a leap of faith Yes, it is. However, a key aspect of science is parsimony. In other words, if there are two theories which can explain a certain phenomenon, the simpler of the two theories is considered to be the more valid. Creation, because it necessitates many assumptions in order to be valid, is the less parsimonious of the two theories.
Interesting argument, but a bit disingenuous. If anything, considering the mathematical probability of life and the intelligent order of nature coming from nothing, it takes far more faith in the unknown to believe Darwin’s Theory than it does to believe that the world and all that is in it was formed whole by an intelligent supernatural being. Another problem for evolutionists is that the entire theory flies in the face of the first law of thermodynamics which states basically that all things move toward chaos while evolution and natural selection say that we are moving toward more organization. making both positions religious in nature as evidenced by the emotional responses and defenses on both sides. Of the nine definitions for "religion" provided in my copy of Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, a belief in macroevolution fits into exactly none of them. Belief and emotion do not a religion make.
The followers of Darwin and his humanist theory are taking many things on faith rather than evidence. Taking the faith aspect and the religious fervor with which Darwinists defend that faith you have at least a pseudoreligion. This is a debate essentially between two world views. On the one hand you have those who see man as the final authority on all things and on the other those who see God as the final authority. Any way you slice it this is a debate between two religious, or perhaps better stated, a religious and an irreligious position. While accepting that theory may not preclude theistic religious beliefs it IS entirely incompatible with both Judaica and Christianity. Nonsense. This is only true if you hold that in order to be a Jew or a Christian one must take every verse of the Torah or the Bible literally, even when the contradictions and errors are painfully obvious after they have been exposed.
Here you are entirely wrong. You have to remember what type of literature you are reading, depending on the book of the bible at which you are looking. Genesis, for example, is a book of history. As such, it must be interpreted in a literal manner. The Psalms, however, are poetic in nature and have a large amount of figurative language in them. Moreover, Genesis is the foundation for the faith, if it is not literally true and evolutionists are correct death preceded sin into the world. If death preceded sin, death is simply natural and not the wages of sin. If death is not the wage of sin, the death of Christ in our stead was unnecessary as the death of even a perfect man would have no payment effect on our behalf. So you see, without a literal Genesis the rest of the Bible ceases to have any meaning or application in the world. This is the reason that many atheist evolutionists look with contempt on Christians who subscribe to the day-age theory or any other theory that supports Darwin’s theory. These atheists are well aware that without the foundation of Genesis, the Bible falls.
Response:
If man is evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
<snip explanation of allopatric speciation All very interesting, yet only theory,
Yep. Just like gravity and the model of the atom. there is no empirical evidence for the above, either type.
As with almost all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain a given set of known facts given the best information that we have available to us at the time. We know that species evolve: we have fossils showing what are clearly transitional forms. We also know that natural selection takes place, and is easily observable. At the moment, the best possible inference is that this evolution has taken place through a process of natural selection carried out over millions and millions of years. This theory is not infallible. Just as the model of the atom has been refined…what is it now, three or four times? it may be that sometime in the fugure new information will be available to us which will point to a somewhat different process. Macroevolution simply does not and can not occur.
Ah, but it does, as fossil records clearly indicate. Special Creation as found in the Bible has far more evidences in the natural world than any other theory.
BZZT! Wrong! Would you like to try again? Please don’t insult people’s intelligence with your "creation science" rhetoric. It simply is not supported by the facts. The same goes for the Genisis worldwide flood which provided exactly the conditions requisite for fossilization.
If the waters covered the entire surface of the earth, covering the mountains to a depth of fifteen cubits as Genesis 7:19-20 states, this flood would have had to lay water over the earth to a depth of five miles above sea level. Now, I have neither the mathematical knowledge nor the desire to calculate how much volume that would be, but suffice it to say that we’re talking massive quantities of water. Where did all of that water come from? Exactly where did it all go to after the flood was over? I am not a scientist and will not go into detail of the evidences as I am not qualified to do so adequately.
Yet you will still argue that special creation has more scientific validity than any other theory? Unfortunately, as true science is the observation and recreation of events, the field is unequipped to unequivicably prove either the theory of evolution or special creation. It can only find evidences that either fit with one theory or the other and make inferences. Therefore, to believe in either theory as fact is a leap of faith
Yes, it is. However, a key aspect of science is parsimony. In other words, if there are two theories which can explain a certain phenomenon, the simpler of the two theories is considered to be the more valid. Creation, because it necessitates many assumptions in order to be valid, is the less parsimonious of the two theories. making both positions religious in nature as evidenced by the emotional responses and defenses on both sides.
Of the nine definitions for "religion" provided in my copy of Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, a belief in macroevolution fits into exactly none of them. Belief and emotion do not a religion make. While accepting that theory may not preclude theistic religious beliefs it IS entirely incompatible with both Judaica and Christianity.
Nonsense. This is only true if you hold that in order to be a Jew or a Christian one must take every verse of the Torah or the Bible literally, even when the contradictions and errors are painfully obvious after they have been exposed. — "Because you can’t cotton to evil. No sir. You have to smack evil on the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, ‘Bad evil. Bad, BAD evil.’" – The Tick
Response:
If man is evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
That was a question I used to have also until I studied some biology in college and methods of speciation were discussed. Thing is, evolution from one species to another doesn’t require the extinction of the "parent" species. There are two types of speciation: allopatric and sympatric. The latter is thought to be relatively uncommon, and is caused by reproductive barriers. The former is caused by geographic barriers. In other words, a portion of the members of a species are cut off from the others, and find themselves in a new environment. Through natural selection, they adapt to this environment over time. In doing so, they become more genetically distinct from the members of the population from which they were separated. Eventually, this genetic dissimilarity may grow to the point that the organisms can no longer be considered to be of the same species. Thus, it would not be reasonable to expect that apes become extinct simply because humans evolved from them. My friend, the statistical odds of macroevolution are beyond astronomical.
Feel free to present a scientific theory which is more parsimonious, and which can be justified by empirical evidence. The fossil record is rife with holes.
There are a lot of conditions that have to be met very precisely in order to form a fossil. The fulfilment of these conditions is in and of itself improbable. For anyone who understands the process by which fossils are created and the likelihood thereof, it’s unreasonable to expect that the fossil record would be anything *but* rife with holes. Thus, your logic, guided by the preconceived notion of the religion of Evolution is at best specious.
I will not share with you my opinion of the intelligence of those who believe evolution to be a religion. Rather, I will simply state that acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution in no way precludes the holding of theistic religious beliefs. — "Because you can’t cotton to evil. No sir. You have to smack evil on the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, ‘Bad evil. Bad, BAD evil.’" – The Tick
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If man is evolved from apes, why are there still apes? That was a question I used to have also until I studied some biology in college and methods of speciation were discussed. Thing is, evolution from one species to another doesn’t require the extinction of the "parent" species. There are two types of speciation: allopatric and sympatric. The latter is thought to be relatively uncommon, and is caused by reproductive barriers. The former is caused by geographic barriers. In other words, a portion of the members of a species are cut off from the others, and find themselves in a new environment. Through natural selection, they adapt to this environment over time. In doing so, they become more genetically distinct from the members of the population from which they were separated. Eventually, this genetic dissimilarity may grow to the point that the organisms can no longer be considered to be of the same species. Thus, it would not be reasonable to expect that apes become extinct simply because humans evolved from them.
All very interesting, yet only theory, there is no empirical evidence for the above, either type. Macroevolution simply does not and can not occur. My friend, the statistical odds of macroevolution are beyond astronomical.
Special Creation as found in the Bible has far more evidences in the natural world than any other theory. The same goes for the Genisis worldwide flood which provided exactly the conditions requisite for fossilization. I am not a scientist and will not go into detail of the evidences as I am not qualified to do so adequately. However, you might go to http://www.answersingenisis.org to find out more about what I am referring to in terms of scientific evidence. Unfortunately, as true science is the observation and recreation of events, the field is unequipped to unequivicably prove either the theory of evolution or special creation. It can only find evidences that either fit with one theory or the other and make inferences. Therefore, to believe in either theory as fact is a leap of faith making both positions religious in nature as evidenced by the emotional responses and defenses on both sides. I personally believe, again faith, that the theory of special creation has a larger proponderance of evidence supporting it and thus religiously hold to it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Feel free to present a scientific theory which is more parsimonious, and which can be justified by empirical evidence. The fossil record is rife with holes. There are a lot of conditions that have to be met very precisely in order to form a fossil. The fulfilment of these conditions is in and of itself improbable. For anyone who understands the process by which fossils are created and the likelihood thereof, it’s unreasonable to expect that the fossil record would be anything *but* rife with holes. Thus, your logic, guided by the preconceived notion of the religion of Evolution is at best specious. I will not share with you my opinion of the intelligence of those who believe evolution to be a religion. Rather, I will simply state that acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution in no way precludes the holding of theistic religious beliefs.
While accepting that theory may not preclude theistic religious beliefs it IS entirely incompatible with both Judaica and Christianity. "Because you can’t cotton to evil. No sir. You have to smack evil on the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, ‘Bad evil. Bad, BAD evil.’" – The Tick
Kurt
Response:
How can you transcend natural causes beyond your comprehension in order to gain confidence that your beliefs about the world correspond to that world? Or perhaps you’d care to explain the *immanent* grounds of your confidence? What exists extant naturalism? Supernaturalism is an interesting theory, concocted by evolved apes, but where’s the evidence that supernatural entities exist or matter? Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth, [...]
If you care so deeply about truth, stop tossing out red herrings about superNATURALism, and explain how, without suprarational resort, you have any grounds for confidence that your mind processes reality with any hope of actual correspondence between your thoughts and that reality. – Scott
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. As a result of _____, all we know to exist, exists. So you’re saying that natural causes are a sufficient explanation of all that we know to exist… Now, simple question, [...] Great. Now, demonstrate how your question (which we undeniably know exists) is sufficiently explained by natural causes. And if it’s sufficiently explained by natural causes, and if both "correct" and "incorrect" answers are equally explicable by natural causes, then on what grounds are answers to your question arbitrated? Wouldn’t any ground of arbitration be *equally* explained, sufficiently, by natural causes? How can you transcend natural causes beyond your comprehension in order to gain confidence that your beliefs about the world correspond to that world? Or perhaps you’d care to explain the *immanent* grounds of your confidence? What exists extant naturalism? Supernaturalism is an interesting theory, concocted by evolved apes, but where’s the evidence that supernatural entities exist or matter?
Where is the indisputable evidence that Mankind are evolved from the apes? If man is evolved from apes, why are there still apes? My friend, the statistical odds of macroevolution are beyond astronomical. The fossil record is rife with holes. Thus, your logic, guided by the preconceived notion of the religion of Evolution is at best specious. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and maxing out this one and only experience we all know and share on this earth, at this time, in this life. http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=677641243 FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality (also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities) Origins: http://x54.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687518828 Top 100: http://x61.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=685683580 Books: http://x73.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=704384538 – Scott
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. As a result of _____, all we know to exist, exists. So you’re saying that natural causes are a sufficient explanation of all that we know to exist… Now, simple question, [...] Great. Now, demonstrate how your question (which we undeniably know exists) is sufficiently explained by natural causes. And if it’s sufficiently explained by natural causes, and if both "correct" and "incorrect" answers are equally explicable by natural causes, then on what grounds are answers to your question arbitrated? Wouldn’t any ground of arbitration be *equally* explained, sufficiently, by natural causes? How can you transcend natural causes beyond your comprehension in order to gain confidence that your beliefs about the world correspond to that world? Or perhaps you’d care to explain the *immanent* grounds of your confidence?
What exists extant naturalism? Supernaturalism is an interesting theory, concocted by evolved apes, but where’s the evidence that supernatural entities exist or matter? Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and maxing out this one and only experience we all know and share on this earth, at this time, in this life. http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=677641243 FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality (also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities) Origins: http://x54.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687518828 Top 100: http://x61.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=685683580 Books: http://x73.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=704384538 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – - Scott
Response:
1. As a result of _____, all we know to exist, exists.
So you’re saying that natural causes are a sufficient explanation of all that we know to exist… Now, simple question, [...]
Great. Now, demonstrate how your question (which we undeniably know exists) is sufficiently explained by natural causes. And if it’s sufficiently explained by natural causes, and if both "correct" and "incorrect" answers are equally explicable by natural causes, then on what grounds are answers to your question arbitrated? Wouldn’t any ground of arbitration be *equally* explained, sufficiently, by natural causes? How can you transcend natural causes beyond your comprehension in order to gain confidence that your beliefs about the world correspond to that world? Or perhaps you’d care to explain the *immanent* grounds of your confidence? – Scott
Response:
1. As a result of _____, all we know to exist, exists. 2. As a result of _____, humans created and manifested the concepts of Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Atheism, Gnosticism, Christianity, Barbarism, Sikhism, Mormonism, Agnosticism, Shintoism, Islam, Confucianism, Spiritism, Mithraism, Theism, Shaoism, Paganism, Creationism, Naturalism, Baha’ism, Voodooism, Humanism, Pantheism, Deism, Jainism, nazism, fascism, freethought, democracies, authoritarianism, dictatorships, communism, socialism, tribalism, naturism, totalitarianism, torture, peace, slavery, war, theocracies, philosophy, theology, science, and myths. – - – Now, simple question, what is the most probable and most logically reconcilable answer, by far, as to what _____ is and how _____ was involved in all of the aforementioned activities? – - – For me, "a natural world" would seem to be, by far, the most logical, complete, existentially supportable, and reasonable answer for _____, and in the knowing of "a natural world" is the resolution of all mystery. In that knowledge is the way to prevent anti-humanism and promote pro-humanistic behaviors which can preserve, protect, and perpetuate the welfare of the human species. In that knowledge is the path to verity and in verity, along with good hearts and sound minds, resides the best that humankind can ever hope to be. Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and maxing out this one and only experience we all know and share on this earth, at this time, in this life. http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=677641243 FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality (also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities) Origins: http://x54.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687518828 Top 100: http://x61.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=685683580 Books: http://x73.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=704384538
Response:
Sat Nam – Hari Har Singh Jerry Falwell is a famous fundamentalist christian minister who seeks to control morality through political power. He was the leader of the so-called ‘Moral Majority,’ an attempted cultural reform movement. Like Inlight, he carted a "my way or the highway" rhetoric, mostly in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. His movement lost most of its support after the election of Bill Clinton, and now exists only as a ghost of its former self. 